Article

2010-05-07 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-05-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 See, even the English are pi$$ed off by Obamacare!

Posted by gorb 2010-05-07 01:02|| 2010-05-07 01:02|| Front Page Top

#2 The headline is misleading. The Tories do have the most seats, but that doesn't translate into forming the next Government until the back-room deals are done. Lacking an outright majority, ie more than 50% of the seats, they could yet be sidelined by a Labour / Lib Dem coalition. We won't know who's in power in the UK until later today day, at the earliest.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-05-07 03:08|| 2010-05-07 03:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Reading through the Lib Dems' foreign policy positions, they seem far more anti-US and anti-NATO than Labour ever was/were.

If Labour+LibDems = ca. 55% or more of the vote, it would seem that British public opinion is pretty solidly opposed to supporting us in AfPak, or anywhere else around the world. Granted that many Labourites still support us, but a sizeable number of Tories doesn't, and the very high numbers for an anti-nuke, anti-US, anti-Israel peacenik party like LD is very disturbing.

It feels very much like the CND era before Thatcher. With no Thatcher on the horizon.

Posted by lex 2010-05-07 03:20|| 2010-05-07 03:20|| Front Page Top

#4 lex, the Lib Dems' far-left foreign policies (including being de facto anti-US and very pro-Europe) were, IMO, a significant reason why they failed to do better than their usual third place this time, despite their inherent advantage of having arguably the most charismatic leader and of seeming to be the 'neither of the above' option following one of the most despised parliaments in British history. In fact, Brown (Labour) and Cameron (Tory) both accused the Lib Dem leader (Clegg) of being anti-American as a way of scoring points against him in the debates, which I was pleased to hear.

The British public is mostly against continued involvement in Afghanistan, as I understand the US population is too - what does that mean? They're also more anti-EU than they are anti-American. Labour and the Tories, both of which have supported the US over Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror in general, have 87% on the seats alone. That hardly supports your conclusion that it would seem that British public opinion is pretty solidly opposed to supporting us in AfPak, or anywhere else around the world. The big surprise of this election so far is just how little support at the polls the Lib Dems have achieved, in spite of the predictions.

Posted by Bulldog 2010-05-07 03:34|| 2010-05-07 03:34|| Front Page Top

#5 He, he, he.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-05-07 03:38|| 2010-05-07 03:38|| Front Page Top

#6 OK, thanks for correcting my ignorance, Bulldog. I didn't see the final #s for LD -- if they're as low as you say, that's definitely reassuring.

However, if Britain needs to be bailed out by the IMF (again), do you think it likely that Britain's defense budget will avoid huge cuts, and if so, will/can Britain maintain a significant forward presence alongside us in Afgh?

Posted by lex 2010-05-07 03:41|| 2010-05-07 03:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Tricky one to answer really Lex ..

The Tories admitted in Sept 2009 that the ywould cut certain defence budgeting , namely

the £20billion Eurofighter/Typhoon project,
the £4billion project to build two aircraft carriers
the £2.7billion order for 25 A400 transport aircraft(to replace c-130s)

They are however very keen to increase the number of military personel on the ground in afghanistan , namely to train the ANF . They also understand the importance of rebuilding its economy and recognise that the international community should be there for many years to come in whatever capacity .

This is an extract from the shadow def minister, Liam Fox , taken from Al-Guardian in August last year

Asked if the Tories would support sending more troops, Fox said it would depend on the request, but added: "I said to General McChrystal that had we been the government and had we been asked for more troops to accelerate the training, we would have been much more sympathetic than the current government, and we maintain that view."

Hope that helps

Posted by Oscar 2010-05-07 04:31|| 2010-05-07 04:31|| Front Page Top

#8 One rumour I have been hearing armed forces friends posted overseas is that they have been denied the right to vote in national elections , this could amount to thousands of people including those on operations at the moment . I find this extremely disturbing , and obviously points to nefarious underhand tactics by Labour, considering folk in the services usually vote Tory .

I truely hope this gets investigated seriously and transparently

Posted by Oscar 2010-05-07 09:21|| 2010-05-07 09:21|| Front Page Top

#9 I saw a map the other day showing the UK color coded by which party won which areas. It was fascinating how Conservatives seemed to dominate in England and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland (Labor seemed to have urban areas from waht I could tell). That would make Scotland the height of anti-American sentiment. Why? Is it a biproduct of Scotland/England tensions and England's close alliance with the US?

link

Posted by rjschwarz 2010-05-07 10:10|| 2010-05-07 10:10|| Front Page Top

#10 "they ate Robins minstrals.....and there was much rejoicing"

Posted by 746 2010-05-07 13:39|| 2010-05-07 13:39|| Front Page Top

23:56 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
23:52 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
23:51 Beldar Hupurong7350
23:48 Alaska Paul
23:47 Zhang Fei
23:31 JohnQC
23:26 Zhang Fei
23:25 JohnQC
23:22 JohnQC
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:16 trailing wife
23:15 Secret Master
23:15 tipper
23:08 trailing wife
23:00 trailing wife
22:52 anonymous_2u2
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:37 Frank G
22:16 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:04 twobyfour
21:56 Barbara Skolaut
21:55 ed