"If I had complied with the law and were then to be accused of some unspecific wrongdoing on the basis of a Guardian article - a paper not noted for its accuracy, frankly - I'd be livid and would not let it rest, especially if I had the money to pay for lawyers."
If Fink is foolish enough not to just keep quiet Miliband will issue several questions about his tax affairs which he'll be unprepared to answer. This is not about legality as Fink and Cameron know. It's about practices that the public will find unacceptable however lawful.
As it happens I have some shares in Man Group. They haven't done particularly well so don't expect shareholders to come to his aide
Two points:-
1. You seem very sure that Fink will be unprepared to answer questions. How do you know this?
2. A libel suit - if that's what results - is very much about what is legal. If Milliband makes allegations which are unsubstantiated and found by a court of law to be libellous, that is to my mind pretty unacceptable. I expect a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition to uphold the rule of law not undermine it. I expect I'm not alone in having that view.
A candidate for Prime Minister should have integrity. Libelling someone - if that is the case - is not the mark of someone with integrity.
Shareholders would only be concerned if allegations were made against the company.
Lots of "ifs" there of course. So let's see.
We should feel sorry for the Roger, a wealthy man driven by spite as the price of his shares haven't risen by as much as he hoped, failing to enrich him even further.
It's funny that his portfolio holds stocks in the very financial institutions he claims to despise, such as MAN and Barclays.
Please can you avoid that form of personal attack suggesting that someone is motivated by spite.
We will be clamping down on comments like that in the run up to May.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
Apologies for being not so much off topic but relying on the somewhat flimsy peg of "events" so soon but today's Alex is in my opinion spot on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/
If Greece does end up falling out of the Euro in the next couple of weeks there will, I think, be several major consequences most of which will probably be good for the tories
.
.
David, thanks for that. She sees it as just not good enough due to the fact that only a handful at the top are getting the benefits of the growth, the majority are worse off and paying for it. Pretending that people on zero hour contracts is great while we have wall to wall that the top few percent own almost everything , a few families have more than 20 million people etc. So whilst the top echelon like yourself may think life is rosy , the majority of people are scrabbling ever harder just to survive and until the Tories grasp this fact and try to make at least a token effort on making the UK a fairer country they will remain hated and reviled by the majority. The Tories are never going to win this election given they are alienating the majority of the public daily.
Malcolm, that is a rather different point and one with which I am not unsympathetic. Although income inequality has actually fallen over the last few years this is not the general perception. In the IFS report in July they stated:
"This latest report covers data up to and including 2012–13. The picture is strikingly different.
This is a major issue for our country but I remain to be convinced that a substantial increase in public spending funded by more borrowing is the answer.
David, I fully agree on the last point, I can see some targeted infrastructure improvements being good value and helping but not the £180B number mentioned yesterday , that seems madness. We really need to get government out of people's business , let them keep their own money and pay for services they want rather than taking a fortune off them and providing lots of crap that politicians think are good.
I see Ed Is talking about infant class size caps today. Funny how he has come round to seeing this is an issue on the Coalition's watch, and obviously has nothing to do with a massive rise in immigration under the last Govt.which made no provision for commensurate rises in the needs for education, health and housing.
The man is such a tool.
Off go the PB Burleys on immigration again.
LOL
you don't think adding a population equivalent of 10 Chelmsfords EVERY year will have an impact on NHS / schooling etc?
No? thats ok, neither did Labour - Everyone else could see it though.
When I moved to Colchester every school was full. My son has a Statement, schools have to take him and yet most were refusing to return our calls - that's how full they are.
Apologies for being not so much off topic but relying on the somewhat flimsy peg of "events" so soon but today's Alex is in my opinion spot on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/
If Greece does end up falling out of the Euro in the next couple of weeks there will, I think, be several major consequences most of which will probably be good for the tories
.
.
David, thanks for that. She sees it as just not good enough due to the fact that only a handful at the top are getting the benefits of the growth, the majority are worse off and paying for it. Pretending that people on zero hour contracts is great while we have wall to wall that the top few percent own almost everything , a few families have more than 20 million people etc. So whilst the top echelon like yourself may think life is rosy , the majority of people are scrabbling ever harder just to survive and until the Tories grasp this fact and try to make at least a token effort on making the UK a fairer country they will remain hated and reviled by the majority. The Tories are never going to win this election given they are alienating the majority of the public daily.
