There's some polling analysis in the Times, by yougov on behalf of Conhome that says
30 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives at the next election if Mr Cameron is in charge, compared with 36 per cent if the Mayor of London takes over.
Forty per cent would vote for UKIP if Mr Cameron stays in charge in 2015, while almost a quarter of “Boris switchers” backed the Lib Dems at the last election and 17 per cent didn’t vote.
twitter Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4m Final #G8UK verdict - it was touch and go, but @David_Cameron has played a blinder. Big progress on Syria, tax dodging and terror ransoms.
Mr. Pork, whilst I disagree with Cameron's seeming desire to arm the rebels, or at least pretend that to try and force Assad to negotiate, he has been clear throughout about Parliament getting a vote.
Bercow should just do his job instead of grandstanding and dreaming of how much better life would be if he were in Romania.
I thought Osborne was very good on R4 this morning re tax and held his own re RBS.
I would seriously not want that guy on the other side of a negotiation from me. He is formidable. Less good at the public stuff but he did well today. Possibly a sign his confidence is up. It will be interesting to see what he has to say in his speech tomorrow.
It is a bit unfair with him being in office etc but the comparison between that serious and interesting analysis and the vacuous nonsense we get from Ed is stunning when you read it again.
There's some polling analysis in the Times, by yougov on behalf of Conhome that says
30 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives at the next election if Mr Cameron is in charge, compared with 36 per cent if the Mayor of London takes over.
Mickpork (previous thread) Of the contendors you mention, after a hypothetical narrow Tory win in 2015 the odds are that Labour would win in 2020 under a fresh face such as Chukka Umunna, Boris by that stage would no longer be Mayor and yesterday's news and anyway his ego would not want to lead the Tory party to defeat, Gove certainly does not want to be leader nor does Hague, which leaves May and Hammond, neither of whom has the machine Osborne has!
There's some polling analysis in the Times, by yougov on behalf of Conhome that says
30 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives at the next election if Mr Cameron is in charge, compared with 36 per cent if the Mayor of London takes over.
Mr. Pork, whilst I disagree with Cameron's seeming desire to arm the rebels, or at least pretend that to try and force Assad to negotiate, he has been clear throughout about Parliament getting a vote.
Bercow should just do his job instead of grandstanding and dreaming of how much better life would be if he were in Romania.
@Morris_Dancer, I caught an interesting report from the always excellent and informed Tim Marshall on SkyNews late last night. He suggested that the ultimate goal right now from the US, UK and France was to get Assad at the table of a peace Conference with a view to planning his regime's organised exit from power in Syria. And hopefully with a time table for democratic elections in the future. And that it why Putin and the Russians are currently dragging their feet, as they are opposed to this decision being taken as a given before the Peace Conference even begins.
It puts the increasingly heated rhetoric flying around from all sides into context, and suggests that talk of arming the Syrian rebels is being used as a threat to get the Assad regime and Russians around the table. Its in nobodies interests for this bloody civil war to continue any longer than it has too, least of all for the Syrian people who have suffered so much already.
When the judgement starts: "Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm. It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. "
You kinda get a hint this is not going to go well for the Bank. Goodness knows what Denning would have made of the bank's behaviour in recent times. Brilliant language. Lots of really short sentences. Great clarity of thought.
In my opinion the law has gone backwards a very long way from that decision. Today banks get people to sign a contract stating that they have not been given advice (for example on interest rate swops) when they have and the courts hold that because that is the contract such advice cannot be negligent or relied upon. Any attempt to address the inequality of the parties outside a pure consumer contract is frowned upon. It is not an improvement in my opinion.
Putin digs in on Syria while Cameron claims progress
Not entirely clear that the wording in the G8 communique moves on from what Russia accepted in the June 2012 Geneva communique.
The word “transition” was accepted then in many forms by the Russians. The main gain (you can judge for yourself how substantial it is) is a joint commitment to another peace conference “as soon as possible” with a side-briefed muttering that it could be August and certainly won’t be sooner.
The hopes were never great of a massive breakthrough, but reading the runes it’s not obvious that the trip to this remote, rural part of the UK has produced any sort of breakthrough at all.
There's some polling analysis in the Times, by yougov on behalf of Conhome that says
30 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives at the next election if Mr Cameron is in charge, compared with 36 per cent if the Mayor of London takes over.
Mr. Pork, whilst I disagree with Cameron's seeming desire to arm the rebels, or at least pretend that to try and force Assad to negotiate, he has been clear throughout about Parliament getting a vote.
Not only has Cammie been far from clear what the commons will be getting but it's still not clear.
It would be undemocratic and inappropriate not to have a Commons vote before the Government decided to arm rebel fighters in Syria, Speaker John Bercow said today.
Mr Bercow said any vote should be on a substantive motion, which in theory would bind the Government to the decision taken by MPs.
His comments came after Foreign Secretary William Hague told MPs they would be able to vote on the "issue" but did not say whether it would be on a substantive motion, which Labour MPs had demanded.
It matters because despite all the 'hints' or 'signals' unless it's spelled out that the vote will have actual consequences then it is pure theatre and posturing that changes nothing.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that Assad can remain in power in Syria after presiding over a civil war in which a hundred thousand of his citizens have been killed?
There can be no political resolution of the conflict in Syria without regime change.
The options available to the international community are solely in timing.
If Assad recovers the territory occupied by the rebels and suppresses open military conflict by force, the opposition will merely move outside his borders and the civil war will continue by means of terrorist insurgency. Such an outcome will merely delay peace, destablilise the region and result in escalating casualties.
This outcome will be known and predicted in Moscow as much as it will be in Washington, London and Paris.
Putin's opportunity is to lead the Assad regime, Iran and the Hizbollah to a negotiated peace which protects their mutual interests and Russia's influence in the Middle East and which reasserts Russia as a major force in global diplomacy.
The threat to Putin is that the bonds between Russia, Iran and Syria are not as close as they are perceived to be in the West. There may be a current coalition of interest - Syria needs arms and Iran needs international support - but there is no permanent and unconditional alliance.
Iran, in particular, may see a direct deal with the US as better serving their own interests. Iran's principal current priority is to revive its own economy by having international sanctions lifted. That goal can only be achieved in a deal with the US.
The threat of the US and the EU supplying arms to the rebels is merely a negotiating tactic designed to accelerate movement towards a negotiated solution. It is similar to the cold war arms build up: the US and its allies will undertake to match any military support Russia and Iran provides Assad. The aim is to deter not aggravate the civil war.
The New Yorker article linked by TSE in the header totally misreads the current status of negotiations between Russia and the West. The pressure is now on Putin to deliver a solution that may well turn out to be outside his capabilities.
And that is why he was looking the most uncomfortable of the leaders at the G8 meeting.
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that Assad can remain in power in Syria after presiding over a civil war in which a hundred thousand of his citizens have been killed?
