BBC BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog
« Previous | Main | Next »

Mr Cameron talks to Gen Dannatt

Nick Robinson | 12:00 UK time, Wednesday, 7 October 2009

David Cameron has told me that he has been talking to Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British Army, about taking a role in a future Tory government.

Gen Sir Richard DannattEarlier, Gen Dannatt told 5 live that he would consider taking up a post in a Conservative government.

He also says that he believes that the government tried to damage his reputation because it disagreed with his advice on sending troops to Afghanistan.

Gen Dannatt says the government resorted to "politics by smear" after "losing the argument" over tactics.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Would make an ideal Secretary of State for Defence.

  • Comment number 2.

    Err, Nick, your point is?

  • Comment number 3.

    Is this new thread just a device to close out further comment on the old one, now that your boys have run out of steam?

  • Comment number 4.

    If Gen Dannatt is correct then Mr Brown is in very deep warm brown stuff.

    I can think of no reason for the General to be less than forthright with his word which is more than I can say for our politicians.

    What concerns me is him talking about a position in government. Soldiers should soldier and leave lesser beings to be politicians.

  • Comment number 5.

    Just been listening to your latest interview with Cameron, Nick, with repeated questions about the harm cuts will cause.
    What part of, "you can't continue to spend money you don't have", do you find so difficult to understand?

  • Comment number 6.

    It is with fear and trepidation that, I daily scan the news headlines, on the latest from Afghanistan. Once again, yesterday I read the news that the figures for troop deaths reached 220.

    More in hope than in anger, I thought that when the number reached 200, the Government would take drastic action to prevent any further fatalities, but no. they carried on in the same vein. Apparantly soldiers' lives are worth less than out-reach (or similar) workers, who obviously earn more than troops.

    Frequently I hear of senior ranks in the armed forces, asking for more staff and equipment, each time they are rebuffed by the Government. Surely the law of diminishing returns will cut in and we, as a Country will be unable to continue this foolhardy escapade.

  • Comment number 7.


    Cammie has got it right there. He may need the army to dig Duff out of his bunker when he is drubbed at the GE.

  • Comment number 8.

    Well that doesn't sound like the Left at all. Losing the argument and then resorting to smear tactics?

    I mean, if that were true, then you'd be expecting that having lost the economic and financial arguments, the Left would have resorted to childish 'tory toff' jibes.....

  • Comment number 9.

    That explains his party political point scoring over troop numbers. He is already using the grubby tactics of a politician so should fit well in the Tory government.

  • Comment number 10.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 11.

    Someone in government who has actually been in the armed forces! Why have labour not thought of this before.

  • Comment number 12.

    General Dannatt needs to keep ghis mouth shut at this time before he destroys the public perception of his integrity.

    At the moment he comes across as a good officer, deeply concerned for his men in the face of government meddling and bearocracy.

    If he joins the tories his motivations for speaking out the way he has are immediately called into question.

  • Comment number 13.

    Exiledscot52 #4:

    "What concerns me is him talking about a position in government. Soldiers should soldier and leave lesser beings to be politicians. "

    ----------------------

    Couldn't disagree with that statement more. If we had a few more politicians who has actually served in the military (and I don't mean in the Education Corps, I mean at the sharp end), then we almost certainly wouldn't be in the mess overseas that we are. Career politicians are the root cause of many of the current problems. As with most things in life, there is no substitute for personal experience.

  • Comment number 14.

    Rather than concentrate on whether Sir Richard will be part of any future Conservative government why are you not hi-lighting the story that troops are being extended in theatre as a result of decisions over the force that will be deployed.

    The link to your story is the claim by the former CGS that additional troops were asked for but not recieved as requested. No 10 deny this.

    The forces argument is now getting ridiculous and dates back to 2005/6 when overstretch and equipment issues began to hit hard. several years on and we still have the same dishonesty with the government still not doing the right thing.

    It's about time someone used the silver bullet on this and the BBC showed they are not biased (Ben Bradshaw today claims the BBC is fawning in it's coverage of the Conservative conference - he is deluded)or failing to cover the big issues properly. Paxman should also come clean about the questions from Boris...

  • Comment number 15.

    ExiledScot (message 4) Yes...whom to believe, eh...Gordon Brown or...anyone else.

    Chris O (message 5) Exactly!

    P.S. I see today that Ben Bradshaw has somehow missed 12 years of BBC fawning over New Labour and has reacted against a nice comment about George Osborne by a former Tory...good Lord, can't have that can we!

