Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
@patrickwintour: By Tuesday likely to be 7 people standing for Labour deputy leader. Each candidate needs 35 nominations from MPs and there are 232 MPs.
I blame the press as well as politicians. They seem to set the rules such that anyone who deviates from the party line is a "splitter".
The referendum question was a good one. 'No referendum' was the line from Ed so all had to appear to agree. It causes uncertainty, blah, blah. All spokesmen on TV did agree. They'll will row back furiously now and claim it's for the best.
Whether it's avoidance or direct lie, it still seems like the Bill Clinton quote "I did not agree to a referendum with that woman."
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
I doubt even the ridicule that was thrown at Miliband was anything like the severe viciousness of the campaign against Esther. It would be the same against IDS. In which there are people out there who genuinely believe him to be a murderer. Utterly preposterous. But his seat is too safe to bother. So they went for her instead.
No Government since 1945 have done more to help people at the very bottom of society. Yet, they throw blood at her constituency offices, sing songs about how she will die and go to hell.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
If you think they are comparable, your moral compass needs resetting.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.
It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.
Tens of thousands? The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
Yes, tens of thousands.
As for your other question, for the initial values that are used in adverts and promotional materials:
1) You make the profile of the rolling road better match typical driving profiles, and not the ideal. Stop testing at high altitude, and do a range of tests with varying loads.
2) You also perform tests on the road in real-world conditions.
3) You then alter the required MOT results downwards accordingly.
As an aside, it's about time that manufacturers fiddling MPG figures in adverts was stopped.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds.
Is it? Considered as an accumulator, we need: 1) David Cameron not to resign mid-term (because if he does, the next PM will be Conservative) 2) David Miliband to be parachuted into a safe seat (and win the by-election) 3) The leader of the Labour Party to resign 4) David Miliband to be elected as new leader 5) Labour to win the 2020 general election.
I'm not tempted, even though, of course, if (2) happens before (1) there may be a chance to lay off for a profit on Betfair.
Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!
That's Cameron's position too, you know. It will be lightly-masked by whatever "reforms" he can get (the EU is great at producing consensus wording that meets the needs of national governments), but you don't actually think he's going to campaign for "out", do you? Nor is he going to say "Well, I'm Prime Minister, but I don't really mind, do as you think best". He's going to say "I've got the best deal you could possibly hope for after rigorous and confrontational meetings, vote for it!"
Sometimes age has its advantages. I've seen PRECISELY this sequence under Harold Wilson.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Surely trying that will bring out UKIP in force as the anti-politics vote? When was the last time an MP resigned his seat to allow a party stooge to be elected in a safe seat?
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Yes, that's potentially interesting. But I fear that even if he came back, he's missed his opportunity. Labour needs to move forwards, and he is a link to the past. What they need is fresh blood in the leadership.
If he did return to British politics at a high level (and it is a big conditional), I wonder how long it would be before someone in the media called him 'Ed' ?
All the talk of David Miliband as being some sort of saviour of the Labour Party is based on what exactly? He lost a 2 horse race to his weedy little brother and promptly sulked and took himself off to chase the money abroad. His burgeoning reputation in some quarters is based purely on how bad his brother was not on anything he's achieved himself.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Brand Miliband got buggered....
Two years is a long time in politics, especially should Andy Burnham mess up which is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities and Huddersfield has been known to produce a Labour Prime Minister in the past.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.
1) NI came first. News is news. 2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown. 3) Rupert Murdoch. 4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!
What's even more strange is that she's making policy at all. Yes, she's Labour's leader but only temporarily. There's nearly five years of parliament to go and she's about to stand down herself. Her role should be limited to keeping things functioning while her party sorts its future out. She shouldn't be tying the hands of her successor (and his or her shadow cabinet) in this way. What if Cooper or Burnham or Kendall disagrees with her, as they have every right to do? Will they reverse the policy again? The best thing one of the candidates could do is come out directly against her and the change before she tries to impose more policies and close down debate on her terms.
It's interesting that the Tory and labour stance on EU are now identical: support a referendum, make some meaningless noise about renegotiation and campaign to stay in regardless. All those who think ukip are finished are about to be very disappointed.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Surely trying that will bring out UKIP in force as the anti-politics vote? When was the last time an MP resigned his seat to allow a party stooge to be elected in a safe seat?
