"there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch." Now that's a much more relevant criticism, and possibly true. Cammo acting like a politician is an insult I can agree with.
This story is all over the media because it's a media story. They think highly of themselves and assume that everyone else does.
A good post. When Cameron employed Coulson, he must have known he was either (a) guilty in being involved or (b) hapless in not knowing what his immediate staff were doing.
It was obviously a huge negative in recruiting him, and Coulson's talents don't seem to be so much larger than any other spin doctor in making up for it. The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.
A quite bizarre post .... featuring that either
1. Cameron knew of Coulson's criminal activities and employed him regardless.
or
2. Cameron didn't know something that he didn't know and is therefore guilty of not knowing.
The question is what to do about the poisonous shadow cabinet. There is an expectation that the Labour leader will carry out a reshuffle after David Cameron has done his, but this fish seems to be rotting from the very top of its head. Removing very senior Shadow Cabinet members could cause more trouble for Miliband than he thinks it is worth. Which may mean he has to work out how to put up with the poison, rather than removing it.
Still, this vindicates Ed Miliband. It shows that he was ahead of the game in sucking up to the Murdoch press again in his infamous Sun World Cup photo-shoot, even if the implementation was a tad sub-optimal.
The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.
Only to the paranoid - you suggest that nobody at NI could be good at their job.
No - I accept he could be good at his job. I just don't think there's any evidence he's particularly better at his job than the next candidate, and certainly not enough to make up for the huge liability he carried with him.
A good post. When Cameron employed Coulson, he must have known he was either (a) guilty in being involved or (b) hapless in not knowing what his immediate staff were doing.
It was obviously a huge negative in recruiting him, and Coulson's talents don't seem to be so much larger than any other spin doctor in making up for it. The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.
A quite bizarre post .... featuring that either
1. Cameron knew of Coulson's criminal activities and employed him regardless.
or
2. Cameron didn't know something that he didn't know and is therefore guilty of not knowing.
I tip my titfer to you Sir.
Chortle ....
I think you misread my sentence. I wasn't claiming that Cameron knew one of (a) or (b), he just knew that either (a) or (b) must be true.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
many would argue Blair has committed heinous crimes and should stand trial for it. Lying to secure the support of IDS is a minor matter compared to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
That's somewhat wide of the mark.
With notable exceptions Conservatives were critical of Blair for not acting earlier, even before the "dodgy dossier" appeared.
OK, a candidate who he doesn't want (and nor do Miliband and Clegg) might get appointed, but so what?
That would have been a viable way to play it, but by threatening exit Cameron has: 1) Turned it into a dry run for the renegotiation, which was supposed to be based on other leaders being prepared to make all kinds of concessions to prevent brexit. 2) Set himself up to look a twonk if they pick Juncker and he doesn't do anything.
The political danger is that backbenchers expect some kind of response, and get upset that it isn't forthcoming.
As far as the Coulson thing goes it probably won't particularly bother Tory MPs specifically, but the problem is if the media start talking like his first name is "Beleagered", which sets the stage for a revolt.
There is an apparent lack of self-proclaimed profundity in Cameron's apology over Coulson.It was not "profound" in the sense that it did not show wisdom that is neither recondite or abstruse.Furthermore,there was no intellectual depth; penetrating knowledge or keen insight to justify such a claim of profundity.In fact,quite the opposite is in appearance,one which confirms Ed's view that Cameron lacks his intellectual self-confidence. All in all an apology of sorts but a "profound" one,no.
No, it's not. A government pays a subsidy to get an output. Thus the right way to assess how much they are paying is the cost per unit of output. By your logic, if a train company discovered some innovative new technology that allowed them to halve fares despite putting on the same level of service, that would mean the government subsidy went up. That's obviously ridiculous.
I'm sure Dan Hodges is run by some sort of algorithm, endlessly shouting into a vacuum a la the Chinese across the straits to Taiwan. You can fade him in and out and when you return he'll be saying the same three things as he was a week, a month, a year ago. A beacon of consistency in a dangerously changing world.
A good post. When Cameron employed Coulson, he must have known he was either (a) guilty in being involved or (b) hapless in not knowing what his immediate staff were doing.
