Damian McBride tweets "One odd line in MoS story - PM was "told within the past few weeks" - that must surely be bollocks, given how long everyone else has known"
Adam Boulton, has done a piece in the Sunday Times, talking about how Ed is doing.
He says
In Ipsos Mori’s table of the net approval rating of opposition leaders two years ahead of a general election, Miliband (–14 points) is behind Blair (+28), Cameron (+9) and Kinnock (–6) but a tad ahead of Thatcher (–15).
Now I wonder what inspired him to use those figures?
As it was before my time, does the current UKIP surge resemble what happened when the SDP was formed?
I don't think so. As I recall the SDP surge, it was basically a classic party split - a chunk of Labour members from the top to the bottom defected en bloc to join the LibDems. Middle-of-the-road party members agonised, with long-term allies like Hattersely and Shirley deciding differently and the schism dividing friends and even families.
By contrast, the UKIP rise is voter-led. Some activists and councillors have switched over, but mainly it's a culmination of years of denigration of politics by the Mail/Sun-reading public. What's missing as yet in any sense that UKIP might possibly form a government - whereas the SDP was definitely bidding for 2nd place with Labour reduced to a fringe rump. The 1983 election - in which I was a candidate - felt in some ways like the 2010 one, a desperate rearguard action. I remember the huge sense of relief and some pride that we held the SDP off by 2%, after which we gradually recovered.
But it's not clear that UKIP's voters care that much about who's in government in 2015. Many haven't voted before and are really keen to vote now, on the basis of "at last I can show what I think".
As it was before my time, does the current UKIP surge resemble what happened when the SDP was formed?
I don't think so. As I recall the SDP surge, it was basically a classic party split - a chunk of Labour members from the top to the bottom defected en bloc to join the LibDems. Middle-of-the-road party members agonised, with long-term allies like Hattersely and Shirley deciding differently and the schism dividing friends and even families.
By contrast, the UKIP rise is voter-led. Some activists and councillors have switched over, but mainly it's a culmination of years of denigration of politics by the Mail/Sun-reading public. What's missing as yet in any sense that UKIP might possibly form a government - whereas the SDP was definitely bidding for 2nd place with Labour reduced to a fringe rump. The 1983 election - in which I was a candidate - felt in some ways like the 2010 one, a desperate rearguard action. I remember the huge sense of relief and some pride that we held the SDP off by 2%, after which we gradually recovered.
But it's not clear that UKIP's voters care that much about who's in government in 2015. Many haven't voted before and are really keen to vote now, on the basis of "at last I can show what I think".
I hadn't heard of this WW1 battle before - its sounds absolutely horrific - RIP the soldiers who were lost and to those who've just been found
"Seven of the soldiers have already been identified through the military identification tags they wore. According to official records, these soldiers were killed in combat between March 28 and April 5.
Investigations have already begun to find the descendants of the men.
In cases where the family does not want to recover the body, the soldiers will be buried in the Fleury military cemetery under a white cross.
Where no identification can be made the bones will be kept at the the Douaumont ossuary, a memorial containing the remains of soldiers who died on the battlefield during the Battle of Verdun
During the 300 days of the Battle of Verdun, which lasted from February 21 1916 to December 19 1916, approximately 230,000 men died on a battlefield covering less than eight square miles.
Most were killed by artillery.
The battle became known in German as Die Hölle von Verdun, or in French as L'Enfer de Verdun. Both names translate to English as 'the Hell of Verdun'.
It was the longest and one of the most devastating battles in the First World War and the history of warfare.
The battle of the Somme was in large part designed to take the pressure off the French army in Verdun by forcing the Germans to reinforce the more northern areas. French losses in the first war were tremendous, and unlike the British forces thr troops were rarely rotated to rear areas to regroup and recover. At that time the French were holding much more of the front line than the British.
There were some tremendous battles elsewhere in europe such as Tannenberg in Prussia, Caporetto in Italy, or the Brusilov offensive in what is now the Ukraine. This long forgotton battle was a rare Russian success and destroyed Austria-Hungary as a fighting force, as well as inventing the stormtroop tactics that evolved into Blitzkreig. All of these battles had a scale of losses that were equal to the Somme or Paschendaele, but our first war memories are mostly of the Western Front.
Many thanx for that - it was WW1/Crimea stories that really moved me as a kid - the slaughter/conditions/horror/treatment of deserters and the shell-shocked.
I find myself really uncomfortable with the idea of drones bombing third-world places like some one-sided video game form of warfare. I don't know the answer, but this feels wrong to me on a visceral level. I've no ethical issue with waging wars - but to have it so one-sided?
Wars of mass conscript armies between industrialised nations are just history now that the cold war is over. Modern war is much less clearcut, with shadowy guerilla forces on one side who have no restrictions on how they engage, vs highly technical armies with tight restrictions on how they are permitted to fight, but equipped with surveillance and combat drones.
