David Cameron @David_Cameron Paying tribute to my great, great uncle Captain Francis Mount at the Battle of Loos Memorial in France. #WW1centenary pic.twitter.com/juXrWWwAJQ
It is incomprehensible that a leading political figure being expected to lay a wreath on such an important day would not anticipate requiring time to put a note on the wreath and if such time had not been available, that a flunky would be instructed to write the appropriate note.
To some it may seem trivial. As the great grandson of a volunteer who returned to the army having retired from it pre 1914 only to die at Arras in 1918 leaving 5 children, I feel insulted by Ed Miliband's lax attitude. To me it is further proof that he is not fit to become PM. Even Michael Foot would probably have managed to find time to append a short private note on the card.
Got really annoyed at Kevin Maguire this morning who tried to score a cheap political point by pointing out most of the soldiers who died didn't have the right to vote and nor did their wives/sisters/mothers. Some lefties just have no sense of occasion. People like Denis Healey would be saddened by such behaviour, great men of the left who had distinguished military careers.
Absolutely.
And Maguire will always aim for a cheap political shot if he can.
As opposed to those nobly taking aim at Ed Miliband today over wreathgate. No cheap shots there at all!!
I think highlighting an apparent lack of care on the part of the Miliband private office with regards to this is appropriate. It is the little things that can often matter the most.
It is about how he is perceived - and because of his focus on how the media is representing him, it is amazing that his staff didn't ensure that a simple wreath-laying event didn't provide further ammunition for his detractors.
If you aspire to lead our nation, you have to have the people around you to support you in that endeavour. It would appear that Miliband doesn't. His lack of awareness during the Swindon radio interview, the ill-conceived market visit/breakfast eating photoshoot, the decision to visit the White House for a photoshoot rather than being in the Commons for an important statement on Ukraine shows that there are serious problems at the heart of the Miliband staff.
David Cameron @David_Cameron Paying tribute to my great, great uncle Captain Francis Mount at the Battle of Loos Memorial in France. #WW1centenary pic.twitter.com/juXrWWwAJQ
How are PM should behave.
Oh well, if Britain hadn't declared war he may have lived for far longer...
I'm personally of the opinion that there is too much 'is he showing enough grief' watching in modern life .Personal messages (or the lack of them) should be just that -personal. We seem to be living in fear of being outed for not showing enough grief or profound sadness at many things these days be it Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence , WW1 rememberances etc
This may sound a bit insensitive but I am not going to turn off my lights tonight just as I don't on the anniversary of the death of my mother. Lets not grade (or overdo) grief.its a personal thing
So in this case I feel a bit sorry for Miliband and Clegg. But then again their parties like to look out for too little grief showing at times as well
Can't believe that there is a debate about a wreath message for which Ed and Nick were not given an opportunity to write a personal message. I suspect that the PM's team were able to get hold of the blank message, so a personal note could be left, as the serving PM.
So, if the PM could do it why couldn't Miliband and Clegg? Could it be that they didn't give a toss and were just there for the photos? This story, which at first I couldn't believe, is about what it tells us about Miliband, his values and his suitability to be PM.
Indeed - why could the PM do it and not the other two? It could be that they hate Britain and its history and have complete disdain for all those who have fought and/or died in service - including, no doubt, their own friends and relatives. Or it could be that they were not made aware they could supply personal messages, or that they were not given the opportunity to do so. Maybe we'll find out more in the hours and days to come.
The c*ck up theory is most likely to be nearer the truth.
Not sure it is a c*ck up.
Much more likely to be (another) symptom of how cr*p their back office support is. Like the Swindon radio thing, it's something that they should just get right. Clearly someone should have thought harder about it, like they clearly did in Cameron & Charles's offices. The most likely explanation is that the Cs offices were in touch with the organisers in advance, got a blank dedication sheet, stuck it under their respective boss's nose to sign and made sure their boss had it with them on the day. Not dfficult, but takes planning and organisation.
The criticism of Miliband isn't even because he didn't remove the tag - I can see that would be difficult (if he did and the other two didn't, he'd be criticised for politicking).