Malcolm, that is a rather different point and one with which I am not unsympathetic. Although income inequality has actually fallen over the last few years this is not the general perception. In the IFS report in July they stated:
"This latest report covers data up to and including 2012–13. The picture is strikingly different.
This is a major issue for our country but I remain to be convinced that a substantial increase in public spending funded by more borrowing is the answer.
David, I fully agree on the last point, I can see some targeted infrastructure improvements being good value and helping but not the £180B number mentioned yesterday , that seems madness. We really need to get government out of people's business , let them keep their own money and pay for services they want rather than taking a fortune off them and providing lots of crap that politicians think are good.
Mr. Pulpstar, whilst I agree a blue gain here is unlikely, if they lose second (which they hold by a distance ahead of the Lib Dems) that would be a poor result.
@CCHQPress: Sounds like Miliband is performing a climbdown from yesterday's huge error of judgement. Shows just how weak he is: https://t.co/qBCARSnZiy
Mr. Pulpstar, I'd say yes. I've received a couple of those, and this must be a battleground seat.
Interesting...
It seems to confirm that list being as you're in Morley & Outwood and I'm in NE Derbyshire. Not two seats I'd have at the top of the target list.
Personally I think the Conservatives are battling for 2nd place in both.
I have got that literature as well in hornchurch and upminster which wasn't on the list I think? Dame angela Watkinson looking about 30 years younger than she is at the top!
Mr. Pulpstar, whilst I agree a blue gain here is unlikely, if they lose second (which they hold by a distance ahead of the Lib Dems) that would be a poor result.
Lib Dems will be lucky to keep their deposits here !
If the Conservatives fail to win sufficient votes to stop Milliband, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.
Not at all. It will be the choice of voters. Voters will have to live with their choice. If they don't want a continuation of the good government we've had since 2010, then that's up to them.
@CCHQPress: Sounds like Miliband is performing a climbdown from yesterday's huge error of judgement. Shows just how weak he is: https://t.co/qBCARSnZiy
Always good to get the news from a neutral source, keep up the good work
If the Conservatives fail to win sufficient votes to stop Milliband, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.
Not at all. It will be the choice of voters. Voters will have to live with their choice. If they don't want a continuation of the good government we've had since 2010, then that's up to them.
Keep going Richard, you'll put yet more people off voting Conservative.
Don't forget this is the "Monitor" not the actual poll so it could be that most people think the Conservatives will win...
The monthly "Monitor" is what MORI call their poll.
The headline numbers are those certain to vote. Unlike all other pollsters MORI ask the certainty question after voting intention which many think is the wrong way round - particularly as they have such a drastic filter.
No particular detail on the Ipsos MORI survey but on Nick Cleggs LBC show this morning Nick Ferrari told him the LDs were down to only 6 per cent on the latest MORI poll for the Standard. So I assume LBC/Ferrari have the poll results on embargo - and he said this by mistake?! Cos the last MORI poll had the LDs on 8 per cent.
Don't forget this is the "Monitor" not the actual poll so it could be that most people think the Conservatives will win...
The monthly "Monitor" is what MORI call their poll.
The headline numbers are those certain to vote. Unlike all other pollsters MORI ask the certainty question after voting intention which many think is the wrong way round - particularly as they have such a drastic filter.
"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
If the UK expat workers were born in the UK they would still be tax domiciled in the UK. It is, in fact, very difficult to lose the domicile for tax purposes of the country where you were born.
As for your last comment that is absolutely true - which is why it was so daft of Labour to accuse the boss of Boots of not paying tax in a country in which he did not live.
I strongly suspect that few on here will think this poll "a corker". It's a hell of a tough crowd...
Although if the LibDems really are on 6% with less than 3 months to go - we might finally have to start seriously considering that Martin Day (late of this parish) was a man ahead of his time....
Mr W; Is it simply the law of averages that we've not had a great (or even, IIRC a really good) speech in the HoC for over 10 years?
Or don't we have the Members who can do it any longer?
Great speeches are normally created through the merger of a great national event and a great HoC's performer.
In fairness over the past ten years it's difficult to recall such a conflation.
Cameron's response to the Bloody Sunday report was quite good.
Robin Cook's resignation speech was excellent as well.