It was obviously a huge negative in recruiting him, and Coulson's talents don't seem to be so much larger than any other spin doctor in making up for it. The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.
Who knows. I'm not sure Cameron gave it that much thought. He probably thought Coulson would help him get over his message in the tabloid press (including Murdoch's) in the run-up to the 2010 GE more than the other candidates. He probably didn't spend too much time researching and investigating before making that decision, and followed the path of least resistance in making it when being lobbied/advised on it.
Once Coulson on board, it's clear the two men got on well and struck up a friendship. And we know Cameron is loyal to and defends his friends.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
many would argue Blair has committed heinous crimes and should stand trial for it. Lying to secure the support of IDS is a minor matter compared to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
That's somewhat wide of the mark.
With notable exceptions Conservatives were critical of Blair for not acting earlier, even before the "dodgy dossier" appeared.
To be fair, the Tory Party had lost it mind around the period of 2001, 2002 and 2003...
A good post. When Cameron employed Coulson, he must have known he was either (a) guilty in being involved or (b) hapless in not knowing what his immediate staff were doing.
It was obviously a huge negative in recruiting him, and Coulson's talents don't seem to be so much larger than any other spin doctor in making up for it. The obvious conclusion is that there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch.
A quite bizarre post .... featuring that either
1. Cameron knew of Coulson's criminal activities and employed him regardless.
or
2. Cameron didn't know something that he didn't know and is therefore guilty of not knowing.
I tip my titfer to you Sir.
Chortle ....
I think you misread my sentence. I wasn't claiming that Cameron knew one of (a) or (b), he just knew that either (a) or (b) must be true.
Gibberish.
How might Cameron know that option (b) might be true when he didn't know of it in the first place ?
And in what conceivable world is Cameron's EU policy likely to collapse in the near future?
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
Cameron has already come out and issued an apology, just as he pledged he would do a few years ago if it proved that Coulson had not been truthful with him.
Its when you get Gordon Brown trying to avoid issuing an apology over the McBride scandal for nearly a week that a PM will tend to run into trouble. And this was a scandal which happened within Downing Street and under Brown's Premiership.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
Who can forgot the journalistic genius that was horsegate
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
That is an interesting point, and one that may blunt Eds enthusiasm for the topic at PMQs.
Cameron has made his apology, as Coulson is now found guilty.
Where is the apology from Watson, Milliband et al for the opprobrium and accusations that were gleefully lavished on and directed at the innocent Ms Brookes?
''That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party. ''
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
@Casino - similar as in much higher? The railway was privatised in 1994, when it was the most efficient system in Europe. As the chart shows.
You must be looking at a different chart to me. There are only two I can see in that fact-check article, to which both you and I have posted a link. They both show that subsidy levels as a % of total revenue is down compared to 1994.
In case you missed it, quoting directly from the article: "The latest figures (October 2012) from the Office for Rail Regulation show that government subsidies to the rail industry totalled £3.901 billion in 2011/12, or 35% of total industry revenue."
From the caption beneath the chart: "This picture shows that, in the last few years of British Rail’s existence, the proportion of government subsidy to passenger revenue was between 40 and 50 per cent."
''That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party. ''
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
It would be a development of his position according to the changed circumstances. His goal (if you believe it) is significant reform and renegotiation. If that is not available, then he has to select which to support from status quo and out.
There is an apparent lack of self-proclaimed profundity in Cameron's apology over Coulson.It was not "profound" in the sense that it did not show wisdom that is neither recondite or abstruse.Furthermore,there was no intellectual depth; penetrating knowledge or keen insight to justify such a claim of profundity.In fact,quite the opposite is in appearance,one which confirms Ed's view that Cameron lacks his intellectual self-confidence. All in all an apology of sorts but a "profound" one,no.
Profound has two meanings.
In the context of a "profound apology", which is an expression of an emotional state or quality, it means "very great" or "intense". This is the sense in which Cameron used the term "profound apology".
The secondary meaning of profound, when used to describe a person or statement, is "showing great insight or knowledge" does not apply in the context used by Cameron.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
many would argue Blair has committed heinous crimes and should stand trial for it. Lying to secure the support of IDS is a minor matter compared to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
That's somewhat wide of the mark.