The real issue is that - once again - his back office has let him down. He should have sorted this by now.
Rob D's polling graph is going to show a narrowing when he loads today's Populus and Ashcroft - the first 4 polls of his new 15 day cycle will show an average Lab lead of 2.75% - down from 3.72% for the last complete 15 day cycle.
Not a big move but still mild encouragement for Con.
Can't believe that there is a debate about a wreath message for which Ed and Nick were not given an opportunity to write a personal message. I suspect that the PM's team were able to get hold of the blank message, so a personal note could be left, as the serving PM.
So, if the PM could do it why couldn't Miliband and Clegg? Could it be that they didn't give a toss and were just there for the photos? This story, which at first I couldn't believe, is about what it tells us about Miliband, his values and his suitability to be PM.
Indeed - why could the PM do it and not the other two? It could be that they hate Britain and its history and have complete disdain for all those who have fought and/or died in service - including, no doubt, their own friends and relatives. Or it could be that they were not made aware they could supply personal messages, or that they were not given the opportunity to do so. Maybe we'll find out more in the hours and days to come.
The c*ck up theory is most likely to be nearer the truth.
Not sure it is a c*ck up.
Much more likely to be (another) symptom of how cr*p their back office support is. Like the Swindon radio thing, it's something that they should just get right. Clearly someone should have thought harder about it, like they clearly did in Cameron & Charles's offices. The most likely explanation is that the Cs offices were in touch with the organisers in advance, got a blank dedication sheet, stuck it under their respective boss's nose to sign and made sure their boss had it with them on the day. Not dfficult, but takes planning and organisation.
The criticism of Miliband isn't even because he didn't remove the tag - I can see that would be difficult (if he did and the other two didn't, he'd be criticised for politicking).
The real issue is that - once again - his back office has let him down. He should have sorted this by now.
Absolutely.
A simple failure to ask the right questions has created a whole lot of noise and criticism.
When you are trying to shift the focus from appearance/style onto matters of substance, you have to make sure you don't give your critics any ammunition.
Ashcroft National Poll: Con 30%, Lab 33%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 18%, Green 6% Aug 04, 2014 03:59 pm
Labour lead by three points in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. Vote shares were Labour 33% (down one point on last week), Conservatives 30% (down two), Liberal Democrats 8% (down one), UKIP 18% (up four) and the Greens unchanged on 6%.
"The three-point margin reflects those published yesterday by YouGov and Opinium, but with lower scores for both Labour and the Tories. A smaller two-party combined vote share has been a regular pattern in the ANP; we will see whether it continues into the autumn and the start of the long campaign.
Returning to the theme of the economy, I asked once again whether people most trusted David Cameron and George Osborne or Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to manage things in the best interests of Britain. This time, however, I split the sample and asked the question in two different ways. Half were asked whom they most trusted “with our economy facing serious problems and challenges in the months ahead”; the other half, whom they preferred “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering”.
The reason for this is to test the idea that people might think differently about who they want in charge depending on the issues at stake. Would they be more likely to name the Tory team when thinking about the tough decisions needed, or when reminded of the good economic news that was starting to come through? Or would they in fact be more inclined to go back to Labour if they felt the hard economic work had now been done and less was at stake?
As it turned out, the framing of the question made very little difference, but either way the results were bad news for Labour. “With the economy facing serious problems and challenges” people preferred the Tory team by a 17-point margin (45% to 28%); “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering” they favoured Cameron and Osborne by 19 points (48% to 29%).
Two sets of figures stand out in the data. The first is that among swing voters, who say they don’t know how they will vote or that they may yet change their mind, the Tories led by 31 points under the first formulation and 25 points under the second; a bigger margin than among the electorate as a whole.
The second is that “with the economy facing serious problems and challenges”, one in five Labour voters prefers Cameron and Osborne; “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering”, one in four prefer the incumbents. Either way, only two thirds of Labour voters prefer the Eds."
Can't believe that there is a debate about a wreath message for which Ed and Nick were not given an opportunity to write a personal message. I suspect that the PM's team were able to get hold of the blank message, so a personal note could be left, as the serving PM.
