And so, on the same basis, is the parliamentary Conservative party then (indeed I suspect that an inspection of their voting record would show them to be less trustworthy).
But the deal was done between Cameron and Clegg as representatives of their party.
Cameron was upfront he couldn't deliver his party on this issue. Certainly a risk that should taken into account, but don't think "untrustworthy" is the right word.
The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.
Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.
My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.
So, is Scotland a country?
Country is a very flexible term.
Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.
In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.
So where in your precise scheme does the EU fit in? It is not a country, yet its powers have been proven in court to be supreme over national parliaments. And your party's policy was not only to negotiate Scotland's way back in, but to deny the people of Scotland a referendum on continued membership. No knavish equivocation please.
I couldn't give a toss whether an independent Scotland held a referendum on continued EU membership or not, particularly as it's now academic. As with the indy referendum I would have been quite happy if a party put a commitment to an EU referendum in their manifesto and then gained a mandate to hold one. You otoh seem to want all parties to agree to enact what is your particular obsession.
Cameron supported Lords reform and whipped (I think) the vote.
Clegg broke his word.
The coalition agreement was between parties, not Clegg and Cameron. Cameron whipped it and couldn't deliver the votes. The Conservatives failed to keep their word.
Indeed by opposing elections outright the Tory rebels were going against their own manifesto.
Given the reforms Clegg propsed could you blame them ?
The proposals were the way they were to get opponents on side. They were a long way from the Lib Dem proposals.
The phrase "bring forward" was used precisely because Cameron couldn't deliver 100% of his party and knew it.
Clegg actively militated against boundary reform.
He is an untrustworthy partner - that means that any future coalition negotiations will be that much more difficult.
That was his choice. And it will have consequences.
Clegg realised halfway through the reformed boundary process that the LDs had most to lose from the proposed changes. Incumbency in many areas which had saved and would continue to save LD MPs would be gone and then his party would be down to a rump. His only way out was to invoke the disingenuous approach linking Lords reform to Boundary reform when originally it had been linked with the AV referendum.
I'm sure that's what happened.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
And so, on the same basis, is the parliamentary Conservative party then (indeed I suspect that an inspection of their voting record would show them to be less trustworthy).
But the deal was done between Cameron and Clegg as representatives of their party.
Coalitions are between parties.
I doubt we'll see the Conservative parliamentary party meekly herded into a Coalition without so much as a by-your-leave again but I still think an analysis of voting records will show them to be the less trustworthy partners of the two of them this time around.
Piffle. PR is not uber-commentator. It's opinion shaping others to achieve your strategic objectives. Convincing investors, partners and others that you're a force to be reckoned with and will deliver for them.
And when you're not doing that - you're fire fighting other people's eff-ups and attempting to save them from themselves before they get eaten alive. Bad PR is the fastest way to kill yourself corporately. Just look at what happened to BP when they lost control of it. History is littered with Ratner Moments. There'd be an awful lot more without it.
I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.
My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.
I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.
(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring unfunded tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.
Cameron supported Lords reform and whipped (I think) the vote.
Clegg broke his word.
The coalition agreement was between parties, not Clegg and Cameron. Cameron whipped it and couldn't deliver the votes. The Conservatives failed to keep their word.
Indeed by opposing elections outright the Tory rebels were going against their own manifesto.
Given the reforms Clegg propsed could you blame them ?
The proposals were the way they were to get opponents on side. They were a long way from the Lib Dem proposals.
The phrase "bring forward" was used precisely because Cameron couldn't deliver 100% of his party and knew it.
Clegg actively militated against boundary reform.
He is an untrustworthy partner - that means that any future coalition negotiations will be that much more difficult.
That was his choice. And it will have consequences.
Clegg realised halfway through the reformed boundary process that the LDs had most to lose from the proposed changes. Incumbency in many areas which had saved and would continue to save LD MPs would be gone and then his party would be down to a rump. His only way out was to invoke the disingenuous approach linking Lords reform to Boundary reform when originally it had been linked with the AV referendum.
I'm sure that's what happened.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
Clegg had no qualms about shafting students, so what makes anyone think he wouldn't just as readily shaft the Tories?