What's this 'after' you speak of? Because there's absolutely no sign of the carnage stopping on the ground after two years of it already and Assad is still there.
There can be no political resolution of the conflict in Syria without regime change.
You might want to avoid those two particular words since Iraq as it's the prospect of a no fly zone and the slippery slope that is concentrating most minds on the tory backbenches and among the lib dems and labour.
* One for conspiracy theorists, the Mayor of Watford had to sign the official secrets act because of the Bilderberg meeting.
Why is this "news" in any way? We are all bound by the Official Secrets Act.
People starting certain jobs or joining certain projects can be required to sign it as a record that they have been made aware/reminded of its contents. I have lost count of the number of times I have personally for various assignments - it's as routine as filling out a form for a car park pass.
This doesn't suddenly turn the Mayor of Watford into Mrs James Bond.
Cameron's comments on trade deals are particularly stupid and ill informed given that he mentioned Canada and given that EFTA have had a FTA with Canada for the last 4 years. Some EFTA members have already agreed FTAs with China as well whereas the EU are years awaay from that happening.
And of course we could have had a trade deal with the US years ago were it not for the fact we are stuck in the EU with France who are doing everything in their power to scupper such a deal.
So overall Cameron's comments show he is either ignorant or dishonest.
Mickpork (previous thread) Of the contendors you mention, after a hypothetical narrow Tory win in 2015 the odds are that Labour would win in 2020 under a fresh face such as Chukka Umunna, Boris by that stage would no longer be Mayor and yesterday's news and anyway his ego would not want to lead the Tory party to defeat, Gove certainly does not want to be leader nor does Hague, which leaves May and Hammond, neither of whom has the machine Osborne has!
Straying into the realms of the very hypothetical if you speak of 2020. Nonetheless I am far from certain Boris wants to just fade away though he really should be seriously looking into somehow getting back into the commons before 2015 as his best option. I would tend to agree with you about Hague but I would think Gove still has ambitions in that direction, however unrealistic.
This machine you speak of that Osborne has, perhaps he should inspect it's warranty since it hasn't exactly made him popular or stopped the amusing master strategies. The apparatus of a powerful department like the treasury means nothing if it fails to produce a broad based group of MPs that are convinced of the 'wisdom' of Osborne having the top job. There is no meaningful Osbrowne faction determined to make him leader nor is that likely to change.
MP - True, but if the Tories are likely to lose anyway then Osborne could be allowed to take the hit and win the leadership by default
After the IDS debacle I doubt there will be much appetite to pop in some loser to take the flak. They didn't even let IDS get to an election remember, and wisely so. However bad things may look there will never be a shortage of ambitious politicians looking to be leader and it is no place for scapegoats. That usually comes after a stint as leader.
There is a crucial distinction between hitting the ball over the boundary rope and hitting it out of the ground. The latter is indisputably a nuisance to the occupier of the adjacent property. If they choose not to litigate their decision cannot be regarded as binding on other occupiers of similar property elsewhere. The fact that the nuisance has persisted for 70 years is irrelevant. Indeed, it could well be maintained [by the legal profession at least] that litigation is long overdue
On 20th July I shall be at Lord’s Cricket Ground eagerly anticipating the following eventuality: Mr Kevin Petersen, on strike at the Pavilion end, lofts a six over the Edrich Stand, over the Nursery End, over the MCC Indoor School, over the Wellington Road, landing in Regent’s Park where it happens to fell Mr David Cameron, disguised in a burka, making his way home from a secret appointment at the intensely private Wellington Hospital.
During a period of sustained national mourning Her Majesty responds to tabloid pressure (reminiscent of 1997) by inviting the Mayor of London to form a government even though he doesn’t have a seat in Parliament (reminiscent of 1963). The subsequent Whitney by-election rectifies this little local difficulty and Ladbrokes reluctantly shell out at 33-1.
So who is liable for Ladbroke’s regrettable loss? The MCC who own the ground, the EWB who employed the batsman, Mr Petersen himself for negligently hitting a six further than necessary, the baying crowd who cheered the stroke, the Australian who lamely delivered a long-hop a yard outside the off-stump?
I think any reasonable person would blame the bowler.
MickPork - Yes, but Osborne will have been chancellor for ten years by 2020 and will not have been the choice of members foisted on MPs like IDS, to win he would need clear parliamentary backing, I also fail to see the likes of Hammond or May let alone Gove doing any better electorally against say Chukka Ummunna after 10 years of Tory/Tory led government than Osborne were that situation ever to arise!
When the judgement starts: "Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm. It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. "
You kinda get a hint this is not going to go well for the Bank. Goodness knows what Denning would have made of the bank's behaviour in recent times. Brilliant language. Lots of really short sentences. Great clarity of thought.
In my opinion the law has gone backwards a very long way from that decision. Today banks get people to sign a contract stating that they have not been given advice (for example on interest rate swops) when they have and the courts hold that because that is the contract such advice cannot be negligent or relied upon. Any attempt to address the inequality of the parties outside a pure consumer contract is frowned upon. It is not an improvement in my opinion.
Denning operates in a different world to his fellow appeal judges. Absolutely lucid and almost godlike in his scope.
I loved the comment on Denning's judgement by Sir Eric Sachs: awe and jealousy at Denning's boldness combined with a cautious distance.
As regards the wider areas covered in masterly survey in the judgment of my Lord, the Master of the Rolls, but not raised arguendo, I do not venture to express an opinion - though having some sympathy with the views that the Courts should be able to give relief to a party who has been subject to undue pressure as defined in the concluding passage of his judgment on that point.
I also fail to see the likes of Hammond or May doing any better electorally against say Chukka Ummunna after 10 years of Tory/Tory led government than Osborne were that situation ever to arise!
It's about relative performance. Sorry but the idea that Osbrowne would be the best bet as leader of the tories at any time just strikes me as pretty funny. He is unpopular for a reason and his 'cunning wheezes' almost always backfire. The polls moved most sharply against the tories after his omnishambles so why any tory backbenchers would want to trust him with even more power is baffling and backed up by the odds.
The voters simply don't like Osborne nor does he have a base in the commons of MPs who desperately want him in the top job. Hammond and May may be far from perfect but they have at least some plausibility as tory leader and they are routinely talked of as possibles while Osborne simply isn't.
Boris would have significant support from the tory base if he can find a willing tory MP to make way for him and reap some other reward under a possible Boris leadership.
There is a crucial distinction between hitting the ball over the boundary rope and hitting it out of the ground. The latter is indisputably a nuisance to the occupier of the adjacent property. If they choose not to litigate their decision cannot be regarded as binding on other occupiers of similar property elsewhere. The fact that the nuisance has persisted for 70 years is irrelevant. Indeed, it could well be maintained [by the legal profession at least] that litigation is long overdue
On 20th July I shall be at Lord’s Cricket Ground eagerly anticipating the following eventuality: Mr Kevin Petersen, on strike at the Pavilion end, lofts a six over the Edrich Stand, over the Nursery End, over the MCC Indoor School, over the Wellington Road, landing in Regent’s Park where it happens to fell Mr David Cameron, disguised in a burka, making his way home from a secret appointment at the intensely private Wellington Hospital.