Well Barry Sheerman will be 80 by the date of the next GE, so more a case of retirement than resignation surely?
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.
1) NI came first. News is news. 2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown. 3) Rupert Murdoch. 4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!
What's even more strange is that she's making policy at all. Yes, she's Labour's leader but only temporarily. There's nearly five years of parliament to go and she's about to stand down herself. Her role should be limited to keeping things functioning while her party sorts its future out. She shouldn't be tying the hands of her successor (and his or her shadow cabinet) in this way. What if Cooper or Burnham or Kendall disagrees with her, as they have every right to do? Will they reverse the policy again? The best thing one of the candidates could do is come out directly against her and the change before she tries to impose more policies and close down debate on her terms.
Difficult for Labour not to have a view on this, one way or another. Hopefully she's spoken to the candidates and arrived at an agreed position.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Brand Miliband got buggered....
Two years is a long time in politics, especially should Andy Burnham mess up which is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities and Huddersfield has been known to produce a Labour Prime Minister in the past.
Nah. Most voters would just see the name Miliband and either think it was Ed the Retread, or else think "FFS. Not ANOTHER bloody Miliband. We've already told one to piss off. When do they ever get the message?"
There's an interesting report in the Sunday Times about how many car manufacturers' figures for NO2 emissions are not in line with reality, and can be up to ten times the recorded figure.
It's important as NO2 is seen as being responsible for tens of thousands of deaths through Europe every year.
Tens of thousands? The test figures will be run rolling roads and laboratory produced won't they? , like fuel consumption. How else can the engine be tested to meet the standard.
Yes, tens of thousands.
As for your other question, for the initial values that are used in adverts and promotional materials:
1) You make the profile of the rolling road better match typical driving profiles, and not the ideal. Stop testing at high altitude, and do a range of tests with varying loads.
2) You also perform tests on the road in real-world conditions.
3) You then alter the required MOT results downwards accordingly.
As an aside, it's about time that manufacturers fiddling MPG figures in adverts was stopped.
It can be done: Euro NCAP have done a superb job wrt safety.
It's all legal .. It's the EU's fault for allowing the fiddles.
They're only 'allowing' them in the fact that the manufacturers are exploiting loopholes.
It's why independent NCAP-style test labs need setting up. They would test cars when models are first introduced, and then, for every 100,000 (say) cars sold in a country, one is picked randomly from a showroom and tested.
If each major European country had a test lab (as I think happens with Euro NCAP), then you would detect outliers as well.
I see little downside to this. The cost would not even be that great in the larger scale of things.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.
1) NI came first. News is news. 2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown. 3) Rupert Murdoch. 4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
There will always be personal attacks. Remember that's Labour's MO in particular: if you cannot criticise someone properly, then invent smears.
The spectre of McBride still hangs over the party.
Much of the criticism of Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown was little more than personal abuse, and I'm not sure posters of Tony Blair with red eyes amounted to sophisticated political argument.
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
Then there are the tricks McBride disclosed in his book about the way the treasury was handled under Brown, Balls and Miliband. either Miliband knew what was going on or he was terminally thick.
Those were my main criticisms of him.
Besides, Cameron and Osborne ("Gideon") got plenty of abuse from the left, much of it downright incorrect. Miliband ate a bacon sandwich, Cameron bought fish in Morrisons.
That's leaving aside the left's utter hypocrisy over the hacking scandal.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes.
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.
1) NI came first. News is news. 2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown. 3) Rupert Murdoch. 4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
The reality is some people do not like Rupert Murdoch, and start foaming at the mouth.
The other thing that will further bugger Brand Miliband is that, presumably at some point this Parliament, Chilcot will finally run out of excuses to hold back his report....
Well, I hope we can all agree that the Govt. should provide there are funds available to ensure that the Mirror hacking is exposed to the same degree of criminal prosecution as NI. Let the juries decide....
Jarvis v Halfon. Two figures whose backgrounds preclude personal attacks. How on earth would we all cope?
Much of the criticism of Miliband and Brown was correct, though. And nothing was in anywhere near the same league as the McBride scandal. Comparing the two is rather sick.
