Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Because you didn't get the briefing that went with the briefing note?
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
There is no way the Tories are going to win Stoke on Trent South.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
There is no way the Tories are going to win Stoke on Trent South.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
There is no way the Tories are going to win Stoke on Trent South.
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Because you didn't get the briefing that went with the briefing note?
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
Well actually, they didn't come to that conclusion after receiving the briefing note, did they? What they wrote last night for the morning papers didn't run on this. Only this morning, after Tory sources started making noises about it, did it become the story.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
If you believe today's Populus the Tories and Lab are neck and neck across the south of England (excl London), while Survation had the Tories 10 clear, ICM 14 clear and Comres 15 clear.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
SO - the problem is it was clearly briefed in his name by Tom Baldwin, written version not so strong and speech even less so. It is the dead cat. However if you are going to put a criticism out there then it's probably good if it does not highlight that your party were crap in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be a good idea if you had regularly raised the issue in parliament or in key speeches. Finally it would be good if your solution amounted to more than recovering the mps group 'friends of Libya', and if your opponent had personally gone out on a limb for the status quo, and not been in line with other world leader s.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
There is no way the Tories are going to win Stoke on Trent South.
It is true that Lab won on only 38% or so last time and that Lab have had some problems, primarily with BNP in Stoke. However this story seem rather far fetched, dont believe everything you read in a newspaper........
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
I think we're moving into the start where the national polls are less and less useful and it all depends on the local battles.
There is no way the Tories are going to win Stoke on Trent South.
It is true that Lab won on only 38% or so last time and that Lab have had some problems, primarily with BNP in Stoke. However this story seem rather far fetched, dont believe everything you read in a newspaper........
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Maybe they are worried about a Labour challenge in a neighbouring seat, and are trying to divert attention. Labour only need a 15% swing to take Bill Cash's seat of Stone that borders on the south...
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Because you didn't get the briefing that went with the briefing note?
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
Well actually, they didn't come to that conclusion after receiving the briefing note, did they? What they wrote last night for the morning papers didn't run on this. Only this morning, after Tory sources started making noises about it, did it become the story.
Bbc news at one correspondent says the opposite. The Tories only started crying fowl after the insinuation that Cameron has blood on his hands. Presumably the briefing from Tom Baldwin.
Is it a known medical condition or is it a new euphemism for being over emotionally tired?
I have sympathy with that. I guess TV Studios are hot places, and I fainted in a hot office once whilst suffering with some cold-like symptoms. And sadly, alcohol was not involved.
Well, here we go. Ed was given a direct opportunity to clarify that the interpretation of the briefing note by the BBC, Sky, New Statesman and others was completely wrong, and didn't do so:
Ed Miliband, at his Q&A, is now taking questions from the press. The previous questions came from Chatham House members.
Q: To what extend do you blame David Cameron personally for what happened in Libya?
Miliband says the international community as a whole bears some responsibility for what happened in Libya. After Iraq, we should have learnt about the need for post-conflict planning. But that did not happen.
But of course the people traffickers are to blame for the migrant deaths.
He did, however, come up with an answer of quite spectacular emptiness to the follow-up question: Q: What else would you have done in Libya?
Miliband says the key thing is focus. The British government disengaged. It should not have done that.
Great, so now it is absolutely clear that Ed does not blame Dave for the migrant deaths. He does believe, though, that along with other members of the international community the UK got it wrong over Libya.
Looks like extreme venality and immorality to me.
SO - the problem is it was clearly briefed in his name by Tom Baldwin, written version not so strong and speech even less so. It is the dead cat. However if you are going to put a criticism out there then it's probably good if it does not highlight that your party were crap in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be a good idea if you had regularly raised the issue in parliament or in key speeches. Finally it would be good if your solution amounted to more than recovering the mps group 'friends of Libya', and if your opponent had personally gone out on a limb for the status quo, and not been in line with other world leader s.
Yep, fair enough. I'd have thought that would be a far better line of attack than falsely accusing Ed of blaming Dave for the migrant deaths.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
If you believe today's Populus the Tories and Lab are neck and neck across the south of England (excl London), while Survation had the Tories 10 clear, ICM 14 clear and Comres 15 clear.
If Labour are ahead of conservatives in the south of England I will eat my hat!
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Maybe they are worried about a Labour challenge in a neighbouring seat, and are trying to divert attention. Labour only need a 15% swing to take Bill Cash's seat of Stone that borders on the south...
LOL....I don't think there is much Cash personally or the Tory party could do that would result in him losing that seat.
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
...
...
...
