What they should offer you is no more than what you deserve:
- A promise that the government faithfully fulfills its obligations to provide the basics that a modern society needs: a stable legal and economic environment, investment in the necessary infrastructure to secure long-term growth, an effective safety net to help those who run into difficulties, a reasonable standard of living for those retired members of society who have contributed to building the country in which we live, decent healthcare for everyone regardless of means, and a stellar education system to ensure that everyone has the ability to achieve their full potential
- That they should avoid unnecessary foreign adventures, while standing up for the values that Britain holds dear and acting as a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment to the world: God grant that this day we may light such a candle in [Britain] as shall never be put out
- That they should do this as efficiently as possible with the minimum of wastage or unnecessary administration
- That they should tax the minimum necessary to achieve the above, as well as developing a plan to repay out outstanding debts
Apart from that, they should promise to get out of your face, and let you and your family live their lives as you see fit
BBC has just appointed Kamal Ahmed from the Sunday Telegraph to be its new main Economics Editor - ie the person who will actually be providing commentary on programmes like the BBC1 10pm news to an audience nearly 10 times greater than Newsnight.
Weldon is going to be the Economics Correspondent on Newsnight - he is going to have far, far, far less scope for editorialising than all the BBC's main political presenters or news reporters - and that's before you factor in he'll only be seen by a miniscule audience.
Andrew Neil on This Week with Owen Jones last night was editorialising about 1000 times as much as anything Weldon might do.
Was Kamal Ahmed (who he?) a Tory CANDIDATE in 2010? Because that's Duncan Weldon's CV. He isn't just a lefty, he was a Labour would-be politician, and an advisor to Harriet Harman.
Can you imagine Newsnight appointing a notable ex-UKIP candidate as EU editor? No. It is unimaginable. Yet they will happily appoint an ex-Labour candidate, and well-known, self-confessed lefty economist, as economics editor.
As I say, it is the lack of self awareness that will kill the BBC. I think they just can't help themselves. And some of us, who would otherwise support it, will, because of this, happily see the BBC die.
The Chairman of the BBC Trust is a Tory. A Wet. Presumably that doe snot count. He influences the appointments of the senior people alongwith others.
BBC has just appointed Kamal Ahmed from the Sunday Telegraph to be its new main Economics Editor - ie the person who will actually be providing commentary on programmes like the BBC1 10pm news to an audience nearly 10 times greater than Newsnight.
Weldon is going to be the Economics Correspondent on Newsnight - he is going to have far, far, far less scope for editorialising than all the BBC's main political presenters or news reporters - and that's before you factor in he'll only be seen by a miniscule audience.
Andrew Neil on This Week with Owen Jones last night was editorialising about 1000 times as much as anything Weldon might do.
Was Kamal Ahmed (who he?) a Tory CANDIDATE in 2010? Because that's Duncan Weldon's CV. He isn't just a lefty, he was a Labour would-be politician, and an advisor to Harriet Harman.
Can you imagine Newsnight appointing a notable ex-UKIP candidate as EU editor? No. It is unimaginable. Yet they will happily appoint an ex-Labour candidate, and well-known, self-confessed lefty economist, as economics editor.
As I say, it is the lack of self awareness that will kill the BBC. I think they just can't help themselves. And some of us, who would otherwise support it, will, because of this, happily see the BBC die.
Can you imagine the BBC appointing the former head of the Oxford university Conservative association to be political editor?
Or the Lib Dems appointing a member of the Cambridge University club as their leader ?
What they should offer you is no more than what you deserve:
- A promise that the government faithfully fulfills its obligations to provide the basics that a modern society needs: a stable legal and economic environment, investment in the necessary infrastructure to secure long-term growth, an effective safety net to help those who run into difficulties, a reasonable standard of living for those retired members of society who have contributed to building the country in which we live, decent healthcare for everyone regardless of means, and a stellar education system to ensure that everyone has the ability to achieve their full potential
- That they should avoid unnecessary foreign adventures, while standing up for the values that Britain holds dear and acting as a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment to the world: God grant that this day we may light such a candle in [Britain] as shall never be put out
- That they should do this as efficiently as possible with the minimum of wastage or unnecessary administration
- That they should tax the minimum necessary to achieve the above, as well as developing a plan to repay out outstanding debts
Apart from that, they should promise to get out of your face, and let you and your family live their lives as you see fit
Sounds bloody good to me, Mr. Charles. Now if you could just point me to a party that is offering just that I will be very grateful.
What they should offer you is no more than what you deserve:
- A promise that the government faithfully fulfills its obligations to provide the basics that a modern society needs: a stable legal and economic environment, investment in the necessary infrastructure to secure long-term growth, an effective safety net to help those who run into difficulties, a reasonable standard of living for those retired members of society who have contributed to building the country in which we live, decent healthcare for everyone regardless of means, and a stellar education system to ensure that everyone has the ability to achieve their full potential
- That they should avoid unnecessary foreign adventures, while standing up for the values that Britain holds dear and acting as a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment to the world: God grant that this day we may light such a candle in [Britain] as shall never be put out
- That they should do this as efficiently as possible with the minimum of wastage or unnecessary administration
- That they should tax the minimum necessary to achieve the above, as well as developing a plan to repay out outstanding debts
Apart from that, they should promise to get out of your face, and let you and your family live their lives as you see fit
Sounds bloody good to me, Mr. Charles. Now if you could just point me to a party that is offering just that I will be very grateful.
I still think the next election is in Labour's hands, but it's starting to look like they might let it slip away. They need to come up with a coherent message of what the Labour Party is for, and fast -- and "we won't be as bad as the Tories" or "we'll do some technocratic reorganisation of public services" will absolutely NOT suffice.
Then they'll probably lose the election.
However, I'm hoping if they go behind in the polls, it might finally be the wake-up call they need that this ultra-safe New Labour defensive style isn't even going to succeed in getting them elected, so they may as well be radical.
What can they offer that is radical? They'll just spend years blaming the Coalition for leaving them no option but to carry on with more of the same, just as the Coalition blame Labour now.
What can Milliband do for me, a Public Sector, union member, middle aged ,married with kids who are just about to set off to Uni, or in the last years of school, with a joint income (at the minute!) of around 34 grand a year gross. I just about know what to expect from Cameron, but what is Milliband's proposal?
What they should offer you is no more than what you deserve:
- A promise that the government faithfully fulfills its obligations to provide the basics that a modern society needs: a stable legal and economic environment, investment in the necessary infrastructure to secure long-term growth, an effective safety net to help those who run into difficulties, a reasonable standard of living for those retired members of society who have contributed to building the country in which we live, decent healthcare for everyone regardless of means, and a stellar education system to ensure that everyone has the ability to achieve their full potential
- That they should avoid unnecessary foreign adventures, while standing up for the values that Britain holds dear and acting as a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment to the world: God grant that this day we may light such a candle in [Britain] as shall never be put out
- That they should do this as efficiently as possible with the minimum of wastage or unnecessary administration
- That they should tax the minimum necessary to achieve the above, as well as developing a plan to repay out outstanding debts
Apart from that, they should promise to get out of your face, and let you and your family live their lives as you see fit
BBC has just appointed Kamal Ahmed from the Sunday Telegraph to be its new main Economics Editor - ie the person who will actually be providing commentary on programmes like the BBC1 10pm news to an audience nearly 10 times greater than Newsnight.
Weldon is going to be the Economics Correspondent on Newsnight - he is going to have far, far, far less scope for editorialising than all the BBC's main political presenters or news reporters - and that's before you factor in he'll only be seen by a miniscule audience.
Andrew Neil on This Week with Owen Jones last night was editorialising about 1000 times as much as anything Weldon might do.
Was Kamal Ahmed (who he?) a Tory CANDIDATE in 2010? Because that's Duncan Weldon's CV. He isn't just a lefty, he was a Labour would-be politician, and an advisor to Harriet Harman.
Can you imagine Newsnight appointing a notable ex-UKIP candidate as EU editor? No. It is unimaginable. Yet they will happily appoint an ex-Labour candidate, and well-known, self-confessed lefty economist, as economics editor.
As I say, it is the lack of self awareness that will kill the BBC. I think they just can't help themselves. And some of us, who would otherwise support it, will, because of this, happily see the BBC die.
