Meanwhile, council in chaos, omnishambles, amateurs couldn't even fake up a resignation on spurious health grounds, behaviour inconsistent with national guidelines of openness and honesty in public life, etc etc:
I think as a father is playing with fire a bit because first it's a slippery slope as you point out (as a father I wish they'd play a flat back four) and secondly, there is a public sensitivity about using children for any particular gain.
I think most likely he started out, as a decent cove, not wanting to go down that path then realised it was effective so here we are.
And it's all about the polls? Thank god at least he gets that.
Cameron has forgotten the golden rule of Liverpool - never ever criticise anything about Liverpool ever or an angry horde will rain down on your head.
Can this be the man who still posts frenetically when a Celtic supporting newsreader makes a comment about Ibrox?
The Rihanna/WiFi/Suarez/Chocolate orange stuff is to build an image. As was his sick use of child crime victims.
Yes - I imagine Cameron used his mind powers to force the interviewer to ask him about Suarez. Liverpool is a no go area - normal logic goes out the window with the residents.
.....there is nothing compassionate about a government giving away money it has confiscated from citizens on pain of prison.
No-one knew this better than Margaret Thatcher, whose name was invoked by Robert in support of current aid polices. But she spoke of a ‘carefully-controlled aid programme’ rather than the swollen rivers of cash diverted towards the developing world today. She also ensured the policies were driven by the Foreign Office and were resolutely in Britain’s commercial and diplomatic interests.
It was Tony Blair who spun out Dfid to become an excitable wing of the charity movement rather than a sober branch of the diplomatic service. Yet it is worth noting that even when the department was mistakenly unshackled in 1997 its budget was only £2.6bn; later this year, when the UK hits the supposedly-sacred target of giving away 0.7 of the nation’s income, it will be £11.3bn
While it wouldn't be enough to make me ever vote for him, I would have a little more respect for Cameron if he responded to a question about Suarez by saying something along the lines of 'It's a matter for the football authorities. My job is to run the country'. I know he's not the only offender (I am equally uninterested in Gordon Brown's musical tastes), but he is one of the worst. I just can't believe this kind of things helps the polling: people aren't that stupid surely? And I can't be the only peson who's seriously turned off by this nonsense.
Having a go at Liverpool, the place or the football club, is fine for Cameron or indeed anyone else. It's unlikely to go down badly with any group of people who might actually vote Tory.
Radio 5 live this morning - rEd on later at 2hrs 35 ish - very angry and shouty - not pleasant.
I tried listening to the clip, but it is difficult to understand Ed Milliband - he sounds as if he is either drinking and speaking at the same time or has a mouthful of food.
The constituency simply isn't big enough to win and there are too many opposed to make up the difference on swing voters. Conversely, if he debaggages, he loses the intensity of the support that kept Ron Paul in the race so long.
Disagree - he can debaggage almost completely. The combination of the family name and the feeling of generational change that helped Obama will guarantee him the undying devotion of the Paultards. The libertarian wing been ridiculed and ignored by the Republican establishment for as long as they can remember, and they'll finally have a chance of breaking into the mainstream. They are the only people in the party who understand how to work their mobile phones, and they will shower him in bitcoins.
The key thing about Rand Paul is that he's much less ideological than his father. He was one of the only Tea Party insurgents to have the whit and the agility to move to the centre after winning the primary, and he's already done some astute triangulating on immigration. He'll plop himself in the Republican mainstream during the primary, and if he wins that he won't be afraid to pivot to wherever he needs to pivot to for the general.
You'd be surprised how many Southern Liverpool fans there are.
Of course they don't want to face up to the real issue here either,ie that their hero Kenny Dalglish blew £100 million on crappy players and the one decent buy turns out to have serious psychological problems.
Although Dave's polling-driven "as a father" act when after being sent away at eight by his own parents probably bears some therapeutic analysis.
Most normal eight year olds welcome being sent away to board at school, tim.
It is just one thirteen week long pajama party and scouting on Sundays.
The constituency simply isn't big enough to win and there are too many opposed to make up the difference on swing voters. Conversely, if he debaggages, he loses the intensity of the support that kept Ron Paul in the race so long.
Disagree - he can debaggage almost completely. The combination of the family name and the feeling of generational change that helped Obama will guarantee him the undying devotion of the Paultards. The libertarian wing been ridiculed and ignored by the Republican establishment for as long as they can remember, and they'll finally have a chance of breaking into the mainstream. They are the only people in the party who understand how to work their mobile phones, and they will shower him in bitcoins.
The key thing about Rand Paul is that he's much less ideological than his father. He was one of the only Tea Party insurgents to have the whit and the agility to move to the centre after winning the primary, and he's already done some astute triangulating on immigration. He'll plop himself in the Republican mainstream during the primary, and if he wins that he won't be afraid to pivot to wherever he needs to pivot to for the general.
