Sunday, March 07, 2010

Has Gordon Brown’s premiership just been terminated by a military coup?


No ultimatum, no bombs, no bullets, and no tanks up Downing Street.

Blink, and you might have missed it.

But yesterday, in a quite astonishing move, former heads of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces fired directly at the Prime Minister not only both barrels of truth, but enough military ordnance of reason to sink the Labour’s election ship completely and put the Prime Minister out of office permanently.

The intervention of senior members of the Military at such a crucial time in the election cycle represents a quite unprecedented politico-military coup.

But, notwithstanding the constitutional sensitivities, one can understand their decision to do so.

They spoke out following the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, during which he said quite unequivocally and with a completely straight face: “Every request that military commanders made to us for equipment was answered. No request was ever turned down."

They were, he insisted, given 'everything they asked for'.

Admiral Lord Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff up to the start of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, responded in The Times: "He's dissembling, he's being disingenuous." He asserted: "It's just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed. There may have been a 1.5% increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds."

Lord Guthrie, another former chief of the defence staff, stated in The Daily Telegraph that armed forces had been denied a request for more helicopters. He disclosed: "To say Gordon Brown has given the military all they asked for is simply not true. He cannot get away with saying I gave them everything they asked for, that is simply disingenuous."

General Lord Walker, chief of the defence staff from 2003 to 2006, said that defence chiefs threatened to resign over the cuts the Government made.

Major General Patrick Cordingley said: “The real truth is the Armed Forces are underfunded.”

Sir Kevin Tebbit, the former permanent secretary at the MoD, has said Mr Brown ‘guillotined’ MoD finances and left him operating a ‘crisis budget’.

And General Sir Richard Dannatt, perhaps with a rather more overt political objective, said: “The whole of the armed forces have been robbed to provide the basics for combat operations.”

Gosh.

Whom to believe?

Difficult one, that.

Perhaps this will assist:

In a dig at David Cameron, Gordon Brown once boasted that he would never use his children as ‘political props’. Today he stands accused by former prime minister John Major of a ‘cynically-timed political stunt’ and of ‘profoundly unbecoming conduct for a prime minister’. The Prime Minister’s hastily-arranged visit to Afghanistan has been criticised not only by Opposition front benchers and leaders of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, but even members of his own party at LabourHome said it was ‘the most cynical stunt ever pulled by an “elected” politician’.

As the Prime Minister pontificates in Lashkar Gar to thank our troops for ‘their bravery, sacrifice and professionalism’, he professes to ‘remember all those who have given their lives in these last few months’. And he promises: “We will do everything we can to support you with the equipment necessary and the resources that you need."

And so he announced, in precisely the same clunking manner of a tediously dull budget, that 200 new armoured vehicles will be introduced in late 2011 to replace the controversial Snatch Land Rovers, which have been linked to 36 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, thank you, Prime Minister.

Only nine years too late.

But far too many fatalities too late.

Sue Smith, whose son Pte Phillip Hewett died in a Snatch in Iraq in 2005, said she was angry that Mr Brown was blaming the Army. She said: “I feel as though he is trying to shift the blame. I just think it is very low. Phillip's commander on the ground died with him in the vehicle. I am sure if he had had other options he would have used them. There was simply a lack of options.”

How can the Prime Minister lie to the grieving families of our fallen heroes, and then use our troops as ‘political props’?

This is not simply an exercise in economics or politics: it is a question of morality.

It is one thing for a government to commit the nation's armed forces to war in defence of the realm or in pursuit of a geopolitical objective related to national security.

But it is quite another for a government to commit its armed forces to war without adequate life-saving equipment or the hardware to execute the military objective with the minimum loss of life.

It appears to be obvious to everyone but the Prime Minister that there are soldiers who would not have been killed, whose names would not have been read out by him in the House of Commons’ weekly Roll of Honour, if they had simply been better equipped.

And they would have been better equipped if successive chiefs of defence staff had been given ‘everything they asked for’.

