By James Mills
What stunned me the most about this issue was the number of people whose status on my Facebook mini feed has declared support for the Gurkhas. People diametrically opposed politically supported this cause. Those who have a penchant for the armed forces, like myself, and those who are complete pacifists all expressed jubilation for the Gurkhas. What they see the issue to be about is not one of immigration but rather the expectation of a country’s duty to its troops. The public see the Gurkhas not as Nepalese volunteers but as British soldiers. And so we should.
At the most fundamental level this is an immigration issue. This is about dealing with those Gurkhas who served before 1997, because those since then have already been granted the right to remain here in this country under the Labour government. The 36,000 who this does not apply to are those who served prior to this date - some reside in this country and many in their homeland of Nepal. Hence why the government planned a staged immigration policy, prioritizing those who they felt deserved to be dealt with as expediently as possible.
The problem for the government is that this is not a matter merely of immigration anymore, but of expectations concerning the public perception towards the military covenant. The problem when it comes to the military covenant is that it is very subjective, as it is an unspoken law, and it means different things to different people. The army literally defines it as a “common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility” and the general public now takes it as an expectation that if an individual volunteers to serve his or her country they are to be prized above all others.
But here’s the nub of the problem: how do you deal with an expectation? I believed Gordon Brown when he said that he was “determined” to honour the contribution made by the Gurkhas, and that the government is held back by financial restraints. But unfortunately when you are managing expectations the one thing you must never do is let the perception come across that you won't deliver them.
Look at Arsene Wenger’s response to losing last night:
“The positive is that we are only one nil down...and we can reverse it...next Tuesday you will see a different Arsenal team”.
That’s the kind of response Gordon should have used:
“Money is tight but we will have the situation resolved by...in the mean time we will fast track those we can afford, prioritizing those with distinguished military records”.
Maybe that was what he meant but that’s not what he conveyed. This was emphasised by the decision to leave it till the eleventh hour to show a concession. The whole thing looked rather limp.
Anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations of the Gurkhas, as I have, knows that this Labour Government has a proud record. It was a Labour government that has stood by the regiment the most the negative press which Labour has been getting on this is frankly a disgrace. The Gurkhas have better pensions under Labour and those who served under this government now have full citizenship after four years' service. One must remember that it is under Labour that the Gurkhas have faired a dam sight better than they did under the Tories and all those Tory Trolls who leave comments on these pages: can you honestly disagree with that?
The real target of anyone who is fearful for the Gurkhas' wellbeing should focus their anger towards the Conservatives who left it to a Labour government to end this absurd dichotomy. The Gurkhas have more to fear from a Cameron cutting Conservative government, especially as he has not even committed himself to “ring-fencing” defence beyond an election next year. How many Tories honestly believe that a Cameron government wouldn’t see this as one of those “tough choices”?
And don’t be fooled because the Tories are voting against the government. It is nothing more than them looking for political point scoring. Yesterday's photo opportunity can quickly become tomorrow's change of mind.
But those of you who still think Labour is against the Gurkhas, take the example of the misplaced lobbying by certain sections of the press in January for the protection of the Gurkhas. The fear then was that a Labour government would disband the Gurkha regiments if the 140,000 veterans who served before 1997 were granted equal rights. Such a fear was of course illogical, especially if one takes into consideration the expected £3 billion a year to accommodate these professional and elite soldiers is obvious to everyone to be a worthy expense when one considers the greater cost of replacing the 3,500 currently serving in a British army that is at full stretch.
What was John Hutton’s response when he was asked if the Government planned to disband the Gurkhas? He responded, "No - that is a complete load of old b******s." That should be the kind of response given to anyone who says this government is not on the side of the Gurkhas.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
WHEN WE ARE READING THIS PROPAGANDA RAG DON'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO IS 'EDITING' IT?
Wasn't it Charles Clare who said what had happened recently made him ashamed to be a member of the Labour Party. That just about sums it up doesn't it!
Boarded up shops
Record debt
Children in hock for a generation
Soldiers sent to unnecessary wars without the right kit
Hospitals overrun with super bugs
University tuition fees
Falling education standards
Congested roads
Railway shambles and the Government stealing Railtrack off the 'grannies'
Rampant expense frauds in Commons
Peers selling laws to highest bidders
Spin
Lies
Smears
Hounding David Kelly to His Death
Ministerial Infighting
No we wont forget what you have done. We promise. So call an election now and let us rememebr
As evidenced by your comment at the top of this thread.
I said, a few years ago, to an opinion pollster that I prefered "Stork" to "butter". I was proved right, later. But that's another story.
Personally, I disagree with the British self-image. It's getting a reputation as one of the more backward and nasty countries.
I said, a few years ago, to a Christian charity worker that I prefered "effective" to "bleeding heart". I was proved right, later. But that's another story.
The Gurkhas that serve in the British Army make the same oath as the indigenous parts of the British Army and uphold the finest traditions and values of our way of life. The fact that they come from Nepal is irrelevant, they fight for our freedom and liberty. That is their choice but they give their service and risk their lives for our country and our values.
I don't know what it takes to becomes a citizen of the UK but it seems it's very easy for people far, far less deserving.
These Gurkha soldiers served in dangerous and bloody conflicts with courage and distinction earning the respect of every squaddie in the British Army.
After Dunkirk, this country most darkest time, the Nepalese Government was the first country in the world to offer support.
They increased their Gurkha regiments from 22 to 35 providing much needed fighting force. 250,000 Nepalese soldiers fought in some of the bloodiest battle of WW2 from Burma to Italy often with heroic bravery.
I suggest if you can tear yourself away from making silly remarks, look up men like Tul Bahadur Pun, Ganju Lama, Agam Singh Rai & Thaman Gurung.