There are many advantages to drones and remote controlled killer robots, one being that the operators may make more calm and reasoned decisions, and can take advice in a way that was impossible in earlier wars.
The key to success with drone strikes is the quality of information on which they are based. Is this a wedding or a Taliban conference? It may be hard to tell the difference sometimes, and indeed the two may be the same event in some cases.
I agree - its the video-game aspect that worries me. It removes the element of humanity/being on the spot that makes me concerned. I'm sure its a lot easier to zap someone from several thousand miles away and you never see the consequences with your own eyes.
It's dehumanising to my mind.
On the other hand, those co-ordinating drones are less likely to give way to panic, to anger, to veangeance than those in the field. They can also be supervised far more effectively, which will stamp out abuse. There's a reason civilian casualties are far lower with drones than with armies in the field.
Right, killing people on a daily basis while terrified of being killed yourself must mess up your brain. Apparently even the drone operators can get traumatised.
It occurs to me the best way to do this would be not even to tell people that what they were doing was real. Just give them a points scheme that relects what you want them to do and let them think that they're playing a video game.
Incidentally, the county-wide swing of 2.77% from Con to LD would be enough for the LDs to gain St Albans from the Tories where they require a swing of 2.18%.
I imagine neither of the persons involved has to be an MP or in the government.
To cause one hell of a scandal? Obviously not.
Cammie's John Major streak continues. Can 'back to basics' be that far down the road after the incompetent fop's master strategy of banging on about Europe which worked so well?
"20 Labour MPs turn on Ed Miliband over refusal to hold EU referendum New campaign group, Labour for a Referendum, puts pressure on Labour leader to offer an in-out vote on Europe"
I really cannot see what valid purpose the Daily Mail story serves. It is journalism at its worst.
True, it'll increase circulation, but from the snippets I've read so far the story is content free. All it is going to do is give money to lawyers and cause hurt to innocent people who are smeared and named in the febrile atmosphere.
It's the equivalent of running into a crowded room and shouting: "Danger! Danger! There's a murderer in here!", and then running out again.
I find the timing interesting as well - the lobbying scandals are a much more valid political story, and yet the DM has published this at the same time. Might they be in a hurry to get the story out there first? If it was not pressing, I would have expected them to leave the story for a quieter week.
And if anyone asks, I won't be saying anything about the situation in Turkey for personal reasons, with one exception: let us hope it all works out soon and the violence stops.
I really cannot see what valid purpose the Daily Mail story serves. It is journalism at its worst.
Well, from what little we know, it is not just the editor of the Mail On Sunday who thinks the story is important: the Prime Minister does, too.
If you are asking why the story was splashed without names, then the On Sunday part of the paper's name might mean they fear that whenever the [presumed] superinjunction is lifted, it won't be at 10pm next Saturday evening in Lord Dacre's office.
I find the timing interesting as well - the lobbying scandals are a much more valid political story, and yet the DM has published this at the same time. Might they be in a hurry to get the story out there first? If it was not pressing, I would have expected them to leave the story for a quieter week..
It's a classic "spoiler" - since it appears the BBC/Telegraph have the Mercer story, and the Times the Lords story, what's the Mail to do? Big up some old extra-marital affair - which, if McBride is to be believed has been around for some time. Tho if it is the subject of a super injunction (why can't they be named?) I doubt the other papers will go near it - they have a much more "public interest" story in the "access for cash" allegations....
I find the timing interesting as well - the lobbying scandals are a much more valid political story, and yet the DM has published this at the same time. Might they be in a hurry to get the story out there first? If it was not pressing, I would have expected them to leave the story for a quieter week..
It's a classic "spoiler" - since it appears the BBC/Telegraph have the Mercer story, and the Times the Lords story, what's the Mail to do? Big up some old extra-marital affair - which, if McBride is to be believed has been around for some time. Tho if it is the subject of a super injunction (why can't they be named?) I doubt the other papers will go near it - they have a much more "public interest" story in the "access for cash" allegations....
And if it's a spoiler, the chances are that it's not a particularly big or important story.
As I said, it's going to cause harm to some innocent people who get dragged into the story by muppets on the Internet. The "Oh, I know who it is," crowd (*). People who like to feel that their private parts are bigger because they know a rumour whilst others do not.
And in the meantime, innocent people and their relatives get hurt.
(*) Although we all do this, it is human nature to some extent.
The MoS have shown a pathetic side. Unless there's criminal activity involved (which isn't the case) no-one gives a toss about love affairs like this any more.
I've just realised that it's before eight on a Sunday morning, it's gloriously sunny outside, and I'm sitting at my computer doing some work and reading PB.
This situation is intolerable. Obviously I should stop the work and just concentrate on PB...
Comments
The whole point of secret courts is that you cannot criticise them, as you cannot know what they know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBp464uBH9A
He says
In Ipsos Mori’s table of the net approval rating of opposition leaders two years ahead of a general election, Miliband (–14 points) is behind Blair (+28), Cameron (+9) and Kinnock (–6) but a tad ahead of Thatcher (–15).