The Chairman of the BBC Trust is a Tory. A Wet. Presumably that doe snot count. He influences the appointments of the senior people alongwith others.
Duncan Weldon is compromised by his CV. He'll have to be pro-Coalitition and anti-Labour if he wants to look honest, otherwise he'll become a laughing stock.
Met Tony Benn a couple of times. Always drew a crowd and always drew a crowd.
He asked some really good questions. Such as...
"If one meets a powerful person ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” "
Good example of how badly the 'no' campaign are handling this. If they win it will be despite their best efforts.
In what way is this "bad"? Vote for independence and you create a foreign country to your south. That foreign country may want different immigration and border arrangements to you. Fair enough surely. Don't vote for independence and there's no chance of border controls. That's the choice. Pointing that out is hardly "bad".
Unless we're in Salmond world, of course, where independence seems to mean a cherry picked half way house.
Is Tony Benn the new Diana? The airwaves seem to be taken over by the sage of the age. Let me protest. The greatest concern in his life was Tony Benn - also known as Lord Stansgate and Anthony Wedgwood Benn. Who could be so self-centred that they thought anyone would be interested in their daily musings on issues of the day? Who would consistently re-invent themself and expect - indeed demand - that they would be indulged. He was the ultimate north London intellectual - the working class can kiss my ar*e.
The point is that there are both Con and Lab supporters all over the BBC.
If you look at the really senior important presenters - ie the ones who really can influence the agenda and debate - ie Dimbleby, Paxman, Neil, Marr, Robinson then overall I think it's hard to argue that it isn't pretty fair.
If anything, it could be argued it is skewed to the right - Neil in particular has masses of airtime and whilst he interviews everyone hard the background tone especially on This Week is arguably right of centre - and I say that as a Con supporter.
It's not worth even talking about this Weldon appointment because he is in a Mickey Mouse position where he cannot do anything even if he wanted to.
What they should offer you is no more than what you deserve:
- A promise that the government faithfully fulfills its obligations to provide the basics that a modern society needs: a stable legal and economic environment, investment in the necessary infrastructure to secure long-term growth, an effective safety net to help those who run into difficulties, a reasonable standard of living for those retired members of society who have contributed to building the country in which we live, decent healthcare for everyone regardless of means, and a stellar education system to ensure that everyone has the ability to achieve their full potential
- That they should avoid unnecessary foreign adventures, while standing up for the values that Britain holds dear and acting as a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment to the world: God grant that this day we may light such a candle in [Britain] as shall never be put out
- That they should do this as efficiently as possible with the minimum of wastage or unnecessary administration
- That they should tax the minimum necessary to achieve the above, as well as developing a plan to repay out outstanding debts
Apart from that, they should promise to get out of your face, and let you and your family live their lives as you see fit
Sounds bloody good to me, Mr. Charles. Now if you could just point me to a party that is offering just that I will be very grateful.
The Democrats come pretty close...
The US Democrats I take it you mean ?
Yes. The LibDems are just Labourites who lack the courage to stand up and be counted.
BBC has just appointed Kamal Ahmed from the Sunday Telegraph to be its new main Economics Editor - ie the person who will actually be providing commentary on programmes like the BBC1 10pm news to an audience nearly 10 times greater than Newsnight.
Weldon is going to be the Economics Correspondent on Newsnight - he is going to have far, far, far less scope for editorialising than all the BBC's main political presenters or news editors (ie Robinson, Peston, Ahmed) - and that's before you factor in he'll only be seen by a miniscule audience.
Andrew Neil on This Week with Owen Jones last night was editorialising about 1,000 times as much as anything Weldon might do.
Before the McAlpine affair, I wouldn't have thought that Newsnight had the capability of creating malicious headlines for weeks, getting the BBC's D-G sacked, hanging a victim out to dry, and smearing an innocent elderly and ill man. All when many other parts of the BBC knew the truth behind the story.
Newsnight is powerful, even without a vast viewership. So yes, it does matter.
Tony Benn was a legend in his own mind.. Once all the usual requests for comments about the departed have been done, one will be better able to view him for what he actually was and did... History will be unkind to him.
Tony Benn was a legend in his own mind.. Once all the usual requests for comments about the departed have been done, one will be better able to view him for what he actually was and did... History will be unkind to him.
Benn was a prophet not a king. Right on the EU and the Euro. Right on Iraq. He was always right on the big questions, always wrong on the small ones.
Tony Benn was a legend in his own mind.. Once all the usual requests for comments about the departed have been done, one will be better able to view him for what he actually was and did... History will be unkind to him.
Benn was a prophet not a king. Right on the EU and the Euro. Right on Iraq. He was always right on the big questions, always wrong on the small ones.
He will be remembered for three political achievements...
Tony Benn was a legend in his own mind.. Once all the usual requests for comments about the departed have been done, one will be better able to view him for what he actually was and did... History will be unkind to him.
Benn was a prophet not a king. Right on the EU and the Euro. Right on Iraq. He was always right on the big questions, always wrong on the small ones.
A prophet? He only prophesied what he would say or do next.. He split the Labour Party and let Maggie and the Tories in . He supported the miners.. The Euro?? excuse me, everyone knows the Euro is destined to fail in the end.(if it doesn't " fail" it will cost holders of it a fortune)
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Tony Benn was a legend in his own mind.. Once all the usual requests for comments about the departed have been done, one will be better able to view him for what he actually was and did... History will be unkind to him.
Benn was a prophet not a king. Right on the EU and the Euro. Right on Iraq. He was always right on the big questions, always wrong on the small ones.
A prophet? He only prophesied what he would say or do next.. He split the Labour Party and let Maggie and the Tories in . He supported the miners.. The Euro?? excuse me, everyone knows the Euro is destined to fail in the end.(if it doesn't " fail" it will cost holders of it a fortune)
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Rewriting history there I am afraid SquareRoot.
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
Weldon will be economics editor during the 2015 GE (if the absurdity of his appointment doesn't make him resign over the weekend). How can he position himself as an honest broker, interviewing Coalition ministers, in the run up to that election?
As soon as he asks an awkward question, said minister will be able to come back with: why are you asking me this, Duncan, is it because you were a LABOUR CANDIDATE in the last election?
What will he do? Deny it? Admit it but then try and pretend it somehow isn't relevant to his aggressive questioning of Tories?
This is the most ridiculous hiring in the history of the BBC, and I am taking into account the elevation of Chris "fatty" Patten as Grand Aunty PooBah.
Difference between local and national election candidate, in my view.
As I wrote below, I was extremely surprised when I saw he got the job, but he isn't a nut. You'd find his economics much more sound than, say, Paul Mason's. He is, to date, a consciously partisan hack - but that's exactly what he's been paid for. He's done pretty well at it too. He's one of the few Labour economics figures I've seen spar confidently with Jeff Randall, for instance. If he had stuck on the political route, I think he'd be far stronger frontbench material than, say, Rachel Reeves. Whether he is equally talented at feigning impartiality when his paycheck depends on it, remains to be seen.
I don't mind a spot of bias, even on the Beeb - I'd rather be exposed to a good mix of opinions and angles than an attempt at homogeneous blandness. But this appointment already sounds like another well-aimed shot in the foot. If the BBC doesn't want to be a political football, they ought to be avoiding this kind of thing like the plague.
Can SeanT pull it back in the second half, or will he hit the economic crossbar? Will any of the crowd be watching or, like the ref, will they be comfortably in bed?
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Sadly Nationalists like Eck Salmond and Lego Hair Sturgeon have held back Scottish demographics.
If SeanT wants to take me on I will happily have a £100 bet with him at evens re the following.
I say: Weldon will NOT conduct a live BBC TV interview with any Minister between now and the 2015 GE.
SeanT says: He will.
Definition of interview: Must be live and last more than 60 seconds. Must be shown on BBC Newsnight or any other programme on BBC1 or BBC2. Pre-recorded clips of a Minister speaking which are then inserted in a film report do not count.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Malcolm you do talk utter shite at times. The hall was almost full and there were several hundred young Tories under the age of 30 present. As for your usual crap about there being almost no Tories in Scotland, in 2010 for every 6 votes the SNP got, the Scottish Tories got 5.
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Sadly Nationalists like Eck Salmond and Lego Hair Sturgeon have held back Scottish demographics.
