You forget that many of us love London's cosmopolitan dynamism, and celebrate it. Hence why the metropolitan party of Labour did so well in the metropolis. Ukip seems to flourish in areas where there are few immigrants- paradoxical hey?
I dont think its paradoxical at all, its perfectly logical
Most White British people living in London probably were not born in London. They live there because they "embrace diversity etc", and fair play to them. A lot of people whose Grandparents called it home move away to a place that feels like the place they grew up in.
No they don't.
They live in London because thats where their job is.
Force India and Williams could be interesting to watch at Canada. It's mostly straight lines, so the Mercedes engine should be in good shape, although Renault have improved their power recently.
I think Blair confuses Britain having global power for him having power and influence. Also his Today interview seemed to involve him saying that the exercise of power was more important than the presence of peace.
The idea (a profoundly dubious and illiberal one anyway) that we 'wield more power' within the EU is garbage at any rate. Look at the disastrous intervention by the US in Ukraine -it runs precisely counter to EU interests (energy security, trade ties with Russia etc.), yet what good has our 'clubbing together' done in this regard? As Victoria Nuland so succinctly put it, the American attitude has been 'F**k the EU'. Yet still we have stood loyally by, imposed sanctions and ramped up the war rhetoric. In reality, we saw more genuine independence from Europe toward the US before we had the current foreign policy aparatus, when at least some countries did not join us in Iraq. All our pooling of sovereignty has meant is that America has less phone calls to make when it wants us to do something. Which is probably why they're so keen for us to stay in.
Clegg looked shell shocked yesterday. I suspect that on top of the terrible Libdem performance in the elections, he was also by then aware that there was a serious attempt under way within the party to destabilise his position as Leader even further. Today, Clegg looked a bit more in control as the wagons have started to surround him in an attempt to bolster his position among the upper echelons of the Libdem party.
Saw Clegg on the news. Look's like he's pulled himself together somewhat.
A large gin, half a dozen valium and a good nights sleep can do wonders...
As I wrote yesterday Clegg looked like he'd aged ten years overnight. I think he's still in danger, a sudden loss in an equally sudden by-election in a L/Dem constituency, and he's gone.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Blair, not IDS, was Prime Minister. It is true that IDS, rather naively, made the mistake of believing that no British Prime Minister would mislead parliament on a matter of this gravity. So did many people, including me. It was an assumption which would have been true for any PM of recent memory before Blair, but, yes, it is true that the corruption of the body politic by New Labour was widely underestimated at the time. Not any more, of course.
It's so easy to be an armchair general with hindsight isn't it ?
You seem to forget that there were rather a lot of people who said at the time invading Iraq was wrong, just plain wrong. That was of course before we found out about Blair's deceit and incompetence. No hindsight needed, no armchair generalship needed.
Havering is like the East End the BBC portray in EastEnders. I actually think it is racist of the BBC to portray the East End the way they do. Why not be more honest and have white British people as the minority/pubs closing down, lots of Asian shops and burqas etc? The BAME quota in EE has barely changed in 38 years and there isnt one Eastern European either. It is quite disgraceful really,. Maybe they think people wouldnt like the truth?
I have long thought that a really edgy TV programme to make would be one called EastEnders but which as you say portrays it as it actually now is, without subtitles.
It would be a step too far for the rabidly leftist Establishment BBC to do this, of course, but yeah, EE is as accurate as Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent and for the same reasons.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. Any cowardly fool can do it - as this site so clearly demonstrates.
What a truly inane point. That logic could be used for anyone resisting a suggestion to invade North Korea or Saudi Arabia. People who actually understand international affairs know that moral outrage alone isn't a good basis for military intervention. It also needs to be prudent in terms of making things better, which Blair's reckless escapades never did.
In politics as in life, perception is more important than fact.
There is a perception that UKIP is racist or at least quasi-racist - the Tories have historically had the same problem as evidenced by their BME vote share in various GEs.
When parties 'bang on' about immigration, it is a BIG turn-off for ethnic minorities (however justified any concerns might be).
My own view is that all parties have an element of racism - Labour the least and UKIP the most (of the 4 main parties). Labour itself has let down the BME community very badly over the years, e.g. the Iraq war - they have been complacent and are taking BME votes for granted - just because they are the 'least bad' doesn't make them good...