As serving DPM and serving LOTO, Miliband and Clegg have attended enough memorial services in recent years to know the form. They or their staff should have been up to speed on this.
I've done numerous memorial services. Unless the system is different at national services, you are simply handed a wreath at the event, take it over and lay it down. The organisers don't trust you with it in advance in case you drop it etc. The question is why the three leaders were apparently treated differently, and I suspect the answer is neither a Tory conspiracy nor a Lab/Lib blunder but simply an amdinistrative cock-up.
Not so much a big mistake by Ed as a bit of one-upmanship by Cameron who probably has the confidence to ad-lib. Being PM tends to give you that self-confidence. Whether Ed will develop it if he should become PM is the big question.
Rob D's polling graph is going to show a narrowing when he loads today's Populus and Ashcroft - the first 4 polls of his new 15 day cycle will show an average Lab lead of 2.75% - down from 3.72% for the last complete 15 day cycle.
Not a big move but still mild encouragement for Con.
I'm currently on a plane so no updates for a few hours! I think the average point requires four polls to appear as you mentioned.
Rob D's polling graph is going to show a narrowing when he loads today's Populus and Ashcroft - the first 4 polls of his new 15 day cycle will show an average Lab lead of 2.75% - down from 3.72% for the last complete 15 day cycle.
Not a big move but still mild encouragement for Con.
I'm currently on a plane so no updates for a few hours! I think the average point requires four polls to appear as you mentioned.
Can't believe that there is a debate about a wreath message for which Ed and Nick were not given an opportunity to write a personal message. I suspect that the PM's team were able to get hold of the blank message, so a personal note could be left, as the serving PM.
As serving DPM and serving LOTO, Miliband and Clegg have attended enough memorial services in recent years to know the form. They or their staff should have been up to speed on this.
I've done numerous memorial services. Unless the system is different at national services, you are simply handed a wreath at the event, take it over and lay it down. The organisers don't trust you with it in advance in case you drop it etc. The question is why the three leaders were apparently treated differently, and I suspect the answer is neither a Tory conspiracy nor a Lab/Lib blunder but simply an amdinistrative cock-up.
I though wreaths laid at the Cenotaph each year had personal messages.
Perhaps Cameron specifically asked to write an individual message (in advance).
"A row has broken out in the UK over the messages written on wreaths presented by the three main party leaders. Prime Minister David Cameron hand-wrote a tribute for the ceremony at Glasgow's Cenotaph, which read: "Your most enduring legacy is our liberty. We must never forget." Mr Miliband's said: "From the Leader of the Opposition", while Mr Clegg's said: "From the Deputy Prime Minister", leading to accusations of insensitivity.
But a Labour spokesman said leader Mr Miliband "was not given the opportunity to write a personal message on the wreath, and was only handed it seconds before" it was laid. A Liberal Democrat spokesman said there had been only about "10 seconds" between the wreath being handed to Mr Clegg and it being laid."
Seems the BBC did report it as part of it's "live" coverage if not on the main page.
I don't know why you make an (incorrect)assumption that pointing out what the UN has said about the breaches of international law committed by Hamas makes me a supporter of the Israeli PM. Says more about you than me, I think.
Far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than vice versa. And I was referring to the current round of fighting.
Your question was not clear. This current round does not come out of a clear blue sky though, so what happened in previous rounds is highly relevant context. A context you seem to want to ignore.
Any source for your claim that since Israel has come into being far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than the other way around? How about how many Israelis have been killed in the wars in 1947-48 and subsequently in which the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians fought, allegedly on behalf of the Palestinians?
Given that so much of the debate around international law and proportionality revolves around the use of unnecessary force, it is curious that, according to news reports, on July 29th the IDF was saying that 2600 rockets had been fired from Gaza to Israel. But Hamas claimed to have fired 2090 rockets and Islamic Jihad to have fired 2039 rockets. They may be double-counting of course but odd that they should be publicly claiming to have fired double the number of rockets that Israel say are being fired at them. It rather undermines the claim that Israel is using disproportionate force against an enemy which is not a threat.