With notable exceptions Conservatives were critical of Blair for not acting earlier, even before the "dodgy dossier" appeared.
Not that it matters, but not this Tory. Biggest mistake since winning in 92 for the PCP
''That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party. ''
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
Hence the short-term fire risk. It probably won't result in the leadership going up in flames at the end of the week, but you never know...
How might Cameron know that option (b) might be true when he didn't know of it in the first place ?
Cameron knew that phone hacking had gone on at News of the World when he recruited Coulson. Coulson had already resigned from NotW over it.
I think we are in danger of misremembering what was known at the time – If memory recalls, the NoW Royal correspondent was convicted of hacking the princes’ phones and subsequently jailed. As a result Coulson resigned, however the police investigation at the time found no evidence to suggest Coulson was involved or that ‘hacking’ was widespread within the NoW.
If anything, the police investigation gave Coulson a clean bill of health, as the ‘Motorman inquiry’ had not been published and in fact had been sat on for several years.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
It's safe to say Mrs Brooks had the "forces from hell" well and truly unleashed upon her by "you know who" and his associates.
Ed Miliband has now spoken on the issue. Unfortunately for him, Ed Balls couldn't resist taking a pot shot at Osborne in the Commons which opened up the door to the Damien McBride scandal, and now he too has waded in.
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
We won't be negotiating with Juncker (or whoever gets the post). We will be negotiating with other EU countries, particularly Germany. The appointment of Juncker, if it happens, might be a sign that they are going to play hardball; well, two can play at that game. Assuming we get a Conservative government, our EU friends will have to decide if they want to make an effort to keep us in the EU, or not. Until such time as we actually do that negotiation, we won't know what the deal will be, but we do know that it won't be Juncker whom we have to do a deal with.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
Bad judgement based on information that was less than economical with the truth, it bore no resemblance to the truth.
If a crime was committed, then AC & TB are guilty in spades in relative terms. (where AC = Campbell and TB = Blair).
Cameron believing Coulsons innocence, Coulsons crimes compared to going to war on a false prospectus.
I think I can work out the serious issue there.
Deaths as a result of hacking, versus deaths as a result of the 'dodgy' dossier and subsequent war.
Miss Fitalass, it's interesting to compare and contrast the media coverage over this issue and Phil 'make the whites angry' Woolas, or, indeed, Damien McBride.
Ed Miliband has now spoken on the issue. Unfortunately for him, Ed Balls couldn't resist taking a pot shot at Osborne in the Commons which opened up the door to the Damien McBride scandal, and now he too has waded in.
But he can eat a tomato salad with his toes, so vote Ed
As you well know it has fallen in the last few years but has historically been much higher not least due to the taxpayer having to bail out the expensive consequences of a botched privatisation. You would know this if you actually read the article.
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
We won't be negotiating with Juncker (or whoever gets the post). We will be negotiating with other EU countries, particularly Germany. The appointment of Juncker, if it happens, might be a sign that they are going to play hardball; well, two can play at that game. Assuming we get a Conservative government, our EU friends will have to decide if they want to make an effort to keep us in the EU, or not. Until such time as we actually do that negotiation, we won't know what the deal will be, but we do know that it won't be Juncker whom we have to do a deal with.
Agreed, in practice Juncker has very little to do with it, and if he did he'd actually be exactly the kind of pragmatic conservative fixer you needed in place to cut the necessary deals. The short-term catch (and again, this is only short-term - if everyone keeps their heads for a few weeks the whole thing will be fish and chip wrappers, as will the Coulson story) is that Cameron has been messaging the opposite.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
Bad judgement based on information that was less than economical with the truth, it bore no resemblance to the truth.
If a crime was committed, then AC & TB are guilty in spades in relative terms. (where AC = Campbell and TB = Blair).
Cameron believing Coulsons innocence, Coulsons crimes compared to going to war on a false prospectus.
I think I can work out the serious issue there.
Deaths as a result of hacking, versus deaths as a result of the 'dodgy' dossier and subsequent war.
Sorry but that is the ultimate PBTory "yeah but whatabout?" post. I happen to think Coulson gate will make no difference to VI, but bringing in the Iraq War decision into this is sheer desperation. Suck it up.