Luckyguy1983 The idea that the US is always led by leaders who are more interventionist abroad than the UK, on the whole yes, but not at the moment, it was Sarkozy and Cameron who dragged Obama into Libya for example. In 1990 it was Margaret Thatcher who told Bush Senior 'not to go wobbly' in Gulf War 1, it was Blair who dragged Clinton into Kosovo
That's a surface reading. I'm afraid I don't believe for a second that the America would have gone to war with France and Britain against its will, and nor should you. Watch this interview with 5 star General Wesley Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw These 'topplings' have been long planned, pre-Obama. Though I don't doubt France's keenness (Sarkozy had his own reasons for wanting Gadaffi dead). I think Britain is often used as a stalking horse for US policy. See the way Cameron goes around the world insulting people more than even the US is prepared to do. Which makes it even worse, because our reputation is blackened around the world even more than theirs.
I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.
My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.
I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.
(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring unfunded tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.
Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will almost certainly be higher at the end of the Parliament than they were at the start.
The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.
Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.
My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.
So, is Scotland a country?
Country is a very flexible term.
Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.
In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.
The question "is Scotland a country?" is meaningless unless you have an agreed definition of what a country is.
When I say that the UK is my country I mean that it is the legal, defined and recognised unit that operates on my behalf on the world stage.
Scotland is not a country in this sense although it clearly is for other purposes such as FIFA.
Within the UK there are certain additional loyalties that are subservient to the loyalty I have to the whole. Within that whole I support Scotland against England in sports for example and enjoy aspects of Scottish culture. These internal loyalties are consistent with my loyalty to the whole.
As an aside - who'd ever have expected Foot & Mouth to get so out of control here that a GE was postponed in 2001?
Prime Minister Tony Blair has postponed May's local elections until 7 June - when he will almost certainly hold a general election too.
He said voting on the original date of 3 May would have been possible in spite of the foot-and-mouth epidemic but he wanted to take account of the "feelings and sensitivities" of people in affected areas.
The form a black swan can arrive in is as creative as ever.
Just throwing in an aside here. We sometimes talk of 'what if's' and David Herdson is a particular Threadmeister at this (I teased him slightly about it re. an autumn election he was proposing).
If the projected high in the plague cycle of 2019 is the recent Ebola outbreak, then I think we should be very worried indeed. There have now been 2 confirmed cases in Germany, not reported in the mainstream media at all - its not just about Texas. The sheer number of negative cycles that seem about to hit, economy turning down about a year from now, an upcoming mini-ice age and the plague cycle make it all look an extremely challenging time to put it mildly over the next 5 or 6 years.
I work in marketing; I don't need an explanation of PR thanks. I highlighted this against a similar criticism levelled at Farage's previous career as a commodities trader.
If you think a background in a PR firm is better suited to ministerial office than as a commodities trader, you are welcome to your opinion. I would suggest such a view is why the country is in its current predicament.
Piffle. PR is not uber-commentator. It's opinion shaping others to achieve your strategic objectives. Convincing investors, partners and others that you're a force to be reckoned with and will deliver for them.
And when you're not doing that - you're fire fighting other people's eff-ups and attempting to save them from themselves before they get eaten alive. Bad PR is the fastest way to kill yourself corporately. Just look at what happened to BP when they lost control of it. History is littered with Ratner Moments. There'd be an awful lot more without it.
I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.
My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.
I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.
(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
It does look as though voters have seen through the Liberals, though... once you get past "racist", "xenophobic", "immigration is good for you" is there anything left?
Edmund Burke, perhaps the greatest of all the Whigs, had hard things to say about pulling down in half an hour what prudence, deliberation and foresight had built up in a hundred years. But even that great Irish seer, prophetic as he was, could not have foreseen the determined thoroughness with which Cleggie would pull down his party. He would have stared in horrified disbelief as a man elected on the basis of sanctimonious assurances that he would be more honest than his rivals promptly set about breaking all his cledges. (A cledge, regular readers will remember, is not just an unfulfilled promise; it is a commitment made in deliberately bad faith.)
Cameron supported Lords reform and whipped (I think) the vote.
Clegg broke his word.
The coalition agreement was between parties, not Clegg and Cameron. Cameron whipped it and couldn't deliver the votes. The Conservatives failed to keep their word.
Indeed by opposing elections outright the Tory rebels were going against their own manifesto.
Given the reforms Clegg propsed could you blame them ?
The proposals were the way they were to get opponents on side. They were a long way from the Lib Dem proposals.
The phrase "bring forward" was used precisely because Cameron couldn't deliver 100% of his party and knew it.
Clegg actively militated against boundary reform.
He is an untrustworthy partner - that means that any future coalition negotiations will be that much more difficult.
That was his choice. And it will have consequences.
