John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Martin was exceptional as he was plainly never up to the job being stupid as well as partisan and he treated members of the House with no respect. I think Cameron has decided Bercow is something that he just needs to put up with and he is probably right. Hopefully Bercow can be eased out in the next Parliament with no permanent damage done to the Office which is far more important than he will ever be.
Why is Bercow terrible? A lot of backbenchers like him, no?
So we are going to borrow even more than the current £100B per annum. Sounds like a good policy.
The coalition parties are going to get increasing desperate as the election approaches. We can probably expect a stream of this-government-loves-you foolishness.
The other thing that would interest me is a breakdown of voting intention by years of education. Education for all has been a key plank of the left platform since before votes for women was. Have we finally reached the stage where all that's left of the uneducated is a right-leaning underclass? (After all, that's one intended outcome of the left's education policy...)
In several of Ashcroft's larger polls he does just that giving you splits based on how long you remained in full-time education.
As I recall UKIP voters left earliest & LDs the latest.
But that is less interesting if you adjust for demographics - a large part of the effect is that UKIP voters are older, and fewer people used to go to university.
A typical comment by a L/Dem, but that also doesn't take account of those that are self educated to a high standard or those that took university degrees later in life.
I am not a Lib Dem. My remark was factual and neutral and its implications are actually strongly pro-UKIP, in that it points out that UKIP's apparently high proportion of less well educated supporters is largely an artefact. Whatever you have self-educated yourself in, it wasn't logic.
I know others have said it but Scotland is now in full holiday mode. The schools in Central Scotland broke up a week ago and in many parts of rural Scotland (where we still have a fortnight "tattie" holiday in October) 3 days ago. I doubt many Scots will be remotely interested in the IndyRef now until the 3rd week in August when schools go back and life starts to return to normal. It will also signal the end of the Commonwealth Games.
The final 4 weeks of the Indy Ref campaign will be frantic and filled with bile and vitriol as both sides become increasing frantic about last minute swings.
Easterross, we are likely to have a few fraught weeks as the Orange Order parade their support for Better Together. The violence and disorder should get some welcome publicity for Better Together campaign.
It does appear that the SNP seats are mostly in the areas of lowest religious affiliation. It seems that the Pope and King Billy are allied once more...
Great maps Mr Sox. Not seen that before.
The interactivity works really well. Census data maps are a geeks paradise!
I presume "other Christian" is mostly the Wee Frees. Stated Religious affiliation is a reasonable marker for other aspects of social conservatism, and perhaps of desire to change longstanding constitutional arrangements.
There are very likely to be major disparities in the geography of Yes and No votes in September, which may become political fault-lines afterwards. I would not expect breakaway regions though whichever way it goes, though if the areas south of the Antonine wall seceeded from Independent Scotland, to remain in the rUK it could be interesting!
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Martin was exceptional as he was plainly never up to the job being stupid as well as partisan and he treated members of the House with no respect. I think Cameron has decided Bercow is something that he just needs to put up with and he is probably right. Hopefully Bercow can be eased out in the next Parliament with no permanent damage done to the Office which is far more important than he will ever be.
Why is Bercow terrible? A lot of backbenchers like him, no?
Not that I am aware of. I think that he interferes too much and seems to think that he is a player rather than a referee in debates in the House.
He is boringly repetitive and ineffective. His use of mockery is inappropriate and pompous.
He is capricious about he thinks is within the rules and what is not, particularly in relation to urgent questions. He wrongly seems to believe that he adds to the entertainment of the Land.
He has made very little, if any, progress in cleaning Parliament up. That is not just down to him but a good Speaker could have used his office to do more to protect the standing of Parliament by insisting on more effective disciplinary procedures.
SO is right that I have never met the man and I am judging him on his public performances that I have seen and have been reported. I think that is legitimate.
That's kinda interesting. It would be nice to see how its trends compare with the final result.
I do like the way that moving averages smooth out the noise and better identify trends. I did something similar during the couple of months leading up to the 2010 general election, and posted daily updates on here. Things were rather different then, but looking back at the final chart it appears that the televised election debates had a bigger impact than I recall...
It does look as if the Cleggasm affected all three parties, but took most votes off the Tories. With the Indyref looking a damp squib, the debates may be the only gamechanger left. I think Ed will do well at these, it is well within his comfort zone compared with baby kissing and sarnies.
These graphs show that the debates were too late as there was not enough time for the effects of the debates to settle. So really in 2015 the debates should be straight after the budget (18 March) at the latest.
What this about my great leader? I shall have to read the thread banter...
As a resident in the People's Republic of Bercow, I trust he is not being picked on again - only this morning we've been talking about his help in a local project in our village and how he's very good in supporting us..
We'd take him over Farage (supposedly the most populur political leader in the UK) any time as has already been shown....
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
I never said nuffink.