The Prime Minister accepted Coulson's assurances and the vetting process and gave him a second chance.
Cameron was deceived by someone he trusted. An unenviable situation which I'd hope few of us should have the misfortune to suffer.
And this shows that Cameron's political judgement is sound because......?
It shows that for the best of reasons that the Prime Minister made a mistake and on this issue his judgement was misplaced.
Cameron will be judged in the round come next May but I'd be willing to venture that matters other than Coulson will weigh on the mind of the voters that day.
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party.
UKIP isn't an opposition party. Not yet. Act now before they are.
Cameron can say the Gnomes of Europe have refused to listen to its members, having gone off in the direction of greater federalism - and that is not in the UK's interests. So with what is currently on offer from Europe - which is the sod-all, suck-it-up-UK-if-we-appoint-Juncker position - he has reluctantly come to the view that the Europe on offer is broken. Whilst it stays that way, he will be recommending the UK votes to leave....
Con majority nailed on.
Which may be the reason he is forcing a vote on Juncker's appointment.
Is Iraq more serious than Coulson? Absolutely. But politically the difficulty was always that the Tories gave Blair and the war their full support. Hard to turn it party political when both sides thought it was a good idea. And Blair hasn't committed a crime.
And the bad judgement of Blair (negated by the bad judgement of the Tories supporting him) negates the bad judgement of Cameron how?
Coulson was vetted. Cameron either knew enough to know that at best believing Coulson's assurance was high political risk. Or he chose to ignore all the warnings so that he could say "how was I supposed to know". Either way his judgement is appalling.
Bad judgement based on information that was less than economical with the truth, it bore no resemblance to the truth.
If a crime was committed, then AC & TB are guilty in spades in relative terms. (where AC = Campbell and TB = Blair).
Cameron believing Coulsons innocence, Coulsons crimes compared to going to war on a false prospectus.
I think I can work out the serious issue there.
Deaths as a result of hacking, versus deaths as a result of the 'dodgy' dossier and subsequent war.
Sorry but that is the ultimate PBTory "yeah but whatabout?" post. I happen to think Coulson gate will make no difference to VI, but bringing in the Iraq War decision into this is sheer desperation. Suck it up.
It's Labours dirty little crime, always worth bringing it up until those responsible have paid the price and Labour an electoral price. Blair, Campbell and chief death funder Brown behind bars would be a start.
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
We won't be negotiating with Juncker (or whoever gets the post). We will be negotiating with other EU countries, particularly Germany. The appointment of Juncker, if it happens, might be a sign that they are going to play hardball; well, two can play at that game. Assuming we get a Conservative government, our EU friends will have to decide if they want to make an effort to keep us in the EU, or not. Until such time as we actually do that negotiation, we won't know what the deal will be, but we do know that it won't be Juncker whom we have to do a deal with.
Agreed, in practice Juncker has very little to do with it, and if he did he'd actually be exactly the kind of pragmatic conservative fixer you needed in place to cut the necessary deals. The short-term catch (and again, this is only short-term - suck it up for a few weeks and the whole thing will be fish and chip wrappers, as will the Coulson story) is that Cameron has been messaging the opposite.
Which if you are a little Machiavellian may be a good ploy by Cameron to indicate to the other leaders he will continue to battle for his view to be upheld and will not cave in if there is the prospect of defeat.
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
We won't be negotiating with Juncker (or whoever gets the post). We will be negotiating with other EU countries, particularly Germany. The appointment of Juncker, if it happens, might be a sign that they are going to play hardball; well, two can play at that game. Assuming we get a Conservative government, our EU friends will have to decide if they want to make an effort to keep us in the EU, or not. Until such time as we actually do that negotiation, we won't know what the deal will be, but we do know that it won't be Juncker whom we have to do a deal with.
Agreed, in practice Juncker has very little to do with it, and if he did he'd actually be exactly the kind of pragmatic conservative fixer you needed in place to cut the necessary deals. The short-term catch (and again, this is only short-term - suck it up for a few weeks and the whole thing will be fish and chip wrappers, as will the Coulson story) is that Cameron has been messaging the opposite.