  • Comment number 16.

    #1, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
    Would make an ideal Secretary of State for Defence.

    Fubar,

    That could be the start of a slippery slope, where ministers are actually expected to understand (or even - mgoodness - have experience of) the workings and impact of their departments.

    I bet if Dannatt were let loose in the MoD then, after a quick burst of "Shock and Awe", there'd be plenty of empty desks and unused chairs and a leaner organisation. And a bit more money to go to the front line.

  • Comment number 17.

    #11 calmandhope

    For the same reason they've hardly got anybody who has experience of actually working for a living and paying tax, oh, and who stay around the scenes of accidents, rather than be accidents waiting to happen to the unsuspecting

  • Comment number 18.

    @10 I am sorry that you feel exposed in this way.

    The General is speaking on behalf of 9,000 people in a slightly more dangerous environment than a classroom who might expect to have the best resources equipment and numbers of men available.

    What experience does Brown have to decide how many boots are needed on the ground in any particular situation? Apparently he knew how to regulate the banks!!!!

  • Comment number 19.

    "heskethpark wrote:
    That explains his party political point scoring over troop numbers. He is already using the grubby tactics of a politician so should fit well in the Tory government."

    Yeah, he would fit in well with a Tory government as he has already been smeared by Labour for daring to tell the truth.

  • Comment number 20.

    davidou1234 Slightly off topic aren't we?

    Or cant you read?

    Sorry you teach maths then.

  • Comment number 21.

    "10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
    I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax"

    I agree with you. Everyone knows that money grows on trees so why shouldn't you have your share? OK, in the private sector there are job cuts, wage cuts, wages freezes and so on but that's not the point. You may have a pension that the private sector can only dream of and job security that is far stronger but the point is, the Government can magic money out of nowhere any time they like and it's ony fair that those in the public sector get their.

    And as for those evil Tory IHT plans. The fact that they've put them back isn't the point. I can understand why you're angry that anyone with an estate worth between £650,000 and £1,000,000 would be better off under the Tories. Only that particular band, of course, but even so it's an outrage. Just because most of that estate will consist of residual income that has ALREADY been taxed when earned isn't an excuse to tax it more. and more. and more. So that Teachers can have a pay rise even though the likelihood is that the parents of the kids you teach will get no such luxury.

  • Comment number 22.

    The point is the government and the Armed Forces are in a dispute about what the mission is and the governemnt is supposed to make that decision not the soldiers, they said the international communitty is sending 60,000 men to Afghanistan, and we theink we should make a modest contribution and so we suggest we send 5,000 and work out how much a contribution you can make with 5,000.

    The Army decides tactics on the ground and voluntairly takes responsibility for a bigger patch than can be handelled by 5,000 and so asks for more men and gets them, and then patrols more aggressivly than some other nations so asks for more men and gets them.

    We now have a committment of 10,000 which is more than France, Germany, Italy and Spain COMBINDED. The government is trying to make a modest contribution to an international effort and ensure if increases are required they come from all countries. The Army seems to want to expand the mission beyond whatever resources are given and then complain that it needs more resources to do the expanded mission.

    https://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2009/10/reclaiming-ground.html

  • Comment number 23.

    Perhaps David Cameron is of the opinion that it's better to have him in the tent...

  • Comment number 24.

    @ 8

    hello Andy, how's your morning looking?

    'tory toff' jibes

    ... not from me, bored stiff with it

    (won't even be watching More4 @ 9pm tonight)

  • Comment number 25.

    I will look forward to the General fighting for a seat in the House of Commons and being subject to scrutiny by the voters in his constituency. Did The Bullingdon Kid give you any idea where he will be standing?

  • Comment number 26.

    #10 R U shaw you've spelt your name right?

    Anyway, at what point do you think that the state, as the benefactor of all of us, will run out of money to invest when output is down, our major source of revenue for the past 15 years is in decline, and also busy leaving the country, and we've got nothing left to sell? Hm? when? Or do you actually believe that it is possible to just keep borrowing ad infinitum?

    If you have got your name right, maybe you should consider changing it to davidiou.......

  • Comment number 27.

    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?

  • Comment number 28.

    #10 davidou1234

    A bit off topic but your comments make me angry.