During a period of sustained national mourning Her Majesty responds to tabloid pressure (reminiscent of 1997) by inviting the Mayor of London to form a government even though he doesn’t have a seat in Parliament (reminiscent of 1963). The subsequent Whitney by-election rectifies this little local difficulty and Ladbrokes reluctantly shell out at 33-1.
So who is liable for Ladbroke’s regrettable loss? The MCC who own the ground, the EWB who employed the batsman, Mr Petersen himself for negligently hitting a six further than necessary, the baying crowd who cheered the stroke, the Australian who lamely delivered a long-hop a yard outside the off-stump?
I think any reasonable person would blame the bowler.
Mr. Pinfold.
Your argument fails on geography.
The Wellington Hospital is on Wellington Road. Why would Mr Cameron be returning home to Downing Street via Regent's Park?
As a man of the people, Mr Cameron would certainly have taken the No 82 omnibus from Wellington Road and changed to a No 159 to Whitehall.
Neither route would have subjected him to the dangers of Regent's Park.
I attempted to post this three hours ago at the exact moment Vanilla went on strike, so I'll try again -
If Cameron is really too scared to debate with Alex Salmond, what on earth was he doing taking part in the Road to Referendum documentary? He must have known that he was going to be shown back to back with Salmond, and the contrast was dreadful for him.
The late Iain Banks is also being shown making an eloquent case both for independence, and unity after the referendum whichever way it goes.
Oh, dear God - now Cameron is shooting himself in the foot again with the "I have a problem with foreigners" stuff.
MP - Osborne has more of a base than May, who is not popular with many backbenchers and Hammond will probably not be on the radar in 2020 or have the machine to challenge Osborne, and in any case were the 2015 election won Osborne would have seen his stature rise significantly amongst the MPs for his handling of the economy through the election. Boris, in my view, either leads in 2015 or after an election defeat at that time or not at all
You have to bear in mind that some of the rebels at least are Al Qaeda or fighting alongside Al-Qaeda.
Of course. I doubt whether Cameron et al have small arms in mind though. The kind of armaments which the US/UK/FR are likely to supply would be those which matched the sophisticated hardware being shipped in by Russia.
The aim of any arms supply would be to neutralise an Assad military advantage rather than to foment an urban insurgency.
You have to bear in mind that some of the rebels at least are Al Qaeda or fighting alongside Al-Qaeda.
Of course. I doubt whether Cameron et al have small arms in mind though. The kind of armaments which the US/UK/FR are likely to supply would be those which matched the sophisticated hardware being shipped in by Russia.
The aim of any arms supply would be to neutralise an Assad military advantage rather than to foment an urban insurgency.
Why would you want to supply Al Qaeda with any arms at all?
Does anyone on PB seriously believe that Assad can remain in power in Syria after presiding over a civil war in which a hundred thousand of his citizens have been killed?
What's this 'after' you speak of? Because there's absolutely no sign of the carnage stopping on the ground after two years of it already and Assad is still there.
There can be no political resolution of the conflict in Syria without regime change.
You might want to avoid those two particular words since Iraq as it's the prospect of a no fly zone and the slippery slope that is concentrating most minds on the tory backbenches and among the lib dems and labour.
Pork.
If or when the time comes to supply arms, the decision on what to supply to whom and under what conditions will be taken in Washington with UK and French input.
Parliament, as always in such cases, will support the allied action, albeit after considerable hand-wringing and professed doubt,
UKIP really are a class act. They see no apparent irony in launching their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign 125 miles away in an Edinburgh pub, and then they send a leaflet to the deceased MSP they want to replace. If they do win, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and ask to be sworn in.
MP - Osborne has more of a base than May, who is not popular with many backbenchers
I've seen little evidence of that. May sometimes gets glowing assessments from tory MPs for some of her Home Office moves. The best Osborne can hope for is to avoid calamities these days which pleases those few supporters he has. The odds are correct and May just looks more likely.
Hammond will probably not be on the radar in 2020 or have the machine to challenge Osborne
He's hardly Vince Cable old and I still don't understand why you think Osborne has a magical machine to make him popular. He doesn't. The apparatus of the treasury makes as many (if not more) enemies as friends. Osborne just isn't seen as the natural successor to Cammie whereas Brown was to Blair which is what really gave him that immense power in the treasury.
and in any case were the 2015 election won Osborne would have seen his stature rise significantly amongst the MPs for his handling of the economy through the election.
No, it won't. There just isn't going to BE a massive feelgood factor regardless of any small steps towards recovery. Even if there was you could not pick a worse person to try and claim the credit than Osborne. You put his name to a policy and it's popularity drops. How much more clear does it need to get? 2010 should have tipped people off by now.
Boris, in my view, either leads in 2015 or after an election defeat at that time or not at all
On balance I'd agree with you. Which is why he needs to get back in the commons ASAP and why his extremely visible forays into issues that resonate with tory MPs (like coming out strongly against arming the Syrain rebels) are a fairly good sign that he does want to do so.
You have to bear in mind that some of the rebels at least are Al Qaeda or fighting alongside Al-Qaeda.
Of course. I doubt whether Cameron et al have small arms in mind though. The kind of armaments which the US/UK/FR are likely to supply would be those which matched the sophisticated hardware being shipped in by Russia.
The aim of any arms supply would be to neutralise an Assad military advantage rather than to foment an urban insurgency.
Why would you want to supply Al Qaeda with any arms at all?
You wouldn't. But at the same time the 'allies' have to accept reality. Civil war sucks in undesirables. Their existence and participation in the conflict should not however prevent action being taken to resolve the conflict.
UKIP really are a class act. They see no apparent irony in launching their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign 125 miles away in an Edinburgh pub, and then they send a leaflet to the deceased MSP they want to replace. If they do win, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and ask to be sworn in.
Entirely sensible in my view, James.
An Englishman should always be reluctant to travel north of Edinburgh in June.
If the by-election had been held after the glorious twelfth then of course Farage would quarter his operations in Aberdeen.
Twitter Ruth Davidson MSP @RuthDavidsonMSP 1h Brilliantly, I got kb'd for not having ID trying to buy Mundell a beer at the Springsteen gig. He's 51. I'm clearly #34goingon17 #underage
You have to bear in mind that some of the rebels at least are Al Qaeda or fighting alongside Al-Qaeda.
Of course. I doubt whether Cameron et al have small arms in mind though. The kind of armaments which the US/UK/FR are likely to supply would be those which matched the sophisticated hardware being shipped in by Russia.