Bercow is not appalling, but he is a lightweight and a show-off. His patter at PMQs is just that, part of the show - he has the power and has had the time to do something about misbehaviour (e.g. letting it be known that offenders will not get called in future debates).
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.
What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.
The link title makes the main point of the article. Two thirds of Scots are now bored of the referendum debate. Maybe not a country that is all that different from England after all?
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
I never said nuffink.
Bercow is not appalling, but he is a lightweight and a show-off. His patter at PMQs is just that, part of the show - he has the power and has had the time to do something about misbehaviour (e.g. letting it be known that offenders will not get called in future debates).
Misbehaviour acc to Bercow is NOT doing what Bercow says to the letter.(which is usually followed by a Bercow tantrum). That can't be right. Previous Speakers never had this problem. Bercow IS the problem not the MP's. If a Speaker cannot manage the House of Commons WITH CONSENT, he should not be there. Why did Lord Tonypandy, Bettty Boothroyd and Bernard Weatherill manage the HOC so well? They never had the problems Bercow has.
The other thing that would interest me is a breakdown of voting intention by years of education. Education for all has been a key plank of the left platform since before votes for women was. Have we finally reached the stage where all that's left of the uneducated is a right-leaning underclass? (After all, that's one intended outcome of the left's education policy...)
In several of Ashcroft's larger polls he does just that giving you splits based on how long you remained in full-time education.
As I recall UKIP voters left earliest & LDs the latest.
But that is less interesting if you adjust for demographics - a large part of the effect is that UKIP voters are older, and fewer people used to go to university.
A typical comment by a L/Dem, but that also doesn't take account of those that are self educated to a high standard or those that took university degrees later in life.
I am not a Lib Dem. My remark was factual and neutral and its implications are actually strongly pro-UKIP, in that it points out that UKIP's apparently high proportion of less well educated supporters is largely an artefact. Whatever you have self-educated yourself in, it wasn't logic. ,,
Actually the remark was referring to OGH comments, so keep yr shirt on.
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
People mostly seem to be saying he's not a very good speaker, doesn't sound like personal abuse to me.
Personally I think it would be better if there was a contested election for Speaker at the beginning of each Parliament, then at least you could say the incimbent was the fairly recent choice of MPs.
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.
What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.
Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are going to throw personal abuse at a politician (or anyone else for that matter) - as opposed to criticising their actions, outlook and/or policies - it carries more weight if you have at least met them.
I am not seeking to stop anyone doing anything. I am merely exercising my right to comment. My view is that people should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think safe in the knowledge that it will not be edited, cut, taken down or anything like that. Clearly, we have different views about what constitutes piss-taking as opposed to mere nastiness. As long as we both accept that, what does it matter?
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7.
Bercow has so far done 5 and will have done 6 by the start of the new Parliament. The chances of him still being Speaker at the end of it must be quite low. If he was I would expect a challenge in 2020.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.
What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.
Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are going to throw personal abuse at a politician (or anyone else for that matter) - as opposed to criticising their actions, outlook and/or policies - it carries more weight if you have at least met them.
I am not seeking to stop anyone doing anything. I am merely exercising my right to comment. My view is that people should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think safe in the knowledge that it will not be edited, cut, taken down or anything like that. Clearly, we have different views about what constitutes piss-taking as opposed to mere nastiness. As long as we both accept that, what does it matter?
My principal criticism of Speaker Bercow is that he is too short.
This makes the man totally unsuitable as a recipient of personal abuse.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7
A job for life, as in a job until the incumbent chooses to retire.
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
Indeed. Northern Ireland is a good parallel: there's a vocal dissenting minority that likes to pretend it speaks for the whole area.
The Crimea is a huge shame though: Russia has in effect been rewarded for ethnic cleansing just 80 years ago. I have huge sympathy for the Crimean Tatars.
Very nasty, partisan stuff on here this morning about John Bercow, from lots of people who have never met him.
We can't criticise anyone on here unless we've met them? That is going to make things interesting.
You can do what you like and I can comment on it. However, I am not reading much criticism of Bercow in here today, just a lot of personal abuse.
Personal abuse, Mr . Observer? Well, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder so, I suppose, is ugliness. I don't see much personal abuse up-thread but a fair amount of piss-taking in relation to some comments made by a man who holds a very senior and important post. If an Englishman can't take the piss out of the powerful and important we really have lost the plot.
What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.
Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are going to throw personal abuse at a politician (or anyone else for that matter) - as opposed to criticising their actions, outlook and/or policies - it carries more weight if you have at least met them.
Dead wrong. 98% of people who have "at least met" a prominent politician have done just that - a handshake and a sentence - which tells you what about them that you can't tell from public conduct and utterances? I can tell you that Bercow is conceited because I watch PMQs, and if he was charmingly modest and unaffected at an intimate little supper someone claims to have had with him that doesn't outweigh his PMQ performances (and is unverifiable).