I agree he can disbaggage, but he still won't. At least, not much. The guy isn't a Mitt Romney. He's a true believing out-there libertarian. It took him ages before he could accept the Civil Rights Act was maybe, you know, a good thing because of his instinctive belief that private companies should be able to ban black people without interference from the Feds. He eventually came around on that once it became clear it would cost him his Senate seat, but it wasn't easy. He's certainly not going to move round to supporting US military intervention or entitlements.
The guy isn't a Mitt Romney. He's a true believing out-there libertarian. It took him ages before he could accept the Civil Rights Act was maybe, you know, a good thing because of his instinctive belief that private companies should be able to ban black people without interference from the Feds. He eventually came around on that once it became clear it would cost him his Senate seat, but it wasn't easy. He's certainly not going to move round to supporting US military intervention or entitlements.
Of course people should be promoted on merit but it really doesn't need a Nick Cohen to see that to promote an OE to such a high-visibility job in govt/No.10 is just stupid right now.
As I mentioned FPT, are you saying there is no one from Bolton who is just as clever as JJ?
The guy isn't a Mitt Romney. He's a true believing out-there libertarian. It took him ages before he could accept the Civil Rights Act was maybe, you know, a good thing because of his instinctive belief that private companies should be able to ban black people without interference from the Feds. He eventually came around on that once it became clear it would cost him his Senate seat, but it wasn't easy. He's certainly not going to move round to supporting US military intervention or entitlements.
You're right that he's not a Mitt Romney. One key difference is that Rand Paul is actually good at the u-turns.
No, he doesn't want to keep foreign military bases open. He just doesn't want to close all of them. But his push is certainly in the closing them down direction rather than in the keep them open direction. All he's committed to is keeping two open.
"so you are saying that Labour Party toffs can (be allowed to) put aside their upbringing in order to serve their country but that Cons Party toffs cannot?"
No I'm saying that the country are fed up being governed by feckless dilettantes who believe their silver spoons mean they're born to rule. My belief is that Labour politicians particularly from more privileged backgrounds are motivated quite differently and consider part of their remit is to remove the privilege they were born into or at the very least not to perpetuate it.
it really doesn't need a Nick Cohen to see that to promote an OE to such a high-visibility job in govt/No.10 is just stupid right now.
It's a backroom job (albeit a very important one), not a high-visibility job at all. I doubt if one voter in a hundred could name his predecessor (or indeed name anyone who's ever held the role).
My belief is that Labour politicians particularly from more privileged backgrounds are motivated quite differently and consider part of their remit is to remove the privilege they were born into or at the very least not to perpetuate it.
See Harriet Harman and her husband. The Millionaire Miliband brothers
Mr. Flashman (deceased), thank you for posting that link. Burden is either stupid or deliberately trying to mislead her audience.
She and Cameron were both wrong in the sense of over simplifying it. There is no reason at all that comparing total council tax take OR a particular band's rate from council to council tells you anything of substance at all.
There are so many variables such as demographics (and hence cost of elderly care, schools etc.) rural vs town/city, house prices, unemployment rates etc. etc that there is no easy answer to "which party's councils charge the lowest council tax"
It was a very unedifying debate. And nayway in my experience councillors of all parties are pretty uniformly crap.
So much so, that the Ordnance Survey actually accepts their data. And this matters for many walkers and mountaineers as there are a whole raft of different hill classifications. As well as the famous Munros, there are:
Corbetts
Grahams
Nuttalls
Marilyns
HuMPs
And many more, including sub-classifications. No-one has ever completed the whole lot, although some are close. These measurements allow contentious hilltops to be added or removed from the lists.
And don't get me started on whether man-made hills count, such as Nottinghamshire's highest point. This was known to be the colliery tip at Silverhill Colliery, but was apparently reduced after landscaping work.
Having a go at Liverpool, the place or the football club, is fine for Cameron or indeed anyone else. It's unlikely to go down badly with any group of people who might actually vote Tory.
Well I am a Liverpool fan and sometime tory voter who thouhgt Cameron made an utter pr1ck of himself and demeans his office by spouting this utter garbage
They were getting on so well, but the burgeoning friendship between Ed and George is over. Miliband called time on things this morning:
“I think George Galloway’s views are awful. He might want me to be prime minister, but I don’t want him to be an MP. George Galloway isn’t coming back to the Labour party. We want to defeat him at the next election in his Bradford West seat.”
To which Galloway hit back:
“Miliband’s claim that he repeatedly pursued me for a one hour meeting about “boundary changes” is, quite simply, a lie. I realise now that I showed poor judgement in finally agreeing to meet Miliband. An unprincipled coward with the backbone of an amoeba.”