    I work in the private sector but my wife is employed in the public sector. My company is not a bank but having worked in construction has been hit by the recession to the point that I've no pay rise for two years and this year all staff were asked to take a pay cut to ensure there were no job losses. All staff including very low paid and junior staff agreed.

    When will the public sector realise that there are plenty of people in the private sector of similar skill levels, with similar experience doing similar jobs who don't get annual pay rises, big bonuses, guaranteed jobs for life and pensions.

  • Comment number 29.

    10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:

    I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax
    ----
    The price we have to pay for labour mismanagement of the economy.

  • Comment number 30.

    Any government which sends our armed forces to war must do so with total commitment so that their objectives may be attained as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least possible loss of life. The half-hearted attitude exemplified by Gordon Brown - and Tony Blair before him - has been directly responsible for the fact that our troops are still there, still fighting and dying, and are still prevented from doing their job by their own political masters.
    I believe absolutely - and proudly - that we have the finest service men and women in the world. To see their lives being frittered away for want of the political will to commit fully to the aims of the war is both heartbreaking and infuriating. Half-fighting a war is a guaranteed way not to win, at the cost of precious lives.
    If you send troops to war, you must provide them with the moral, material, and financial back-up they need to do the job you sent them to do. This is not a choice - it is absolutely essential. We have heard endless talk of providing the best equipment, more helicopters, better vehicles, etc., but the fact remains that there are not enough "boots on the ground" - less than 10,000 troops. They cannot occupy large areas of territory and, thereby, protect the local population from the predations of the Taliban. Until this is achieved, the enemy will come back every time our troops have to return to their bases, and the situation tomorrow will be the same as it was yesterday - frightened villagers, and the Taliban in charge.
    Gordon Brown has spent hundreds of billions of pounds of our money to prop up financial institutions to save them from their own failures. A mere fraction of this amount could provide solid support for our men and women in Afghanistan. Buy more helicopters, more vehicles, and improve our Forces' pay and conditions, to encourage recruitment. Obviously, orders placed in this country (we do actually build helicopters and military vehicles in the UK!) will help our economy.
    To paraphrase someone who really knew how to fight a war - give our troops the tools -and the numbrs - and they will finish the job.

  • Comment number 31.

    #12 Goldcaesar

    Apart from letting your socialist bile take over your mind, how can you square that mindset with El Gordo's fervent hope of building a government of all the talents? I know it failed, and I was sceptical of it, but it shows a more open mind than you seem to have.

    Anyway, we look forward to Mandy joining the next conservative government, as minister of misinformation.

  • Comment number 32.

    I don't expect this thread to last long. Bit of a blooper on you and Mandy's part menthinks Nick. You might find the majority of the country would be in favour of cutting back our military adventures, saving lives, saving money, and improving the lot of the ordinary soldier.

    Seems you might have grabbed the wrong stick, or at least the wrong end.

  • Comment number 33.

    #8 the same kind of smear tatics that have been used against a wide range of other sectors that they have lost the arguement BUT fail to take any notice leaving young vunerable children to die much like the troops. Maybe that why fathers protestors are treated worse than terrorists and smeared at every opportunity. That level of smear used over the last 12 years goes striaght to the core of the breakdown of democracy and social issues of today

  • Comment number 34.

    "goldCaesar wrote:
    General Dannatt needs to keep ghis mouth shut at this time before he destroys the public perception of his integrity."

    Labour have already tried to do that, and I am guessing that if he is an officer who is really concerned about his men he would have to consider the chance of working with the party that might form the future government.

    I think most people would understand that being at the heart of government makes it much easier to shape policy.

    "If he joins the tories his motivations for speaking out the way he has are immediately called into question."

    Only by those who would be happy to damage the reputation of someone for political gain. I am sure the Labour party and their followers would be happy to portray him as someone who is working only for his own advancement and not for the good of the men - after all they have taken that approach before he even considered joining the Tories.

  • Comment number 35.

    #10 davidou

    It is not a question about being punished but rather why should the private sector constantly bear the brunt of a recession and the public sector not suffer at all.

    It is typical of the 'Why poor me' brigade who have cushy jobs, publicly funded pensions to moan when finally they find that they might suddenly have to pay for the public sector growth that wasn't affordable in the first place.

    As a member of the public who has to pay your wages and contribute to your pension I am extremely happy to see not only a freeze on your pay - but I also want you have a pay cut!

    Maybe then you will know how the true contributors to this economy feel while they are being hammered by unrealistic and unfair taxes constantly.