You don't think the British BME are worried about poor unskilled immigration coming into they area's in large numbers ? (just like the area I live)
Yes, but it's the slippery slope that one has to be fearful of. The path from legitimate concerns over immigration to rampant hate filled paranoia is a lot shorter that we think.
The slippery slope happened under labour with it's mass immigration policy,proved by the bnp getting elected,labour out and so have the bnp.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. .
In the case of Iraq, that argument rather falls down on the objection that Saddam had stopped gassing his own people, and in any case the country was crawling with UN weapons inspectors.
On every count, no matter how you look at it, the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, most notably for the people of Iraq. It was certainly a disaster for Western interests and for the fight against terrorism.
Even given all that, one might have been able to forgive Blair if it had been an honest mistake where he gave an honest account to parliament of the pros and cons, but made an error of judgement in weighing them up. That he deliberately took the UK into this disaster on a false prospectus is just extraordinary.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Given that IDS is an ex-army officer I think he'd have been a lot more cautious about risking lives than Blair, whose party institutionally despises the armed forces.
Rebuilding countries might have been a little easier if we hadn't invaded the original countries to create an empire. Then carved them up to suit our colonial and business interests. Or is it your contention that invasions are justified in the pursuit of profit?
Clegg looked shell shocked yesterday. I suspect that on top of the terrible Libdem performance in the elections, he was also by then aware that there was a serious attempt under way within the party to destabilise his position as Leader even further. Today, Clegg looked a bit more in control as the wagons have started to surround him in an attempt to bolster his position among the upper echelons of the Libdem party.
O/T but you might be interested... Currently trying to collate all the regional sub-results for the European Elections in the North-West Region. Other than getting very frustrated with councils for not putting the data online / putting it in rubbish format (Results as a JPEG, really?!) I have (so far) found the following council areas where 'UKIP' won:
Carlisle (UKIP 29.6%, Con 28.3%, Lab 25.2%) Blackpool (UKIP 33.9%, Con 22.4%, Lab 28.3%) Hyndburn (UKIP 34.6%, Con 20.0%, Lab 32.2%) Lancaster (UKIP 26.7%, Con 24.7%, Lab 24.7%) Wyre (UKIP 35.4%, Con 31.6%, Lab 19.7%)
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. .
In the case of Iraq, that argument rather falls down on the objection that Saddam had stopped gassing his own people, and in any case the country was crawling with UN weapons inspectors.
On every count, no matter how you look at it, the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, most notably for the people of Iraq. It was certainly a disaster for Western interests and for the fight against terrorism.
Even given all that, one might have been able to forgive Blair if it had been an honest mistake where he gave an honest account to parliament of the pros and cons, but made an error of judgement in weighing them up. That he deliberately took the UK into this disaster on a false prospectus is just extraordinary.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Given that IDS is an ex-army officer I think he'd have been a lot more cautious about risking lives than Blair, whose party institutionally despises the armed forces.
And that's the same IDS who whole heartedly supported, backed and voted for war in Iraq presumably ?
O/T but you might be interested... Currently trying to collate all the regional sub-results for the European Elections in the North-West Region. Other than getting very frustrated with councils for not putting the data online / putting it in rubbish format (Results as a JPEG, really?!) I have (so far) found the following council areas where 'UKIP' won:
Carlisle (UKIP 29.6%, Con 28.3%, Lab 25.2%) Blackpool (UKIP 33.9%, Con 22.4%, Lab 28.3%) Hyndburn (UKIP 34.6%, Con 20.0%, Lab 32.2%) Lancaster (UKIP 26.7%, Con 24.7%, Lab 24.7%) Wyre (UKIP 35.4%, Con 31.6%, Lab 19.7%)
When PB comes to power, that'll be the first law passed.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Blair, not IDS, was Prime Minister. It is true that IDS, rather naively, made the mistake of believing that no British Prime Minister would mislead parliament on a matter of this gravity. So did many people, including me. It was an assumption which would have been true for any PM of recent memory before Blair, but, yes, it is true that the corruption of the body politic by New Labour was widely underestimated at the time. Not any more, of course.
It's so easy to be an armchair general with hindsight isn't it ?