Strangely Scotland has shown its first real population increase since 1939 in the last 10 years. However, comparing Scotland to Ireland:
Irish population 1923 - 3,014,000 Irish population 2011 - 4,658,825
Scottish population 1921- 4,882,407 Scottish population 2011 - 5,295,000
Ireland and the UK are exempt from Schengen but if Scotland seeks EU membership it would have to agree to enter Schengen so both rUK and Ireland would be entitled to insist on border checks.
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Sadly Nationalists like Eck Salmond and Lego Hair Sturgeon have held back Scottish demographics.
That statement is remarkable for its reduction of politics to a matter of personal name-calling. And for its complete lack of chronological awareness - it is only in the last few years (under a SNP government for most or all of that time, though I won't go into whether that is correlation and also causation) that the population decline has reversed. You are obviously conferring remarkable powers on Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon if you think that they can affect what has already happened, decades and centuries into the past.
A prophet? He only prophesied what he would say or do next.. He split the Labour Party and let Maggie and the Tories in . He supported the miners.. The Euro?? excuse me, everyone knows the Euro is destined to fail in the end.(if it doesn't " fail" it will cost holders of it a fortune)
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Rewriting history there I am afraid SquareRoot.
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
Yes we are all lied to by the Political elite of the day.. as we are now and ever will be.
If you think Tony Benn was truthful, I feel sorry for you, bar cherry-picking bits here and there.. In the end Benn talked nonsense to those who were prepared to listen..
Can I just say there is nothing I hate more than writing letters of condolence.
I hate it. And I suck at them.
It's the fact of the letter, not the writer's skill, that counts. Just do it.
Apparently heartless but actually valuable tip - if you keep the ones you get when you lose someone close to you, you will have a valuable source of precedents.
Dear dear , Tories get about 300 in a 1200 seater auditorium for Cameron speech, the surge is on. A sea of empty seats and not a person under 50 to be seen, desperate.
If you've only got 300 people it looks a lot more impressive if you book a room for 250 ("they were standing in the aisles...").
Who was the fruitcake who booked a 1200 capacity venue for a Scottish Tory meeting?
Malcolm you do talk utter shite at times. The hall was almost full and there were several hundred young Tories under the age of 30 present. As for your usual crap about there being almost no Tories in Scotland, in 2010 for every 6 votes the SNP got, the Scottish Tories got 5.
But surely you are talking (presumably) about the 2010 UK General Election. That was under a FPTP system and the Scots always show a great deal of tactical voting, and as usual voted large numbers of Labour and LD to keep the Tories out.
The recent polling such as Survation is showing a very different picture in terms of relative votes for the future: early days yet but Labour ought to be worrying when even Labour voters prefer Mr Cameron to Ms Lamont as a leader.
The true level of Tory support is more like what is seen in the Scottish parliament without FPTP to distort things. Not negligible but not enough to do more than hang onto the coattails of a larger party, or negotiate some specific achievements on occasion (as with the 1000 polis in the SNP minority administration).
Can I just say there is nothing I hate more than writing letters of condolence.
I hate it. And I suck at them.
Yes, I hate writing them and I usually hate getting them. When I kick the bucket, everyone please say "oh dear" and move on, eh?
That said, the thought that I've sometimes genuinely helps people is the point that the key thing about life is the quality, not the length, and if the person you're writing to is distressed enough to want your letter, (s)he probably did a lot to make the deceased's life something special. Worth hanging on to that.
Can I just say there is nothing I hate more than writing letters of condolence.
I hate it. And I suck at them.
It's the fact of the letter, not the writer's skill, that counts. Just do it.
Apparently heartless but actually valuable tip - if you keep the ones you get when you lose someone close to you, you will have a valuable source of precedents.
I know and have done it. It's just such a shock when a friend and someone I hugely respect dies in such an untimely accident.
Amused to see SeanT unable to admit a simple error, after the chap he was accusing of lying points it out. Terrible shortage of honest debate here, eh?
A prophet? He only prophesied what he would say or do next.. He split the Labour Party and let Maggie and the Tories in . He supported the miners.. The Euro?? excuse me, everyone knows the Euro is destined to fail in the end.(if it doesn't " fail" it will cost holders of it a fortune)
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Rewriting history there I am afraid SquareRoot.
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
Yes we are all lied to by the Political elite of the day.. as we are now and ever will be.
If you think Tony Benn was truthful, I feel sorry for you, bar cherry-picking bits here and there.. In the end Benn talked nonsense to those who were prepared to listen..
Absolute garbage. You really are making a complete fool of yourself here. Benn stood against the EEC /EU from the start whatever the political elite wanted. The fact your are so blind to that fact just shows how closed minded you are about anyone who does not completely conform to your political view.
When faced with bereavement, and In my profession it is not unusual, it is often difficult to find words that are not cliches. Nonetheless the words need saying.
The most important thing is to be a good listener, that is usually the thing that is really needed. Some will not want to take up the offer, some will, but both appreciate the offer.
Can I just say there is nothing I hate more than writing letters of condolence.
I hate it. And I suck at them.
Yes, I hate writing them and I usually hate getting them. When I kick the bucket, everyone please say "oh dear" and move on, eh?
That said, the thought that I've sometimes genuinely helps people is the point that the key thing about life is the quality, not the length, and if the person you're writing to is distressed enough to want your letter, (s)he probably did a lot to make the deceased's life something special. Worth hanging on to that.
Amused to see SeanT unable to admit a simple error, after the chap he was accusing of lying points it out. Terrible shortage of honest debate here, eh?
Well there seems to be a decent wager at stake so eventually we will see who is right.
However as others have said this is another little tack in the Corporation coffin.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Sadly Nationalists like Eck Salmond and Lego Hair Sturgeon have held back Scottish demographics.
Strangely Scotland has shown its first real population increase since 1939 in the last 10 years. However, comparing Scotland to Ireland:
Irish population 1923 - 3,014,000 Irish population 2011 - 4,658,825
Scottish population 1921- 4,882,407 Scottish population 2011 - 5,295,000
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
He is a quite unique politician that went from centre to far left after he gained a cabinet post. Generally in the Labour Party you have to go the other direction just to gain the post.
It is a sign of how politics have moved that Benns ideas seem so radical now. The 1983 manifesto, with its unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from NATO and the EEC, and widespread nationalisation and repeal of restrictions on trade unions gained a good percentage of the vote at 29%. This was the manifesto that Tony Blair was first elected on. It would not be mainstream now, in Labour at least, but it was not far from the mainstream then.
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
It is a sign of how politics have moved that Benns ideas seem so radical now. The 1983 manifesto, with its unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from NATO and the EEC, and widespread nationalisation and repeal of restrictions on trade unions gained a good percentage of the vote at 29%. This was the manifesto that Tony Blair was first elected on. It would not be mainstream now, in Labour at least, but it was not far from the mainstream then.
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
Not sure politics have moved on that much - wasn't the 1983 Labour manifesto called the "longest suicide note in history" by Gerald Kaufman?
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
It is a great description, but Labours vote was not to be sneezed at, and until the Falklands war a fairly radical (by modern standards) Labour party was set for a return to power.
That manifesto was signed up to by a lot of todays front bench, though they have moved on of course.
It is a sign of how politics have moved that Benns ideas seem so radical now. The 1983 manifesto, with its unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from NATO and the EEC, and widespread nationalisation and repeal of restrictions on trade unions gained a good percentage of the vote at 29%. This was the manifesto that Tony Blair was first elected on. It would not be mainstream now, in Labour at least, but it was not far from the mainstream then.
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
Not sure politics have moved on that much - wasn't the 1983 Labour manifesto called the "longest suicide note in history" by Gerald Kaufman?
FoxinSox Indeed, outside of maybe Respect and the Greens (and UKIP on the EEC). However, Miliband has moved Labour back in a more left-wing direction and was indeed an aide to Benn, (and of course ironically many of the Banks were nationalised after the 2008 crash)
It is a great description, but Labours vote was not to be sneezed at, and until the Falklands war a fairly radical (by modern standards) Labour party was set for a return to power.
That manifesto was signed up to by a lot of todays front bench, though they have moved on of course.