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Because you didn't get the briefing that went with the briefing note?
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
Well actually, they didn't come to that conclusion after receiving the briefing note, did they? What they wrote last night for the morning papers didn't run on this. Only this morning, after Tory sources started making noises about it, did it become the story.
Bbc news at one correspondent says the opposite. The Tories only started crying fowl after the insinuation that Cameron has blood on his hands. Presumably the briefing from Tom Baldwin.
I think you might be agreeing with one another - the Tory sources decided that the trailed wording insinuated that this was the case, made a fuss, and then that became the story. Which is different from the press initially reading it as Labour making that insinuation. Doesn't tell you much other than perhaps that many journalists are really, really lazy and find it easier to report who's making most noise than analyse difficult writing.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
If you believe today's Populus the Tories and Lab are neck and neck across the south of England (excl London), while Survation had the Tories 10 clear, ICM 14 clear and Comres 15 clear.
I can't see a South of England (excluding London) score in the Populus tables. I only see South East (presumably including London) and Wales & South West.
I wondered when the Libyan affair would raise its head. John Snow asked Clegg whether he felt any responsibility for the terrible situation and when Clegg got angry Snow called him a hypocrite.
'How could the Lib Dems have made such political capital out of Iraq and then claim that the same thing didn't apply in Libya' he asked
I thought it was a fair attack and Clegg's discomfort showed its salience. Cleggs hypocricy should be there for all to see. It's a serious blow to Clegg and Cameron's credibility
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
BBC: Norman Smith "says with the language they have chosen Labour have opened themselves up to the charge that they are indeed implying Mr Cameron bears a direct responsibility for the current refugee crisis whatever their original intentions"
BBC: "Ed Miliband is to accuse David Cameron and world leaders of failing to ‘stand by’ Libya, contributing in part to the crisis in the Mediterranean.”
Sky: "Labour Accuses PM Over Migrant Boat Deaths"
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Maybe you should consider that there are folk working for Miliband such as Tom Baldwin who speak to the journalists and BRIEF them verbally on what it really means and the line they would like projected. It is what PR people do.
And they only briefed three outlets?
I think you should just for once accept that this has been a blunder by Labour and move on. But I will answer your question as you seem to be blissfully ignorant of what goes on ahead of a news deadline. It takes time for a person to brief people, so in the time available last night or this morning, maybe these 3 were the only ones Baldwin was able to speak to? The logisitics of people sleeping and media deadlines reduces the window for communication.
“My critics say that after toppling Gaddafi we should have sent in troops to rebuild the nation, but I find it’s never a good idea to stick around somewhere after you’ve done some bombing.
“We had, quite simply, done as much as we could do from 35,000ft and didn’t want to outstay our welcome with the good people of Libya, many of whom have turned out to be utterly terrifying.”
Shitholes from my youth were Elswick and Scotswood in Newcastle - jeez. All walls covered in cemented broken glass, no indoor loos and streets grimy and without a blade of grass.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
Shitholes from my youth were Elswick and Scotswood in Newcastle - jeez. All walls covered in cemented broken glass, no indoor loos and streets grimy and without a blade of grass.
Oh and then there's Killingworth Township [I'm not joking about the official name] which was a brutalist architect's wet dream of brick towers, 6ft walls and high rise walkways destined to be filled with muggers, urine and rubbish.
70s urban planners have a great deal to answer for. IIRC The Killingworth Towers were demolished before the debts on them were paid by the local council.
http://www.visitstokescroft.co.uk The most appealing place in any city is the one that zings with a sense of freedom, the once created by the people who live and work there, unplanned, authentic. In Bristol that place is Stokes Croft. ... So enjoy the independence, diversity and creativity, and tread lightly for it is fragile.
[Having lived in Bishopston for 10 years, I'd agree Stokes Croft is a rancid sh1thole]
Another well managed campaign triumph for Labour...The entire MSM is now discussing what Ed planned to say... didn't say and are ignoring what he did say...brilliant
Ex-Top Gear producer Andy Wilman in scathing attack on 'meddling' BBC the day after quitting show and holding talks with Clarkson, May and Hammond
Andy Wilman said it was a 'tragedy' that the BBC sacked Jeremy Clarkson 'Meddling' bosses wanted female presenter in 2002 instead of James May Presenting trio went on to have more than a decade of success together Mr Wilman met with Clarkson, Richard Hammond and May yesterday
'How could the Lib Dems have made such political capital out of Iraq and then claim that the same thing didn't apply in Libya' he asked
I thought it was a fair attack and Clegg's discomfort showed its salience. Cleggs hypocricy should be there for all to see.