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7
A job for life, as in a job until the incumbent chooses to retire.
ISTVR JB saying he would serve for 8 years when he got elected
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
Tebbit said on Marr that Westminster bubble knew but ignored it as protecting the establishment was more important...
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The Crimea is a huge shame though: Russia has in effect been rewarded for ethnic cleansing just 80 years ago. I have huge sympathy for the Crimean Tatars.
Me too. Apparently a lot are now trying to leave, having recently started to move back from wherever they were exiled to by Stalin. And another muslim minority dispossessed, another reservoir of potential jihadism.
Matt Gillespie (@mattayg) 06/07/2014 09:18 "It was more important to protect the system" - Lord Tebbit on the 1980s. Good grief that's pretty damning #Marr
steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) 06/07/2014 09:08 "It's easy to forget things looked different in those days," Lord Tebbit tells #marr "It was more important to protect the system"
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
A job for life? Martin did 9 years, Betty did 8, Weatherill did 9, Thomas did 7
A job for life, as in a job until the incumbent chooses to retire.
ISTVR JB saying he would serve for 8 years when he got elected
It shouldn't be up to him, it should be up to his electorate. There is no point whinging and then not being prepared to stand against him when the post is up for re-election.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
Seeing as there seems to be a media blackout on the ongoing humanitarian disaster in the Donbass region, an update by the former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
Presumably our government isn't just blindly going a long with US foreign policy no matter how politically and morally wrong it is.
I was surprised to see on the news yesterday the progress being made by the Ukrainian government in reasserting its sovereignty in Donbass. It appears after a very substantial delay the government has finally got its armed forces organised to a point that they can be effective. Once that point is reached partisans are unlikely to be able to offer substantial resistance without a lot more obvious Russian support than the Russians are willing to be seen to be giving at the moment.
There are clear risks in this strategy, not least because Putin has put himself in something of a corner with his earlier bullish comments about supporting Russians abroad but a restoration of sovereignty combined with the sort of devolution previously agreed in the International talks would offer the best chance of a way forward. The risk of doing nothing is that the status quo simply becomes a fait accompli with Ukraine effectively broken up.
You can't militarily occupy a region for perpetuity though, I suspect the East has gone in hearts and minds thanks to the current and previous governments actions.
Well we did in Northern Ireland for long enough but I agree that eventually a political solution has to be found as it was there.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian by birth I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that they are Russians.
Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.
I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.
I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..
Right, apparently the difficulty for the challengers was that nearly everybody else in the room was shouting "aye".
As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian by birth I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that they are Russians.
Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.
Thus supporting Russian aggression and irredentism. Don't forget there are substantial Russian-speaking minorities living in Nato countries, the existence of which is not down to badly-drawn boundaries but Russian imperialism during Soviet times. And in the Ukraine they are spread throughout the country, making ethnic boundary-drawing nigh on impossible.
Russia inherited the rights & obligations of the Soviet Union on its breakup, including citizenship, it can almost certainly claim that anyone living in the former Soviet Union is a Russian citizen, its claims are spurious.
We need to get away from ethnicity & nationalism as a basis for defining the state. Granted the Ukrainians haven't done their cause any good by removing facilities for Russian speakers, but there is no reason why Russian and Ukrainian speakers cannot live side by side in a democratic Western country (not saying it is there now, but it could be). And in any case, Putin's hired thugs need to be opposed as a matter of policy.
And I am not sure what you mean by this "As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian", the Russian Empire came to an end 97 years ago by my reckoning. What happened in 1957 that is so important?
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
Where were the Press? Well there was less hysteria in those days, the Press was under less pressure to keep up their circulations. And less 24 hour media coverage with a need to feed the frenzy. As for kippers quoting The Guardian - the world has changed!
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.
I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..
Right, apparently the difficulty for the challengers was that nearly everybody else in the room was shouting "aye".
Most amusing, as if It passed me by at the time. The point is HOW MANY have to shout NO for it to cause a contest?
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
Why on earth do people persist with the euphemism "sleeping with" when they mean anything but? Personally I prefer the pithy Anglo-Saxon, but even if you don't surely "sleeping with" should be reserved for occurrences of actually staying overnight in the same bed?
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
Where were the Press? Well there was less hysteria in those days, the Press was under less pressure to keep up their circulations. And less 24 hour media coverage with a need to feed the frenzy. As for kippers quoting The Guardian - the world has changed!
Alternatively, the political class colluded to stitch up both the press and the police over Lord Boothby and Driberg and once bitten, twice shy.
John Bercow is a terrible Speaker but the Office is diminished if the holder is repeatedly hounded out of it.
Surely the problem is that it is seen as a job for life, the only way to challenge a poor speaker is to "hound them out of office".
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Why does "respecting" an elective office mean that it should not be contested every time it comes up for election? It would be nice if our Parliamentarians showed some respect for the concept of democracy.
