War-mongering Osborne seems determined to avoid Labour’s support

Andrew Marr tries to get a straight answer out of George Osborne, Sunday, November 22, 2015.

This Writer was on his way to the supermarket when the story about government funding to fight terrorism aired on the radio. What follows is based on the news as heard then, and in the article quoted here.

The Conservative Government is determined to win a vote for military action in Syria, and has (this is funny for all the wrong reasons) stated an intention to buy new fighter planes for the UK’s new aircraft carriers – which will  no doubt look very impressive, when those aircraft carriers are finally finished and launched.

Jeremy Corbyn has stated that Labour will support military action to keep the UK safe, provided the Conservative Government does not cut frontline policing in this country – but the Tories have announced that policing cuts will go ahead.

What the wh-?

Here’s Corbyn offering the Tories a chance for consensus on a plate, and they spit in his face? Madness!

Or are they hoping that the Labour ‘moderates’ (they should be labelled ‘intolerants’) get the free vote they’re after and overturn Corbyn’s desire for a refusal unless his terms are met?

That would be interesting.

It would support claims that Corbyn is weak, but…

It would also undermine the ‘intolerants’ in Labour. They would be voting to weaken policing in the UK at a time of heightened fears of terrorist attack.

They would also be voting to perpetuate the ‘cycle of violence and hate’ that Corbyn has described in recent days.

And they would be undermining the economy at a time when the deficit is increasing again. Military spending has a negative fiscal multiplier (-9.8, which is huge).

Tactically – in the short term – the Tories might gain an advantage from Labour’s internal struggles.

Strategically, we’re looking at a monumental mistake from a Conservative Party that is becoming known for monumental mistakes.

The Home Office has agreed a deal on police cuts that are expected to hit frontline services despite heightened security concerns, George Osborne has revealed.

Confirming all government departments have settled their future spending plans for this parliament, the chancellor refused to confirm the exact nature of cuts to British policing.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Osborne refused to say the spending on frontline police could be protected but claimed the spending review would show a 30% increase in the overall counter-terror budget.

Asked if frontline police were going to be protected, he replied: “There had been difficult decisions.”

Source: Police cuts deal made despite terror threat, says George Osborne | UK news | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


11 thoughts on “War-mongering Osborne seems determined to avoid Labour’s support

  1. Phil Lee

    Clearly, he’s pulled the old double-counting trick, by including the same money in both the counter terrorism budget and the defence budget.
    I think his parents must be due a refund on his education.

  2. Mr.Angry

    Complete Oink note the raised hand a symbol he hand Cameron are trained to use as an emphasis when they are lying.

  3. Jackie Cairns

    So while all our soldiers are in Syria, We will be back home here with hardly any protection from soldiers or Police. Would that not make us more vulnerable to a strike? and the terrorist flock to Britain knowing that we are under-protected by the police. That sounds about right for the Tories, Can’t be left behind in a war. There’s Australia, America, France, to go and bomb. So why would we need to go? By the time we have bought and built the planes they said they have, The strikes will be over.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’re exactly right.
      My guess is that the Tories want to increase insecurity among the plebs, alongside a propaganda campaign to say they’re going abroad to sort out the villains. Then the plebs will vote for them en masse (helped, of course, by their wholesale constituency boundary changes) and they’ll be in government for as long as they want.
      Cameron probably has dreams of his legacy stretching on into the future.
      He probably calls it the “Thousand-Year Rich”.

  4. John Gaines.

    Gardy Loo Gideon is still delusional regarding his ever becoming Der Leader of the Gories. fat chance. In his ever adoration of ‘Pig Poker’ the l’amour de son cœur Gardy Loo, once again, bends to please by giving Him his heartfelt desire…to be A Modern Major General buffoon.
    General Cameroon will now lead us to War in Syria…in 2020, when our newly minted Weapons are due for delivery.

  5. AndyH

    Osborne wants to present Corbyn as a threat to national security – therefore they don’t want to be seen as uniting on foreign policy!

  6. che

    I have a relative in the police force in London, all pcsos are being scrapped and being trained so they are now “voluntary.” The remaining force is being slashed to the bone and hours are being increased covering a wider area. but then when did this government ever care about its own citizens ?

  7. erny

    if I remember did the tories scrap a load of brand new planes that had just come out the factory one of the first things they did when they got in power?

Comments are closed.