That makes no sense. Iraq and Libya were totally different situations, were entered into for totally different reasons, were completely different types of military action, involved totally different degrees of involvement by British forces, and involved totally different timescales of involvement. In addition Libya did not involve a dodgy dossier and lying to parliament by the PM.
So why on earth would it be hypocritical of Clegg to support one and not the other?
Having read the briefing note provided by the Telegraph it is absolutely clear to me that at no stage was Cameron blamed for the deaths. I am afraid that I just do not share your views on the inherent venality and immorality of the Labour party and of Ed Miliband, so I cannot extract the interpretations that you do from briefings, from speeches and from events involving either Labour or Ed.
[Knocks head agains brick wall] It's NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Are you really incapable of understanding this?
New Statesman: "Miliband will cite this week's Mediterranean refugee deaths, the sidelining of Britain during the Ukraine crisis and the endagering of the UK's EU membership as examples of Cameron's failures"
...
...
...
Having read the briefing note I have no idea how anyone can think that Ed was going to blame Cameron for the deaths.
Because you didn't get the briefing that went with the briefing note?
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
Well actually, they didn't come to that conclusion after receiving the briefing note, did they? What they wrote last night for the morning papers didn't run on this. Only this morning, after Tory sources started making noises about it, did it become the story.
Bbc news at one correspondent says the opposite. The Tories only started crying fowl after the insinuation that Cameron has blood on his hands. Presumably the briefing from Tom Baldwin.
I think you might be agreeing with one another - the Tory sources decided that the trailed wording insinuated that this was the case, made a fuss, and then that became the story. Which is different from the press initially reading it as Labour making that insinuation. Doesn't tell you much other than perhaps that many journalists are really, really lazy and find it easier to report who's making most noise than analyse difficult writing.
'How could the Lib Dems have made such political capital out of Iraq and then claim that the same thing didn't apply in Libya' he asked
I thought it was a fair attack and Clegg's discomfort showed its salience. Cleggs hypocricy should be there for all to see.
That makes no sense. Iraq and Libya were totally different situations, were entered into for totally different reasons, were completely different types of military action, involved totally different degrees of involvement by British forces, and involved totally different timescales of involvement. In addition Libya did not involve a dodgy dossier and lying to parliament by the PM.
So why on earth would it be hypocritical of Clegg to support one and not the other?
Quite. Reasonable people will differ on whether it was right to support one or both or neither, but the situations were not directly equivalent. Hell, even the Russians and Chinese abstained on permitting action in Libya with UN approval, in essence a green light (but which allowed them to criticise taking things too far without actually needing to stick for Gaddafi). Very different scenarios all around.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Maybe they are worried about a Labour challenge in a neighbouring seat, and are trying to divert attention. Labour only need a 15% swing to take Bill Cash's seat of Stone that borders on the south...
Seems strange if the Tories are targetting Stoke S unless they think they can keep all their own voters while Lab seems a swing to UKIP. Surely Newcastle-Under-Lyme is a much better prospect.
'How could the Lib Dems have made such political capital out of Iraq and then claim that the same thing didn't apply in Libya' he asked
I thought it was a fair attack and Clegg's discomfort showed its salience. Cleggs hypocricy should be there for all to see.
That makes no sense. Iraq and Libya were totally different situations, were entered into for totally different reasons, were completely different types of military action, involved totally different degrees of involvement by British forces, and involved totally different timescales of involvement. In addition Libya did not involve a dodgy dossier and lying to parliament by the PM.
So why on earth would it be hypocritical of Clegg to support one and not the other?
Can we blame Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill for lack of post war planning after the collapse of Poland?
Should we point the finger at Herbert Asquith and Sir Edward Grey for getting involved in a war over Belgiuml?
I believe that Churchill can fairly be accused of poor post war planning; handing Eastern Europe over to the Communists, and agreeing the incorporation of the Baltics, Bessarabia, Bukovina and Eastern Poland into the USSR.
He may not have had much choice at Yalta of course. What would Miliband have done?
“My critics say that after toppling Gaddafi we should have sent in troops to rebuild the nation, but I find it’s never a good idea to stick around somewhere after you’ve done some bombing.
“We had, quite simply, done as much as we could do from 35,000ft and didn’t want to outstay our welcome with the good people of Libya, many of whom have turned out to be utterly terrifying.”
Excellent stuff.
I like the Mash, they make some good comments and unusually for comedic sites even go a little right wing sometimes, which makes for a refreshing change of piece even as a lefty. It is easy to make comedic fodder out of Cameron's twisting on this issue too, it's totally on form, although it is also true that his critics would have crucified him if he'd suggested sticking around, and so would the public probably, especially when at first things looked ok. As much as that is possible.