Clegg realised halfway through the reformed boundary process that the LDs had most to lose from the proposed changes. Incumbency in many areas which had saved and would continue to save LD MPs would be gone and then his party would be down to a rump. His only way out was to invoke the disingenuous approach linking Lords reform to Boundary reform when originally it had been linked with the AV referendum.
I'm sure that's what happened.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring unfunded tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.
Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will almost certainly be higher at the end of the Parliament than they were at the start.
As Conservatives are wont to say, this is a coalition government not a Conservative government.
Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring unfunded tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.
Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will almost certainly be higher at the end of the Parliament than they were at the start.
You seem to have forgotten that this is a coalition government, not a Conservative government.
Just a quick comment on the Red Liberal firewall following on from yesterday's thread.
I've not checked across all pollsters as I've not had time, so picked Mori as they identified more of them in their most recent poll than anyone else.
It is true that 31% of 2010 LD voters said they'd switched to Labour. Offset against that, they found 2% of 2010 Lab voters going the other way. However, they also found 10% of 2010 LDs going Con, with 1% of Con going back. The overall swing still represents a gain for Labour of 5% more than for the Tories (or if you prefer, an effective swing of about 2.5%), which is not to be sniffed at but is perhaps smaller than the LD-Lab figure would indicate in isolation. And as mentioned, Mori found the largest group of Red Liberals; it's likely that the net swing from the other pollsters is smaller.
'Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.'
Good luck with that after Labour gave us the worst recession & deficit since the 1930's
Even Tom Watson admitted the other night.
'people believe the Tories are actually better with their money than the other parties.’
The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.
Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.
My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.
So, is Scotland a country?
Country is a very flexible term.
Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.
In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.
So where in your precise scheme does the EU fit in? It is not a country, yet its powers have been proven in court to be supreme over national parliaments. And your party's policy was not only to negotiate Scotland's way back in, but to deny the people of Scotland a referendum on continued membership. No knavish equivocation please.
I couldn't give a toss whether an independent Scotland held a referendum on continued EU membership or not, particularly as it's now academic. As with the indy referendum I would have been quite happy if a party put a commitment to an EU referendum in their manifesto and then gained a mandate to hold one. You otoh seem to want all parties to agree to enact what is your particular obsession.
So you were determined for your country to leave one political union, but you don't 'give a toss' about Scotland's future within another political union, which is more costly, less democratic, where Scotland is barely represented, but whose ever greater interference takes precedence over national Governments. How do you expect that position to be taken seriously? It would appear to indicate nothing more than an emotional resentment toward England, rather than any serious desire for Scotland to be an independent country.
My point is that being a singleton trader is not the same as holding an executive rank in a PLC.
In the same way that a book-keeper isn't about to affect a PLC's shareprice, but the FD could.
It's not about discipline reductionism, it's about what you did within that role. I'm a former Dir of PR - hence why I get irked by the demeaning of my profession. I spent a long time in Marketing too and wouldn't dream of reducing that to *Oh its a logo isn't it*. It's the same thing in my book.
I work in marketing; I don't need an explanation of PR thanks. I highlighted this against a similar criticism levelled at Farage's previous career as a commodities trader.
If you think a in a PR firm is better suited to ministerial office than as a commodities trader, you are welcome to your opinion. I would suggest such a view is why the country is in its current predicament.
Piffle. PR is not uber-commentator. It's opinion shaping others to achieve your strategic objectives. Convincing investors, partners and others that you're a force to be reckoned with and will deliver for them.
I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.
My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.
I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.
(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
I work in marketing; I don't need an explanation of PR thanks. I highlighted this against a similar criticism levelled at Farage's previous career as a commodities trader.
If you think a background in a PR firm is better suited to ministerial office than as a commodities trader, you are welcome to your opinion. I would suggest such a view is why the country is in its current predicament.
Piffle. PR is not uber-commentator. It's opinion shaping others to achieve your strategic objectives. Convincing investors, partners and others that you're a force to be reckoned with and will deliver for them.
And when you're not doing that - you're fire fighting other people's eff-ups and attempting to save them from themselves before they get eaten alive. Bad PR is the fastest way to kill yourself corporately. Just look at what happened to BP when they lost control of it. History is littered with Ratner Moments. There'd be an awful lot more without it.
I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.
My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.
I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.
(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
B to C. We employ a PR firm on a retainer as part of our broader strategy. Of course I don't think they're the same thing. Unlike huge swathes of my industry I don't even think Marketing and promotion are the same thing. Your attempted attacks are pitiable.
The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.
Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.
My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.
So, is Scotland a country?