  • Comment number 36.

    14. At 12:37pm on 07 Oct 2009, hellfyyr wrote:
    Ben Bradshaw today claims the BBC is fawning in it's coverage of the Conservative conference - he is deluded
    ----
    Why does anybody give Bradshaw any bandwidth?. Within Defra he was universally branded as clueless, and as Culture Secretary he is on par with Burnham. Hopefully they will both lose their seats at the GE.

  • Comment number 37.

    Personally I would like to see an end to this consultants with power legacy that Labour have abused.

    I agree that people like Gen Dannett should be given the chance to voice an opinion as someone who has been in the theatre so to speak, however, I would rather it be as a voice of experience and not as an involved party.

    That's how we ended up with Mandleson.

  • Comment number 38.

    These are serious and sombre accusations from Dannatt.

    One of the fundamental cornerstone and shining merit of a democratic society is the freedom and the courtesy to agree to disagree; to debate and express opinions without fear of smears, prosecutions and repercussions.

    Sovereignty is much, much more than physical national security. It is equally about political, economic and financial sovereignty. In those, many countries, including UK, may be found wanting.

    Agree or disagree, if Dannatt is a man who says what he means, and means what he says, then I have time to listen to what he has to say.

  • Comment number 39.

    #13 MalcolmW2

    I agree with your comment about career politicians but do think a career soldier is not best placed to jump into a high level ministerial job (although I doubt this is what Cameron is talking about).

    On the same basis I also wouldn't make a doctor Health Secretary, a Trades Unionist Employment Secretary, a Business Leader Business Secretary or Teacher Education Secretary because they are inevitably vested interests. Yes, involve them as advisers (whether they are paid by the Tax payer or not is debatable) but the track record of Gordon Brown's Government of all the Talents is not great.

    I say this as an ex-Army Officer who served under General Dannatt and his successor (albeit at a very junior level) and have the utmost respect for both and all our Armed Services.

  • Comment number 40.

    #16 Fairly open mind

    hear, hear, hope it comes to pass, as they say

  • Comment number 41.

    So Dannatt's a Tory: big surprise there then. Makes all his criticism of the government seem a little less disinterested doesn't it?

  • Comment number 42.

    25. At 12:47pm on 07 Oct 2009, braveSouter wrote:

    I will look forward to the General fighting for a seat in the House of Commons and being subject to scrutiny by the voters in his constituency.
    ------------
    Like 'Lord' Mandleson and 'Baroness' Kinnock, etc?

  • Comment number 43.

    #27 saga

    whoa back there boy, you're in danger of straying off line. Next thing you know you'll be wanting to decrease taxes and leave the EU

  • Comment number 44.


    The Labour Government has a very long history of smear. I have posted on this blog before that they are the real nasty party for the way Labour smear people. They have done this at every level including ordinary people who they disagree with. Remember the smears of, and in no particular order;-

    - Paddington rail crash victims
    - Rose Addis, an elderly NHS patient caught up in political controversy
    - Damien McBride affair
    - Dr David Kelly
    - Numerous Labour MPs who have not followed the Labour party line including Hazel Blears, Philip Goulds daughter and recently Eric Joyce.

    Things are getting desperate so Labour will do or say anything to attempt to discredit someone they disagree with and that is normally by very personal attack.

    Can any Labour supporter defend personal attacks on individuals? It is nasty and it is abhorrent.



  • Comment number 45.

    24. At 12:47pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:

    won't even be watching More4 @ 9pm tonight


    I think you'd be quite dissappointed if you did

    When Boris Met Dave

  • Comment number 46.

    10#

    Which has what exactly to do with General Dannatt?

  • Comment number 47.

    27. At 12:50pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:

    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?
    ------
    probably better than being in la-la land with Ainsworth.

  • Comment number 48.

    Dannatt would give sage counsel to the Conservative Party, I heard his interview on the radio last night and he was oh-so-diplomatically scornful of Gordon Brown.

    Hey presto, Gordon conjures up 1,000 more troops today.

    I like Sir Richard, he strikes me as a good, decent and honourable man.

  • Comment number 49.

    #27 Saga

    Sorry, but just couldn't help myself. I wanted to see what it felt like to divorce oneself from reality, and post something nonsensical and meaningless. Strangely, I felt sort of empty, just like a tin can waiting to be kicked, but i suppose that's no stranger to you

  • Comment number 50.

    27#

    Well, thats the direction we're heading in under the current administration, Saga....