What is the appropriate response, for a "serious politician", to a stupid question like "do you think it is a good idea for overpaid Uruguayans to controversially bite overpaid Serbs and receive controversial punishments?"
Do you pretend you hadn't heard of it (and accept being seen as out of touch)? Do some stern paternalism ("I think that makes him a very naughty boy", seems to be the gist of current headline on BBC Sports; but pointless, teaches nobody a lesson, reiterates what should frankly be seen as commonsensical but which in certain quarters just seems to add to a sense of victimisation; at any rate shouldn't a serious politician reserve his moral outrage for matters of more pressing social or international importance?). Underplay it (the gambit ranges from "I haven't seen the incident so I'm not best to answer, but obviously it raises serious concerns" to "Obviously the government takes violence seriously, but I don't want to comment on specific cases until the police and CPS have made a decision")? Ignore it (look, I am srs politician with srs bizness to get on with, don't bother me with back page news ok?). Make light of it? (Am sure there is a light-hearted joke or two to be had, but with potential to come out all wrong, and anyhow if you are an Eton-educated millionaire you can't really say "With all that risk of nasty biting, I am very glad nobody is forcing me to accept millions of pounds for running around on a green field with a ball for a living".)
"so you are saying that Labour Party toffs can (be allowed to) put aside their upbringing in order to serve their country but that Cons Party toffs cannot?"
No I'm saying that the country are fed up being governed by feckless dilettantes who believe their silver spoons mean they're born to rule. My belief is that Labour politicians particularly from more privileged backgrounds are motivated quite differently and consider part of their remit is to remove the privilege they were born into or at the very least not to perpetuate it.
If they really wanted to remove that privilege, then Hilary Benn would have been persuaded not to enter politics. Tony Benn would have given a part-time job to some kid off the street, and not the son of a close friend. That sort of help at a young age is not available to us mere plebs, but it was to Ed Miliband.
If that was the case, Emily Benn would be encouraged not to stand for parliament. After all, surely the fact she would be a fifth-generation MP is automatically an advantage to her as she has access to a whole string of contacts that would not be available to her compatriots.
The Benn's are a classic case of what you should be arguing against. But you ignore them.
Also witness Euan Blair and hordes of others.
You really are ridiculous. 'Your belief' is just an opinion, and one that is evidently not based in fact.
In theory ignoring it / refusing to comment on it works for me but politics today involves selling yourself as a person with a family and a hinterland and a (sortof) personality so it's probably not a viable option.
"If you uniformly apply the combined impact of the Lib Dem collapse and rise of UKIP to Labour-Tory marginal results from 2010, Labour gain 49 seats from the Tories without taking a single vote from the Tories. That means a majority Labour Government."
The case where they fail to win a majority requires that Ed Miliband fails to do as well as his predecessor against David Cameron. I reckon they should play it safe and ask Gordon Brown to come back.
"If you uniformly apply the combined impact of the Lib Dem collapse and rise of UKIP to Labour-Tory marginal results from 2010, Labour gain 49 seats from the Tories without taking a single vote from the Tories. That means a majority Labour Government."
Having a go at Liverpool, the place or the football club, is fine for Cameron or indeed anyone else. It's unlikely to go down badly with any group of people who might actually vote Tory.
Well I am a Liverpool fan and sometime tory voter who thouhgt Cameron made an utter pr1ck of himself and demeans his office by spouting this utter garbage
I'm a Liverpool fan as well and share your frustration.
On a totally unrelated note, next month I'm going to be guest editing the site for 18 days, expect a daily Cameron is crap thread
What is the appropriate response, for a "serious politician", to a stupid question like "do you think it is a good idea for overpaid Uruguayans to controversially bite overpaid Serbs and receive controversial punishments?"
Do you pretend you hadn't heard of it (and accept being seen as out of touch)? Do some stern paternalism ("I think that makes him a very naughty boy", seems to be the gist of current headline on BBC Sports; but pointless, teaches nobody a lesson, reiterates what should frankly be seen as commonsensical but which in certain quarters just seems to add to a sense of victimisation; at any rate shouldn't a serious politician reserve his moral outrage for matters of more pressing social or international importance?). Underplay it (the gambit ranges from "I haven't seen the incident so I'm not best to answer, but obviously it raises serious concerns" to "Obviously the government takes violence seriously, but I don't want to comment on specific cases until the police and CPS have made a decision")? Ignore it (look, I am srs politician with srs bizness to get on with, don't bother me with back page news ok?). Make light of it? (Am sure there is a light-hearted joke or two to be had, but with potential to come out all wrong, and anyhow if you are an Eton-educated millionaire you can't really say "With all that risk of nasty biting, I am very glad nobody is forcing me to accept millions of pounds for running around on a green field with a ball for a living".)