There was some talk about somebody challenging him at the beginning of this parliament. There was nothing particular to stop them doing it, apart from the obvious fact that the challenger would have lost because MPs generally quite like Bercow.
I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..
Right, apparently the difficulty for the challengers was that nearly everybody else in the room was shouting "aye".
Most amusing, as if It passed me by at the time. The point is HOW MANY have to shout NO for it to cause a contest?
Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.
The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.
The Crimea is a huge shame though: Russia has in effect been rewarded for ethnic cleansing just 80 years ago. I have huge sympathy for the Crimean Tatars.
Me too. Apparently a lot are now trying to leave, having recently started to move back from wherever they were exiled to by Stalin. And another muslim minority dispossessed, another reservoir of potential jihadism.
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
This isn't a can of worms, its a can of Boa Constrictors and the lid appears to be coming loose. Keeping it on topic, it might mean a tenner on some long odds bets is well worthwhile, as this will blow apart normal voting patterns. At this rate we the English Democrats will win!
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
Why on earth do people persist with the euphemism "sleeping with" when they mean anything but? Personally I prefer the pithy Anglo-Saxon, but even if you don't surely "sleeping with" should be reserved for occurrences of actually staying overnight in the same bed?
Just thought it was a polite way of describing it, but in this case 'raping' might be more appropriate
Isam --- lets be clear.... has Tebbit said he turned a blind eye to paedophilia or not? I have not seen any interview. It's an important accusation to get right I would think.
Dickens made these claims years ago. It is not new. He named people in parliament, he made accusations. Why has it suddenly come up again? Tom Watson seemed to think it was a good idea in 2013 (which ought to make us think about the motives for all this) - as a result this dossier was reported missing. Now another Labour MP (writing a book -- with which he no doubt hopes to smear the libdems) comes along a year later.
I want to see the truth come out. But I do wonder about the basis for all this.
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
Where were the Press? Well there was less hysteria in those days, the Press was under less pressure to keep up their circulations. And less 24 hour media coverage with a need to feed the frenzy. As for kippers quoting The Guardian - the world has changed!
There was press interest; indeed in 2001 we had paedogeddon:
Isam --- lets be clear.... has Tebbit said he turned a blind eye to paedophilia or not? I have not seen any interview. It's an important accusation to get right I would think.
Dickens made these claims years ago. It is not new. He named people in parliament, he made accusations. Why has it suddenly come up again? Tom Watson seemed to think it was a good idea in 2013 (which ought to make us think about the motives for all this) - as a result this dossier was reported missing. Now another Labour MP (writing a book -- with which he no doubt hopes to smear the libdems) comes along a year later.
I want to see the truth come out. But I do wonder about the basis for all this.
The Guardian have reported Tebbitts comments... I watched the show so yes he did say it
Type "tebbit" into twitter... The public reaction to it is all there
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
"But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret"
Why? It's known now that Smith, Morrison and Hayman were protected by the political class. If it's standard practise to cover up for VIP child-molesters then logically over time you'd expect to end up with a bunch of them congregated in and around Westminster.
And if the political class knew the rumours then the people involved would know the rumours about each other as well.
I'd say some kind of ring developing in those conditions would be highly likely.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
... but I am not sure there can be much else except a flood of claims about being a victim. Real evidence may be very hard to find.
Floods of claims are real evidence. It is not as if Savile and Rolf were caught through DNA samples.
It is hard to know what happened in a London flat in 1967, even the protagonists themselves must have very distant recollections.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
At least you can make that point on here. The Times runs a story with a lurid headline and then does not allow comments which might point out that the story itself is pure speculation. Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time? Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
"But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret"
Why? It's known now that Smith, Morrison and Hayman were protected by the political class. If it's standard practise to cover up for VIP child-molesters then logically over time you'd expect to end up with a bunch of them congregated in and around Westminster.
And if the political class knew the rumours then the people involved would know the rumours about each other as well.
I'd say some kind of ring developing in those conditions would be highly likely.
Haymn was accused in parliament. Is it proved that Smith was protected by anybody? These issues were aired 30 odd years ago. The point I am making is the accusations were made Dickens said he was happy the dossier was handed in - it nws not nhanded in in secrecy. Then what? There was no secret about anything. The press seem to have awoken from some coma.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.
In the case of Cyril Smith. According to one of the police officers involved, the report sent to them was a shortened version of the original document, and he was of the opinion on seeing the original, that if the full facts had been presented at the time there would have been grounds to pursue the matter further. His statement in the filmed interview, may or may not reflect the facts, but he seemed sincere in his belief. Why was the original redacted? Who knows, there may have been legitimate reasons, but it remains an unanswered question.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.
Absolutely, Dr. Sox. That is why Putin moved so quickly to gain control of the ports of trade.