And I suppose Blair's speech when he had to get Parliament to agree to go to war with Iraq was very memorable if only for what an utterly convincing actor (liar?) he was...
"Three of the UK's most experienced election-watchers have predicted the Tories will do much better than expected in next May's general election but they still expect another hung parliament. "
2) I've been reading Nicola Sturgeon's speech of yesterday:
Regular readers won't be surprised that I don't entirely agree with her, but what struck me most was how impressive the speech was. It's coherent, well-argued, and engages with the issues rather than squirting random smears around,. Above all it reads like a serious politician who's actually thought about the options and has genuinely considered the implications of various options.
I rather think that, if Ed Miliband had given this speech at the Labour conference last October, with minor modifications to the Scotland-specific references, and followed through with policy development based on it, Labour would be cruising towards a majority.
You should watch her deliver it online (link on Wings). It's even more impressive, she knows how to hold a room, especially given its an unvetted room with open questions afterwards.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
"If I had complied with the law and were then to be accused of some unspecific wrongdoing on the basis of a Guardian article - a paper not noted for its accuracy, frankly - I'd be livid and would not let it rest, especially if I had the money to pay for lawyers."
If Fink is foolish enough not to just keep quiet Miliband will issue several questions about his tax affairs which he'll be unprepared to answer. This is not about legality as Fink and Cameron know. It's about practices that the public will find unacceptable however lawful.
As it happens I have some shares in Man Group. They haven't done particularly well so don't expect shareholders to come to his aide
Two points:-
1. You seem very sure that Fink will be unprepared to answer questions. How do you know this?
2. A libel suit - if that's what results - is very much about what is legal. If Milliband makes allegations which are unsubstantiated and found by a court of law to be libellous, that is to my mind pretty unacceptable. I expect a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition to uphold the rule of law not undermine it. I expect I'm not alone in having that view.
A candidate for Prime Minister should have integrity. Libelling someone - if that is the case - is not the mark of someone with integrity.
Shareholders would only be concerned if allegations were made against the company.
Lots of "ifs" there of course. So let's see.
We should feel sorry for the Roger...
Please can you avoid that form of personal attack suggesting that someone is motivated by spite.
We will be clamping down on comments like that in the run up to May.
Don't forget this is the "Monitor" not the actual poll so it could be that most people think the Conservatives will win...
The monthly "Monitor" is what MORI call their poll.
The headline numbers are those certain to vote. Unlike all other pollsters MORI ask the certainty question after voting intention which many think is the wrong way round - particularly as they have such a drastic filter.
Oh right !
Do Mori only use the 10/10s ?
They issue two sets of numbers but its the 10/10 that are given most prominence.
Their final poll of the marginals in 2010 would have been almost spot on if they'd gone with all giving a voting intention. In the marginals the campaigns aim to ensure that the most marginals voter vote.
One other problem with 10/10 certainty is that often women are less likely to commit than men meaning that polling outputs are male heavy.
Ah this is the Eltham cadidate... I have backed ukip at 25/1 her... he is a nice guy and I think quite an impressive speaker... A good candidate I reckon, Will see at 12ish whether I'm right!
I strongly suspect that few on here will think this poll "a corker". It's a hell of a tough crowd...
Although if the LibDems really are on 6% with less than 3 months to go - we might finally have to start seriously considering that Martin Day (late of this parish) was a man ahead of his time....
I'm not sure why it hasn't been published yet, I thought the Standard hit the streets well before lunchtime.
Mr W; Is it simply the law of averages that we've not had a great (or even, IIRC a really good) speech in the HoC for over 10 years?
Or don't we have the Members who can do it any longer?
Great speeches are normally created through the merger of a great national event and a great HoC's performer.
In fairness over the past ten years it's difficult to recall such a conflation.
Cameron's response to the Bloody Sunday report was quite good.
Robin Cook's resignation speech was excellent as well.
And I suppose Blair's speech when he had to get Parliament to agree to go to war with Iraq was very memorable if only for what an utterly convincing actor (liar?) he was...
I thought that Brown's response to the death of Cameron's son was impressive as well.
Apologies for being not so much off topic but relying on the somewhat flimsy peg of "events" so soon but today's Alex is in my opinion spot on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/
If Greece does end up falling out of the Euro in the next couple of weeks there will, I think, be several major consequences most of which will probably be good for the tories
.