Country is a very flexible term.
Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.
In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.
The question "is Scotland a country?" is meaningless unless you have an agreed definition of what a country is.
When I say that the UK is my country I mean that it is the legal, defined and recognised unit that operates on my behalf on the world stage.
Scotland is not a country in this sense although it clearly is for other purposes such as FIFA.
Within the UK there are certain additional loyalties that are subservient to the loyalty I have to the whole. Within that whole I support Scotland against England in sports for example and enjoy aspects of Scottish culture. These internal loyalties are consistent with my loyalty to the whole.
My point is that being a singleton trader is not the same as holding an executive rank in a PLC.
In the same way that a book-keeper isn't about to affect a PLC's shareprice, but the FD could.
It's not about discipline reductionism, it's about what you did within that role. I'm a former Dir of PR - hence why I get irked by the demeaning of my profession. I spent a long time in Marketing too and wouldn't dream of reducing that to *Oh its a logo isn't it*. It's the same thing in my book.
I work in marketing; I don't need an explanation of PR thanks. I highlighted this against a similar criticism levelled at Farage's previous career as a commodities trader.
If you think a in a PR firm is better suited to ministerial office than as a commodities trader, you are welcome to your opinion. I would suggest such a view is why the country is in its current predicament.
Piffle. PR is not uber-commentator. It's opinion shaping others to achieve your strategic objectives. Convincing investors, partners and others that you're a force to be reckoned with and will deliver for them.
We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.
PR just equals fancy ponced up lies. Spivs out to fleece people.
LuckyGuy1983 It was Thatcher who wanted to topple Saddam in 1990, Bush Senior chickened out. Of course Wesley Clark wanted to take on the Russians in Kosovo
You could slice it that way. You could also say that one lives on their wits and has to sing for their supper, whilst the other has no effective measure of success due to the nature of what PR is. Most marketing agencies are the same -success is easy to claim, failure is easy to offload. What did Cameron achieve during his 7 years at Carlton? I'm open to new information.
I know what Farage did -he made a good living; balanced the books. The argument was that keeping him out of office was a worthwhile reason to vote Labour over UKIP.
My point is that being a singleton trader is not the same as holding an executive rank in a PLC.
In the same way that a book-keeper isn't about to affect a PLC's shareprice, but the FD could.
It's not about discipline reductionism, it's about what you did within that role. I'm a former Dir of PR - hence why I get irked by the demeaning of my profession. I spent a long time in Marketing too and wouldn't dream of reducing that to *Oh its a logo isn't it*. It's the same thing in my book.
LuckyGuy1983 It was Thatcher who wanted to topple Saddam in 1990, Bush Senior chickened out. Of course Wesley Clark wanted to take on the Russians in Kosovo
I have no brief to speak for Thatcher -I believe her record speaks for itself. Her implacable (and understandable) Atlanticism is something I do not agree with. I also understand (though disagree with) her desire to topple Saddam at that time, rather than coming back to do it later. I still believe that when she felt fundamental British interests were at stake, she was prepared to fight for them, even at the risk of upsetting the US.
That said, I believe my point about the current world still stands -the Middle East is currently being re-ordered in America's geopolitical interests, not Europe's, and certainly not Britain's.
LuckyGuy1983 It was Thatcher who wanted to topple Saddam in 1990, Bush Senior chickened out. Of course Wesley Clark wanted to take on the Russians in Kosovo
Wrong:
Thatcher was disposed by the kuntish* Clarke and Heseltine: John Major then sent in 1st Armoured Division. It was only after "The Road of Death" (and the killing of seven Scousers by ANU A-10 Warthogs) that G.W.H. Bush lost the plot.
Agree with your comment about Wesley Clark: Total nutter! Our "non-Wikied" DB sorted out that son-of-a-gun...!
LuckyGuy1983 Of course she stood for the UK's interests above all, as she did over the Falklands. The Middle Eastern boundaries were created by the UK and France
FThs The Gulf War began under Thatcher, ended under Major. It was of course Thatcher who told Bush Snr 'not to go wobbly'. I agree on Clark and De La Billiere
Comments
Cameron was upfront he couldn't deliver his party on this issue. Certainly a risk that should taken into account, but don't think "untrustworthy" is the right word.
Clegg broke his word.
Incumbency in many areas which had saved and would continue to save LD MPs would be gone and then his party would be down to a rump.
His only way out was to invoke the disingenuous approach linking Lords reform to Boundary reform when originally it had been linked with the AV referendum.