Then say they don't deserve for us to take care of them now. Of all the appalling things this government has done, this in my eyes is the worst; it is it's nastiest, nastiest act.
Us British are a warm and generous nation that have a long history of adopting those who share our common values, come here to work hard and those from other countries that fight and die with us for our beliefs. It's time to repay the debt we owe them.
Only this government has forgotten that.
Most people accept that among the hundreds of thousands who settle in the UK every year, those whose commitment to the country extends to being willing to fight for it should have a place. It's also a principle that we have already conceded: "The Gurkhas have served this country with great skill, courage and dignity during some of the most testing times in our history. They have made an enormous contribution not just to our armed forces but to the life of this country, and it is important their commitment and sacrifice is recognised," to quote, er, Blair. That's why we already give that right to live here not just to the Gurkhas who've served post '97 but also most other foreign soldiers.
Given that we have accepted the principle that we owe these people a debt of gratitude and loyalty, what does it say about us to then exclude those who served pre 97 because of what is - in the context of hundreds of billions of public spending - a pretty trivial cost?
Incidentally, I do enjoy seeing the left, which usually goes all misty about needing to protect the angelic "public service" workers suddenly deciding when it suits them that being in the army is just a choice, like any other job.
in any case, do we really have to go to any more wars?
A big chunk of British law is old and was "bought" by rich people back when judges took bribes. Today, things like neighbours from hell are propped up by British judges who misunderstand statute and lean on this rotten case law. Indeed, many judicial summaries pretend to be the last word in authority and learning but are merely backwards rationalisation.
"Must" is philosophically contentious and often used by people who don't understand its meaning so is mostly a symbol of egotism. The desire to control and have their ass kissed is strong in the British psyche. More openess and kindness would help unwind that. People would be more able to discover themselves and the nature of the world as it is rather than how they wish it to be.
When the EU gets total power then expect the slavery, taxation and loss of freedom to increase.
That's why we MUST depart the EU and encourage others to.
If people are in favour of the Ghurkas getting the same pay and pension they're also in favour of companies charging the full price for Western software in developing markets. The Ghurkas income relative to the lifestyle of the average Nepalese allows Ghurkas to build themselves the biggest house in their villiage when they retire. It's a sweet deal.
Don't worry about that. Most of us won't forget the difference New Labour has made to our country for a very long time.
Take a stroll down real street with me. New Labour hates patriotism, so why would they want more patriots here in the shape of Gurkhas?
Perhaps we'll need them here to help us fight for British independence after the LibLabCon Party has made it impossible to leave the EU peacefully once they get round to permanently signing us all over to the globalists.
I agree. in the sense that no one else could have and would have done better. and this is generally admired.
---
re the concept of greed - does this depend on the eye of the beholder.
surely society is the final judge? and with that in mind, no specific part of the political class is seen as being particularly greedy, I think. Though the Libdems come across as the most "principled".
In any case, I see the term "greed" as a code - meaning that there is (perceived) power imbalance.
and hence society has no issue with the Millionaire's Row that is the Tory frontbench. and that in turn fits well with the aspirational nature of society. and long may that continue.
It's not compulsary for the people of Nepal to join the Army, they do so because that is their choice.
I agree that they should be paid the same and recieve the same pension, but why should joining the army give people an automatic right to live here and not return to their own country?
And really quite nasty, its all about the spin not working and 'getting the message across' point scoring BS. Labour don't seem to have any idea how to interract with humans anymore and any (and I mean any) decision made by this government can be absolutely guaranteed to be the exact wrong one.
Labour MP's have shown themselves a greedy bunch and wont deliberately do themselves out of a job.
That's simply not true. The government didn't plan "a staged immigration policy". It wasn't "prioritizing" the 4,000-odd (a hefty exaggeration, most reckon) it said would be able to stay under the plan: It simply was going to keep the vast majority of them out.
Then there's the idea that a government that is currently running up a trillion in debt and isn't even planning to begin cutting spending for a couple of years is reluctantly having this policy dictated to it on the grounds of what's "affordable", as if it's suddenly come over all Maggie Thatcher-like.
Then there's this: "The Gurkhas have better pensions under Labour". Do you think all the readers here have the memories of goldfish? The government fought tooth and nail to prevent the Gurkha's getting the same pension rights as the rest of the British army, and that was while it was still merrily chucking billions away, before the crisis - which sort of suggests this is nothing to do with what we can and can't afford, just what the government wants to prioritise. Likewise, the citizenship rights only came after the government made them fight for it - and excludes those before '97. In all likelihood the government will now back down in the face of enormous public pressure again, and then you'll claim this latest episode as another example of how this government is a friend to the Gurkhas.
Lastly, of course, you hark back to the Tories, but I'm afraid it simply doesn't work after 12 years. Yes they were wrong. I'm glad they now seem to have got it right. I wish Labour could get to the same point, instead of continually just trying to defend their record.
Don't take my word for it, though. If you really believe this government is on the side of the Gurkhas, go and tell one, and ask him what he thinks. I'll bring the camera.
But it also seems to me that this defeat wasn't accidental. The MPs remunerations bill comes next. My guess - only a guess mind - is that we're seeing part of a concerted effort from Labour backbenchers to send a 'no confidence' vote.
Whether that will work, whether that will help Labour or the country, that is another matter. I actually think Brown has down sterling work on the G20 and on the stimulus package. But other chickens are coming home to roost. Brown rose to power through force of will, and honing every aspect of the party machine; he commands fear, respect, but not I think love.
That’s the kind of response Gordon should have used:
But Gordon is about 500 nil down and the problem is not reversible, so how would that work.
"We've screwed up on....................."
The country is now in a state of limbo until an election is called.