The aim of any arms supply would be to neutralise an Assad military advantage rather than to foment an urban insurgency.
Why would you want to supply Al Qaeda with any arms at all?
You wouldn't. But at the same time the 'allies' have to accept reality. Civil war sucks in undesirables. Their existence and participation in the conflict should not however prevent action being taken to resolve the conflict.
I would have thought flooding the country with arms would lengthen the conflict not shorten it.
"Vladimir Putin with G8 leaders. The Russian leader has agreed to let President Assad of Syria go on certain conditions. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/AFP/Getty Images
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is willing to see the removal of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, but only if it leads to a balanced government and not a dangerous power vacuum of the kind that followed Saddam Hussein's removal in Iraq, British officials believe after two days of intensive talks at the G8 summit.
Putin blocked any reference in the subsequent communique to the removal of Assad, but British officials believe the talks have opened the way for a peace settlement if more can be done to organise the Syrian opposition forces politically and militarily.
Talks over the terms of the communique lasted until 3am. The Russians accepted the need for UN weapons inspectors to visit Syria to check on western claims that Assad has used chemical weapons.
But Putin flatly refused to have any reference in the communiqué to the nature of delegations that should be sent to the planned Geneva peace conference, insisting that this was a matter for both sides.
British officials insisted that in private Putin had declared no personal allegiance to Assad, but needed assurances that Syria would not turn into an ungoverned space on Russia's borders if he were removed. David Cameron in his press conference at the end of the summit made repeated calls for Assad's allies to realise that a strong army and security state would be preserved during a transition, words designed to reassure them that they would have a future after Assad.
British officials admitted that the Syrian opposition was still a work in progress. They had been unable to agree a negotiating mandate for a new peace conference.
The G8 communique made no reference to Assad, but called for peace talks to be resumed as soon as possible. Cameron said the main breakthrough was an agreement that a transitional government with executive powers was needed, together with a deal to call for an investigation into chemical weapons use. "We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria," the final communique read. "We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva conference on Syria.""
Ruth Davidson took David Mundell to a "Springsteen gig"?
I feel slightly nauseous.
Then you are a sad individual. Straight to a personal dig while ignoring just how stupidly nannying this country has become under the SNP. And they cry Freedom and demand Independence, what a joke!
Mick Pork - She has annoyed several MPs, including a put-down of Mark Reckless. Osborne has more of a machine than Hammond, and several younger MPs in ministerial positions owe their positions to him. Of course if the Tories lose as I have said GO has no chance, the question of a GO leadership only arises if they win, in which case he will still claim some credit eg unemployment low, albeit wages not high, and tough action on the deficit etc. Agree with your last paragraph.
It scarcely seems possible, but I underestimated UKIP in my previous post. This will surely go down as one of the all-time classic Scottish political interviews. Nigel Farage v Bernard Ponsonby -
NIGEL FARAGE: We have an English Defence League – I would be in absolutely no doubt in my total condemnation of them and their methods. So there is an edge to Scottish nationalism that I think is rather unpleasant.
BERNARD PONSONBY: One where even a parallel with the EDL is appropriate?
NF: I think it probably is, yes.
BP: You said some of the roots of the SNP were anti-English, what were you thinking of?
NF: Oh, if you go back to, before, er, you know, way back into the 30s and 40s, uh, you know, some of the people that founded it were profoundly anti-English.
BP: Who?
NF: The vast majority -
BP: Can you name one?
NF: No I can’t, but I’ve, but I’ve, but I’ve read the history of the party -
BP: Would you like to justify the statement, then?
NF: Yes I would, because they won the Stirling by-election because they stopped being anti-English and started being seen to be pro-Scottish.
BP: There was a Stirling by-election?
NF: That’s exactly where, that’s exactly – sorry?
BP: Stirling by-election?
NF: In the 60s, yeah. And it’s exactly the same -
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
NF: It was a Parliamentary election.
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
"The threat of the US and the EU supplying arms to the rebels is merely a negotiating tactic designed to accelerate movement towards a negotiated solution. It is similar to the cold war arms build up: the US and its allies will undertake to match any military support Russia and Iran provides Assad. The aim is to deter not aggravate the civil war."
Hits nail on head with one clear strike. Now why has that been so hard for so many to comprehend in recent days? The simple answer is Tony Blair and New Labour, and their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. When are some political commentators and Tory backbenchers going to finally realise that they should judge Cameron on his actions, and not their own prejudices towards him.
Cameron made it clear at PMQ's that no decision on arming Syrian rebels would be taken without a debate and vote in the HoC's days ago. Russia is openly supplying the Assad Regime at a time when the US, France and the UK are desperately trying to get them to the table at a peace Conference whereby they can negotiate a peaceful transition to a democratic Government. Does anyone believe that this bloody civil war is going to do anything but keep escalating while Assad remains in power and more and more outside elements pour into the conflict like moths to a flame? Just maybe our current Government have learnt the hard lesson of the Blair years and desperately want to avoid the same mistakes being made again?
Cameron wrote an article about his reservations about the Iraq vote before it took place, his record of involvement in Libya again showed he was not going to continue to treat our armed forces as Blair's Foreign Adventure Air Tours around the world. When we were evacuating British nationals from Libya, the media were focusing on emotive pleas from relatives in the UK criticising and demanding that the Government do something about their stranded loved ones in deepest Libya. Unsurprisingly, at the same time the British special forces were planning a daring rescue attempt that really needed the element of surprise and no one in the media leaking their plans.
I think the fact that a change of leader from Dave to Boris can influence a party's vote so much shows that we are moving away from a party based system to a presidential one, albeit that we are doing it subliminally and it does not say so on the Westminster tin.
The other factor is the difference in voting patterns between men and women. Gillard in Oz has 24% primary vote support from men and 34% for women, averaging out at 29%. The playing of the gender card on abortion and saying vote for me because I am a woman and not because I have policies and values you should respect is a sad sight.
I think women are prepared to give other women a go. So May, even if she is a Tory, might do better solely on the back of women saying "she cannot be as bad as the men have been recently". At least she admits to which party she belongs; Amanda Harvie a recent Tory candidate at the GE in a Scottish seat claimed on TV this week she was politically neutral, her sudden memory loss of something quite significant and different coming as a surprise to many who know her.
But the Tory is toxic mantra is a serious issue north of the Tweed and the thought of UKIP having a role in a future UK is a real possibility now if they average 20% plus, a party hell bent on the dissolution of power in Scotland and the centralisation of power to be reaffirmed to Westminster. Vote No and get the Tories and Farage tag team would be a threat to the NO campaign, and denying Farage a pivotal role does not change that fact.
It scarcely seems possible, but I underestimated UKIP in my previous post. This will surely go down as one of the all-time classic Scottish political interviews. Nigel Farage v Bernard Ponsonby
Farage is going to have a problem with people forgetting he exists, especially between the Euros and the Scottish vote. The solution is to force himself into the debate by remorselessly trolling Scottish nationalists. Luckily for him they are easily trolled, and also share an interest in keeping him in the debate.