I'm sure that's what happened.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
I doubt we'll see the Conservative parliamentary party meekly herded into a Coalition without so much as a by-your-leave again but I still think an analysis of voting records will show them to be the less trustworthy partners of the two of them this time around.
And when you're not doing that - you're fire fighting other people's eff-ups and attempting to save them from themselves before they get eaten alive. Bad PR is the fastest way to kill yourself corporately. Just look at what happened to BP when they lost control of it. History is littered with Ratner Moments. There'd be an awful lot more without it.
Cameron was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years. I get really irked when people dismiss this as some meaningless non-job to sneer at.
IIRC OGH held a similar role at one time in academia - I'm sure he didn't think it was a non-job either.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
Clegg had no qualms about shafting students, so what makes anyone think he wouldn't just as readily shaft the Tories?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
These 'topplings' have been long planned, pre-Obama. Though I don't doubt France's keenness (Sarkozy had his own reasons for wanting Gadaffi dead). I think Britain is often used as a stalking horse for US policy. See the way Cameron goes around the world insulting people more than even the US is prepared to do. Which makes it even worse, because our reputation is blackened around the world even more than theirs.
More names please.
When I say that the UK is my country I mean that it is the legal, defined and recognised unit that operates on my behalf on the world stage.
Scotland is not a country in this sense although it clearly is for other purposes such as FIFA.
Within the UK there are certain additional loyalties that are subservient to the loyalty I have to the whole. Within that whole I support Scotland against England in sports for example and enjoy aspects of Scottish culture. These internal loyalties are consistent with my loyalty to the whole.
A lot of very interesting articles on Ebola on this website: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/will-the-demise-be-plague-or-economics/
If the projected high in the plague cycle of 2019 is the recent Ebola outbreak, then I think we should be very worried indeed. There have now been 2 confirmed cases in Germany, not reported in the mainstream media at all - its not just about Texas. The sheer number of negative cycles that seem about to hit, economy turning down about a year from now, an upcoming mini-ice age and the plague cycle make it all look an extremely challenging time to put it mildly over the next 5 or 6 years.
If you think a background in a PR firm is better suited to ministerial office than as a commodities trader, you are welcome to your opinion. I would suggest such a view is why the country is in its current predicament.
But you are being too generous with the term "disingenuous".
He broke his word, because he didn't like the deal he signed up to.
I've not checked across all pollsters as I've not had time, so picked Mori as they identified more of them in their most recent poll than anyone else.
It is true that 31% of 2010 LD voters said they'd switched to Labour. Offset against that, they found 2% of 2010 Lab voters going the other way. However, they also found 10% of 2010 LDs going Con, with 1% of Con going back. The overall swing still represents a gain for Labour of 5% more than for the Tories (or if you prefer, an effective swing of about 2.5%), which is not to be sniffed at but is perhaps smaller than the LD-Lab figure would indicate in isolation. And as mentioned, Mori found the largest group of Red Liberals; it's likely that the net swing from the other pollsters is smaller.
'Cameron has exposed that a Conservative Party government cannot be trusted to bring down the national debt, favouring tax cuts over fiscal responsibility.'
Good luck with that after Labour gave us the worst recession & deficit since the 1930's
Even Tom Watson admitted the other night.
'people believe the Tories are actually better with their money than the other parties.’
In the same way that a book-keeper isn't about to affect a PLC's shareprice, but the FD could.
It's not about discipline reductionism, it's about what you did within that role. I'm a former Dir of PR - hence why I get irked by the demeaning of my profession. I spent a long time in Marketing too and wouldn't dream of reducing that to *Oh its a logo isn't it*. It's the same thing in my book.
Is this consumer (e.g fmcg) or b-to-b marketing?
I know what Farage did -he made a good living; balanced the books. The argument was that keeping him out of office was a worthwhile reason to vote Labour over UKIP.
That said, I believe my point about the current world still stands -the Middle East is currently being re-ordered in America's geopolitical interests, not Europe's, and certainly not Britain's.
Thatcher was disposed by the kuntish* Clarke and Heseltine: John Major then sent in 1st Armoured Division. It was only after "The Road of Death" (and the killing of seven Scousers by ANU A-10 Warthogs) that G.W.H. Bush lost the plot.
Agree with your comment about Wesley Clark: Total nutter! Our "non-Wikied" DB sorted out that son-of-a-gun...!
* Junior used 'retarded' recently so all is game!
Edited to add: Peter de la Billière.
Norwich still in the promotion hunt.
Perhaps that'll cheer him up