You seem to forget that there were rather a lot of people who said at the time invading Iraq was wrong, just plain wrong. That was of course before we found out about Blair's deceit and incompetence. No hindsight needed, no armchair generalship needed.
Yes, there were, like the Liberal Democrats for example for which I give them full credit. I don't remember the Conservative Party being against it though or voicing all these grave doubts and concerns. Strangely these only emerged several years after the event.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. .
In the case of Iraq, that argument rather falls down on the objection that Saddam had stopped gassing his own people, and in any case the country was crawling with UN weapons inspectors.
On every count, no matter how you look at it, the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, most notably for the people of Iraq. It was certainly a disaster for Western interests and for the fight against terrorism.
Even given all that, one might have been able to forgive Blair if it had been an honest mistake where he gave an honest account to parliament of the pros and cons, but made an error of judgement in weighing them up. That he deliberately took the UK into this disaster on a false prospectus is just extraordinary.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Given that IDS is an ex-army officer I think he'd have been a lot more cautious about risking lives than Blair, whose party institutionally despises the armed forces.
And that's the same IDS who whole heartedly supported, backed and voted for war in Iraq presumably ?
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes · 43 secs Speaking this morning to the kind of senior Lib Dems whose support wd be needed to oust Clegg, there just doesn't seem to be the appetite
Looks like the 'rebels' have only succeeded in wounding the lib dems even further..good job guys
When Tories here drone on about Iraq they are asking us to suspend belief and imagine that had, god forbid, IDS been Prime MInister he would have been any less up Bush's backside and in favour of war than Blair was. As if. What does that matter though when presented with the opportunity to type ELEVEN in block capitals.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. Any cowardly fool can do it - as this site so clearly demonstrates.
200,000-500,000 dead. 2 million refugees. ELEVEN years of carnage, still ongoing.
Labour's War. Labour's Lies. Labour's Guilt. It is written in every word you say.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. .
In the case of Iraq, that argument rather falls down on the objection that Saddam had stopped gassing his own people, and in any case the country was crawling with UN weapons inspectors.
On every count, no matter how you look at it, the invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, most notably for the people of Iraq. It was certainly a disaster for Western interests and for the fight against terrorism.
Even given all that, one might have been able to forgive Blair if it had been an honest mistake where he gave an honest account to parliament of the pros and cons, but made an error of judgement in weighing them up. That he deliberately took the UK into this disaster on a false prospectus is just extraordinary.
I see you conveniently ignore the point about IDS.
Given that IDS is an ex-army officer I think he'd have been a lot more cautious about risking lives than Blair, whose party institutionally despises the armed forces.
Surely the cuts that have so alarmed our admirals and generals were made by Conservative Defence Secretaries in the current government?
It's so easy to be an armchair general with hindsight isn't it ?
On the big picture it's pretty easy without hindsight. You don't go invading countries if you have to sex up the intelligence to find some justification to do so, and certainly not if you don't have the faintest outline of a plan for how to put the country back together again once you have invaded it.
And yet the Conservative Party voted for it. How odd.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. Any cowardly fool can do it - as this site so clearly demonstrates.
What a truly inane point. That logic could be used for anyone resisting a suggestion to invade North Korea or Saudi Arabia. People who actually understand international affairs know that moral outrage alone isn't a good basis for military intervention. It also needs to be prudent in terms of making things better, which Blair's reckless escapades never did.
Perhaps the problem is that, contrary to what you have written, the first few of Blair's reckless escapades -- Sierra Leone and so on -- were successful.
I really do think that Farage's victory could prove Pyhrric. The political landscape is moving and it appears highly favourable for Cameron at first glance. Of course all manner of things could go wrong but it's intriguing so far.
I think Blair confuses Britain having global power for him having power and influence. Also his Today interview seemed to involve him saying that the exercise of power was more important than the presence of peace.
The idea (a profoundly dubious and illiberal one anyway) that we 'wield more power' within the EU is garbage at any rate. Look at the disastrous intervention by the US in Ukraine -it runs precisely counter to EU interests (energy security, trade ties with Russia etc.), yet what good has our 'clubbing together' done in this regard? As Victoria Nuland so succinctly put it, the American attitude has been 'F**k the EU'. Yet still we have stood loyally by, imposed sanctions and ramped up the war rhetoric. In reality, we saw more genuine independence from Europe toward the US before we had the current foreign policy aparatus, when at least some countries did not join us in Iraq. All our pooling of sovereignty has meant is that America has less phone calls to make when it wants us to do something. Which is probably why they're so keen for us to stay in.