They were not.

Gordon Brown not only has blood on his hands: he is a liar.

If it takes a ‘Glorious Military Coup’ to remove an unrighteous, corrupt, autocratic, bullying, deceitful and manipulative liar from office, perhaps it is the lesser evil.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. Just when will the Labour party admit to themselves exactly what this man is like?

7 March 2010 at 12:09  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

So when will Brown be summoned to return to the Chilcot inquiry to explain the discrepancies between what he claimed and what has subsequently come to light?

7 March 2010 at 12:21  
Anonymous philip walling said...

It sickens me that Brown and his lying cabal should be treated with anything other than obloquy.

I am on the edge of despair that he and his crew should be facing anything other than annihilation in two months' time and yet he hangs on to the bitter end, unelected (and Dear God I hope unelectable).

The man is a depressing dead weight on what's left of our national life. He is a shameless liar exactly in the same mould as Blair but without the smarm, and it shakes my belief in the ultimate triumph of truth, to its foundations, that anything he says should be taken seriously.

I am further sickened that any of this criminal gang should be given a penny in pension (or lifelong police protection) from taxes paid by people whose boots they are not fit to lick.

Brown treats us with contempt, he insults our intelligence and our decency, both as individuals and as a nation; he is a malign, destructive, damaged, half-formed individual, who parades his 'son of the manse' rectitude (and anything else he cynically calculates will serve his lust for power) and expects it to trump all criticism; if he had the slightest insight,humility, morality (or Christian faith) he would have repented in dust and ashes long ago.

That this man should even have a chance of being elected makes me hang my English head in shame.
It will take a long time to cleanse ourselves of the filth left behind by the last thirteen years of Labour rule.

In the name of God be gone!

7 March 2010 at 12:22  
Anonymous Fiale said...

The MoD are not totally blameless, they had £32 - £38 billion a year and they chose not to buy body armour, they spent money on expensive, over ran, over budget projects that in the end came in under specified at greater costs at later delivery dates (so failures on all three parts - our typhoons have concrete fill in there cannon mounts as we did not want cannon mounts, and could not afford them when we got lumbered with the gaping mount hole anyway).

So yes Brown is to blame - but so are those Military Chiefs.

7 March 2010 at 12:35  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

philip walling said...

Nice one. It is good to see that some still retain the ability to tell it as it is.

This creature from the abyss will most surly get what he deserves. In fact I have no doubt he is already receiving it.

Lies eat an individual from the inside out, and from the head down to the body. This process once put into motion is unstoppable without swift redemption. Eventually EVIL brakes to the surface, and can be plainly seen. Such is the case with Gordon Brown. Who now clearly looks and acts as EVIL as he has long since been deep down inside.

Lying is a progressive disease, which multiplies like any other virus or cancer.

7 March 2010 at 12:51  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

The MoD are not totally blameless.

True. The MOD as a whole are as criminally incompetent and morally indefensible as all other government bodies. As for the manner by which cash is allocated within a government department. It is impossible to single out The MOD for any specific condemnation. Government departments as a whole waste billions every week, and not just for the obvious reasons, like for example systemic inefficiency.

They are corrupted by big business at every level imaginable, as of course is our elected government. In the case of the MOD this form of corruption usually goes by the name of unfortunate, or unforeseen budget overruns.

However we are all to blame for this one.

This plainly conspired to happen, and therefore deeply immoral conflict, is being perpetrated in our name and using our cash. We have, through our own profound over trusting ignorance, or self-interested lazyness, allowed our own elected government to endanger our eternal souls.

We are not the victims, we are the aggressors. If this was not self-evidently the case when it all started, it most clearly is now.

Perhaps we can now see what it was actually like being a 1930's German citizen, when all around them seemed to have gone collectively insane.

7 March 2010 at 13:19  
Blogger Gillibrand said...

My Lord being a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity doth serve the country well.