It is a sign of how politics have moved that Benns ideas seem so radical now. The 1983 manifesto, with its unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from NATO and the EEC, and widespread nationalisation and repeal of restrictions on trade unions gained a good percentage of the vote at 29%. This was the manifesto that Tony Blair was first elected on. It would not be mainstream now, in Labour at least, but it was not far from the mainstream then.
compouter2 By the eighties he was proposing to nationalise virtually all industry, the only person he may have been rightwing of was Breshnev! (I also forgot to add he opposed the UK's entry into the EEC)
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
Not sure politics have moved on that much - wasn't the 1983 Labour manifesto called the "longest suicide note in history" by Gerald Kaufman?
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His grandfathers family opened an institute for homeless children in London. His grandfather worked in furniture and he started a furniture paper called The Cabinet Maker which he eventually sold to Tony Benns uncle to start his life in politics. Benns dad followed his grandad straight into politics, however, he joined the RAF in the first word war and was decorated for his efforts. He went back into politics a second time and then returned to the RAF for the second world war where he ended up as an Air Commodore. Tony Benn joined the RAF towards the end of World Ward Two and flew in South Africa and Rhodesia. He joined the BBC for a short period after the war then started off on his path in politics. If that is living off the taxpayer....so be it.
I am sure the new Newsnight Economics Editor is going to have absolutely no problem remaining impartial and give the shadow chancellor a hard time in crucial interviews running up to the next GE.
Roy Hattersley 'Benn was not a team player and more responsible than anyone else for keeping Labour out of power between 1979-1997'. Interestingly Healey too was very critical of his political stance, indeed some Tories have been more fulsome in tribute of Benn than more moderate Labour figures
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His grandfathers family opened an institute for homeless children in London. His grandfather workd in furniture and he started a furniture paper called The Cabinet maker which he eventually sold to Tony Benns uncle to start his life in politics. Benns dad followed his grandad straight into politics, however, he fjoined the RAF in the first word war and was decorated for his efforts. He went back into politics a second time and tehn returned to the RAF for the second world war where he ended up as an Air Commodore. Tony Benn joined the RAF and the end of World Ward two and flew in South Africa and Rhodesia. He joined the BBC for a short period after the war then started off on his path in politics. If that is living off the taxpayer....so be it.
Took you long enough to look that up, Wikipedia running slowly this evening?
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
I think his brother Michael was killed in action during WWII, so I suppose one of them died off the taxpayer.
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His grandfathers family opened an institute for homeless children in London. His grandfather workd in furniture and he started a furniture paper called The Cabinet maker which he eventually sold to Tony Benns uncle to start his life in politics. Benns dad followed his grandad straight into politics, however, he fjoined the RAF in the first word war and was decorated for his efforts. He went back into politics a second time and tehn returned to the RAF for the second world war where he ended up as an Air Commodore. Tony Benn joined the RAF and the end of World Ward two and flew in South Africa and Rhodesia. He joined the BBC for a short period after the war then started off on his path in politics. If that is living off the taxpayer....so be it.
Took you long enough to look that up, Wikipedia running slowly this evening?
Only took you three minutes to write your response...go you!
Tony Benn signed up for military service and active combat aged 18 in 1943 in the midst of the war, though seems to have not been in combat. His older brother died on a training flight. He was active in the peace movement later on, but did his bit at the time.
If only our modern politicos would sign up to fight in the wars that they start.
I only found out today that Tony Benns peerage was a very recent creation, dating only to 1941, and also that both his father and grandfather were active politically. It is quite a political dynasty.
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back in, polls showed most SDP voters preferred Thatcher to Kinnock.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His grandfathers family opened an institute for homeless children in London. His grandfather worked in furniture and he started a furniture paper called The Cabinet Maker which he eventually sold to Tony Benns uncle to start his life in politics. Benns dad followed his grandad straight into politics, however, he joined the RAF in the first word war and was decorated for his efforts. He went back into politics a second time and then returned to the RAF for the second world war where he ended up as an Air Commodore. Tony Benn joined the RAF towards the end of World Ward Two and flew in South Africa and Rhodesia. He joined the BBC for a short period after the war then started off on his path in politics. If that is living off the taxpayer....so be it.
What I want to know is why the BBC hasn't considered Lenin as a possible Director General.
Yes, he's dead, and pseudo-mummified in a granitic tomb in Red Square, Moscow, but in all other respects - judging by recent BBC recruitment - he is perfect for the job.
What I want to know is why the BBC hasn't considered Lenin as a possible Director General.
Yes, he's dead, and pseudo-mummified in a granitic tomb in Red Square, Moscow, but in all other respects - judging by recent BBC recruitment - he is perfect for the job.
Leaving the Union was a historical error. Ireland's population would be double its present level if you hadn't.
Just like Scotland, eh?
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Sadly Nationalists like Eck Salmond and Lego Hair Sturgeon have held back Scottish demographics.
Strangely Scotland has shown its first real population increase since 1939 in the last 10 years. However, comparing Scotland to Ireland:
Irish population 1923 - 3,014,000 Irish population 2011 - 4,658,825
Scottish population 1921- 4,882,407 Scottish population 2011 - 5,295,000
Don't the SNP depend on Mr Salmond? If I recall correctly, when he retired to Westminster, SNP fortunes went downhill, and he had to return to scottish politics.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back lklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His grandfathers family opened an institute for homeless children in London. His grandfather worked in furniture and he started a furniture paper called The Cabinet Maker which he eventually sold to Tony Benns uncle to start his life in politics. Benns dad followed his grandad straight into politics, however, he joined the RAF in the first word war and was decorated for his efforts. He went back into politics a second time and then returned to the RAF for the second world war where he ended up as an Air Commodore. Tony Benn joined the RAF towards the end of World Ward Two and flew in South Africa and Rhodesia. He joined the BBC for a short period after the war then started off on his path in politics. If that is living off the taxpayer....so be it.
So he didn't actually fight. A contrast with his hero Chairman Mao, who was, as Benn said in his diares "‘undoubtedly one of the greatest – if not the greatest – figures of the 20th century."
To be fair, when it became obvious Mao has murdered maybe 50 million people, Benn qualified his remarks:
"I’m a great admirer of Mao. He made mistakes, because everybody does, but it seems to me that the development of the countryside and so on was very sensible"
What I want to know is why the BBC hasn't considered Lenin as a possible Director General.
Yes, he's dead, and pseudo-mummified in a granitic tomb in Red Square, Moscow, but in all other respects - judging by recent BBC recruitment - he is perfect for the job.
"How do you reconcile being the greatest exponent of democracy with your historical support for Mao, and the Soviet bloc? PAUL BROWN, CROUCH END, LONDON
History will record the Mao period as a dynasty like the Ming and the Tang and I suppose the foundation of the new China had something to do with Mao's achievement in getting rid of foreign domination. The Soviet Union was invaded by Britain just after the revolution and the Second World War could have been avoided if the Anglo-Soviet alliance had been built then. The Soviet Union was our ally when America was still neutral and the sacrifices of the Russian people helped to turn the tide against Hitler."
I think that Benns description of Mao at the time of his death as the 20th centuries greatest figure is a recognition of status and importance rather than an endorsement of all his policies.
SquareRoot Benn did not let Maggie back lklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
I don't know if it has been mentioned on here, however, in his early years of being an MP he was on the right wing of the party, or as he put it at the time "I'm on the right wing of the middle of the road with a strong radical bias,"
His grandfather was originally a Progressive councillor and then Liberal MP and his father was originally a Liberal MP who crossed the floor to Labour.
And his son is an MP. Did any if them do anything other than live off the taxpayer?
His
Lefties: puke.
On the other hand, the fact that he thinks Chairman Mao - one of the most evil men in the annals of humanity - is some kind of f*cking HERO, really IS his fault.
Tony Benn was a foolish, dangerous, narcissistic prick. I hope God forgives him; I find it difficult.
Overnight last night, Uncle Sam suddenly went silent and stopped issuing press releases and making comments about MH370, as US assets were moved to the north west and south west of Malaysia, and remained quiet all day - the information from the scene was distributed in a more organized and coherent manner then this afternoon in the space of about 30 minutes, the NY times, CNN and Fox News all receive the same leak I linked to below.
That pretty much confirms that the US is taking a leadership role, with the NTSB and FAA having a large presence on site. The NTSB is without peer in the air accident investigation business.