150 years ago today, the line from Loughton to Ongar was first opened by the Great Eastern Railway.
The Epping Ongar Railway, which runs heritage trains over the eastern-most portion, has special train services today, tomorrow and Sunday.
My great-great-great grandfather was Chief Inspector of Works for the GER.
Interesting, Rod! Wonder if he worked on the Loughton branch.
The GER (or its predecessor Eastern Counties Railway) built most of what is today the London Underground Central line east of Stratford.
The Railways were THE great force for social mobility in the 19th C. My ancestor was born in the parish of Yardley Gobion, Northants in 1817 into a family of agricultural labourers. His parents died in the workhouse. Seizing the main chance, he started on the railways as platelayer, rose to railway guard, then inspector, then Chief Inspector of Works of the GER. When he died in 1895 he'd amassed a fortune of £12.5k, a tidy sum then. His brother, who stayed in the village, and died around the same time, remained illiterate and was buried in a pauper's grave...
Aside from getting a good job on the railways, their mere existence fuelled social mobility, and the growth of the cities. My other ancestors, farmers, came down from North Yorkshire to the Smoke and did well as coal and timber merchants, then builders. Without the railways, none of that would have happened.
If there is really a 5% swing con-lab in England, as is asserted here, then how come I am reading from the Times that the tories may take Stoke on Trent South??
Maybe they are worried about a Labour challenge in a neighbouring seat, and are trying to divert attention. Labour only need a 15% swing to take Bill Cash's seat of Stone that borders on the south...
Seems strange if the Tories are targetting Stoke S unless they think they can keep all their own voters while Lab seems a swing to UKIP. Surely Newcastle-Under-Lyme is a much better prospect.
Newcastle under Lyme I'd have thought would be a Labour hold but is certainly a far more reasonable target than Stoke on Trent South.
Can we blame Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill for lack of post war planning after the collapse of Poland?
Should we point the finger at Herbert Asquith and Sir Edward Grey for getting involved in a war over Belgiuml?
I believe that Churchill can fairly be accused of poor post war planning; handing Eastern Europe over to the Communists, and agreeing the incorporation of the Baltics, Bessarabia, Bukovina and Eastern Poland into the USSR.
He may not have had much choice at Yalta of course. What would Miliband have done?
Comments
Either that, or multiple news organisations across the political spectrum simultaneously jumped to the same wrong conclusion?
If I were you I'd be worrying about how many of the London labour supporters in that yougov poll are actually registered to vote.
Well that, or Yougov and Populus are complete bulls8t.
Should we point the finger at Herbert Asquith and Sir Edward Grey for getting involved in a war over Belgiuml?
"MPs on foreign examples of ‘good practice’ immigration policy": Australia, Germany, and USA.
populus.co.uk/item/-In-their-dreams-MPs-on-foreign-examples-of-‘good-practice’-immigration-policy-/
Check out the comments the BBC have finally opened on Miliband's comments...
The GER (or its predecessor Eastern Counties Railway) built most of what is today the London Underground Central line east of Stratford.
'How could the Lib Dems have made such political capital out of Iraq and then claim that the same thing didn't apply in Libya' he asked
I thought it was a fair attack and Clegg's discomfort showed its salience. Cleggs hypocricy should be there for all to see. It's a serious blow to Clegg and Cameron's credibility
“My critics say that after toppling Gaddafi we should have sent in troops to rebuild the nation, but I find it’s never a good idea to stick around somewhere after you’ve done some bombing.
“We had, quite simply, done as much as we could do from 35,000ft and didn’t want to outstay our welcome with the good people of Libya, many of whom have turned out to be utterly terrifying.”
Excellent stuff.
It's a bit, ummm, one sided. Unusual for the BBC, which has a reasonable share of lefties, tree-huggers and other reality-deniers posting.
So why on earth would it be hypocritical of Clegg to support one and not the other?
I presume you supported both?
He may not have had much choice at Yalta of course. What would Miliband have done?
Aside from getting a good job on the railways, their mere existence fuelled social mobility, and the growth of the cities. My other ancestors, farmers, came down from North Yorkshire to the Smoke and did well as coal and timber merchants, then builders. Without the railways, none of that would have happened.
new thread
"It's a bit, ummm, one sided. Unusual for the BBC, which has a reasonable share of lefties, tree-huggers and other reality-deniers posting."
Just a lot of Shapps/Green sock-puppets