This is a complete misreading of the situation. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and it is entirely legitimate for them to choose their own international alliances. From Ukraine's perspective, it makes sense these alliances are with the West. After Russia's puppet Yanukovych tried to push the country back into Russian arms, the country erupted. The US then tried to assist the democratic forces in the country to prevent Ukraine falling back into being a Russian protectorate, and were understandably frustrated at the EU's fawning to Russia. The sanctions so far on Russia's 19th century-style land grab actually show how pathetic the EU is on all this, and how an EU common foreign policy will never work.
When Tories here drone on about Iraq they are asking us to suspend belief and imagine that had, god forbid, IDS been Prime MInister he would have been any less up Bush's backside and in favour of war than Blair was. As if. What does that matter though when presented with the opportunity to type ELEVEN in block capitals.
It's so easy to sit on your fat backside in a free, liberal, western democracy and rant that a tyrant who gassed tens of thousands of his own people should have been left alone. Any cowardly fool can do it - as this site so clearly demonstrates.
200,000-500,000 dead. 2 million refugees. ELEVEN years of carnage, still ongoing.
Labour's War. Labour's Lies. Labour's Guilt. It is written in every word you say.
The way to end Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq was lost when Bush senior got cold feet at the end of the successful first gulf war. The Iraqi army was ready to surrender without a fight to General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr's forces, but President Bush vetoed the advance and the fighting ended. Whereupon Saddam carried out a purge of unreliable officers in his forces.
Had Bush let the advance continue it would have saved a million lives, not least among US soldiers.
Blair, not IDS, was Prime Minister. It is true that IDS, rather naively, made the mistake of believing that no British Prime Minister would mislead parliament on a matter of this gravity. So did many people, including me. It was an assumption which would have been true for any PM of recent memory before Blair, but, yes, it is true that the corruption of the body politic by New Labour was widely underestimated at the time. Not any more, of course.
It's so easy to be an armchair general with hindsight isn't it ?
You seem to forget that there were rather a lot of people who said at the time invading Iraq was wrong, just plain wrong. That was of course before we found out about Blair's deceit and incompetence. No hindsight needed, no armchair generalship needed.
Yes, there were, like the Liberal Democrats for example for which I give them full credit. I don't remember the Conservative Party being against it though or voicing all these grave doubts and concerns. Strangely these only emerged several years after the event.
Quite right if you look at the voting figures on Iraq it was the Tories that took us to war.The combined Lib Dem and Labour antis would have meant no had the day But the highest level of MP support in any party was the Tories.IDS who was leader didn't want anything to do with the UN and was gung ho for supporting the US.Charles Kennedy got booed by the Tories and had white handkerchief waved at him. So remember it was the Tories who took us to war.
"The prime minister telephoned fellow EU leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel, ahead of Tuesday evening's meeting in Brussels to emphasise that the results of the European elections, and the low turnout, have underlined the need for reform.
But speaking in Brussels, UKIP leader Nigel Farage said it felt like "business as usual".
"We've just had a quite dramatic European election, with new sceptical parties, some new extreme nationalist parties, a massive spectrum, from the left to the centre to the right," he said.
"You know, there is a big dissident voice now in this parliament, and yet, I've just sat in a meeting where you wouldn't have thought anything had happened at all."
The prime minister telephoned fellow EU leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel, ahead of Tuesday evening's meeting in Brussels to emphasise that the results of the European elections, and the low turnout, have underlined the need for reform.
Blair, not IDS, was Prime Minister. It is true that IDS, rather naively, made the mistake of believing that no British Prime Minister would mislead parliament on a matter of this gravity. So did many people, including me. It was an assumption which would have been true for any PM of recent memory before Blair, but, yes, it is true that the corruption of the body politic by New Labour was widely underestimated at the time. Not any more, of course.
It's so easy to be an armchair general with hindsight isn't it ?