Which if you are a little Machiavellian may be a good ploy by Cameron to indicate to the other leaders he will continue to battle for his view to be upheld and will not cave in if there is the prospect of defeat.
The short-term catch (and again, this is only short-term - suck it up for a few weeks and the whole thing will be fish and chip wrappers, as will the Coulson story) is that Cameron has been messaging the opposite.
Yes, the messaging is interesting. I'm sure that there is plenty of posturing going on, but I'm not sure who is doing it or why.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
It's safe to say Mrs Brooks had the "forces from hell" well and truly unleashed upon her by "you know who" and his associates.
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
That would be ditching his own policy, which would have failed, and instead adopting the policy of an opposition party.
UKIP isn't an opposition party. Not yet. Act now before they are.
Cameron can say the Gnomes of Europe have refused to listen to its members, having gone off in the direction of greater federalism - and that is not in the UK's interests. So with what is currently on offer from Europe - which is the sod-all, suck-it-up-UK-if-we-appoint-Juncker position - he has reluctantly come to the view that the Europe on offer is broken. Whilst it stays that way, he will be recommending the UK votes to leave....
Con majority nailed on.
Which may be the reason he is forcing a vote on Juncker's appointment.
UKIP would likely withdraw from opposing sitting Tory MPs in that circumstance, Clarke and Soubry aside ;-)
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Be very interesting to be able to revisit some of the quotes on Rebekah Brooks made by Tom Watson and Ed.M when all this blew up in 2011. She was certainly defamed and portrayed as the most awful wicked witch and David Cameron was stridently abused for refusing to denounce her I the Show Trial that went on in Parliament at that time. I would like to think that the Watson's of this world might apologise as well but I shan't be holding my breath.
It's safe to say Mrs Brooks had the "forces from hell" well and truly unleashed upon her by "you know who" and his associates.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Many of them are however celebrities. He knows what he's doing.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Some of their relatives have.
That said - pass the sick bucket. Oh wait it's on the bandwagon.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Lol, he said eating a bacon sandwich garnished with the flowers he forgot he was being photographed buying for his wife. This perfidious message listening to, it's intolerable!
As you well know it has fallen in the last few years but has historically been much higher not least due to the taxpayer having to bail out the expensive consequences of a botched privatisation. You would know this if you actually read the article.
I have read the article - I posted it before you did. I just disagree with your baseless conclusions.
Telling people to re-read graphs and articles until they agree with you, out of frustration at your failure to convince them with your arguments, isn't going to win over anybody to your point of view.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Many of them are however celebrities. He knows what he's doing.
Celebs, the next class of overpaid useless idiots that will alienate voters from the parties they purport to support.
Celeb endorsements could well turn negative. If you are a political celeb, expect to have your tax affairs scrutinised in depth and detail.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Many of them are however celebrities. He knows what he's doing.
Going for the serial shagging and drug taking vote?
I'm sure Dan Hodges is run by some sort of algorithm, endlessly shouting into a vacuum a la the Chinese across the straits to Taiwan. You can fade him in and out and when you return he'll be saying the same three things as he was a week, a month, a year ago. A beacon of consistency in a dangerously changing world.
Hmm, did Hodges emerge about the same time tim disappeared?
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
My thoughts today are with the next 5 YouGovs
The next Yougov won't have any effect shown. Friday's will probably b the earliest to show a 2 point dip in Camo's approval ratings or w/e.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Why should people have to tolerate sneery hacks intruding into their private lives just because they are slebs? Phone hacking is, rightly, illegal. The fact that they are slebs is entirely irrelevant.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband · 3 mins My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
Many of them are however celebrities. He knows what he's doing.
Going for the serial shagging and drug taking vote?
Maybe so, but it has nothing to do with this debate. It's like me saying "yeah but whatabout the poll tax" when the PBTories were wetting themselves over a bacon sandwich.
Mr. Fett, quite a few people (me, for example) said that whilst the photos were clearly not very flattering they also didn't matter a jot, or words to that effect.
When referring to a matter of judgement, I'd rather have Cameron's misjudgement on a matter of personnel, than Blair's over Iraq's, or Miliband's political game-playing over Syria.
Comments
If he'd just stayed an "ex-editor" like Piers Morgan he may well have got away with it...
