Wednesday, 29 April 2009

Take Them In, Indeed

Anyone who still doubts the sheer pointlessness of the Tories need look no further than the fact that they have allowed the Lib Dems to make the running on the Gurkha issue.

The Tories caused the problem in the first place, but they do seem to be on side now.

So the Gurkhas should be settled in the ten safest Tory wards in the country, and the consequences observed in a reality television series narrated by Joanna Lumley.


  1. did you see the Hague interview this morning where he supports the Gurkhas and prmises a bigger role for the commonwealth? better later than never I suppose...

  2. The second bit is a bit thin. What does he actually mean?

  3. David Lindsay I have followed your comments for some time both on here and on other blogs. You really strike me as a very unpleasant and bitter individual. I do not expect that comment will have the slightest effect upon you but I had to say it.

  4. In what way?

    The Home Counties, and the gin and jag belts of the North and the Midlands, would suddenly have some VERY efficient traffic wardens and lollipop men. How would that be unpleasant or bitter?

  5. He expands a bit in the interview itself. Did you read it?

  6. I did, but I'm still not terribly impressed.

  7. Given that you read the interview, did you read the bit where he says "promised immediate legislation for a referendum to reject the treaty if it had not been ratified by the whole of the EU by the time that the Conservatives took power"?

    I don't suppose this comment will be published, but I'd be interested to know what you think

  8. Not much.

    It cannot be "a referendum to reject the Treaty". It can only be a referendum on the Treaty. Leading to a Yes vote after a month of the BBC on the subject.

    If it hasn't already been ratified, then why doesn't he promise that the Tories simply won't ratify it? We all know why not.

    On the Commonwealth, there is one line, "The role of the Commonwealth would be restored." What the hell does that mean? Nothing.

    But just before it comes "higher priority to relations with the Gulf states and India." India, fine, although that depends who's in government there. But the Gulf states?

    The Saudis, Kuwaitis and Emiratis may have failed to put into the White House a woman who would nuke to their order. But America is not the only country with nukes. And British parties are rather more cash-strapped than American ones.