7 March 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Did the Conservatives oppose the invasion of Afghanistan? No. Did the Conservatives oppose the invasion of Iraq? Quite the opposite—they were more gung-ho than Labour. Would the Conservatives withdraw our Armed Forces from Afghanistan? No—Cameron would be perfectly happy to send more of our finest young men to their deaths in a hopeless cause.

Fine young men like Rifleman Martin Kinggett, killed not in a Snatch Land Rover or through a shortage of helicopters but by a sniper’s bullet. Killed by the Labour Party. Killed by the Conservative Party.

Thank God there is one party with the decency to condemn our tragic involvement in Afghanistan, a party that would end the procession of coffins through Wootton Bassett. Communicants will know that His Grace condemns that party as fascist. In his latest blog, the leader of that fascist party writes:

❛Humbling as it was, I campaigned today with the dad of a young soldier recently killed in Afghanistan. Andrew Kinggett was the father of Rifleman Martin Kinggett who was brought back to Wootton Bassett on Thursday. People sometimes ask me where I find my inspiration, well you don’t need to look any further than this paragraph.❜

7 March 2010 at 14:07  
Anonymous not a machine said...

you have to hand it to Labour to have driven the country into such a mess , that the heads of the armed forces feel the need to speak out. Gordon Brown has tested the limits of the countrys patience , his goverment no longer wishes to respect our history ,its attributes , the economy , the relationship of work and poverty,or holding up the christian faith that is to be sought and worked at by the individual .

It is interesting that when you look at Labours record without the spin , you see that it was increasing personal debt as well as national overspending and running a very effective client corporatist state.Add in all the deblatating mind bending to make its efforts look good , and you may well indeed come to the conclusion thatwe have been robbed and sold off by a bunch of pen and speil whielding crooks .

The logistics would be interesting , does a type 42 figate have suffiecent draft to moor off london bridge.

7 March 2010 at 17:06  
Blogger Bill Sticker said...

Didn't the Navy almost run out of fuel at one point because of budgetary cuts? Circa 2002 I think.

7 March 2010 at 17:23  
Anonymous Fiale said...

The Navy certainly nearly did not have a Aircraft Carrier for the Falklands war in 1982 - it was just months from being cut into scrap metal due to Conservative cuts.

I do not trust either party to do the right thing.

7 March 2010 at 17:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ not a machine (17:06)—HMS Jupiter bumped into London Bridge on the 13th June, 1984.

7 March 2010 at 18:11  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

I have just been watching 'Cut Throat Island', and something Captain Morgan said reminded me of Gordon:

"seeing how you lie so easily, and you are so shallow, then I will lie you in a shallow grave"!

7 March 2010 at 19:49  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Perhaps a military coup is the only answer, Your Grace!

As another communicant suggested, it is extraordinary that this individual (paunch and all)should get away with his crimes. It is breath-taking, as well, that he should have the effrontery, to put himself up for election. Least comprehensible of all is the way the people accept the shenanikins and let him strut his stuff.

So the same people presumably wouldn't bat an eye if a military coup hit them in the face. They might even benefit from being ruled by people with backbones.

7 March 2010 at 21:46  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I think that there is a big difference between what I would describe as fighting a "War of Choice" as compared with a "War of Necessity".
The 1939-45 war was one of necessity to preserve our country and in such a war you cannot always provide your fighting troops with all their needs. However, the war in Afghanistan (and indeed Iraq) is to some extent a war of choice, and as such, it is our duty to provide the very best equipment to all those involved. If w can't afford it, we had the choice not to get involved. But no way should we be "half-heartedly" involved, as we are, that is the worst possible scenario.

7 March 2010 at 21:55  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

After the election, whatever the result, we need this and a dozen more Chilcotts on various matters to establish what really happened 1997-2010.