"there were other advantages in recruiting Coulson, namely the good favour of Rupert Murdoch." Now that's a much more relevant criticism, and possibly true. Cammo acting like a politician is an insult I can agree with.
This story is all over the media because it's a media story. They think highly of themselves and assume that everyone else does.
A quite bizarre post .... featuring that either
1. Cameron knew of Coulson's criminal activities and employed him regardless.
or
2. Cameron didn't know something that he didn't know and is therefore guilty of not knowing.
I tip my titfer to you Sir.
Chortle ....
Tom Watson has far more to apologise for
The question is what to do about the poisonous shadow cabinet. There is an expectation that the Labour leader will carry out a reshuffle after David Cameron has done his, but this fish seems to be rotting from the very top of its head. Removing very senior Shadow Cabinet members could cause more trouble for Miliband than he thinks it is worth. Which may mean he has to work out how to put up with the poison, rather than removing it.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/theres-poison-in-the-shadow-cabinet-and-it-could-cost-ed-miliband-the-election/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=theres-poison-in-the-shadow-cabinet-and-it-could-cost-ed-miliband-the-election&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-06-24/karen-gillan-poses-naked-and-youve-stopped-reading-this-sentence
Count 1: conspiring to hack phones between 3 October 2000 and 9 August 2006
• Andy Coulson was found guilty on Count 1
• Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty on Count 1
• Stuart Kuttner was found not guilty on Count 1
Count 2: conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
• The jury are yet to return verdicts on this charge faced by Coulson and Clive Goodman
Count 3: conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
• The jury are yet to return verdicts on this charge faced by Coulson and Clive Goodman
Count 4: conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
• Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty on Count 4.
Count 5: conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office
• Rebekah Brooks was found not guilty on Count 5.
Count 6: conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
• Rebekah Brooks and Cheryl Carter were found not guilty on Count 6.
Count 7: perverting the course of justice
• Rebekah Brooks, Charlie Brook and Mark Hanna were found not guilty on Count 7.
Not Guilty 9 Guilty 1
Awaiting Verdict 4
NewsCorp certain to qualify for knockout stages of tournament.
With notable exceptions Conservatives were critical of Blair for not acting earlier, even before the "dodgy dossier" appeared.
1) Turned it into a dry run for the renegotiation, which was supposed to be based on other leaders being prepared to make all kinds of concessions to prevent brexit.
2) Set himself up to look a twonk if they pick Juncker and he doesn't do anything.
The political danger is that backbenchers expect some kind of response, and get upset that it isn't forthcoming.
As far as the Coulson thing goes it probably won't particularly bother Tory MPs specifically, but the problem is if the media start talking like his first name is "Beleagered", which sets the stage for a revolt.
All in all an apology of sorts but a "profound" one,no.
(She's great in the film "Not Another Happy Ending")
I'm sure Dan Hodges is run by some sort of algorithm, endlessly shouting into a vacuum a la the Chinese across the straits to Taiwan. You can fade him in and out and when you return he'll be saying the same three things as he was a week, a month, a year ago. A beacon of consistency in a dangerously changing world.
I don't suppose those of us in her mini PB fan club will get an invite.
Once Coulson on board, it's clear the two men got on well and struck up a friendship. And we know Cameron is loyal to and defends his friends.
The private rail companies halving fares? I thought comedy hour was on Fridays.
How might Cameron know that option (b) might be true when he didn't know of it in the first place ?
You could argue that Cameron's EU policy is only now unfolding. If he meets with the brick wall the press are suggesting, he has the option of taking UKIP's ground on the EU.
or
let bet run, england avoid defeat but I lose £100.
the perils of controlling sporting fate in my hands...
Its when you get Gordon Brown trying to avoid issuing an apology over the McBride scandal for nearly a week that a PM will tend to run into trouble. And this was a scandal which happened within Downing Street and under Brown's Premiership.
I tend to assume the worst of Mr Watson. I think it's because he reminds me of Gerald Campion (aka Billy Bunter), but I suppose that's being fattist.
30 minutes ago England were 80/1 on Betfair to win at Headingley. They're now 18/1.
Cash out on Sri Lanka now.