Also worth noting that Hamas' own statistics from its Ministry of Health show that the majority of people killed in Gaza are young men between the ages of 20 - 29.
Anyway I'm sure that we can agree that the death of children, whether Palestinians or Israelis, is a tragedy and one we all hope will stop - and not just temporarily. It is always the innocents who suffer in war.
I don't know why you make an (incorrect)assumption that pointing out what the UN has said about the breaches of international law committed by Hamas makes me a supporter of the Israeli PM. Says more about you than me, I think.
Far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than vice versa. And I was referring to the current round of fighting.
Your question was not clear. This current round does not come out of a clear blue sky though, so what happened in previous rounds is highly relevant context. A context you seem to want to ignore.
Loving the way you defend Bibi "Baby-killer" Netanyahu!
This is funny, the party of Tom Watson who saw fit to submit a FOIA request concerning pasties consumed by the PM sulking when they drop a bollock at this major event.
Comments
Paying tribute to my great, great uncle Captain Francis Mount at the Battle of Loos Memorial in France. #WW1centenary pic.twitter.com/juXrWWwAJQ
How are PM should behave.
Just seen the wreath. Ed Miliband is becoming a parody of Ed Miliband.
It is about how he is perceived - and because of his focus on how the media is representing him, it is amazing that his staff didn't ensure that a simple wreath-laying event didn't provide further ammunition for his detractors.
If you aspire to lead our nation, you have to have the people around you to support you in that endeavour. It would appear that Miliband doesn't. His lack of awareness during the Swindon radio interview, the ill-conceived market visit/breakfast eating photoshoot, the decision to visit the White House for a photoshoot rather than being in the Commons for an important statement on Ukraine shows that there are serious problems at the heart of the Miliband staff.
That is why it is worthy of comment.
This may sound a bit insensitive but I am not going to turn off my lights tonight just as I don't on the anniversary of the death of my mother. Lets not grade (or overdo) grief.its a personal thing
So in this case I feel a bit sorry for Miliband and Clegg. But then again their parties like to look out for too little grief showing at times as well
Much more likely to be (another) symptom of how cr*p their back office support is. Like the Swindon radio thing, it's something that they should just get right. Clearly someone should have thought harder about it, like they clearly did in Cameron & Charles's offices. The most likely explanation is that the Cs offices were in touch with the organisers in advance, got a blank dedication sheet, stuck it under their respective boss's nose to sign and made sure their boss had it with them on the day. Not dfficult, but takes planning and organisation.
The criticism of Miliband isn't even because he didn't remove the tag - I can see that would be difficult (if he did and the other two didn't, he'd be criticised for politicking).
The real issue is that - once again - his back office has let him down. He should have sorted this by now.
Your leader made a huge mistake and is a disgrace.
Deal with it.
Not a big move but still mild encouragement for Con.
A simple failure to ask the right questions has created a whole lot of noise and criticism.
When you are trying to shift the focus from appearance/style onto matters of substance, you have to make sure you don't give your critics any ammunition.
Aug 04, 2014 03:59 pm
Labour lead by three points in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted over the past weekend. Vote shares were Labour 33% (down one point on last week), Conservatives 30% (down two), Liberal Democrats 8% (down one), UKIP 18% (up four) and the Greens unchanged on 6%.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/08/ashcroft-national-poll-con-30-lab-33-lib-dem-8-ukip-18-green-6/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ashcroft-national-poll-con-30-lab-33-lib-dem-8-ukip-18-green-6&utm_source=Lord+Ashcroft+Polls&utm_campaign=507cfc83ea-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b70c7aec0a-507cfc83ea-71623245
Compare and contrast:
Populus: 280/2021 (13.9% of respondents) weighted to 170 (8.4%)
Ashcroft: UKIP 127/1002 (12.6% of respondents) weighted to 124 (12.4%)
THIS is why UKIP's numbers are so variable - nobody, but nobody has a clue how to weight for them properly.
"The three-point margin reflects those published yesterday by YouGov and Opinium, but with lower scores for both Labour and the Tories. A smaller two-party combined vote share has been a regular pattern in the ANP; we will see whether it continues into the autumn and the start of the long campaign.