Farage is going to have a problem with people forgetting he exists, especially between the Euros and the Scottish vote. The solution is to force himself into the debate by remorselessly trolling Scottish nationalists. Luckily for him they are easily trolled, and also share an interest in keeping him in the debate.
There are no votes for him in Scotland, in fact it's very probably in his interests if Scotland leaves. Going north and upsetting the natives plays quite well in his demographic, plus it'd remove a large chunk of "In" voters from any future EU referendum.
Great for the SNP too, they get a southern fop to rail against. It's a win/win situation all round. The only losers are the mainstream unionist parties.
It scarcely seems possible, but I underestimated UKIP in my previous post. This will surely go down as one of the all-time classic Scottish political interviews. Nigel Farage v Bernard Ponsonby
Luckily for him they are easily trolled, and also share an interest in keeping him in the debate.
Indeed. Since Cameron will not indulge Salmond's wet dream of debating with him, Farage is the next best thing for the non-anglophobic (but "go back to England!") SNP to rail against.
I think the fact that a change of leader from Dave to Boris can influence a party's vote so much shows that we are moving away from a party based system to a presidential one, albeit that we are doing it subliminally and it does not say so on the Westminster tin.
I agree with you, although the signs are elsewhere too. It's one of the reasons I disliked the idea of leaders' debates at the last election, for example, and I really hope that they don't happen next time. We talk about how people don't "look" PM material despite having an intellect up to the task - see Gove on the last thread as an example. Conversely some people wildly talk up Chukka Unnummununma despite the fact he's a nothing in an expensive suit.
Perhaps it's inevitable with the utter domination of the media in politics - I'm thinking of the famous televised Nixon/Kennedy debate. It's not a Presidential system based on policies though as principles still seem easily tradeable. It's based on looks and laziness ("Ed is crap")
Farage and Scot Nats continue to provide each other with copy:
"Nigel Farage forced to cancel Aberdeen lunch due to protest fears, Ukip claims Party's claim that itinerary was changed due to fears that demonstrations would turn ugly are denied by hotel and police"
It was in June 2010, if you really think its important which side of the election the report was allegedly tampered with then best get your facts right
The complaints date from 2008 - well before the coalition - best to get your facts right, eh?
There are some large internal shifts - across a range of issues - which makes me wonder if there are any (unidentified) methodological reasons - the previous readings are not offered in direct comparison.
It was in June 2010, if you really think its important which side of the election the report was allegedly tampered with then best get your facts right
The complaints date from 2008 - well before the coalition - best to get your facts right, eh?
This enquiry is into the CQC report of June 2010
Into deaths that took place on Labour's watch...good luck deflecting blame for that.
Into deaths that took place on Labour's watch...good luck deflecting blame for that.
It'll be like nailing wine to a table. He's good at shifting the debate on to another topic when he's on unsafe ground or ..... oh, look, a squirrel! ---->
It scarcely seems possible, but I underestimated UKIP in my previous post. This will surely go down as one of the all-time classic Scottish political interviews. Nigel Farage v Bernard Ponsonby -
NIGEL FARAGE: We have an English Defence League – I would be in absolutely no doubt in my total condemnation of them and their methods. So there is an edge to Scottish nationalism that I think is rather unpleasant.
BERNARD PONSONBY: One where even a parallel with the EDL is appropriate?
NF: I think it probably is, yes.
BP: You said some of the roots of the SNP were anti-English, what were you thinking of?
NF: Oh, if you go back to, before, er, you know, way back into the 30s and 40s, uh, you know, some of the people that founded it were profoundly anti-English.
BP: Who?
NF: The vast majority -
BP: Can you name one?
NF: No I can’t, but I’ve, but I’ve, but I’ve read the history of the party -
BP: Would you like to justify the statement, then?
NF: Yes I would, because they won the Stirling by-election because they stopped being anti-English and started being seen to be pro-Scottish.
BP: There was a Stirling by-election?
NF: That’s exactly where, that’s exactly – sorry?
BP: Stirling by-election?
NF: In the 60s, yeah. And it’s exactly the same -
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
NF: It was a Parliamentary election.
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
It might look superficially hilarious, but I fear you simply don't understand NF's cunning master strategy.
It's an age old political stratagem to 'troll' your opponents into submission by looking like a clueless twit when challenged on the facts by an interviewer.
Who can forget this excellent example of Rick Perry remorselessy 'trolling' the Democrats (they are easily 'trolled' never forget) by ruthlessly exploiting the hopelessly partisan debate host's impertinent line of questioning.
And fewer cite Europe as personally important (21%) than pensions (32%)
It's clear Europe isn't a big driver of UKIP voting, no matter how much the right wing of the Tory Parliamentary Party would like it to be.
With the caveat of potential methodological changes, the UKIP number on Europe is down 15%, while immigration is +2%......some on the right of the Tory party have long been strangers to reason...
"In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. ... The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. and all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a housethere next to the cricket ground."
No no no. Cricket is not the delight of everyone. Cricket is a bizarre and monstrous perversion, in which only a tiny minority of warped, depraved, and feeble-minded booliaks, indeed bumpkins, indulge. The suggestion that the conversion of the cricket ground to another function, such as factorying or housing, might in some way be regrettable, is nincompoopism of the highest order.
There are some large internal shifts - across a range of issues - which makes me wonder if there are any (unidentified) methodological reasons - the previous readings are not offered in direct comparison...
Looks to me like "welfare benefits" has been included as an option for the first time. And comes in straight at number 4
The CQC has not had a happy history since it was set up in 2009:
"On 15 May 2008, the Department of Health announced that Barbara Young, Baroness Young of Old Scone, had been appointed as shadow Chair of the Care Quality Commission. The announcement followed an independent recruitment exercise conducted by the Appointments Commission and a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing by the Health Select Committee, which subsequently endorsed Barbara Young for appointment. Baroness Young was formerly the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. The most recent staff survey completed identified that 86% of the staff have no confidence in the executive team. 82% of the staff team identified that it is not safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done.
On 26 Dec 2009, Barbara Young announced that she is stepping down from the role, effective February 2010. Dame Jo Williams (Deputy Chairman of the CQC) will act as Chairman until a successor is appointed.
On 1 October 2010 Dame Jo Williams was confirmed as the Chair of CQC. She resigned on 7 September 2012 after it emerged that she asked the then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley to remove 'whistleblower' Kay Sheldon from the CQC board amid allegations surrounding Sheldon's mental health. Sheldon had tried to raise concerns about an alleged bullying culture at the CQC at the enquiry into deaths at Mid Staffordshire hospital. Williams was forced to apologise to MPs for reiterating her allegations at a Health Select Committee hearing.