Now I wonder what inspired him to use those figures?
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/25/how-ed-miliband-compares-to-his-predecessors/
Chaig O'Vara @ChaigOVara 5m
"No. 10 rocked by secret love affair" Are Iain and Duncan Smith getting a civil partnership?
By contrast, the UKIP rise is voter-led. Some activists and councillors have switched over, but mainly it's a culmination of years of denigration of politics by the Mail/Sun-reading public. What's missing as yet in any sense that UKIP might possibly form a government - whereas the SDP was definitely bidding for 2nd place with Labour reduced to a fringe rump. The 1983 election - in which I was a candidate - felt in some ways like the 2010 one, a desperate rearguard action. I remember the huge sense of relief and some pride that we held the SDP off by 2%, after which we gradually recovered.
But it's not clear that UKIP's voters care that much about who's in government in 2015. Many haven't voted before and are really keen to vote now, on the basis of "at last I can show what I think".
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/
It is understood that the Prime Minister was told of the relationship - which does not involve anyone serving in the Cabinet"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334483/No-10-rocked-secret-love-affair-Stunned-PM-holds-crisis-talks-fears-tryst-blow-political-agenda-water.html
"If Dave knew it is awful, if he didn't know, it is worse..." @MrHarryCole
In reply to a tweet claiming to be underwhelmed after learning the names, Iain Dale stated
"Then you haven't thought it through..." @IainDale
It occurs to me the best way to do this would be not even to tell people that what they were doing was real. Just give them a points scheme that relects what you want them to do and let them think that they're playing a video game.
Maybe that's already what they're doing...
* Ominous music *
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGxDVWFzUnk2c2JUZEZaMXZnRGx4NGc#gid=0
The Tories managed to stay on top in the bellweather constituency of Derbyshire South:
Con: 8,327
Lab: 8,032
UKIP: 5,379
LD: 659
Ind: 557
Others: 45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFzLFd8Yyf8&
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dGZxeW9BQ2dQSE9SS2diRlRsN1A0N2c#gid=0
Changes compared to 2010 general election:
Con: -12.47%
Lab: +2.41%
UKIP: +14.76%
LD: -6.93%
Green: +3.34%
Ind: +0.54%
Others: -1.65%
Incidentally, the county-wide swing of 2.77% from Con to LD would be enough for the LDs to gain St Albans from the Tories where they require a swing of 2.18%.
Cammie's John Major streak continues. Can 'back to basics' be that far down the road after the incompetent fop's master strategy of banging on about Europe which worked so well?
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/rj6l6hgo07/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-310513.pdf
Doing Well (net)
Cameron: -26(+1)
Miliband: -34(-6)
Clegg: -57(+2)
Growing support for "Plan B" (net stick to current strategy vs change): -11(-6)
UKIP still most trusted on "Immigration":25(+1) while UKIP supporters most anti-immigration:
Net "has had positive impact" immigration from:
OA(UKIP)
Western Europe: +30 (0)
Eastern Europe: -27 (-79)
Outside EU: -29 (-72)
And in a rather curious one - Con voters most relaxed about Facebook content (and no, it's not because they don't use it):
Should have tighter restrictions on content:
Con: 27
Lab: 37
LibD: 37
UKIP: 34
New campaign group, Labour for a Referendum, puts pressure on Labour leader to offer an in-out vote on Europe"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
True, it'll increase circulation, but from the snippets I've read so far the story is content free. All it is going to do is give money to lawyers and cause hurt to innocent people who are smeared and named in the febrile atmosphere.
It's the equivalent of running into a crowded room and shouting: "Danger! Danger! There's a murderer in here!", and then running out again.
I find the timing interesting as well - the lobbying scandals are a much more valid political story, and yet the DM has published this at the same time. Might they be in a hurry to get the story out there first? If it was not pressing, I would have expected them to leave the story for a quieter week.
And if anyone asks, I won't be saying anything about the situation in Turkey for personal reasons, with one exception: let us hope it all works out soon and the violence stops.
If you are asking why the story was splashed without names, then the On Sunday part of the paper's name might mean they fear that whenever the [presumed] superinjunction is lifted, it won't be at 10pm next Saturday evening in Lord Dacre's office.
Larry from No.10
Freya from No.11
Remember those cute videos of them at each other's throats. Yeah, right.
As I said, it's going to cause harm to some innocent people who get dragged into the story by muppets on the Internet. The "Oh, I know who it is," crowd (*). People who like to feel that their private parts are bigger because they know a rumour whilst others do not.
And in the meantime, innocent people and their relatives get hurt.
(*) Although we all do this, it is human nature to some extent.
Out of touch.
This situation is intolerable. Obviously I should stop the work and just concentrate on PB...
Or perhaps not. Later, peeps.