The battle in the next few months will involve Putin seeking to deprive the Ukraine of export markets and distribution channels and the EU and western finance agencies attempting to plug the holes with aid.
It should put a temporary stop to balaclava clad thugs seizing loal police stations, but hardly holds out the prospects for a mutually beneficial or long lasting settlement.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
The oligarchs in Ukraine are acting in their own economic self-interest. Most of the customers of their businesses are Ukrainians, who have turned strongly against Russia over the country's invasion of their homeland.
Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.
The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.
We're not in the middle ages any more. This can't be brushed aside as "one of those things".
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
Isn't that because the powers that be ridiculed him for exposing what they wanted to keep unexposed.?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
This isn't a can of worms, its a can of Boa Constrictors and the lid appears to be coming loose. Keeping it on topic, it might mean a tenner on some long odds bets is well worthwhile, as this will blow apart normal voting patterns. At this rate we the English Democrats will win!
Sam
I certainly rate the prospects of the English Democrats over the Young Necrophiliacs.
A government decrees that their land if forfeit. Which government originally granted the land? And did it have more, or less, the democratic legitimacy of the present one? I am not saying that it is right or fair, just pointing out two ways in which it can be seen, depending on where you stand.
Seems to me that Leon Brittan is playing the role of Villefort
Mr. Sam, yes I have read the Count of Monte Christo, it is one of my all time favourite books. Villefort was the prosecutor who was incorruptible, except when it came to his own ambitions. I struggle to see how that character can be transposed onto Leon Brittan.
As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian by birth I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that they are Russians.
Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.
Actually, Donetsk and Luhansk have been part of of either independent Ukraine or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic since 1922. The majority of people in both areas have openly identifies as Ukrainians in census throughout this time, even if they are Russian-speaking. It amazes me how so many people allow their Russophilia to back the carving up of a nation and throw self-determination out the window. If these two oblasts wish for independence then they can establish a separatist political party which wins the majority of the vote in free and fair elections. But the pro-Russia side knows they would lose, so they have to instead back it using militias and Russian tanks.
A government decrees that their land if forfeit. Which government originally granted the land? And did it have more, or less, the democratic legitimacy of the present one? I am not saying that it is right or fair, just pointing out two ways in which it can be seen, depending on where you stand.
It became part of Ukraine following the All-Ukrainian Military Congress declaration during the Russian Civil War. It was then subsumed into the USSR in a bottom-up process.
This "artificial borders" stuff is just crap. They are no more artificial than the borders of France or Germany.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
The oligarchs in Ukraine are acting in their own economic self-interest. Most of the customers of their businesses are Ukrainians, who have turned strongly against Russia over the country's invasion of their homeland.
Socrates.
The principal customers for the heavy industries of Eastern Ukraine are Russian. A substantial amount of mining extracts are also sold on world markets and make up the largest part of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings.
Ukrainian consumers have a minimal impact on where such output is sold.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.
That really depends on how successful attempts by Europe to isolate the Americans from events in the Ukraine are. The BNP fine and it's relation to the sale of the Mistral warships has failed to have an impact except in further diverging US and Europe's interests, just see Noyer's comments on the future use of the USD in transactions. If Europe and Russia can come together and impose a federalisation solution then hopefully a humanitarian crisis can be averted and a longer term solution perhaps found.
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
If peace can be restored at such a cheap price then it seems a bargain, and nationalist desires fairly weak. Good cross border trade is the underpinning of peace, as much in Eastern Europe as within the EU itself.
Absolutely, Dr. Sox. That is why Putin moved so quickly to gain control of the ports of trade.
The battle in the next few months will involve Putin seeking to deprive the Ukraine of export markets and distribution channels and the EU and western finance agencies attempting to plug the holes with aid.
It should put a temporary stop to balaclava clad thugs seizing loal police stations, but hardly holds out the prospects for a mutually beneficial or long lasting settlement.
I take your point. Control of the Odessa oblast is vital for Ukraine; but just as a hinterland without ports is cut off, so are ports without a hinterland.
Putin will extract a price from Ukraine, but the price will be counterbalanced by Ukraine becoming an EU affiliate. It will be only a matter of time before that becomes appealing to Russians too. The rule of Juncker wiĺl be much more pleasant than Putin!
The principal customers for the heavy industries of Eastern Ukraine are Russian. A substantial amount of mining extracts are also sold on world markets and make up the largest part of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings.
Ukrainian consumers have a minimal impact on where such output is sold.
Chocolates maybe. Steel and Coal, not.
The oligarchs have far more diverse business interests than what is dug out of the ground in Donetsk oblast.
@Socrates "I see Mugabe has finally completed his his apartheid regime in Zimbabwe:"
Was the post I was referring to, my fault, sorry.
Many of the white farmers rebid for their land after Mugabe came to power, paying substantial sums to do so. Mugabe is not stripping land based on historical grants, he is doing it on the basis of race.
Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.
The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.
We're not in the middle ages any more. This can't be brushed aside as "one of those things".
One could harp on about the Golden Horde and Christians kidnapped and brought south to the Crimea to be sold as slaves.
Of course the greatest victims of Lenin, Trotsky and their Bolshevik co conspirators were the Russians themselves. A state against its own people with Russians far and few between in the state apparatus till Russification in the great Patriotic War. Personally though I loathe the left's tendency to cry crocodile tears over crimes that benefit their cause whilst ignoring those that don't. Who, whom is the motivator.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological
The oligarchs in Ukraine are acting in their own economic self-interest. Most of the customers of their businesses are Ukrainians, who have turned strongly against Russia over the country's invasion of their homeland.
Socrates.
The principal customers for the heavy industries of Eastern Ukraine are Russian. A substantial amount of mining extracts are also sold on world markets and make up the largest part of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings.
Ukrainian consumers have a minimal impact on where such output is sold.
Chocolates maybe. Steel and Coal, not.
I was at a function recently at the Ukrainian club in Leicester (It dates from postwar refugees). I can highly commend Ukrainian chocolates, the beer is good too.
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
I was a much keener watcher of all things Westminster then, and my recollection is that Dickens was regarded as somewhat eccentric, and possessed of a bee-infested bonnet. A recollection which is confirmed by the Wikipedia entry.
But not possessed of a photocopier it seems....
Not as common then as now. I recall in the v. early 80's using an ink-based duplicator for political leaflets.
We are not in the middle ages anymore, but much of the muslim world is and with the muslim medivalists getting stronger. Mass expulsions or forced conversions are not history, they are a present reality in the Islamist world.
Mass expulsions are part of the history of the Muslim and Christian world, on both sides. Whether expulsion of Moors from Spain, Turks from The Balkans or Tatars from Crimea. This is counterbalanced by the expulsions and destruction of the Greeks and Armenians in Anatolia and the continuing persecution of Middle Eastern Christians to this day.
The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.
We're not in the middle ages any more. This can't be brushed aside as "one of those things".
Seems to me that Leon Brittan is playing the role of Villefort
Mr. Sam, yes I have read the Count of Monte Christo, it is one of my all time favourite books. Villefort was the prosecutor who was incorruptible, except when it came to his own ambitions. I struggle to see how that character can be transposed onto Leon Brittan.
Villefort 'lost' evidence that compromised people close to him
Comments
I presume "other Christian" is mostly the Wee Frees. Stated Religious affiliation is a reasonable marker for other aspects of social conservatism, and perhaps of desire to change longstanding constitutional arrangements.
There are very likely to be major disparities in the geography of Yes and No votes in September, which may become political fault-lines afterwards. I would not expect breakaway regions though whichever way it goes, though if the areas south of the Antonine wall seceeded from Independent Scotland, to remain in the rUK it could be interesting!
He is boringly repetitive and ineffective. His use of mockery is inappropriate and pompous.
He is capricious about he thinks is within the rules and what is not, particularly in relation to urgent questions. He wrongly seems to believe that he adds to the entertainment of the Land.
He has made very little, if any, progress in cleaning Parliament up. That is not just down to him but a good Speaker could have used his office to do more to protect the standing of Parliament by insisting on more effective disciplinary procedures.
SO is right that I have never met the man and I am judging him on his public performances that I have seen and have been reported. I think that is legitimate.
As a resident in the People's Republic of Bercow, I trust he is not being picked on again - only this morning we've been talking about his help in a local project in our village and how he's very good in supporting us..
We'd take him over Farage (supposedly the most populur political leader in the UK) any time as has already been shown....
Bercow is not appalling, but he is a lightweight and a show-off. His patter at PMQs is just that, part of the show - he has the power and has had the time to do something about misbehaviour (e.g. letting it be known that offenders will not get called in future debates).
What is this business of "from lots of people who have never met him"? You seem to be saying that one can only legitimately criticise a politician if one has personally met them. I am sure that can't be correct, so what you were getting at is beyond me.
The link title makes the main point of the article. Two thirds of Scots are now bored of the referendum debate. Maybe not a country that is all that different from England after all?
Previous Speakers never had this problem. Bercow IS the problem not the MP's. If a Speaker cannot manage the House of Commons WITH CONSENT, he should not be there. Why did Lord Tonypandy, Bettty Boothroyd and Bernard Weatherill manage the HOC so well? They never had the problems Bercow has.
Rolf was caught through corroborating evidence from a variety of sources. Savile was never caught at all.
It just seems to me that recent developments mean that is likely to be a solution within Ukraine's existing borders (less the Crimea of course) than a multistate solution. I think that has at least the potential to be less messy and disruptive for peoples' lives than the alternative.