What is the "right" answer?
I would suggest...
"Any form of violence is wrong and biting definitely comes into that territory. What makes it worse is this is a high profile person that is used as a role model by younger people. I cannot comment of the penalties imposed as this is a function of the professional body, however I'm pleased that it has been dealt with in a speedy manner"
Of course people should be promoted on merit but it really doesn't need a Nick Cohen to see that to promote an OE to such a high-visibility job in govt/No.10 is just stupid right now.
As I mentioned FPT, are you saying there is no one from Bolton who is just as clever as JJ?
And my point is that wrong-headed people may try to use the school thing as a negative, but I don't think the average vote cares (or notices). It's more important that the right person is appointed.
Of course I'm not saying that there is no one from Bolton who is just as clever as JJ. I'd argue that he is one of the smartest non-Cabinet rank Conservative MPs though & if you believe being a non-Cabinet rank MP is an important criteria for this role then, given those constraints, he is a very good choice
I have to say it doesn't feel like Labour are split down the middle. The only place I hear it is in the columns of Dan Hodges. It rather seems most in Labour are happy to sit basically where Ed Miliband sits - a bit to the left of New Labour without being full-out socialist. The danger for the party isn't that it is split, it's that it suffers from a stifling group think that isn't very open to ideas that challenge their centre-left sensibilities.
We should have Lewisham Deptford shortlist on Sunday.....and did you see reports that more than half of new Labour PPC have Unions links? Are you shocked too?
Having a go at Liverpool, the place or the football club, is fine for Cameron or indeed anyone else. It's unlikely to go down badly with any group of people who might actually vote Tory.
Well I am a Liverpool fan and sometime tory voter who thouhgt Cameron made an utter pr1ck of himself and demeans his office by spouting this utter garbage
Cameron didn't even mention Liverpool - he simply commented that biting someone on the pitch is wretched - which it is.
Still it's difficult to stop a scouser jumping on the offended bus at the first whiff of cordite - all aboard !!
"If you uniformly apply the combined impact of the Lib Dem collapse and rise of UKIP to Labour-Tory marginal results from 2010, Labour gain 49 seats from the Tories without taking a single vote from the Tories. That means a majority Labour Government."
I must say my confidence in the psephological expertise of that author is somewhat undermined by the fact that he seems to think 258+49 is more than 325.
"I do know that I started noticing a change in my own reading habits – I’d get online and look up and 40 minutes would have gone by, and my reading time for the night would have been pissed away, and all I would have learned was that, you know, a certain celebrity had lived in her car awhile, or that a cat had dialed 911. So I had to start watching that more carefully. But it’s interesting because (1) this tendency does seem to alter brain function and (2) through some demonic cause-and-effect, our technology is exactly situated to exploit the crappier angles of our nature: gossip, self-promotion, snarky curiosity. It’s almost as if totalitarianism thought better of the jackboots and decided to go another way: smoother, more flattering – and impossible to resist":
tim - I can remember your fauxrage when it was suggested that Sarah Brown's handlers kept an onion in their pocket to whip out whenever something sad happened and a camera was near - like the hacker bloke you now want deported was threatened with deportation.
if you believe being a non-Cabinet rank MP is an important criteria for this role then, given those constraints, he is a very good choice
Being a non-Cabinet rank MP is clearly not an important criteria for this role - it's surely a positive drawback.
Really? Involvement in writing the manifesto is certainly a political role - arguably a Cabinet Minister will lead it ultimately, but you need someone to put in the grunt work.
They were getting on so well, but the burgeoning friendship between Ed and George is over. Miliband called time on things this morning:
“I think George Galloway’s views are awful. He might want me to be prime minister, but I don’t want him to be an MP. George Galloway isn’t coming back to the Labour party. We want to defeat him at the next election in his Bradford West seat.”
To which Galloway hit back:
“Miliband’s claim that he repeatedly pursued me for a one hour meeting about “boundary changes” is, quite simply, a lie. I realise now that I showed poor judgement in finally agreeing to meet Miliband. An unprincipled coward with the backbone of an amoeba.”
1) A ten match ban is ridiculous for the offence. He'd have got less if he'd left his victim in hospital for 4 weeks with a horror tackle.
2) He's obviously nutty as a fruitcake, but he makes football a lot more interesting.
3) I wouldn't want to spend much time in his company.
4) He's a bloody good footballer. Goodness knows where Liverpool would have finished this season without him.
Nah, biting is simply not part of the game. A horrendous mistimed tackle can come about 'naturally'. Have to disagree with you on this. In both circumstances a 10 game ban is probably appropriate. Point 4 should have no relevance on the punishment.