7 March 2010 at 22:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just get rid of him, all English voters do not vote for this man,

7 March 2010 at 22:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I often feel that we in our small little town in the U.S. are not up to democracy. So we have a failed State careening from one disaster to another, each of which is eagerly embraced by successive administrations, which feebly propose to remedy in increments a course that rather should be abandoned altogether. Voter turnout is negligible, for starters, a far cry from what those who wrote our Constitution optimistically pre-supposed: an educated electorate bound to exercise its civic duty at the polls. But, alas, most of what follows falls short as well.

Given the crushing reality we have instead, I often wonder what is left when democracy fails? I remember what God said to Israel when they begged for their own king, then remember, and wonder again what it would take to place an unlikely king on a throne of a kind we’ve never known, and may not be able to name or imagine: that is, until it is utterly gifted to us as a whole, if we were lucky, and our democracy served this king’s reign, in an irony lost on many, if not most, of my countrymen and democrats.

One can petition if you dare not presume. In the interregnum of folly, are we simply to seek wisdom first to be able to recognize or find, somewhere among us, a suitable steward? How will we know her or him and make a way for either? How can we prepare a democracy for an unknown throne, here in the USA? If the work of a nation is the work of the church, only God’s own time will turn the church inside out to become the world. In the meantime, whitherto?

Thank you for your blog, your Grace.

8 March 2010 at 00:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

UOR- the specific point that the PM has used to hide his underfunding is that he can say he has agreed to the UOR's (Urgent Operational Requirements) of the defence forces, these are small urgent purchases, like special armour for the underneath of Challenger in Gulf War 1 when it was realised they would be vulnerable crossing the 'barms'. They are not put through the same contractual selection process- they go to the best supplier and ask him for a solution. But of course the more the basic budget is short the more you need UORs. So yes he has 'agreed to their requests' but the core budget is inadequate as well. Mind you, the process of procuring UORs is much more satisfactory than SMART procurement... but that is a different post on another site!

8 March 2010 at 00:54  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

The Royal Navy deployed two aircraft carriers to the Falklands in 1983 and had a third.

The British GE will not be won or lost on defence cuts.

8 March 2010 at 03:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

And today the military, according to one of our natuional newspapers has been told to shut up - during the General Election.

When the military speak out as they have done - both the military and the Socialists have their backs against the wall.

8 March 2010 at 07:51  
Blogger Nephilim Child said...

Your Grace,

Brown a liar?,well yes he`s a politician.


Army blameless?,well no the Military Industrial Complex always wants more money.

8 March 2010 at 09:04  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I’m not sure how glorious this coup was since all these top brass remained conspicuously silent when in office. Maybe a resignation would have embarrassed the government into action. But no, the military in common with politicians do not know the meaning of honour!

8 March 2010 at 10:45  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"... the military ... do not know the meaning of honour!"

I think that is a cheap remark, and mostly dead wrong. "The military" (when did we start calling them that?) are one of the refuges of honour that used to be found far more widely in public life.

8 March 2010 at 15:26  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Little Black Sambo said... “I think that is a cheap remark, and mostly dead wrong”

So why have the top brass only started bleating since they left the services, pensions and honours safely acquired? I am not talking about those lower down the ranks.

8 March 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Bleating", eh? Thy speech bewrayeth thee.

8 March 2010 at 18:51  
Blogger Mick said...

Anonymous said...
(Urgent Operational Requirements) of the defence forces, these are small urgent purchases, like special armour for the underneath of Challenger in Gulf War 1 when it was realised they would be vulnerable crossing the 'barms'.

May I comment that I was in charge of the defects, repair and modifications of a Squadron of Challenger tanks during the 1st Gulf War and although the top armour was enhanced, the belly side remained unprotected.

Back to the subject matter of the blog, I find Mr Brown's administration no longer compatible with the wants and needs of the British public at large and request that they fall on their swords immediately.

8 March 2010 at 19:15  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Sorry, we can't afford any swords.

8 March 2010 at 20:41  
Anonymous len said...

Perhaps a sharpened stake would suffice?

9 March 2010 at 23:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older