Returning to the theme of the economy, I asked once again whether people most trusted David Cameron and George Osborne or Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to manage things in the best interests of Britain. This time, however, I split the sample and asked the question in two different ways. Half were asked whom they most trusted “with our economy facing serious problems and challenges in the months ahead”; the other half, whom they preferred “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering”.
The reason for this is to test the idea that people might think differently about who they want in charge depending on the issues at stake. Would they be more likely to name the Tory team when thinking about the tough decisions needed, or when reminded of the good economic news that was starting to come through? Or would they in fact be more inclined to go back to Labour if they felt the hard economic work had now been done and less was at stake?
As it turned out, the framing of the question made very little difference, but either way the results were bad news for Labour. “With the economy facing serious problems and challenges” people preferred the Tory team by a 17-point margin (45% to 28%); “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering” they favoured Cameron and Osborne by 19 points (48% to 29%).
Two sets of figures stand out in the data. The first is that among swing voters, who say they don’t know how they will vote or that they may yet change their mind, the Tories led by 31 points under the first formulation and 25 points under the second; a bigger margin than among the electorate as a whole.
The second is that “with the economy facing serious problems and challenges”, one in five Labour voters prefers Cameron and Osborne; “now that the recession is over and the economy is recovering”, one in four prefer the incumbents. Either way, only two thirds of Labour voters prefer the Eds."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715587/Twitter-row-Ed-Miliband-ridiculed-stark-message-WWI-centenary-wreath-contrast-David-Cameron-s-handwritten-note.html
Whereas the BBC don't think it's important enough to mention...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk/
Can it all have come from the LDs? I mean it's not as if Cons are on 29%.
(Edit: of course not *all* from the LDs...)
Not so much a big mistake by Ed as a bit of one-upmanship by Cameron who probably has the confidence to ad-lib. Being PM tends to give you that self-confidence. Whether Ed will develop it if he should become PM is the big question.
Weeh!!!
Don't hold you breath until next week. There will be a major fall in support supposedly. Of course in reality nothing will have happened.
EICIPM
Don't be a drama-queen!!!
People on here absolutely have no clue about priorities....
Your "monicker" has a different connotation in Glasgow, which seems to fit very well.
Look it up sometime.
I don't believe that Miliband would set out to be disrespectful on such an occasion. However he has been let down by those around him yet again.
Until he gets a grip of his back-office team, he is going to stumble into difficulty again and again and again.
Whilst that is bad for a LOTO, it would be indefensible as PM.
Company fix bayonets! Company advance! {whistles}
Perhaps Cameron specifically asked to write an individual message (in advance).
But a Labour spokesman said leader Mr Miliband "was not given the opportunity to write a personal message on the wreath, and was only handed it seconds before" it was laid. A Liberal Democrat spokesman said there had been only about "10 seconds" between the wreath being handed to Mr Clegg and it being laid."
Seems the BBC did report it as part of it's "live" coverage if not on the main page.
Any source for your claim that since Israel has come into being far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than the other way around? How about how many Israelis have been killed in the wars in 1947-48 and subsequently in which the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians fought, allegedly on behalf of the Palestinians?
Given that so much of the debate around international law and proportionality revolves around the use of unnecessary force, it is curious that, according to news reports, on July 29th the IDF was saying that 2600 rockets had been fired from Gaza to Israel. But Hamas claimed to have fired 2090 rockets and Islamic Jihad to have fired 2039 rockets. They may be double-counting of course but odd that they should be publicly claiming to have fired double the number of rockets that Israel say are being fired at them. It rather undermines the claim that Israel is using disproportionate force against an enemy which is not a threat.
Also worth noting that Hamas' own statistics from its Ministry of Health show that the majority of people killed in Gaza are young men between the ages of 20 - 29.
Anyway I'm sure that we can agree that the death of children, whether Palestinians or Israelis, is a tragedy and one we all hope will stop - and not just temporarily. It is always the innocents who suffer in war.
And now am off out. Have a good day all.