Speaking of punishments good to see the BHA have come down like a tonne of bricks on Zarooni and given him an eight year ban, I mean the nags weren't putting those steroids themselves in their tea.
1) A ten match ban is ridiculous for the offence. He'd have got less if he'd left his victim in hospital for 4 weeks with a horror tackle.
2) He's obviously nutty as a fruitcake, but he makes football a lot more interesting.
3) I wouldn't want to spend much time in his company.
4) He's a bloody good footballer. Goodness knows where Liverpool would have finished this season without him.
Nah, biting is simply not part of the game. A horrendous mistimed tackle can come about 'naturally'. Have to disagree with you on this. In both circumstances a 10 game ban is probably appropriate.
Jermaine Defoe got a yellow card, no ban and was still selected for England when he bit Javier Mascherano.
1) A ten match ban is ridiculous for the offence. He'd have got less if he'd left his victim in hospital for 4 weeks with a horror tackle.
2) He's obviously nutty as a fruitcake, but he makes football a lot more interesting.
3) I wouldn't want to spend much time in his company.
4) He's a bloody good footballer. Goodness knows where Liverpool would have finished this season without him.
Nah, biting is simply not part of the game. A horrendous mistimed tackle can come about 'naturally'. Have to disagree with you on this. In both circumstances a 10 game ban is probably appropriate.
Jermaine Defoe got a yellow card, no ban and was still selected for England when he bit Javier Mascherano.
He should have had a 10 game ban back in 2006 also.
When asked about the Bahrain Grand Prix Cameron said
“It’s a matter for Formula One.”
Of course that was because he was involved in selling arms to Bahrain and it gave him no opportunity to say "As a father"
The partisan snipe is very good, well-done. (I mean this as a sincere compliment. I know it winds up right-wing posters on here, but as a leftie it doesn't rankle me so much, and in the sense that what you wanted to achieve was a partisan snipe, and you made it very effectively, then it was a good post, congratulations.) But the problem with "It's a matter for the football governing bodies" is that it's the *wrong* answer, politically. Whereas "it's a matter for Formula One" was the *right* answer, politically.
If you are PM of the UK it is prudent to find ways of avoiding saying nasty things about the uglier regimes who are "our friends" in this troubled world, as both Labour and Tories have found in the past. Particularly so if you are flogging stuff to them. This is hypocrisy as a political "virtue" (or at least, a kind of "talent") not as a specifically Cameroon vice. The alternative is to be a political idealist who would have reached for the "unfriend" button already, and given a middle-finger to both to the brutal Realpolitikers and the unrealistic siren-song of the self-interested claim "our best chance of positively changing the behaviour of brutal dictators is to cuddle up to them, just making sure we milk the profitable contracts while exerting our influence only by the gentlest of private scoldings". Blair and Cameron seem to lie in the latter group rather than the former, but to be honest I can't work out which would aggrieve me more. Personally I gloat in the moral satisfaction that if I ever become PM I would surely be an idealist, cast from pure naïveté in the smug'n'trite mold. Incidentally this is one of the reasons why someone like me will never become PM.
On the other hand, saying that "it's not up to me to comment on the rights and wrongs of this story which is currently disproportionately dominating the headlines" can easily be translated as "I feel no need to condemn one famous man biting another in a non-consensual situation, when millions of children are watching" which is not the message that politicians are meant to broadcast these days. They are meant to be shocked, shocked and appalled, that such behaviour could be countenanced on this sceptred isle by so-called "role models" (are they really, for anyone, even the most impressionable of nippers? but in the Big Political Dictionary, it seems this is the entry that appears underneath "sports professional"). The question is how to condemn, without the taking on the mantle of judge and jury, or nudging the chip so finely balanced upon the Liverpudlian shoulder.
1) A ten match ban is ridiculous for the offence. He'd have got less if he'd left his victim in hospital for 4 weeks with a horror tackle.
2) He's obviously nutty as a fruitcake, but he makes football a lot more interesting.
3) I wouldn't want to spend much time in his company.
4) He's a bloody good footballer. Goodness knows where Liverpool would have finished this season without him.
Nah, biting is simply not part of the game. A horrendous mistimed tackle can come about 'naturally'. Have to disagree with you on this. In both circumstances a 10 game ban is probably appropriate.
Jermaine Defoe got a yellow card, no ban and was still selected for England when he bit Javier Mascherano.
He should have had a 10 game ban back in 2006 also.
Depends if Ivanovic wants to pursue the matter I would guess... Anyway its not the worst thing that can happen on a field of play - eye gouging which doesn't thankfully happen in football is worse and looks to merit an average of a ~ 10 week ban or so.