Yorkshire's Joe Root is saving England.
I've backed Costa Rica to win today, I've also backed Uruguay and Italy to win their match, I don't foresee a draw.
Who can forgot the journalistic genius that was horsegate
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/mar/02/david-cameron-police-horse-rebekah-brooks
Cameron has made his apology, as Coulson is now found guilty.
Where is the apology from Watson, Milliband et al for the opprobrium and accusations that were gleefully lavished on and directed at the innocent Ms Brookes?
If Juncker is appointed and reform dead in the water, I don;t see what choice Cameron has. He wouldn't make a terribly convincing skeptic, perhaps, but skeptic he would have to become.
The Prime Minister accepted Coulson's assurances and the vetting process and gave him a second chance.
Cameron was deceived by someone he trusted. An unenviable situation which I'd hope few of us should have the misfortune to suffer.
In case you missed it, quoting directly from the article: "The latest figures (October 2012) from the Office for Rail Regulation show that government subsidies to the rail industry totalled £3.901 billion in 2011/12, or 35% of total industry revenue."
From the caption beneath the chart: "This picture shows that, in the last few years of British Rail’s existence, the proportion of government subsidy to passenger revenue was between 40 and 50 per cent."
So, sorry, but that's a decrease.
England 124/6
In the context of a "profound apology", which is an expression of an emotional state or quality, it means "very great" or "intense". This is the sense in which Cameron used the term "profound apology".
The secondary meaning of profound, when used to describe a person or statement, is "showing great insight or knowledge" does not apply in the context used by Cameron.
Djokovic 2.74
Murray 5.4
Nadal 6.2
Federer 6.4
Dimitrov 20
Wawrinka 27
Raonic 50
Berdych 80
Gulbis 85
Nishikori 95
Tsonga 100
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/tennis/event?id=27213935
What else can he do? come back from Europe with nothing and claim its a victory when he has clearly been utterly humiliated??
Biggest mistake since winning in 92 for the PCP
If anything, the police investigation gave Coulson a clean bill of health, as the ‘Motorman inquiry’ had not been published and in fact had been sat on for several years.
No crime was committed whilst AC was at no 10 - the end.
But she survived.
What a woman!
As you well know it has fallen in the last few years but has historically been much higher not least due to the taxpayer having to bail out the expensive consequences of a botched privatisation. You would know this if you actually read the article.
Cameron will be judged in the round come next May but I'd be willing to venture that matters other than Coulson will weigh on the mind of the voters that day.
Cameron can say the Gnomes of Europe have refused to listen to its members, having gone off in the direction of greater federalism - and that is not in the UK's interests. So with what is currently on offer from Europe - which is the sod-all, suck-it-up-UK-if-we-appoint-Juncker position - he has reluctantly come to the view that the Europe on offer is broken. Whilst it stays that way, he will be recommending the UK votes to leave....
Con majority nailed on.
Which may be the reason he is forcing a vote on Juncker's appointment.
My thoughts today are most importantly with the victims of phone hacking who suffered terrible intrusion into their privacy.
Oh please Ed...it's not like they've died!!
That said - pass the sick bucket. Oh wait it's on the bandwagon.
This perfidious message listening to, it's intolerable!
Telling people to re-read graphs and articles until they agree with you, out of frustration at your failure to convince them with your arguments, isn't going to win over anybody to your point of view.
Celeb endorsements could well turn negative. If you are a political celeb, expect to have your tax affairs scrutinised in depth and detail.
Given that Juncker himself has, in EiT's phrase, 'very little to do with it' I can;t think of any other reason.
http://www.ents24.com/uk/tour-dates/ken-dodd
I am merely pointing out what the article shows.
Maybe so, but it has nothing to do with this debate. It's like me saying "yeah but whatabout the poll tax" when the PBTories were wetting themselves over a bacon sandwich.
What a life of tragedy and toil the poor loves must have to endure.
That Sun photo-op must have hurt more than we know.....
When referring to a matter of judgement, I'd rather have Cameron's misjudgement on a matter of personnel, than Blair's over Iraq's, or Miliband's political game-playing over Syria.
Poor advert for test cricket.
I would have liked to have read his comments on DC and AC...