Uncle Sam isn't going to divert ships without a VERY good reason.
Overnight last night, Uncle Sam suddenly went silent and stopped issuing press releases and making comments about MH370, as US assets were moved to the north west and south west of Malaysia, and remained quiet all day - the information from the scene was distributed in a more organized and coherent manner then this afternoon in the space of about 30 minutes, the NY times, CNN and Fox News all receive the same leak I linked to below.
That pretty much confirms that the US is taking a leadership role, with the NTSB and FAA having a large presence on site. The NTSB is without peer in the air accident investigation business.
Uncle Sam isn't going to divert ships without a VERY good reason.
I'm not sure they know what happened, but the point is they're not going to take any risks regarding a potential 9/11 situation. No matter how unlikely that is, until the plane is found it can't be ruled out.
It may seem far-fetched to argue that they were intending to land the plane somewhere like the Andaman Islands before demanding a ransom, etc.
There's just one problem with that way of thinking: what we actually know they did do for the first couple of hours of the flight was itself totally far-fetched. No-one would believe they could have got away with it without being spotted. So therefore the rest of their plan may have been equally far-fetched.
"In an interview in the Financial Times, Mr Gove compared Mr Cameron’s team and cabinet to that of the Eton Educated former Tory Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, who was heavily criticised for nepotism. Mr Gove attended a state primary before receiving a scholarship to go to a fee paying school. He said: “At the beginning of the 20th century, the Conservative cabinet was called Hotel Cecil. The phrase ‘Bob’s your uncle’ came about and all the rest of it. It is preposterous.”
Is this a preemptive strike because he knows there is something is coming out this weekend in the papers.....or is he just stirring the shit again?
Overnight last night, Uncle Sam suddenly went silent and stopped issuing press releases and making comments about MH370, as US assets were moved to the north west and south west of Malaysia, and remained quiet all day - the information from the scene was distributed in a more organized and coherent manner then this afternoon in the space of about 30 minutes, the NY times, CNN and Fox News all receive the same leak I linked to below.
That pretty much confirms that the US is taking a leadership role, with the NTSB and FAA having a large presence on site. The NTSB is without peer in the air accident investigation business.
Uncle Sam isn't going to divert ships without a VERY good reason.
The source of the 'up to five hours pinging story' was Inmarsat as was suggested last night.
A very terse statement was made by Inmarsat today acknowledging that it's agent SITA received data and that they had supplied all pertinent information to the Malaysian Authorities.
All other information is either speculation or unofficial insider briefing.
What is interesting though about the speculative development based on the unpublished Inmarsat data is that the flight path west of the Malayan peninsular followed very strictly the borderlines of different air traffic control areas and stuck strictly to known 'waypoints'.
Consult this plotted flight path published (or at least republished) on PPRuNE:
Look at the route. It's not part of a recognised route structure [I assume he means established commercial flight route]. It's following the fir boundary. Why do this? Because if you want to cause max confusion, and you are in the know, you do this to play one airspace against the other, by flying along the boundary instead of,across it until you are outside of radar coverage.
To be complete, other commentators have given different explanations for the flight following the plotted path, such as a pilot with limited skills at the controls using the plane's auto piloting facility to track between pre-programmed 'waypoints'.
If the plotted flight path is correct (a big 'if') then it is clear whoever was driving knew at least the basics of how to fly a Boeing 777, probably more.
The source of the 'up to five hours pinging story' was Inmarsat as was suggested last night.
A very terse statement was made by Inmarsat today acknowledging that it's agent SITA received data and that they had supplied all pertinent information to the Malaysian Authorities.
All other information is either speculation or unofficial insider briefing.
What is interesting though about the speculative development based on the unpublished Inmarsat data is that the flight path west of the Malayan peninsular followed very strictly the borderlines of different air traffic control areas and stuck strictly to known 'waypoints'.
Consult this plotted flight path published (or at least republished) on PPRuNE:
Look at the route. It's not part of a recognised route structure [I assume he means established commercial flight route]. It's following the fir boundary. Why do this? Because if you want to cause max confusion, and you are in the know, you do this to play one airspace against the other, by flying along the boundary instead of,across it until you are outside of radar coverage.
To be complete, other commentators have given different explanations for the flight following the plotted path, such as a pilot with limited skills at the controls using the plane's auto piloting facility to track between pre-programmed 'waypoints'.
If the plotted flight path is correct (a big 'if') then it is clear whoever was driving knew at least the basics of how to fly a Boeing 777, probably more.
Interesting.
My point was that after days of misinformation, wrong information, countries arguing with each other and refusing to answer radar questions, suddenly over the last 24 hours we are starting to get coherent information, such as the over-mapping of the Inmarsat data with the military radar etc, and Malaysia is on board, saying openly they are now working with the US, and no longer denying everything.
Do we have any answers here? No. Are we further along the path towards resolution? We are at last starting along that path, after a week of dysfunctionality.
What today's revelations also confirm is that the pinging to Inmarsat was done by the engines independently.
"What is interesting though about the speculative development based on the unpublished Inmarsat data is that the flight path west of the Malayan peninsular followed very strictly the borderlines of different air traffic control areas and stuck strictly to known 'waypoints'."
Yes, the waypoints were Igari, Vampi, Gival, Igrex.
I read somewhere that this may not necessarily mean the plane followed the strange back-and-forth pattern of the middle two waypoints: it may just have flown directly from Igari to Igrex and been close to Vampi and Gival.
On the other hand, the person flying the plane may have followed the waypoints precisely if this meant he was less likely to arouse the attention of air traffic control.
My point was that after days of misinformation, wrong information, countries arguing with each other and refusing to answer radar questions, suddenly over the last 24 hours we are starting to get coherent information, such as the over-mapping of the Inmarsat data with the military radar etc, and Malaysia is on board, saying openly they are now working with the US, and no longer denying everything.
Do we have any answers here? No. Are we further along the path towards resolution? We are at last starting along that path, after a week of dysfunctionality.
What today's revelations also confirm is that the pinging to Inmarsat was done by the engines independently.
Tim
A few other gleaned tidbits.
1. The speculative flight path as shown on the linked map represents only 2.5 hours flying time. MH370 would have had at least 4.5 hours (assuming no extraordinary fuel loss) and maybe up to 7 hours (depending on its initial fuel loading which hasn't been released to the public). So the end of the plotted path isn't meant to suggest where the plane may have crashed. It is just the last tracked point.
2. It does not necessary follow that 'ping' messages transmitted from the plane to ground stations (not direct to satellites) represent actual flight. Followup to 9/11 revealed that a UA175 message was received by a ground station 20 minutes after it was known to have crashed.
A long article, using UA175 messages as its basis, sets out the message formats and 'pinging' process here: http://bit.ly/1ifxOCN
The facts are used to support a conspiracy theory but there is a lot of useful data there which will be relevant even if a reader wants to discard the author's conclusions. The article certainly explains why the communication system needs to transmit 'id and locational' messages even if no pilot or flight systems reporting data is carried in the message.
3. I am not sure that it is 'engine originated messaging' only which has been collected. It may be that two stories are being muddled here. If you read the linked article, I would be interested to hear whether you make the same assumption.
I'd be interested to know why some reports say the Americans think the plane may have headed in two possible directions, either north or south. Why not west for example?
"What is interesting though about the speculative development based on the unpublished Inmarsat data is that the flight path west of the Malayan peninsular followed very strictly the borderlines of different air traffic control areas and stuck strictly to known 'waypoints'."
Yes, the waypoints were Igari, Vampi, Gival, Igrex.
I read somewhere that this may not necessarily mean the plane followed the strange back-and-forth pattern of the middle two waypoints: it may just have flown directly from Igari to Igrex and been close to Vampi and Gival.
On the other hand, the person flying the plane may have followed the waypoints precisely if this meant he was less likely to arouse the attention of air traffic control.
That is a good blog article, factual and non-sensational.
If the suggested flight path is true this doesn't look like a sudden decompression, hypoxia, auto-pilot incident.
1. The speculative flight path as shown on the linked map represents only 2.5 hours flying time. MH370 would have had at least 4.5 hours (assuming no extraordinary fuel loss) and maybe up to 7 hours (depending on its initial fuel loading which hasn't been released to the public). So the end of the plotted path isn't meant to suggest where the plane may have crashed. It is just the last tracked point.