.
David, thanks for that. She sees it as just not good enough due to the fact that only a handful at the top are getting the benefits of the growth, the majority are worse off and paying for it. Pretending that people on zero hour contracts is great while we have wall to wall that the top few percent own almost everything , a few families have more than 20 million people etc. So whilst the top echelon like yourself may think life is rosy , the majority of people are scrabbling ever harder just to survive and until the Tories grasp this fact and try to make at least a token effort on making the UK a fairer country they will remain hated and reviled by the majority. The Tories are never going to win this election given they are alienating the majority of the public daily.
Malcolm, that is a rather different point and one with which I am not unsympathetic. Although income inequality has actually fallen over the last few years this is not the general perception. In the IFS report in July they stated:
"This latest report covers data up to and including 2012–13. The picture is strikingly different.
This is a major issue for our country but I remain to be convinced that a substantial increase in public spending funded by more borrowing is the answer.
David, I fully agree on the last point, I can see some targeted infrastructure improvements being good value and helping but not the £180B number mentioned yesterday , that seems madness. We really need to get government out of people's business , let them keep their own money and pay for services they want rather than taking a fortune off them and providing lots of crap that politicians think are good.
Watch the speech. She isn't promising £180bn of new spending. She is promising about £3bn per annum on top of today's level, working out at £180bn over what the Conservative spending plans are over the 5 years of the next parliament.
Mr W; Is it simply the law of averages that we've not had a great (or even, IIRC a really good) speech in the HoC for over 10 years?
Or don't we have the Members who can do it any longer?
Great speeches are normally created through the merger of a great national event and a great HoC's performer.
In fairness over the past ten years it's difficult to recall such a conflation.
Cameron's response to the Bloody Sunday report was quite good.
Robin Cook's resignation speech was excellent as well.
And I suppose Blair's speech when he had to get Parliament to agree to go to war with Iraq was very memorable if only for what an utterly convincing actor (liar?) he was...
Mr W; Is it simply the law of averages that we've not had a great (or even, IIRC a really good) speech in the HoC for over 10 years?
Or don't we have the Members who can do it any longer?
Great speeches are normally created through the merger of a great national event and a great HoC's performer.
In fairness over the past ten years it's difficult to recall such a conflation.
There has been a great national event: the great financial crisis that began with the run on Northern Rock, and continues to this day with a government deficit still around £100bn. That we haven't had a politician rise to the occasion in the House during this period is perhaps one reason why the electorate is so restless and dissatisfied.
I think the most memorable words in Parliament over this period were Cable's joke about Brown transforming from Stalin to Mr Bean. You can't inspire a country with jokes, or trite slogans ("too far too fast", "long term economic plan", "chaos or confusioncompetence", etc)
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
It's what the overall statement inferred, indirectly linking the 'd' word with a named individual.
Media Guido (@MediaGuido) 12/02/2015 10:52 Cathy Newman Apologises Over Islamic Centre Claims order-order.com/2015/02/12/cat… pic.twitter.com/sS8fbZB1nX
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
Accusing people of things which are entirely legal can be defamatory (and indeed I expect that the majority of libel suits turn on accusations of acts that were perfectly legal). A woman once won a libel action because someone alleged that she had been raped. Jason Donovan successfully sued for libel because it was suggested that he was gay.
The test is not whether the allegation is that someone acted illegally, but whether the allegation would cause others to think less of them or to damage their reputation.
Apologies for being not so much off topic but relying on the somewhat flimsy peg of "events" so soon but today's Alex is in my opinion spot on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/alex/
If Greece does end up falling out of the Euro in the next couple of weeks there will, I think, be several major consequences most of which will probably be good for the tories
.
.
David, thanks for that. She sees it as just not good enough due to the fact that only a handful at the top are getting the benefits of the growth, the majority are worse off and paying for it. Pretending that people on zero hour contracts is great while we have wall to wall that the top few percent own almost everything , a few families have more than 20 million people etc. So whilst the top echelon like yourself may think life is rosy , the majority of people are scrabbling ever harder just to survive and until the Tories grasp this fact and try to make at least a token effort on making the UK a fairer country they will remain hated and reviled by the majority. The Tories are never going to win this election given they are alienating the majority of the public daily.