On 28 January 2013 David Prior, former Conservative MP was appointed as Chair."
There are some large internal shifts - across a range of issues - which makes me wonder if there are any (unidentified) methodological reasons - the previous readings are not offered in direct comparison...
Looks to me like "welfare benefits" has been included as an option for the first time. And comes in straight at number 4
Well spotted!
Interesting differences between voters on view of importance of benefits to the country vs themselves:
Welfare important to Country (self) Con: 33 (7) Lab: 24 (19) LibDem: 20 (4) UKIP: 27 (18)
GeoffM But empty suits can win see Obama, dare I say Cameron, Umunna should not be ruled out. With the exception of maybe Attlee's 1945 and 1950 wins, Heath's 1970 win and Thatcher's 1979 election almost every election has been won by the more charismatic party and popular leader. Graham Brady had a sensible point on this that we should directly elect the PM like Israel, so he has his own mandate, with parliament elected separately, with no prospect of a UK President for the foreseeable future, that seems the best way forward.
Comments
30 per cent of voters would back the Conservatives at the next election if Mr Cameron is in charge, compared with 36 per cent if the Mayor of London takes over.
Forty per cent would vote for UKIP if Mr Cameron stays in charge in 2015, while almost a quarter of “Boris switchers” backed the Lib Dems at the last election and 17 per cent didn’t vote.
Generation Y?
Quick message for antifrank, as normal posting seems down.
Fantastic judgment by Denning. He had all his priorities right.
I only hope the precedent and law he set has not been overruled since.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 4m
Final #G8UK verdict - it was touch and go, but @David_Cameron has played a blinder. Big progress on Syria, tax dodging and terror ransoms.
Bercow should just do his job instead of grandstanding and dreaming of how much better life would be if he were in Romania.
I would seriously not want that guy on the other side of a negotiation from me. He is formidable. Less good at the public stuff but he did well today. Possibly a sign his confidence is up. It will be interesting to see what he has to say in his speech tomorrow.
Last years was one of the most interesting speeches of the last year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9332318/George-Osbornes-Mansion-House-speech-in-full.htm
It is a bit unfair with him being in office etc but the comparison between that serious and interesting analysis and the vacuous nonsense we get from Ed is stunning when you read it again.
Wham! Boris Johnson is an alpha bloke.
1. Sponsoring a bill is a relatively minor technicality, a question of obscure knowledge not competence
2. Fop? Nothing to do with it? Or anything, in fact.
It puts the increasingly heated rhetoric flying around from all sides into context, and suggests that talk of arming the Syrian rebels is being used as a threat to get the Assad regime and Russians around the table. Its in nobodies interests for this bloody civil war to continue any longer than it has too, least of all for the Syrian people who have suffered so much already.
When the judgement starts: "Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm. It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. "
You kinda get a hint this is not going to go well for the Bank. Goodness knows what Denning would have made of the bank's behaviour in recent times. Brilliant language. Lots of really short sentences. Great clarity of thought.
In my opinion the law has gone backwards a very long way from that decision. Today banks get people to sign a contract stating that they have not been given advice (for example on interest rate swops) when they have and the courts hold that because that is the contract such advice cannot be negligent or relied upon. Any attempt to address the inequality of the parties outside a pure consumer contract is frowned upon. It is not an improvement in my opinion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/18/masturbation-foetus-michael-burgess-abortion_n_3459909.html?icid=maing-grid7|ukt4|dl1|sec3_lnk4&pLid=188266
There can be no political resolution of the conflict in Syria without regime change.
The options available to the international community are solely in timing.
If Assad recovers the territory occupied by the rebels and suppresses open military conflict by force, the opposition will merely move outside his borders and the civil war will continue by means of terrorist insurgency. Such an outcome will merely delay peace, destablilise the region and result in escalating casualties.
This outcome will be known and predicted in Moscow as much as it will be in Washington, London and Paris.
Putin's opportunity is to lead the Assad regime, Iran and the Hizbollah to a negotiated peace which protects their mutual interests and Russia's influence in the Middle East and which reasserts Russia as a major force in global diplomacy.
The threat to Putin is that the bonds between Russia, Iran and Syria are not as close as they are perceived to be in the West. There may be a current coalition of interest - Syria needs arms and Iran needs international support - but there is no permanent and unconditional alliance.
Iran, in particular, may see a direct deal with the US as better serving their own interests. Iran's principal current priority is to revive its own economy by having international sanctions lifted. That goal can only be achieved in a deal with the US.
The threat of the US and the EU supplying arms to the rebels is merely a negotiating tactic designed to accelerate movement towards a negotiated solution. It is similar to the cold war arms build up: the US and its allies will undertake to match any military support Russia and Iran provides Assad. The aim is to deter not aggravate the civil war.
The New Yorker article linked by TSE in the header totally misreads the current status of negotiations between Russia and the West. The pressure is now on Putin to deliver a solution that may well turn out to be outside his capabilities.
And that is why he was looking the most uncomfortable of the leaders at the G8 meeting.
"Well which one are you then?"
Will never live that down. Doesn't deserve to.
Why is this "news" in any way? We are all bound by the Official Secrets Act.
People starting certain jobs or joining certain projects can be required to sign it as a record that they have been made aware/reminded of its contents. I have lost count of the number of times I have personally for various assignments - it's as routine as filling out a form for a car park pass.
This doesn't suddenly turn the Mayor of Watford into Mrs James Bond.
You have to bear in mind that some of the rebels at least are Al Qaeda or fighting alongside Al-Qaeda.
And of course we could have had a trade deal with the US years ago were it not for the fact we are stuck in the EU with France who are doing everything in their power to scupper such a deal.
So overall Cameron's comments show he is either ignorant or dishonest.
The site has run out of steam because we need something like a by-election or resignation to make things interesting.
Straying into the realms of the very hypothetical if you speak of 2020. Nonetheless I am far from certain Boris wants to just fade away though he really should be seriously looking into somehow getting back into the commons before 2015 as his best option. I would tend to agree with you about Hague but I would think Gove still has ambitions in that direction, however unrealistic.
This machine you speak of that Osborne has, perhaps he should inspect it's warranty since it hasn't exactly made him popular or stopped the amusing master strategies. The apparatus of a powerful department like the treasury means nothing if it fails to produce a broad based group of MPs that are convinced of the 'wisdom' of Osborne having the top job. There is no meaningful Osbrowne faction determined to make him leader nor is that likely to change.
There is a crucial distinction between hitting the ball over the boundary rope and hitting it out of the ground. The latter is indisputably a nuisance to the occupier of the adjacent property. If they choose not to litigate their decision cannot be regarded as binding on other occupiers of similar property elsewhere. The fact that the nuisance has persisted for 70 years is irrelevant. Indeed, it could well be maintained [by the legal profession at least] that litigation is long overdue
On 20th July I shall be at Lord’s Cricket Ground eagerly anticipating the following eventuality: Mr Kevin Petersen, on strike at the Pavilion end, lofts a six over the Edrich Stand, over the Nursery End, over the MCC Indoor School, over the Wellington Road, landing in Regent’s Park where it happens to fell Mr David Cameron, disguised in a burka, making his way home from a secret appointment at the intensely private Wellington Hospital.