2. It does not necessary follow that 'ping' messages transmitted from the plane to ground stations (not direct to satellites) represent actual flight. Followup to 9/11 revealed that a UA175 message was received by a ground station 20 minutes after it was known to have crashed.
A long article, using UA175 messages as its basis, sets out the message formats and 'pinging' process here: http://bit.ly/1ifxOCN
The facts are used to support a conspiracy theory but there is a lot of useful data there which will be relevant even if a reader wants to discard the author's conclusions. The article certainly explains why the communication system needs to transmit 'id and locational' messages even if no pilot or flight systems reporting data is carried in the message.
3. I am not sure that it is 'engine originated messaging' only which has been collected. It may be that two stories are being muddled here. If you read the linked article, I would be interested to hear whether you make the same assumption.
Regarding your point 3, this is an extract from the NY Times arrticle I referenced. Reuters, AP, CNN and Fox have also mentioned this.
The radar track, which the Malaysian government has not released but says it has provided to the United States and China, showed that the plane then descended unevenly to 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang.
There, officials believe, the plane turned from a southwest-bound course, climbed to a higher altitude and flew northwest over the Strait of Malacca toward the Indian Ocean.
Investigators have also examined data transmitted from the plane’s Rolls-Royce engines that showed it descended 40,000 feet in the span of a minute, according to a senior American official briefed on the investigation. But investigators do not believe the readings are accurate because the aircraft would most likely have taken longer to fall such a distance.
This is all gloriously imprecise. I don't want to start conspiracy theories, but it's hard not to attribute some nefarious activity here.
The huge difference in the last 24 hours of the disappearance of obfuscation, denial etc is amazing.
It's difficult to believe the passengers would have willingly sat in their seats for five hours while knowing something odd was happening. It seems more likely the cockpit door was closed the whole time, and the passengers just assumed the plane was following its expected course. They had no idea what was going on.
I'd be interested to know why some reports say the Americans think the plane may have headed in two possible directions, either north or south. Why not west for example?
Why does the US think this? I don't know. Obviously they see something in the radar / engine overmap that makes them think this. Remember the original data has not been released.
It's difficult to believe the passengers would have willingly sat in their seats for five hours while knowing something odd was going on. It seems more likely the cockpit door was closed the whole time, and the passengers just assumed the plane was following its expected course. They had no idea what was going on.
You pull a hard 120 degree turn at cruising altitude and speed, then the subsequent flight path shows much variation in altitude and course. Trust me, you'd know something was going on.
Some years ago I was on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Cincinnati. About an hour into the flight, the plane suddenly performed a hard 180 degree sideslip turn, to lose as much altitude as possible as quickly as possible. I've never been so frightened in my life.
We then returned to Atlanta, no waiting your turn or lining up for approach, we just went straight down onto the runway, and pulled up in the middle of an army of fire fighting equipment.
It turned out that a potentially serious cockpit warning light had come on. Delta gave me 2 round trip tickets anywhere on their network and an apology.
It's difficult to believe the passengers would have willingly sat in their seats for five hours while knowing something odd was going on. It seems more likely the cockpit door was closed the whole time, and the passengers just assumed the plane was following its expected course. They had no idea what was going on.
You pull a hard 120 degree turn at cruising altitude and speed, then the subsequent flight path shows much variation in altitude and course. Trust me, you'd know something was going on.
Some years ago I was on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Cincinnati. About an hour into the flight, the plane suddenly performed a hard 180 degree sideslip turn, to lose as much altitude as possible as quickly as possible. I've never been so frightened in my life.
We then returned to Atlanta, no waiting your turn or lining up for approach, we just went straight down onto the runway, and pulled up in the middle of an army of fire fighting equipment.
It turned out that a potentially serious cockpit warning light had come on. Delta gave me 2 round trip tickets anywhere on their network and an apology.
They knew on the Malaysia plane..
Tim/Andy
To get gruesome.
The report of the plane ascending to 45000 ft then making a rapid descent of 40000 ft in 1 minute is attracting much comment. It needs taking in two parts:
1. Ascent to FL450. This is above the rated altitude for a Boeing 777 but most pilots commenting believe it would be within the plane's capabilities. A sudden catastrophic systems or hull failure could cause this but most believe it would have been a deliberate malicious act by whoever had control of the plane.
The reason being that this altitude would force the passengers and cabin crew into hypoxia and knock them out. There is some argument about whether it is within a pilot's power to terminate oxygen supply to the passenger cabin. Most think not but some argue that hypoxia would still take place but on a slower timescale. The cabin crew have access to independent mobile oxygen supplies. The theory is that at FL450 normal drop down oxygen masks would not be sufficient and that a pressurized mask would be needed.
That is the gruesome bit.
2. 40000 ft descent in one minute. Most of the pilots do not believe this is accurate information as they believe the velocity of such a descent would have caused the 777 hull to break up and to disintegrate. So a 40k descent followed by, say, 2 hours flight is considered so unlikely as to be untrue.
As to where the 777 went after its last 'ping' tracked flight path, I have read no comments or speculation on this so far.
The 40k ft descent in a minute has been comprehensively trashed as impossible by every talking head on the networks.
It seems fairly clear at this point that there was malevolent human intervention on the flight.
To what end? If you want to down the plane they could have done it right after taking control.
The only difference between the south China Sea and the Indian Ocean is depth - south China Sea is about 2-300 feet deep, whereas the Indian Ocean is thousands of feet deep. If you drop the plane at the point of takeover, it will certainly be found and retrieved. If you drop it way out into the ocean, it may well never be found.
But turning off the transponders, and flying the course they did, suggests they wanted to move surreptitiously.
That is not the action of someone who wants to crash the plane into the sea.
The truth is we still don't really have any facts - not that have been released anyway.
OK - now this is total conjecture, unsupported by any evidence at all.
What if the objective was to capture an intact aircraft? After taking it over you fly it roughly west, making it as radar invisible as possible, until you're out over the ocean and away from radar.
At that point you can turn and fly to any 'friendly' airstrip in south east Asia with a 7500' runway and a large hangar.
You're still left with what to do with 239 people, all of whom will have cell phones which they will turn on as soon as they are over land.
The other alternative might be like the plane which crashed in Shanksville PA on 9/11, where the passengers organized and charged the cockpit, at which point the hijackers flew the plane vertically down into the ground.
Regarding Inmarsat - it's apparently standard ICAO procedure that once an accident has occured, all announcements and data come from the lead organization handling the incident. Rolls Royce is equally forthcoming, for the same reason.
When China Airways Flight 006 (a 747) got into trouble in 1985 due to pilot error, they put it into a descent that took them down 10,000 feet in just 20 seconds. And they managed to pull out of the descent and land despite some serious damage to the airframe. That's a fall rate of 30,000 feet per minute; not too far off.
However, I'd much prefer sensor error as a reason. I've lost track: was the 0 feet altitude a primary radar return (in which case it would likely be more or less accurate), or reported by the plane via transponder?
Comments
But perfection is a work in progress.
Me neither.
He asked some really good questions. Such as...
"If one meets a powerful person ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” "
His answers weren't quite as good.
Unless we're in Salmond world, of course, where independence seems to mean a cherry picked half way house.
Wedgwood Benn. Who could be so self-centred that they thought anyone would be interested in their daily musings on issues of the day? Who would consistently re-invent themself and expect - indeed demand - that they would be indulged. He was the ultimate north London intellectual - the working class can kiss my ar*e.
If you look at the really senior important presenters - ie the ones who really can influence the agenda and debate - ie Dimbleby, Paxman, Neil, Marr, Robinson then overall I think it's hard to argue that it isn't pretty fair.
If anything, it could be argued it is skewed to the right - Neil in particular has masses of airtime and whilst he interviews everyone hard the background tone especially on This Week is arguably right of centre - and I say that as a Con supporter.
It's not worth even talking about this Weldon appointment because he is in a Mickey Mouse position where he cannot do anything even if he wanted to.
Newsnight is powerful, even without a vast viewership. So yes, it does matter.
Seems @BreakwellNeil @iankatz1000 radio silence on approaching Duncan Weldon first (why? who else was approached?) worth article, @holysmoke
Sean,louise is on the case ;-)
He will be doing reports. He won't be interviewing anyone - other than to get clips to insert in reports.