Personally I think it would be better if there was a contested election for Speaker at the beginning of each Parliament, then at least you could say the incimbent was the fairly recent choice of MPs.
I am not seeking to stop anyone doing anything. I am merely exercising my right to comment. My view is that people should have the courage of their convictions and say what they really think safe in the knowledge that it will not be edited, cut, taken down or anything like that. Clearly, we have different views about what constitutes piss-taking as opposed to mere nastiness. As long as we both accept that, what does it matter?
Having a contested election at the beginning of each parliament would be an improvement, IMO. If MPs don't think Bercow is any good they should grow a pair and stand against him in May 2015.
Bercow has so far done 5 and will have done 6 by the start of the new Parliament. The chances of him still being Speaker at the end of it must be quite low. If he was I would expect a challenge in 2020.
As I said earlier the Office is more important than the man and needs to be respected. We can live with his inanity for a little bit longer.
Interestingly on TV, Neil was saying to Clegg that no one would trust the civil service to investigate itself. Yet the Press themselves want to insist on the right to investigate themselves.
A 'paedo ring' in Westminster is a pretty gross thought, so lets hope this dossier is a load of rubbish. But I cannot really believe this dossier was some dark secret, this sort of thing does not exist in a world of its own - where were the press at the time?
Is there any reason this dossier should have been kept after it was looked into. Dickens and others presumably had copies. And of course the other thing is - well, Dickens was voluable about this at the time; he named the High Commssioner to Canada in parliament. We talk as if this was new but it is not. All that is being said now was said then. Where were the press - did they not report, or more pertinantly investigate, any of this? Or is it that in reality there was nothing to report?
This makes the man totally unsuitable as a recipient of personal abuse.
The Crimea is a huge shame though: Russia has in effect been rewarded for ethnic cleansing just 80 years ago. I have huge sympathy for the Crimean Tatars.
06/07/2014 09:18
"It was more important to protect the system" - Lord Tebbit on the 1980s. Good grief that's pretty damning #Marr
steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes)
06/07/2014 09:08
"It's easy to forget things looked different in those days," Lord Tebbit tells #marr "It was more important to protect the system"
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/06/child-abuse-coverup-1980s-lord-tebbit?CMP=twt_gu
Ukraine in its current borders is an entirely artificial construct which in no way reflects the ethnic origins of its population and the best and fairest way to deal with the present situation would be to break the country up.
I am not up to date on HOC protocol, but there was a challenge of sorts... Dorries and a few others shouting no in the HOC at the time..
Russia inherited the rights & obligations of the Soviet Union on its breakup, including citizenship, it can almost certainly claim that anyone living in the former Soviet Union is a Russian citizen, its claims are spurious.
We need to get away from ethnicity & nationalism as a basis for defining the state. Granted the Ukrainians haven't done their cause any good by removing facilities for Russian speakers, but there is no reason why Russian and Ukrainian speakers cannot live side by side in a democratic Western country (not saying it is there now, but it could be). And in any case, Putin's hired thugs need to be opposed as a matter of policy.
And I am not sure what you mean by this "As it is only 60 years since most of them were Russian and any of them over the age of 60 will still be Russian", the Russian Empire came to an end 97 years ago by my reckoning. What happened in 1957 that is so important?
Jesus Christ, Jimmy Savile was at Chequers when he wasn't sleeping with dead people at Broadmoor, and Tebbitts admitted they turned a blind eye to it all for the greater good of the establishment
As for kippers quoting The Guardian - the world has changed!
Most amusing, as if It passed me by at the time. The point is HOW MANY have to shout NO for it to cause a contest?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7737004/John-Bercow-re-elected-as-House-of-Commons-Speaker-unopposed.html
Presumably if it was remotely close they'd have a formal vote.
The fate of the Tatars is that they were on the losing side of a line of a 1300 year old culture war.
The Crimea is a huge shame though: Russia has in effect been rewarded for ethnic cleansing just 80 years ago. I have huge sympathy for the Crimean Tatars.
Me too. Apparently a lot are now trying to leave, having recently started to move back from wherever they were exiled to by Stalin. And another muslim minority dispossessed, another reservoir of potential jihadism.
Dickens made these claims years ago. It is not new. He named people in parliament, he made accusations. Why has it suddenly come up again?
Tom Watson seemed to think it was a good idea in 2013 (which ought to make us think about the motives for all this) - as a result this dossier was reported missing. Now another Labour MP (writing a book -- with which he no doubt hopes to smear the libdems) comes along a year later.
I want to see the truth come out. But I do wonder about the basis for all this.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=-jC5U9zSOeqJ7Aax-4CoCA&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU&cd=1&ved=0CB4QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNH-L0fAaIJ_jm0GR9IQRP3jez1oWg
Type "tebbit" into twitter... The public reaction to it is all there
Also appearing on The Andrew Marr Show, Tebbit said: "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.