You seem to forget that there were rather a lot of people who said at the time invading Iraq was wrong, just plain wrong. That was of course before we found out about Blair's deceit and incompetence. No hindsight needed, no armchair generalship needed.
Yes, there were, like the Liberal Democrats for example for which I give them full credit. I don't remember the Conservative Party being against it though or voicing all these grave doubts and concerns. Strangely these only emerged several years after the event.
Quite right if you look at the voting figures on Iraq it was the Tories that took us to war.The combined Lib Dem and Labour antis would have meant no had the day But the highest level of MP support in any party was the Tories.IDS who was leader didn't want anything to do with the UN and was gung ho for supporting the US.Charles Kennedy got booed by the Tories and had white handkerchief waved at him. So remember it was the Tories who took us to war.
Now I've heard everything! The Tory opposition took us to war with Iraq in 2003 with Tony Blair PM feebly saying, "Oh go ahead then". Talk about "through the looking glass".
I really do think that Farage's victory could prove Pyhrric. The political landscape is moving and it appears highly favourable for Cameron at first glance. Of course all manner of things could go wrong but it's intriguing so far.
? This is just a press release. Mr Cameron has not sought the repatriation of any powers from the EU to the UK.
In July, the government intends to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. We'll know just how much 'heeding' Mr Cameron has done if that goes ahead.
I really do think that Farage's victory could prove Pyhrric. The political landscape is moving and it appears highly favourable for Cameron at first glance. Of course all manner of things could go wrong but it's intriguing so far.
? This is just a press release. Mr Cameron has not sought the repatriation of any powers from the EU to the UK.
In July, the government intends to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. We'll know just how much 'heeding' Mr Cameron has done if that goes ahead.
It's alright. We have a referendum lock to prevent significant more powers being handed over. Mr Cameron promised.
Comments
Force India and Williams could be interesting to watch at Canada. It's mostly straight lines, so the Mercedes engine should be in good shape, although Renault have improved their power recently.
The SNP goose step.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/27/european-elections-lessons-cameron-and-miliband/
Rebuilding countries might have been a little easier if we hadn't invaded the original countries to create an empire.
Then carved them up to suit our colonial and business interests.
Or is it your contention that invasions are justified in the pursuit of profit?
http://www.carlisle.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/democracy-and-elections/elections-2014.aspx
He spoke to French President Francois Hollande and Polish leader Donald Tusk ahead of an informal dinner later.
No 10 said the prime minister emphasised the need for them to "heed" voters' message and embrace reform.
Nick Clegg has said he is not opposed to the principle of a referendum and was "not afraid" of the idea.
Party leaders are setting out their response to the UK Independence Party's victory in the European elections.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27583545
They tried but had to file it under "reset"
Speaking this morning to the kind of senior Lib Dems whose support wd be needed to oust Clegg, there just doesn't seem to be the appetite
Looks like the 'rebels' have only succeeded in wounding the lib dems even further..good job guys
This is a complete misreading of the situation. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and it is entirely legitimate for them to choose their own international alliances. From Ukraine's perspective, it makes sense these alliances are with the West. After Russia's puppet Yanukovych tried to push the country back into Russian arms, the country erupted. The US then tried to assist the democratic forces in the country to prevent Ukraine falling back into being a Russian protectorate, and were understandably frustrated at the EU's fawning to Russia. The sanctions so far on Russia's 19th century-style land grab actually show how pathetic the EU is on all this, and how an EU common foreign policy will never work.
Had Bush let the advance continue it would have saved a million lives, not least among US soldiers.
But speaking in Brussels, UKIP leader Nigel Farage said it felt like "business as usual".
"We've just had a quite dramatic European election, with new sceptical parties, some new extreme nationalist parties, a massive spectrum, from the left to the centre to the right," he said.
"You know, there is a big dissident voice now in this parliament, and yet, I've just sat in a meeting where you wouldn't have thought anything had happened at all."
The prime minister telephoned fellow EU leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel, ahead of Tuesday evening's meeting in Brussels to emphasise that the results of the European elections, and the low turnout, have underlined the need for reform.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27583545
In July, the government intends to pass powers over Justice and Home Affairs to the EU. We'll know just how much 'heeding' Mr Cameron has done if that goes ahead.