Right on the EU and the Euro.
Right on Iraq.
He was always right on the big questions, always wrong on the small ones.
The Post Office tower.
Concorde
Margaret Thatcher
lol
Stephanie Flanders was the Economics EDITOR OF BBC News - the job AHMED has been appointed to.
Weldon is the Economics CORRESPONDENT of Newsnight.
He is miles, miles, miles more junior.
You have not got a clue what you are talking about.
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Off topic, I hope between the bickering everyone's been watching 'I Was There: The Great War Interviews' on BBC2, a reminder that the words of the people who were there are worth thousands of hours of waffle from Hastings et al (also a reminder of what the BBC used to be).
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
As I wrote below, I was extremely surprised when I saw he got the job, but he isn't a nut. You'd find his economics much more sound than, say, Paul Mason's. He is, to date, a consciously partisan hack - but that's exactly what he's been paid for. He's done pretty well at it too. He's one of the few Labour economics figures I've seen spar confidently with Jeff Randall, for instance. If he had stuck on the political route, I think he'd be far stronger frontbench material than, say, Rachel Reeves. Whether he is equally talented at feigning impartiality when his paycheck depends on it, remains to be seen.
I don't mind a spot of bias, even on the Beeb - I'd rather be exposed to a good mix of opinions and angles than an attempt at homogeneous blandness. But this appointment already sounds like another well-aimed shot in the foot. If the BBC doesn't want to be a political football, they ought to be avoiding this kind of thing like the plague.
SeanT 0, MikeL 1
Can SeanT pull it back in the second half, or will he hit the economic crossbar? Will any of the crowd be watching or, like the ref, will they be comfortably in bed?
If SeanT wants to take me on I will happily have a £100 bet with him at evens re the following.
I say: Weldon will NOT conduct a live BBC TV interview with any Minister between now and the 2015 GE.
SeanT says: He will.
Definition of interview: Must be live and last more than 60 seconds. Must be shown on BBC Newsnight or any other programme on BBC1 or BBC2. Pre-recorded clips of a Minister speaking which are then inserted in a film report do not count.
You have a point,where's the pbmoderator when you need it ;-)
However, comparing Scotland to Ireland:
Irish population 1923 - 3,014,000
Irish population 2011 - 4,658,825
Scottish population 1921- 4,882,407
Scottish population 2011 - 5,295,000
The Union and its dividends, part 203.
Can I just say there is nothing I hate more than writing letters of condolence.
I hate it. And I suck at them.
Benn would have been better off keeping his trap shut (come to think of it so would Mick Pork)
Rewriting history there I am afraid SquareRoot.
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
Yes we are all lied to by the Political elite of the day.. as we are now and ever will be.
If you think Tony Benn was truthful, I feel sorry for you, bar cherry-picking bits here and there..
In the end Benn talked nonsense to those who were prepared to listen..
Over the last 24 hours or so, things seem to have got clearer and more organized - the FAA and NTSB are taking more of a leadership role.
The latest revelation is that there were over 60lbs of lithium batteries in the cargo hold.
Apparently heartless but actually valuable tip - if you keep the ones you get when you lose someone close to you, you will have a valuable source of precedents.
The recent polling such as Survation is showing a very different picture in terms of relative votes for the future: early days yet but Labour ought to be worrying when even Labour voters prefer Mr Cameron to Ms Lamont as a leader.
The true level of Tory support is more like what is seen in the Scottish parliament without FPTP to distort things. Not negligible but not enough to do more than hang onto the coattails of a larger party, or negotiate some specific achievements on occasion (as with the 1000 polis in the SNP minority administration).
That said, the thought that I've sometimes genuinely helps people is the point that the key thing about life is the quality, not the length, and if the person you're writing to is distressed enough to want your letter, (s)he probably did a lot to make the deceased's life something special. Worth hanging on to that.
Lots of people not only believed that the Euro would be a success but thought that Britain was doomed if we did not join. Lots of people - in fact the large majority - thought that the EEC/EU was a great thing and that Britain had to be a member. Benn was one of the few willing to stand up against that tide and articulate how and why they were wrong.
Yes we are all lied to by the Political elite of the day.. as we are now and ever will be.
If you think Tony Benn was truthful, I feel sorry for you, bar cherry-picking bits here and there..
In the end Benn talked nonsense to those who were prepared to listen..
Absolute garbage. You really are making a complete fool of yourself here. Benn stood against the EEC /EU from the start whatever the political elite wanted. The fact your are so blind to that fact just shows how closed minded you are about anyone who does not completely conform to your political view.
The most important thing is to be a good listener, that is usually the thing that is really needed. Some will not want to take up the offer, some will, but both appreciate the offer.
However as others have said this is another little tack in the Corporation coffin.
Excellent form....carry on.
Interestingly, Benn was actually quite conservative in many respects, despite being a socialist, apart from a few issues like gay rights, he generally opposed change. He opposed Thatcher's free market reforms and checks on union power, he opposed her privatisation of state industries, he opposed intervention in the Falklands and he would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He also opposed any reforms new labour and the coalition pushed through of the public services
Harold Wilson famously quipped of Benn 'he immatures with age!' He was a passionate politician and a powerful force, but politically his ideas were very far from mainstream
Benn was always a man of great charm and principle, but his actions in the Government of 74-79 were instrumental in bringing Mrs T to power. It is an example perhaps of how a bit of compromise might have led to a very different outcome.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/9822484/Grim-prospect-of-a-Scottish-neverendum
That manifesto was signed up to by a lot of todays front bench, though they have moved on of course.
FoxinSox Indeed, outside of maybe Respect and the Greens (and UKIP on the EEC). However, Miliband has moved Labour back in a more left-wing direction and was indeed an aide to Benn, (and of course ironically many of the Banks were nationalised after the 2008 crash)
I am sure the new Newsnight Economics Editor is going to have absolutely no problem remaining impartial and give the shadow chancellor a hard time in crucial interviews running up to the next GE.
If only our modern politicos would sign up to fight in the wars that they start.
Lenins New Economic Policy smacks to me of capitalist roading...
The fact that the RAF allowed the war to finish before sending him into action is hardly Benn's fault.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_grand_budapest_hotel/
Still to watch: Under The Skin, Ten Years A Slave, The Lego Movie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10699476/Michael-Gove-Number-of-Etonians-in-Camerons-cabinet-is-ridiculous.html
I think that you are misquoting him, could you find a link to prove me wrong?
I did find this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/tony-benn-you-ask-the-questions-481110.html
"How do you reconcile being the greatest exponent of democracy with your historical support for Mao, and the Soviet bloc? PAUL BROWN, CROUCH END, LONDON
History will record the Mao period as a dynasty like the Ming and the Tang and I suppose the foundation of the new China had something to do with Mao's achievement in getting rid of foreign domination. The Soviet Union was invaded by Britain just after the revolution and the Second World War could have been avoided if the Anglo-Soviet alliance had been built then. The Soviet Union was our ally when America was still neutral and the sacrifices of the Russian people helped to turn the tide against Hitler."
I think that Benns description of Mao at the time of his death as the 20th centuries greatest figure is a recognition of status and importance rather than an endorsement of all his policies.
Now the New York Times adds more information....we now have both radar tracking of the plane and satellite tracking of the engine information
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html?hp&_r=0
That pretty much confirms that the US is taking a leadership role, with the NTSB and FAA having a large presence on site. The NTSB is without peer in the air accident investigation business.
Uncle Sam isn't going to divert ships without a VERY good reason.
There's just one problem with that way of thinking: what we actually know they did do for the first couple of hours of the flight was itself totally far-fetched. No-one would believe they could have got away with it without being spotted. So therefore the rest of their plan may have been equally far-fetched.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10699476/Michael-Gove-Number-of-Etonians-in-Camerons-cabinet-is-ridiculous.html
"In an interview in the Financial Times, Mr Gove compared Mr Cameron’s team and cabinet to that of the Eton Educated former Tory Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, who was heavily criticised for nepotism.
Mr Gove attended a state primary before receiving a scholarship to go to a fee paying school.
He said: “At the beginning of the 20th century, the Conservative cabinet was called Hotel Cecil. The phrase ‘Bob’s your uncle’ came about and all the rest of it. It is preposterous.”