During a period of sustained national mourning Her Majesty responds to tabloid pressure (reminiscent of 1997) by inviting the Mayor of London to form a government even though he doesn’t have a seat in Parliament (reminiscent of 1963). The subsequent Whitney by-election rectifies this little local difficulty and Ladbrokes reluctantly shell out at 33-1.
So who is liable for Ladbroke’s regrettable loss? The MCC who own the ground, the EWB who employed the batsman, Mr Petersen himself for negligently hitting a six further than necessary, the baying crowd who cheered the stroke, the Australian who lamely delivered a long-hop a yard outside the off-stump?
I think any reasonable person would blame the bowler.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3808/cameron_s_too_late_to_tame_the_ukip_tiger
I loved the comment on Denning's judgement by Sir Eric Sachs: awe and jealousy at Denning's boldness combined with a cautious distance.
As regards the wider areas covered in masterly survey in the judgment of my Lord, the Master of the Rolls, but not raised arguendo, I do not venture to express an opinion - though having some sympathy with the views that the Courts should be able to give relief to a party who has been subject to undue pressure as defined in the concluding passage of his judgment on that point.
The voters simply don't like Osborne nor does he have a base in the commons of MPs who desperately want him in the top job. Hammond and May may be far from perfect but they have at least some plausibility as tory leader and they are routinely talked of as possibles while Osborne simply isn't.
Boris would have significant support from the tory base if he can find a willing tory MP to make way for him and reap some other reward under a possible Boris leadership.
Your argument fails on geography.
The Wellington Hospital is on Wellington Road. Why would Mr Cameron be returning home to Downing Street via Regent's Park?
As a man of the people, Mr Cameron would certainly have taken the No 82 omnibus from Wellington Road and changed to a No 159 to Whitehall.
Neither route would have subjected him to the dangers of Regent's Park.
If Cameron is really too scared to debate with Alex Salmond, what on earth was he doing taking part in the Road to Referendum documentary? He must have known that he was going to be shown back to back with Salmond, and the contrast was dreadful for him.
The late Iain Banks is also being shown making an eloquent case both for independence, and unity after the referendum whichever way it goes.
Oh, dear God - now Cameron is shooting himself in the foot again with the "I have a problem with foreigners" stuff.
Amy: I am Scottish. What's wrong with that? Scotland's gotta be here somewhere.
Mandy: No. They wanted their own ship.
Amy: Good for them!
The aim of any arms supply would be to neutralise an Assad military advantage rather than to foment an urban insurgency.
If or when the time comes to supply arms, the decision on what to supply to whom and under what conditions will be taken in Washington with UK and French input.
Parliament, as always in such cases, will support the allied action, albeit after considerable hand-wringing and professed doubt,
Twas ever thus and twill always be so.
He's hardly Vince Cable old and I still don't understand why you think Osborne has a magical machine to make him popular. He doesn't. The apparatus of the treasury makes as many (if not more) enemies as friends. Osborne just isn't seen as the natural successor to Cammie whereas Brown was to Blair which is what really gave him that immense power in the treasury. No, it won't. There just isn't going to BE a massive feelgood factor regardless of any small steps towards recovery. Even if there was you could not pick a worse person to try and claim the credit than Osborne. You put his name to a policy and it's popularity drops. How much more clear does it need to get? 2010 should have tipped people off by now.
On balance I'd agree with you. Which is why he needs to get back in the commons ASAP and why his extremely visible forays into issues that resonate with tory MPs (like coming out strongly against arming the Syrain rebels) are a fairly good sign that he does want to do so.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100222332/g8-say-no-to-tie-avoidance/?placement=mid2
An Englishman should always be reluctant to travel north of Edinburgh in June.
If the by-election had been held after the glorious twelfth then of course Farage would quarter his operations in Aberdeen.
Ruth Davidson MSP @RuthDavidsonMSP 1h
Brilliantly, I got kb'd for not having ID trying to buy Mundell a beer at the Springsteen gig. He's 51. I'm clearly #34goingon17 #underage
I feel slightly nauseous.
"Vladimir Putin with G8 leaders. The Russian leader has agreed to let President Assad of Syria go on certain conditions. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/AFP/Getty Images
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is willing to see the removal of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, but only if it leads to a balanced government and not a dangerous power vacuum of the kind that followed Saddam Hussein's removal in Iraq, British officials believe after two days of intensive talks at the G8 summit.
Putin blocked any reference in the subsequent communique to the removal of Assad, but British officials believe the talks have opened the way for a peace settlement if more can be done to organise the Syrian opposition forces politically and militarily.
Talks over the terms of the communique lasted until 3am. The Russians accepted the need for UN weapons inspectors to visit Syria to check on western claims that Assad has used chemical weapons.
But Putin flatly refused to have any reference in the communiqué to the nature of delegations that should be sent to the planned Geneva peace conference, insisting that this was a matter for both sides.
British officials insisted that in private Putin had declared no personal allegiance to Assad, but needed assurances that Syria would not turn into an ungoverned space on Russia's borders if he were removed. David Cameron in his press conference at the end of the summit made repeated calls for Assad's allies to realise that a strong army and security state would be preserved during a transition, words designed to reassure them that they would have a future after Assad.
British officials admitted that the Syrian opposition was still a work in progress. They had been unable to agree a negotiating mandate for a new peace conference.
The G8 communique made no reference to Assad, but called for peace talks to be resumed as soon as possible. Cameron said the main breakthrough was an agreement that a transitional government with executive powers was needed, together with a deal to call for an investigation into chemical weapons use. "We remain committed to achieving a political solution to the crisis based on a vision for a united, inclusive and democratic Syria," the final communique read. "We strongly endorse the decision to hold as soon as possible the Geneva conference on Syria.""
Should I "get a life", Christina?
Got two teenagers at home already. Don't need it.
Osborne has more of a machine than Hammond, and several younger MPs in ministerial positions owe their positions to him. Of course if the Tories lose as I have said GO has no chance, the question of a GO leadership only arises if they win, in which case he will still claim some credit eg unemployment low, albeit wages not high, and tough action on the deficit etc. Agree with your last paragraph.
NIGEL FARAGE: We have an English Defence League – I would be in absolutely no doubt in my total condemnation of them and their methods. So there is an edge to Scottish nationalism that I think is rather unpleasant.
BERNARD PONSONBY: One where even a parallel with the EDL is appropriate?
NF: I think it probably is, yes.
BP: You said some of the roots of the SNP were anti-English, what were you thinking of?