Malcolm, that is a rather different point and one with which I am not unsympathetic. Although income inequality has actually fallen over the last few years this is not the general perception. In the IFS report in July they stated:
"This latest report covers data up to and including 2012–13. The picture is strikingly different.
This is a major issue for our country but I remain to be convinced that a substantial increase in public spending funded by more borrowing is the answer.
David, I fully agree on the last point, I can see some targeted infrastructure improvements being good value and helping but not the £180B number mentioned yesterday , that seems madness. We really need to get government out of people's business , let them keep their own money and pay for services they want rather than taking a fortune off them and providing lots of crap that politicians think are good.
Is there even 180 billion worth of projects that are sufficiently good value for money to invest in?
You might be better off spending some of that on tax cuts to raise domestic consumption
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
That doesn't appear to be Labour's view. From what one can judge doing something lawful can, depending on who you ask, the state of the weather, which party you support, etc be "dodgy".
Media Guido (@MediaGuido) 12/02/2015 10:52 Cathy Newman Apologises Over Islamic Centre Claims order-order.com/2015/02/12/cat… pic.twitter.com/sS8fbZB1nX
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
Accusing people of things which are entirely legal can be defamatory (and indeed I expect that the majority of libel suits turn on accusations of acts that were perfectly legal). A woman once won a libel action because someone alleged that she had been raped. Jason Donovan successfully sued for libel because it was suggested that he was gay.
The test is not whether the allegation is that someone acted illegally, but whether the allegation would cause others to think less of them or to damage their reputation.
I would have thought that his reputation would actually be damaged if it was said he hadn't engaged in tax avoidance and had paid more tax than he needed to. Surely tax avoidance itself should be deemed a neutral phrase.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions.
I'm not sure about that, true the guardian released it an hour earlier, I suspect Ed had advanced knowledge of it.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
Accusing people of things which are entirely legal can be defamatory (and indeed I expect that the majority of libel suits turn on accusations of acts that were perfectly legal). A woman once won a libel action because someone alleged that she had been raped. Jason Donovan successfully sued for libel because it was suggested that he was gay.
The test is not whether the allegation is that someone acted illegally, but whether the allegation would cause others to think less of them or to damage their reputation.
The best part about the libel law is that the allegation can be entirely true and STILL be libellous. I think ?
I would have thought that his reputation would actually be damaged if it was said he hadn't engaged in tax avoidance and had paid more tax than he needed to. Surely tax avoidance itself should be deemed a neutral phrase.
Pretty hard for Ed's lawyers to argue that when he's said it's 'dodgy'.
@CCHQPress: First he tried to ‘weaponise’ the NHS, now he calls his climbdown a ‘Milly Dowler moment’. How low can Miliband get? http://t.co/KXmy0NbFXQ
There is an alternative explanation, of course, which is that he's a fool and hasn't thought it through.
I don't rule that one out. He only had the information for an hour before Prime Minister's Questions. It is possible that he got carried away.
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
I'm not sure why the claim might be defamatory, surely he only mentioned tax avoidance which is entirely legal.
That doesn't appear to be Labour's view. From what one can judge doing something lawful can, depending on who you ask, the state of the weather, which party you support, etc be "dodgy".
I thought the prevalent view on the left was that trials and virtual executions now belonged on Twitter, and that the law was largely beside the point, what apparently matters is the "moral" case, as decided by a group of social justice warriors and assorted leftie academics and journos.
Say something completely legal, but possibly a little bit politically incorrect and you are sentenced by the mob to be panned on Twitter for a week or two, have your reputation trashed, and preferably lose your job.
For all excitement ahead of @IpsosMORI 's "corker" of a poll less than £1,000 has been matched on Betfair 's majority market since 4am
I think the "corker" element is Lib's on 6%.
It IS pretty astonishing that the Lib's could be doing that badly just weeks from the election, but it generally seem's to be pretty much "priced in" now....
@robertsjonathan: Milly Dowler moment?! Really? Ed Miliband's team have effectively described the murder of a child as a political opportunity to be exploited
@CCHQPress: First he tried to ‘weaponise’ the NHS, now he calls his climbdown a ‘Milly Dowler moment’. How low can Miliband get? http://t.co/KXmy0NbFXQ
@robertsjonathan: Milly Dowler moment?! Really? Ed Miliband's team have effectively described the murder of a child as a political opportunity to be exploited
@JoeMurphyLondon: EXCLUSIVE LORD FINK INTERVIEW. Everyone avoids tax, says peer. He admits setting up family trusts in Switzerland http://t.co/FbMXGbV6ws
@JoeMurphyLondon: EXCLUSIVE LORD FINK INTERVIEW. Everyone avoids tax, says peer. He admits setting up family trusts in Switzerland http://t.co/FbMXGbV6ws
Comments
We will be clamping down on comments like that in the run up to May.