Is this a preemptive strike because he knows there is something is coming out this weekend in the papers.....or is he just stirring the shit again?
A very terse statement was made by Inmarsat today acknowledging that it's agent SITA received data and that they had supplied all pertinent information to the Malaysian Authorities.
All other information is either speculation or unofficial insider briefing.
What is interesting though about the speculative development based on the unpublished Inmarsat data is that the flight path west of the Malayan peninsular followed very strictly the borderlines of different air traffic control areas and stuck strictly to known 'waypoints'.
Consult this plotted flight path published (or at least republished) on PPRuNE:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BirwabjCIAACtVF.png:large
As a commentator on the PPRuNe blog put it:
Look at the route. It's not part of a recognised route structure [I assume he means established commercial flight route]. It's following the fir boundary. Why do this? Because if you want to cause max confusion, and you are in the know, you do this to play one airspace against the other, by flying along the boundary instead of,across it until you are outside of radar coverage.
To be complete, other commentators have given different explanations for the flight following the plotted path, such as a pilot with limited skills at the controls using the plane's auto piloting facility to track between pre-programmed 'waypoints'.
If the plotted flight path is correct (a big 'if') then it is clear whoever was driving knew at least the basics of how to fly a Boeing 777, probably more.
Interesting.
Do we have any answers here? No. Are we further along the path towards resolution? We are at last starting along that path, after a week of dysfunctionality.
What today's revelations also confirm is that the pinging to Inmarsat was done by the engines independently.
Yes, the waypoints were Igari, Vampi, Gival, Igrex.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCRxFbZKEJw/UyL-rKQuNII/AAAAAAAAZl0/rMaamgsyrB0/s1600/MH370A.jpg
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/malaysia-airlines-curiouser-and.html
I read somewhere that this may not necessarily mean the plane followed the strange back-and-forth pattern of the middle two waypoints: it may just have flown directly from Igari to Igrex and been close to Vampi and Gival.
On the other hand, the person flying the plane may have followed the waypoints precisely if this meant he was less likely to arouse the attention of air traffic control.
A few other gleaned tidbits.
1. The speculative flight path as shown on the linked map represents only 2.5 hours flying time. MH370 would have had at least 4.5 hours (assuming no extraordinary fuel loss) and maybe up to 7 hours (depending on its initial fuel loading which hasn't been released to the public). So the end of the plotted path isn't meant to suggest where the plane may have crashed. It is just the last tracked point.
2. It does not necessary follow that 'ping' messages transmitted from the plane to ground stations (not direct to satellites) represent actual flight. Followup to 9/11 revealed that a UA175 message was received by a ground station 20 minutes after it was known to have crashed.
A long article, using UA175 messages as its basis, sets out the message formats and 'pinging' process here:
http://bit.ly/1ifxOCN
The facts are used to support a conspiracy theory but there is a lot of useful data there which will be relevant even if a reader wants to discard the author's conclusions. The article certainly explains why the communication system needs to transmit 'id and locational' messages even if no pilot or flight systems reporting data is carried in the message.
3. I am not sure that it is 'engine originated messaging' only which has been collected. It may be that two stories are being muddled here. If you read the linked article, I would be interested to hear whether you make the same assumption.
I'd be interested to know why some reports say the Americans think the plane may have headed in two possible directions, either north or south. Why not west for example?
CNN are reporting this new information:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/14/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/
If the suggested flight path is true this doesn't look like a sudden decompression, hypoxia, auto-pilot incident.
Then again, a big 'if'.
The radar track, which the Malaysian government has not released but says it has provided to the United States and China, showed that the plane then descended unevenly to 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang.
There, officials believe, the plane turned from a southwest-bound course, climbed to a higher altitude and flew northwest over the Strait of Malacca toward the Indian Ocean.
Investigators have also examined data transmitted from the plane’s Rolls-Royce engines that showed it descended 40,000 feet in the span of a minute, according to a senior American official briefed on the investigation. But investigators do not believe the readings are accurate because the aircraft would most likely have taken longer to fall such a distance.
This is all gloriously imprecise. I don't want to start conspiracy theories, but it's hard not to attribute some nefarious activity here.
The huge difference in the last 24 hours of the disappearance of obfuscation, denial etc is amazing.
Why does the US think this? I don't know. Obviously they see something in the radar / engine overmap that makes them think this. Remember the original data has not been released.
Some years ago I was on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Cincinnati. About an hour into the flight, the plane suddenly performed a hard 180 degree sideslip turn, to lose as much altitude as possible as quickly as possible. I've never been so frightened in my life.
We then returned to Atlanta, no waiting your turn or lining up for approach, we just went straight down onto the runway, and pulled up in the middle of an army of fire fighting equipment.
It turned out that a potentially serious cockpit warning light had come on. Delta gave me 2 round trip tickets anywhere on their network and an apology.
They knew on the Malaysia plane..
To get gruesome.
The report of the plane ascending to 45000 ft then making a rapid descent of 40000 ft in 1 minute is attracting much comment. It needs taking in two parts:
1. Ascent to FL450. This is above the rated altitude for a Boeing 777 but most pilots commenting believe it would be within the plane's capabilities. A sudden catastrophic systems or hull failure could cause this but most believe it would have been a deliberate malicious act by whoever had control of the plane.
The reason being that this altitude would force the passengers and cabin crew into hypoxia and knock them out. There is some argument about whether it is within a pilot's power to terminate oxygen supply to the passenger cabin. Most think not but some argue that hypoxia would still take place but on a slower timescale. The cabin crew have access to independent mobile oxygen supplies. The theory is that at FL450 normal drop down oxygen masks would not be sufficient and that a pressurized mask would be needed.
That is the gruesome bit.
2. 40000 ft descent in one minute. Most of the pilots do not believe this is accurate information as they believe the velocity of such a descent would have caused the 777 hull to break up and to disintegrate. So a 40k descent followed by, say, 2 hours flight is considered so unlikely as to be untrue.
As to where the 777 went after its last 'ping' tracked flight path, I have read no comments or speculation on this so far.
Inmarsat statement on Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
14 March 2014: Inmarsat has issued the following statement regarding Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
Routine, automated signals were registered on the Inmarsat network from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 during its flight from Kuala Lumpur.
This information was provided to our partner SITA, which in turn has shared it with Malaysia Airlines.
For further information, please contact Malaysia Airlines.
The 40k ft descent in a minute has been comprehensively trashed as impossible by every talking head on the networks.
It seems fairly clear at this point that there was malevolent human intervention on the flight.
To what end? If you want to down the plane they could have done it right after taking control.
The only difference between the south China Sea and the Indian Ocean is depth - south China Sea is about 2-300 feet deep, whereas the Indian Ocean is thousands of feet deep. If you drop the plane at the point of takeover, it will certainly be found and retrieved. If you drop it way out into the ocean, it may well never be found.
But turning off the transponders, and flying the course they did, suggests they wanted to move surreptitiously.
That is not the action of someone who wants to crash the plane into the sea.
The truth is we still don't really have any facts - not that have been released anyway.
OK - now this is total conjecture, unsupported by any evidence at all.
What if the objective was to capture an intact aircraft? After taking it over you fly it roughly west, making it as radar invisible as possible, until you're out over the ocean and away from radar.
At that point you can turn and fly to any 'friendly' airstrip in south east Asia with a 7500' runway and a large hangar.
You're still left with what to do with 239 people, all of whom will have cell phones which they will turn on as soon as they are over land.
The other alternative might be like the plane which crashed in Shanksville PA on 9/11, where the passengers organized and charged the cockpit, at which point the hijackers flew the plane vertically down into the ground.
Regarding Inmarsat - it's apparently standard ICAO procedure that once an accident has occured, all announcements and data come from the lead organization handling the incident. Rolls Royce is equally forthcoming, for the same reason.
When China Airways Flight 006 (a 747) got into trouble in 1985 due to pilot error, they put it into a descent that took them down 10,000 feet in just 20 seconds. And they managed to pull out of the descent and land despite some serious damage to the airframe. That's a fall rate of 30,000 feet per minute; not too far off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006
However, I'd much prefer sensor error as a reason. I've lost track: was the 0 feet altitude a primary radar return (in which case it would likely be more or less accurate), or reported by the plane via transponder?