NF: Oh, if you go back to, before, er, you know, way back into the 30s and 40s, uh, you know, some of the people that founded it were profoundly anti-English.
BP: Who?
NF: The vast majority -
BP: Can you name one?
NF: No I can’t, but I’ve, but I’ve, but I’ve read the history of the party -
BP: Would you like to justify the statement, then?
NF: Yes I would, because they won the Stirling by-election because they stopped being anti-English and started being seen to be pro-Scottish.
BP: There was a Stirling by-election?
NF: That’s exactly where, that’s exactly – sorry?
BP: Stirling by-election?
NF: In the 60s, yeah. And it’s exactly the same -
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
NF: It was a Parliamentary election.
BP: There wasn’t a by-election in Stirling in the 60s.
NF: Right, the Parliamentary election they won.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/removing-all-doubt/
Hits nail on head with one clear strike. Now why has that been so hard for so many to comprehend in recent days? The simple answer is Tony Blair and New Labour, and their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. When are some political commentators and Tory backbenchers going to finally realise that they should judge Cameron on his actions, and not their own prejudices towards him.
Cameron made it clear at PMQ's that no decision on arming Syrian rebels would be taken without a debate and vote in the HoC's days ago. Russia is openly supplying the Assad Regime at a time when the US, France and the UK are desperately trying to get them to the table at a peace Conference whereby they can negotiate a peaceful transition to a democratic Government. Does anyone believe that this bloody civil war is going to do anything but keep escalating while Assad remains in power and more and more outside elements pour into the conflict like moths to a flame? Just maybe our current Government have learnt the hard lesson of the Blair years and desperately want to avoid the same mistakes being made again?
Cameron wrote an article about his reservations about the Iraq vote before it took place, his record of involvement in Libya again showed he was not going to continue to treat our armed forces as Blair's Foreign Adventure Air Tours around the world. When we were evacuating British nationals from Libya, the media were focusing on emotive pleas from relatives in the UK criticising and demanding that the Government do something about their stranded loved ones in deepest Libya. Unsurprisingly, at the same time the British special forces were planning a daring rescue attempt that really needed the element of surprise and no one in the media leaking their plans.
I think the fact that a change of leader from Dave to Boris can influence a party's vote so much shows that we are moving away from a party based system to a presidential one, albeit that we are doing it subliminally and it does not say so on the Westminster tin.
The other factor is the difference in voting patterns between men and women. Gillard in Oz has 24% primary vote support from men and 34% for women, averaging out at 29%. The playing of the gender card on abortion and saying vote for me because I am a woman and not because I have policies and values you should respect is a sad sight.
I think women are prepared to give other women a go. So May, even if she is a Tory, might do better solely on the back of women saying "she cannot be as bad as the men have been recently".
At least she admits to which party she belongs; Amanda Harvie a recent Tory candidate at the GE in a Scottish seat claimed on TV this week she was politically neutral, her sudden memory loss of something quite significant and different coming as a surprise to many who know her.
But the Tory is toxic mantra is a serious issue north of the Tweed and the thought of UKIP having a role in a future UK is a real possibility now if they average 20% plus, a party hell bent on the dissolution of power in Scotland and the centralisation of power to be reaffirmed to Westminster.
Vote No and get the Tories and Farage tag team would be a threat to the NO campaign, and denying Farage a pivotal role does not change that fact.
Great for the SNP too, they get a southern fop to rail against. It's a win/win situation all round. The only losers are the mainstream unionist parties.
http://news.sky.com/story/1105493/nhs-watchdog-in-hospital-scandal-cover-up
Perhaps it's inevitable with the utter domination of the media in politics - I'm thinking of the famous televised Nixon/Kennedy debate. It's not a Presidential system based on policies though as principles still seem easily tradeable. It's based on looks and laziness ("Ed is crap")
"Nigel Farage forced to cancel Aberdeen lunch due to protest fears, Ukip claims
Party's claim that itinerary was changed due to fears that demonstrations would turn ugly are denied by hotel and police"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/18/nigel-farage-aberdeen-protest-fears
Issues facing country:
Economy: 66 (-5)
Immigration: 52 (-6)
Health: 30 (-2)
Europe: 13 (-10)
Issues facing you:
Economy: 54 (-10)
Health: 31 (-6)
Pensions: 28 (-2)
Tax: 22 (-)
Immigration: 16 (-2)
Europe: 7 (-2)
If that had happened on the Tories watch you would have been screaming from the rooftops,
It's an age old political stratagem to 'troll' your opponents into submission by looking like a clueless twit when challenged on the facts by an interviewer.
Who can forget this excellent example of Rick Perry remorselessy 'trolling' the Democrats (they are easily 'trolled' never forget) by ruthlessly exploiting the hopelessly partisan debate host's impertinent line of questioning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk
Did anyone forget Rick Perry exists when he did this? No, they did not.
LOL
Those poor naive Democrats never knew what hit them when GOP fruitcake after GOP fruitcake lined up to 'troll' them.
Lord Denning wrote
"In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well.
...
The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. and all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a housethere next to the cricket ground."
No no no. Cricket is not the delight of everyone. Cricket is a bizarre and monstrous perversion, in which only a tiny minority of warped, depraved, and feeble-minded booliaks, indeed bumpkins, indulge. The suggestion that the conversion of the cricket ground to another function, such as factorying or housing, might in some way be regrettable, is nincompoopism of the highest order.
"On 15 May 2008, the Department of Health announced that Barbara Young, Baroness Young of Old Scone, had been appointed as shadow Chair of the Care Quality Commission. The announcement followed an independent recruitment exercise conducted by the Appointments Commission and a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing by the Health Select Committee, which subsequently endorsed Barbara Young for appointment. Baroness Young was formerly the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. The most recent staff survey completed identified that 86% of the staff have no confidence in the executive team. 82% of the staff team identified that it is not safe to speak up and challenge the way things are done.
On 26 Dec 2009, Barbara Young announced that she is stepping down from the role, effective February 2010. Dame Jo Williams (Deputy Chairman of the CQC) will act as Chairman until a successor is appointed.
On 1 October 2010 Dame Jo Williams was confirmed as the Chair of CQC. She resigned on 7 September 2012 after it emerged that she asked the then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley to remove 'whistleblower' Kay Sheldon from the CQC board amid allegations surrounding Sheldon's mental health. Sheldon had tried to raise concerns about an alleged bullying culture at the CQC at the enquiry into deaths at Mid Staffordshire hospital. Williams was forced to apologise to MPs for reiterating her allegations at a Health Select Committee hearing.
On 28 January 2013 David Prior, former Conservative MP was appointed as Chair."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_Quality_Commission
Interesting differences between voters on view of importance of benefits to the country vs themselves:
Welfare important to Country (self)
Con: 33 (7)
Lab: 24 (19)
LibDem: 20 (4)
UKIP: 27 (18)