I want to keep the site civlised.
It seems to confirm that list being as you're in Morley & Outwood and I'm in NE Derbyshire. Not two seats I'd have at the top of the target list.
Personally I think the Conservatives are battling for 2nd place in both.
No? thats ok, neither did Labour - Everyone else could see it though.
When I moved to Colchester every school was full. My son has a Statement, schools have to take him and yet most were refusing to return our calls - that's how full they are.
Tune into @daily_politics at midday to see @prwhittle #bbcdp
The headline numbers are those certain to vote. Unlike all other pollsters MORI ask the certainty question after voting intention which many think is the wrong way round - particularly as they have such a drastic filter.
Bank of England forecasts sharpest increase for decade this year in real take home pay
Do Mori only use the 10/10s ?
As for your last comment that is absolutely true - which is why it was so daft of Labour to accuse the boss of Boots of not paying tax in a country in which he did not live.
In fairness over the past ten years it's difficult to recall such a conflation.
Possibly, although I'm not counting on it, we'll get something over an EU referendum.
Although if the LibDems really are on 6% with less than 3 months to go - we might finally have to start seriously considering that Martin Day (late of this parish) was a man ahead of his time....
Robin Cook's resignation speech was excellent as well.
And I suppose Blair's speech when he had to get Parliament to agree to go to war with Iraq was very memorable if only for what an utterly convincing actor (liar?) he was...
On balance, however, I will credit him with some intelligence.
Their final poll of the marginals in 2010 would have been almost spot on if they'd gone with all giving a voting intention. In the marginals the campaigns aim to ensure that the most marginals voter vote.
One other problem with 10/10 certainty is that often women are less likely to commit than men meaning that polling outputs are male heavy.
What has Mick done now to get himself banned from some place else?
An Army Veteran’s View on UKIP Military Policy http://ln.is/org.uk/Vka3E
Poor Mick Pork can't get a hearing anywhere.
Was that deemed a success or failure?
I think the most memorable words in Parliament over this period were Cable's joke about Brown transforming from Stalin to Mr Bean. You can't inspire a country with jokes, or trite slogans ("too far too fast", "long term economic plan", "chaos or confusioncompetence", etc)
I think your explanation is highly plausible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pacQx9e8oAs
UKIP wouldn't be on 16% if this man was in charge of the Conservatives, thats for sure !!
Media Guido (@MediaGuido)
12/02/2015 10:52
Cathy Newman Apologises Over Islamic Centre Claims order-order.com/2015/02/12/cat… pic.twitter.com/sS8fbZB1nX
The test is not whether the allegation is that someone acted illegally, but whether the allegation would cause others to think less of them or to damage their reputation.
You might be better off spending some of that on tax cuts to raise domestic consumption
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE
"None IMHO fall into the "great" category."
Geoffrey Howe's cricket bat speech was my favourite.
@JGForsyth: First, weaponise. Now, 'another Milly Dowler moment'. Labour needs to stop showing how the sausage is made, it is not edifying
http://t.co/KXmy0NbFXQ
It's amazing that anyone is prepared to vote Labour, frankly.
Say something completely legal, but possibly a little bit politically incorrect and you are sentenced by the mob to be panned on Twitter for a week or two, have your reputation trashed, and preferably lose your job.
It IS pretty astonishing that the Lib's could be doing that badly just weeks from the election, but it generally seem's to be pretty much "priced in" now....
Last MORI was Con 33% Lab 34%. So Labour must be on or above 35% with this poll?
Maybe something like Lab 36% Con 35%?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2668488/How-Guardians-false-claim-Milly-Dowler-shut-News-World.html
LAB 36%
CON 35%
Lib Dem 6%
@JoeMurphyLondon: EXCLUSIVE LORD FINK INTERVIEW. Everyone avoids tax, says peer. He admits setting up family trusts in Switzerland http://t.co/FbMXGbV6ws