  • Comment number 51.

    #41 Shows the lack of integrity of some on here. A man spends 40+years fighting for Queen and country and because he questions the wisdom of his political masters he is ridiculed by those not fit to be his batman.

    As any Army officer his first consideration is his men not his politics.

  • Comment number 52.

    I think most normal people realise Brown has let down our armed forces. Cameron should be given a chance to prove himself. To be fair, he can't do a worse job!

  • Comment number 53.

    The Labour party's single most used weapon is the politics of smear.

    McPoison, Draper, Campbell, Mandelson.

    They have used it against their own party members who have disagreed with them.

    But this one is the most damaging one.

    The British army revere this man. To the ordinary boots on the ground this bloke is god.

    They knew that he was on their side fighting for them and to see how the Government have tried to trash him and his reputation will only solidify the squadies view that Labour Party cannot be trusted with the defence of this country.

    1 further nail in this diabolical Government coffin.


  • Comment number 54.

    27. sagamix wrote:

    do we want soldiers in Government?
    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?


    Mmmm. Was that one cast out for Fubar by any chance?
    Haven't seen his 46 yet but I'll put money on it containing the words "already" and "one".


    25. braveSouter:

    "I will look forward to the General fighting for a seat in the House of Commons and being subject to scrutiny by the voters in his constituency."

    The failed Labour attempt at an expenses smear showed his house was more in order than most of the spongers in the HoC. Was there any mention of him running for parliament?



  • Comment number 55.

    #27 Sort of like borrowing all the money you can and hawking all the resources?

    Sound familiar?

  • Comment number 56.

    Sounds good to me if we have someone in government, presumably responsible for defence, who actually knows what defence is really about.

    Let's hope that if he does join the government, he doesn't "go native" in the same way that Admiral West seems to have done. Listening to one of his recent interviews, it was hard to believe he had been a senior Naval officer: he sounded exactly like any other Labour politician.

  • Comment number 57.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 58.

    #10 davidou1234 - I hope your illiterate posting is not indicative of your teaching abilities. It is filled with solecisms and the failure to review and proof-read the entry before posting, at best, demonstrates laziness. Could do better. E for ability and E for effort.

  • Comment number 59.

    31. At 12:52pm on 07 Oct 2009, U14147588 wrote:
    #12 Goldcaesar

    Apart from letting your socialist bile take over your mind, how can you square that mindset with El Gordo's fervent hope of building a government of all the talents? I know it failed, and I was sceptical of it, but it shows a more open mind than you seem to have.

    Anyway, we look forward to Mandy joining the next conservative government, as minister of misinformation.

    -------------

    Socialist bile?

    What on earth is remotely socialist in pointing out that if Sir Dannatt joins the tories that his motives for his previous statements about the government (a government which i despise, by the way) will inevitably be questioned.

    I never had you down as one these fools who embarass themselves by bandying around words like 'socialst', communist' 'nazi' and 'fascist' whilst clearly having no idea what these very specific political terms refer to.

    Next thing you'll be blaming Gordon Brown's 'socialist' policies for all our problems.

    dear,oh dear, oh dear....

  • Comment number 60.

    Didn't Cameron say many months ago he wanted a new post solely in charge of Afghanistan. I believe he had in mind Paddy Ashdown who has extensive military and Intelligence (MI6) experience. But Ashdown turned the offer down.

    This could be the role that Cameron has in mind for Dannatt. It is a complex role as it is not just military strategy but also combines diplomacy, interaction with Aid agencies, Afghan government and essentially ensure that political agreements between Kabul and London are actually carried out.

    The real problem with the local politicians in Kabul is their duplicity. UK politicians by contrast are rank amateurs in this particular field.

  • Comment number 61.

    10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:

    I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax
    ....................................
    Newly qualified are you,did you come through Labours attempts at Education/Education/Education as Tony put it.?
    It is obvious you don't teach English!

  • Comment number 62.

    #27, sagamix wrote:
    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?

    Saga,

    I fancy the difference is that in Banana Republics they are active, serving soldiers. We've had lots of ex-soldiers in the HoC.

    Healey, Benn, Heath, spring to mind... (Of course they came in after a rather unexpected diversion into the armed forces, but they had an understanding aboyt conflict.)

    Most of the present government seem to think they were "aware of danger and brave enough to survive" somebody else's hand-bag fight at a remote part of a sushi bar.