US: Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace.
Thanks for posting the R5 intvs - most amusing, Ms Burden attempting to compare the £s paid in council tax in one area where house prices are more expensive as a spurious argument to say Tory councils charge more was hilarious.
I thought EdM did okay to begin with and then gabbled terribly - I've no idea what he was trying to say after it all and dragging in national issues seemed rather odd. Shame but predictable that in several mins of discussions about energy prices Mr Campbell never mentioned EdM's last Cabinet job as SoS at DECC.
Cameron's correct response to the Suarez incident is:
"Now look here. I went to school at Eton and we didn't play this game of soccer so I'm no so au fait with the on field rules. But what I do know is that if a player bit another in the Eton Wall Game then it would definitely be six hundred lines of Georgics for him. And a second offence would be a certain gating. But really this is a matter for the football prefects and not the OE Cabinet".
If Sheik Mohammed was Russian, I'd expect Zarooni to be meeting a mysterious demise via Polonium in the next few weeks.
Frankly, I'm amazed he hasn't been warned off for life.
I'm not sure the Sheik Mohammed can get up on his 'high horse'.
He himself was banned by the FEI from endurance riding competitions for six months in 2009 when two of his horses failed dope tests.
One of his wifes, Princess Haya, is President of the FEI and has been leading a drive to clean up equestrian sports. There is now likely to be polite pressure on her to retire from her position gracefully.
But I don't think anyone connected with the sport believes that the administration of inappropriate drugs to horses is confined to the Godolphin operations. In fact most believe it is widespread.
Having a go at Liverpool, the place or the football club, is fine for Cameron or indeed anyone else. It's unlikely to go down badly with any group of people who might actually vote Tory.
Well I am a Liverpool fan and sometime tory voter who thouhgt Cameron made an utter pr1ck of himself and demeans his office by spouting this utter garbage
Cameron didn't even mention Liverpool - he simply commented that biting someone on the pitch is wretched - which it is.
Still it's difficult to stop a scouser jumping on the offended bus at the first whiff of cordite - all aboard !!
Er, he did mention Suarez specifically. He didn't explicitly say "suarez, who plays for LIverpool" but that would have made him look even more of a tool!
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-22297511
I'm very surprised tim has missed this one.
I think as a father is playing with fire a bit because first it's a slippery slope as you point out (as a father I wish they'd play a flat back four) and secondly, there is a public sensitivity about using children for any particular gain.
I think most likely he started out, as a decent cove, not wanting to go down that path then realised it was effective so here we are.
And it's all about the polls? Thank god at least he gets that.
They think its enough to win an election.
It isn't.
http://icas.org.uk/News/ScotlandsPensionsFutureNewsrelease/
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/04/from-lordashcroft-the-case-against-overseas-aid-and-for-genuinely-compassionate-conservatism.html
.....there is nothing compassionate about a government giving away money it has confiscated from citizens on pain of prison.
No-one knew this better than Margaret Thatcher, whose name was invoked by Robert in support of current aid polices. But she spoke of a ‘carefully-controlled aid programme’ rather than the swollen rivers of cash diverted towards the developing world today. She also ensured the policies were driven by the Foreign Office and were resolutely in Britain’s commercial and diplomatic interests.
It was Tony Blair who spun out Dfid to become an excitable wing of the charity movement rather than a sober branch of the diplomatic service. Yet it is worth noting that even when the department was mistakenly unshackled in 1997 its budget was only £2.6bn; later this year, when the UK hits the supposedly-sacred target of giving away 0.7 of the nation’s income, it will be £11.3bn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/10017758/Three-ramblers-go-up-a-hill-and-come-down-a-mountain.html
The key thing about Rand Paul is that he's much less ideological than his father. He was one of the only Tea Party insurgents to have the whit and the agility to move to the centre after winning the primary, and he's already done some astute triangulating on immigration. He'll plop himself in the Republican mainstream during the primary, and if he wins that he won't be afraid to pivot to wherever he needs to pivot to for the general.
It is just one thirteen week long pajama party and scouting on Sundays.
Something are worth fighting for, even if they are unpopular. Equality of opportunity and merit based promotion are two of the most important of these
LATEST: Labour leader Ed Miliband defends meeting Respect MP George Galloway, but denies he is returning to the Labour Party
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/10020432/Sir-Winston-Churchill-to-appear-on-new-5-banknote.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/rand-paul-military-bases_n_2981368.html
You're right that he's not a Mitt Romney. One key difference is that Rand Paul is actually good at the u-turns.
you're missing the point Charles.
Of course people should be promoted on merit but it really doesn't need a Nick Cohen to see that to promote an OE to such a high-visibility job in govt/No.10 is just stupid right now.