"That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."
Asked if he thought there had been a "big political cover-up" at the time, he said: "I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."
Why? It's known now that Smith, Morrison and Hayman were protected by the political class. If it's standard practise to cover up for VIP child-molesters then logically over time you'd expect to end up with a bunch of them congregated in and around Westminster.
And if the political class knew the rumours then the people involved would know the rumours about each other as well.
I'd say some kind of ring developing in those conditions would be highly likely.
We certainly need to challenge the assertion that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are Russians living abroad who is some way need Russian "protection"
The apparent calm in Eastern Ukraine is less a product of military intervention than a buying off of dissent by the oligarchs who own the core industries of the region and are, in many areas, sole local employers.
Bloomberg published a long article a week or so ago which reported how Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch and a former ally of ex-President Yanukovych had 'switched sides' to support the Kiev government. Akhmetov owns much of Eastern Ukraine's coal and steel industries through is Metinvest group.
The measures he has taken to 'quell the revolt' are mainly 'economic':
To gain the confidence of his workers and boost morale, Akhmetov has raised all salaries by about 20 percent and started a bonus program for employees in conflict zones who agree to help patrol the streets with local police, according to the company.
The average wage at Metinvest, which produced 12.5 million tons of steel last year, or about a third of the country’s output, is 5,264 hryvnia ($450) a month, about 53 percent more than the national average, according to the company. Workers can earn another $25 a day through the patrol program.
So, for the time being, the pro-Russian separatist movement has been 'bought off'. Bloomberg is somewhat naive though in seeing Akhmetov's move as being driven by nationalism or any other ideological principle beyond the preservation of personal wealth and power.
The article does however demonstrate the economic significance of Putin seizing the Crimea. The move was not simply to protect Yalta as the preferred summer holiday destination of middle class Russians; Crimean ports were the only ones in the region capable of supporting volume exports of Eastern Ukraine's industrial and mining output.
The fact that peace in the Ukraine is being traded across the gaming tables of a handful of oligarchs should not inspire great confidence in its permanence.
Full Bloomberg article here: http://buswk.co/1obHc9W
These issues were aired 30 odd years ago. The point I am making is the accusations were made Dickens said he was happy the dossier was handed in - it nws not nhanded in in secrecy. Then what? There was no secret about anything.
The press seem to have awoken from some coma.
edit: judging by twitter a lot more people will hear about what he said than watch Marr, goodo
Seems to me that Leon Brittan is playing the role of Villefort
In the case of Cyril Smith. According to one of the police officers involved, the report sent to them was a shortened version of the original document, and he was of the opinion on seeing the original, that if the full facts had been presented at the time there would have been grounds to pursue the matter further.
His statement in the filmed interview, may or may not reflect the facts, but he seemed sincere in his belief.
Why was the original redacted? Who knows, there may have been legitimate reasons, but it remains an unanswered question.
The battle in the next few months will involve Putin seeking to deprive the Ukraine of export markets and distribution channels and the EU and western finance agencies attempting to plug the holes with aid.
It should put a temporary stop to balaclava clad thugs seizing loal police stations, but hardly holds out the prospects for a mutually beneficial or long lasting settlement.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2014/0703/Robert-Mugabe-says-no-whites-may-own-land-in-Zimbabwe
I certainly rate the prospects of the English Democrats over the Young Necrophiliacs.
A government decrees that their land if forfeit.
Which government originally granted the land?
And did it have more, or less, the democratic legitimacy of the present one?
I am not saying that it is right or fair, just pointing out two ways in which it can be seen, depending on where you stand.
Has OGH been out with his paintbrush?
This "artificial borders" stuff is just crap. They are no more artificial than the borders of France or Germany.
The principal customers for the heavy industries of Eastern Ukraine are Russian. A substantial amount of mining extracts are also sold on world markets and make up the largest part of the Ukraine's foreign currency earnings.
Ukrainian consumers have a minimal impact on where such output is sold.
Chocolates maybe. Steel and Coal, not.
"I see Mugabe has finally completed his his apartheid regime in Zimbabwe:"
Was the post I was referring to, my fault, sorry.
Putin will extract a price from Ukraine, but the price will be counterbalanced by Ukraine becoming an EU affiliate. It will be only a matter of time before that becomes appealing to Russians too. The rule of Juncker wiĺl be much more pleasant than Putin!
I may be tempted to pop back more often now :^ )
Of course the greatest victims of Lenin, Trotsky and their Bolshevik co conspirators were the Russians themselves. A state against its own people with Russians far and few between in the state apparatus till Russification in the great Patriotic War. Personally though I loathe the left's tendency to cry crocodile tears over crimes that benefit their cause whilst ignoring those that don't. Who, whom is the motivator.
Fair enough, if they have declared an apartheid regime, what should be done?
Invade? Sanctions? What did we do all the other times it has happened?