  • Comment number 63.

    "sagamix wrote:
    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?"

    Soldiers in Government - yes

    After all why should people who have put their lives on the line for this country have less rights than the rest of us?

    Soldiers taking over the government by force is another matter.

  • Comment number 64.

    39

    The problem with the GOATS was their inability to work for a paranoid control freak at No10

  • Comment number 65.

    42 Sterling,
    Are you suggesting that all parliamentarians should be elected? If so, what a splendid idea.You do of course realise that it would mean the House of Lords being abolished. Do you think that would be a good idea?

  • Comment number 66.

    At 12:50pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Look around you. You’re already living in the ZaNuLabour Banana republic.
    We want to go back to a free a fair society.
    Economy in a state of collapse.
    Printing money.
    The biggest surveillance society in the world.
    Postal Vote records going miss in the next door constituency to Brown after a By-election.
    Shall I carry on or can you see it now?
    The one saving grace that would prevent Labour further corrupting the constitution is the army are not with them to take over.
    The armed forces are loyal to the crown and above politics.
    This does not stop them seeing that the lies the government and the neglect of the troops and wanting to do something about via politics.

  • Comment number 67.

    @25 braveSouter
    "I will look forward to the General fighting for a seat in the House of Commons and being subject to scrutiny by the voters in his constituency. Did The Bullingdon Kid give you any idea where he will be standing?"

    Ah, you mean like the twice discredited and unelected Mandelson and just about half of the rest of the current gang.

  • Comment number 68.

    Dannatt would be a good addition to any who would listen

    I am, however, troubled by the simple statement Nick

    Are we to believe that

    Gen Dannatt says the government resorted to "politics by smear" after "losing the argument" over tactics.

    is a statement of fact, thoroughly investigated, or a statement from Dannatt?

  • Comment number 69.

    10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
    I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax
    *****************************
    If you are a teacher you will have the good sense to see who has damaged the economy.
    If, as a teacher, you are on the median payscale of around £35,000 or more which is what my teacher daughter gets, I don't think a pay freeze for a couple of years is going to hurt too much.
    What you are really saying here is that my personal greed exceeds my desire to help the UK out of the mess Gordon Brown's got us in to.

  • Comment number 70.

    "Labour Get Out clause no.37"

    If you've woefully underfunded the armed forces in battle but criticism of this comes from someone who supports the Tory party, insinuate that the criticism stems from that person's political views and not from his personal experience of the ill-equipped dead and injured.

    Next week, the "-ist" clause. How to deflect criticism of any failure in Government by screeching that the critic must be (something)ist.

  • Comment number 71.

    36. At 1:00pm on 07 Oct 2009, sterling-donefor wrote:
    14. At 12:37pm on 07 Oct 2009, hellfyyr wrote:
    Ben Bradshaw today claims the BBC is fawning in it's coverage of the Conservative conference - he is deluded
    ----
    Why does anybody give Bradshaw any bandwidth?. Within Defra he was universally branded as clueless, and as Culture Secretary he is on par with Burnham. Hopefully they will both lose their seats at the GE.

    -------------

    Its a pity you can't reply to the smug little gits posts on twitter really. Vile hardly does him justice.

  • Comment number 72.

    Gordon and his Government have a history of appointing experts and then ignoring any suggestions or recommendations made.
    So it is not surprising that GB should ignore the advice of Sir Richard.
    Gordon knows best don't forget. He keeps telling us that. So it must be true!

  • Comment number 73.

    10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
    "I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax"

    Not an english teacher, then.

  • Comment number 74.

    blame @ 54

    was that one cast out for Fubar by any chance? Haven't seen his 46 yet but I'll put money on it containing the words "already" and "one"

    he's going through one of his "ignoring" me phases

    happens from time to time

  • Comment number 75.

    Isn't this the chap who had his expenses leaked on Labour's orders? ...without checking if he was being a trougher... I suppose that concept would not cross a normal parliamentarian's mind.

  • Comment number 76.

    "27. At 12:50pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:

    do we want soldiers in Government?

    isn't that a little bit Banana Republic?"

    As always, alarmist and absurd. having 1 EX-soldier in a Government is equated to a "banana republic", which would be typically run by a military junta.

    Some people might think "useful to have someone around with actual experience" but of course, this is not Labour thinking as they start from the premise that they know best about everything and would rather hammer awkward facts into shape than consider for a second changing their mind.

 

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.