As I mentioned FPT, are you saying there is no one from Bolton who is just as clever as JJ?
"so you are saying that Labour Party toffs can (be allowed to) put aside their upbringing in order to serve their country but that Cons Party toffs cannot?"
No I'm saying that the country are fed up being governed by feckless dilettantes who believe their silver spoons mean they're born to rule. My belief is that Labour politicians particularly from more privileged backgrounds are motivated quite differently and consider part of their remit is to remove the privilege they were born into or at the very least not to perpetuate it.
Jack Straw's son.
Euan Blair.
Unspoofable
Or Chuka Savile Row Harrison.
There are so many variables such as demographics (and hence cost of elderly care, schools etc.) rural vs town/city, house prices, unemployment rates etc. etc that there is no easy answer to "which party's councils charge the lowest council tax"
It was a very unedifying debate. And nayway in my experience councillors of all parties are pretty uniformly crap.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/19/wales
So much so, that the Ordnance Survey actually accepts their data. And this matters for many walkers and mountaineers as there are a whole raft of different hill classifications. As well as the famous Munros, there are:
- Corbetts
- Grahams
- Nuttalls
- Marilyns
- HuMPs
And many more, including sub-classifications. No-one has ever completed the whole lot, although some are close. These measurements allow contentious hilltops to be added or removed from the lists.And don't get me started on whether man-made hills count, such as Nottinghamshire's highest point. This was known to be the colliery tip at Silverhill Colliery, but was apparently reduced after landscaping work.
If anyone is (ahem) intersted enough, there is an extensive database at http://hills-database.co.uk/database_notes.html
Labour is split down the middle. Which side is Ed Miliband going to land on?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100214028/labour-is-split-down-the-middle-which-side-is-ed-miliband-going-to-land-on/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Rather alarming pic of Ed.....
You could add the Benns and Kinnocks to that for a start.
and Herbert Morrison's grandson, Peter Mandelson
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/327751450958626817/photo/1
http://order-order.com/2013/04/26/ed-3-george/
They were getting on so well, but the burgeoning friendship between Ed and George is over. Miliband called time on things this morning:
“I think George Galloway’s views are awful. He might want me to be prime minister, but I don’t want him to be an MP. George Galloway isn’t coming back to the Labour party. We want to defeat him at the next election in his Bradford West seat.”
To which Galloway hit back:
“Miliband’s claim that he repeatedly pursued me for a one hour meeting about “boundary changes” is, quite simply, a lie. I realise now that I showed poor judgement in finally agreeing to meet Miliband. An unprincipled coward with the backbone of an amoeba.”
Do you pretend you hadn't heard of it (and accept being seen as out of touch)? Do some stern paternalism ("I think that makes him a very naughty boy", seems to be the gist of current headline on BBC Sports; but pointless, teaches nobody a lesson, reiterates what should frankly be seen as commonsensical but which in certain quarters just seems to add to a sense of victimisation; at any rate shouldn't a serious politician reserve his moral outrage for matters of more pressing social or international importance?). Underplay it (the gambit ranges from "I haven't seen the incident so I'm not best to answer, but obviously it raises serious concerns" to "Obviously the government takes violence seriously, but I don't want to comment on specific cases until the police and CPS have made a decision")? Ignore it (look, I am srs politician with srs bizness to get on with, don't bother me with back page news ok?). Make light of it? (Am sure there is a light-hearted joke or two to be had, but with potential to come out all wrong, and anyhow if you are an Eton-educated millionaire you can't really say "With all that risk of nasty biting, I am very glad nobody is forcing me to accept millions of pounds for running around on a green field with a ball for a living".)
What is the "right" answer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22306707
If that was the case, Emily Benn would be encouraged not to stand for parliament. After all, surely the fact she would be a fifth-generation MP is automatically an advantage to her as she has access to a whole string of contacts that would not be available to her compatriots.
The Benn's are a classic case of what you should be arguing against. But you ignore them.
Also witness Euan Blair and hordes of others.
You really are ridiculous. 'Your belief' is just an opinion, and one that is evidently not based in fact.
On a totally unrelated note, next month I'm going to be guest editing the site for 18 days, expect a daily Cameron is crap thread
"Any form of violence is wrong and biting definitely comes into that territory. What makes it worse is this is a high profile person that is used as a role model by younger people. I cannot comment of the penalties imposed as this is a function of the professional body, however I'm pleased that it has been dealt with in a speedy manner"
Of course I'm not saying that there is no one from Bolton who is just as clever as JJ. I'd argue that he is one of the smartest non-Cabinet rank Conservative MPs though & if you believe being a non-Cabinet rank MP is an important criteria for this role then, given those constraints, he is a very good choice
We should have Lewisham Deptford shortlist on Sunday.....and did you see reports that more than half of new Labour PPC have Unions links? Are you shocked too?
Still it's difficult to stop a scouser jumping on the offended bus at the first whiff of cordite - all aboard !!
@journodave: Spain all but abandons austerity by delaying deficit reduction by 2 years. The first to break.
Will he get the support of his father's "committed" supporters?
Which begs the question, who is Batman?
Obviously Ed Balls is the joker.
Yvette Cooper as Selina Kyle?
Why didn't Dora run for Euro selection too?
In London there's a big fuss about who has been excluded from the final shortlist. If only Dora had joined in.....
Dora the Explorer we should call her.
Your previous totally undermines your whines.
Dora must be confident of Lewisham ... no need to enter any more selections as she has that in the bag. I hope she's a member of Unite
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/apr/26/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line-live
1) A ten match ban is ridiculous for the offence. He'd have got less if he'd left his victim in hospital for 4 weeks with a horror tackle.
2) He's obviously nutty as a fruitcake, but he makes football a lot more interesting.
3) I wouldn't want to spend much time in his company.
4) He's a bloody good footballer. Goodness knows where Liverpool would have finished this season without him.
TM G Galloway
Point 4 should have no relevance on the punishment.
Speaking of punishments good to see the BHA have come down like a tonne of bricks on Zarooni and given him an eight year ban, I mean the nags weren't putting those steroids themselves in their tea.
Don't normal laws apply on the field of play?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/14/labour-suspends-muslim-peer-lord-ahmed
If you are PM of the UK it is prudent to find ways of avoiding saying nasty things about the uglier regimes who are "our friends" in this troubled world, as both Labour and Tories have found in the past. Particularly so if you are flogging stuff to them. This is hypocrisy as a political "virtue" (or at least, a kind of "talent") not as a specifically Cameroon vice. The alternative is to be a political idealist who would have reached for the "unfriend" button already, and given a middle-finger to both to the brutal Realpolitikers and the unrealistic siren-song of the self-interested claim "our best chance of positively changing the behaviour of brutal dictators is to cuddle up to them, just making sure we milk the profitable contracts while exerting our influence only by the gentlest of private scoldings". Blair and Cameron seem to lie in the latter group rather than the former, but to be honest I can't work out which would aggrieve me more. Personally I gloat in the moral satisfaction that if I ever become PM I would surely be an idealist, cast from pure naïveté in the smug'n'trite mold. Incidentally this is one of the reasons why someone like me will never become PM.
On the other hand, saying that "it's not up to me to comment on the rights and wrongs of this story which is currently disproportionately dominating the headlines" can easily be translated as "I feel no need to condemn one famous man biting another in a non-consensual situation, when millions of children are watching" which is not the message that politicians are meant to broadcast these days. They are meant to be shocked, shocked and appalled, that such behaviour could be countenanced on this sceptred isle by so-called "role models" (are they really, for anyone, even the most impressionable of nippers? but in the Big Political Dictionary, it seems this is the entry that appears underneath "sports professional"). The question is how to condemn, without the taking on the mantle of judge and jury, or nudging the chip so finely balanced upon the Liverpudlian shoulder.
All we ask for is consistency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-usa-economy-idUSBRE93P04P20130426
Thanks for posting the R5 intvs - most amusing, Ms Burden attempting to compare the £s paid in council tax in one area where house prices are more expensive as a spurious argument to say Tory councils charge more was hilarious.
I thought EdM did okay to begin with and then gabbled terribly - I've no idea what he was trying to say after it all and dragging in national issues seemed rather odd. Shame but predictable that in several mins of discussions about energy prices Mr Campbell never mentioned EdM's last Cabinet job as SoS at DECC.
Horror tackles are usually down to recklessness, rather than deliberately trying to cause injury, as biting obviously is.
If Sheik Mohammed was Russian, I'd expect Zarooni to be meeting a mysterious demise via Polonium in the next few weeks.
Frankly, I'm amazed he hasn't been warned off for life.
"Now look here. I went to school at Eton and we didn't play this game of soccer so I'm no so au fait with the on field rules. But what I do know is that if a player bit another in the Eton Wall Game then it would definitely be six hundred lines of Georgics for him. And a second offence would be a certain gating. But really this is a matter for the football prefects and not the OE Cabinet".
He himself was banned by the FEI from endurance riding competitions for six months in 2009 when two of his horses failed dope tests.
One of his wifes, Princess Haya, is President of the FEI and has been leading a drive to clean up equestrian sports. There is now likely to be polite pressure on her to retire from her position gracefully.
But I don't think anyone connected with the sport believes that the administration of inappropriate drugs to horses is confined to the Godolphin operations. In fact most believe it is widespread.