I think I was one of the first (if not the first) on here to say that Miliband was good on identifying issues, but cr@p at picking workable solutions to those problems. And it is fair enough to criticise him for the way he mishandled energy policy when he was in charge of DECC.
I heard the campaign in the Wirral that unseated Esther Mcvey was the most downright vile, nasty and plain disgusting campaign of hate we have ever seen in recent times.
Apart from the ones in the Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail against Miliband.
Both effective
Sour grapes. Funny how people moan about certain papers never think to include for example The Mirror in the list. Wonder why that is?
And when the mirror is caught up to its neck in phone hacking, the tumble weed floats by.
Ignoring the fact that Mirror hacking has been covered, it misses the the other factors that made NI hacking more newsworthy.
1) NI came first. News is news. 2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown. 3) Rupert Murdoch. 4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
The Dowler accusation was that they deleted the messages but that was wrong. The Guardian then whipped up a campaign to close the notw based on this lie. The whole thing was a left wing witch hunt. Plus self serving angst from celebs. All the press of course are happy to spread rumours and innuendo and scream when threatened with independent regulation. In the Guardian's case it was against another paper because it was opposed to the government plan to permit a take over.
Today's Sunday Times yougov has Andy Burnham seen as most likely to win the next election for Labour with Cooper second Kendal 3rd, though Kendal 2nd with Tories
All Labour Tory UKIP
Burnham 20 Burnham 25 Burnham 15 Burnham 21 Cooper 10 Cooper 14 Cooper 8 Cooper 9 Kendal 8 Kendal 5 Kendal 13 Kendal 7 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 0
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
Listening to Harriet Harman on Marr this morning was surreal. She is now endorsing the referendum and has much the same aims as David Cameron apparently but when Andrew Marr summed up her position as wanting and demanding a changed Europe but that if Europe refuses she agreed that she would still campaign to stay in an unreformed Europe !!!!!
What's even more strange is that she's making policy at all. Yes, she's Labour's leader but only temporarily. There's nearly five years of parliament to go and she's about to stand down herself. Her role should be limited to keeping things functioning while her party sorts its future out. She shouldn't be tying the hands of her successor (and his or her shadow cabinet) in this way. What if Cooper or Burnham or Kendall disagrees with her, as they have every right to do? Will they reverse the policy again? The best thing one of the candidates could do is come out directly against her and the change before she tries to impose more policies and close down debate on her terms.
Difficult for Labour not to have a view on this, one way or another. Hopefully she's spoken to the candidates and arrived at an agreed position.
I think most people would accept that party unity in the middle of a leadership election isn't essential. Arguably, it's necessary *not* to have unity. Otherwise what are they voting on?
Mentioning the EU, I see the Greek Interior Minister has said Greece won't make its IMF payment. I know we've been here before but I'd take this one relatively serious because: - We know Greece is really short of ready cash. - While the interior minister isn't directly responsible for the repayment, he is a representative voice of Syriza's left wing. - Tsipras has form in using / allowing his ministers to float possibilities in a deniable way.
Speaking of longshots, how about David Miliband becoming the next Prime Minister ..... this piece from today's Sunday Times suggests that he might just become the next Honourable Member for Huddersfield:
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds. DYOR
Brand Miliband got buggered....
Two years is a long time in politics, especially should Andy Burnham mess up which is not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities and Huddersfield has been known to produce a Labour Prime Minister in the past.
Harold Wilson was born in Warneford Rd in Milnsbridge. This has an HD postcode but is actually now in the Colne Valley constituency.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
I suspect the management team of the news of the world actually believed it to be true also, which is why they closed down.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
That's easy: Gordon Brown. Osborne is heir-to-Brown, as I may have mentioned before including at the very start of this thread, thus helping to keep pb ahead of the game.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
A miracle will happen. An arrangement will be found.
Sadly, these days of zero or low inflation is a problem. In the old days, inflation would have taken care of the borrowings which remain in their nominal values whereas the nominal GDP goes up with inflation.
Today's Sunday Times yougov has Andy Burnham seen as most likely to win the next election for Labour with Cooper second Kendal 3rd, though Kendal 2nd with Tories
All Labour Tory UKIP
Burnham 20 Burnham 25 Burnham 15 Burnham 21 Cooper 10 Cooper 14 Cooper 8 Cooper 9 Kendal 8 Kendal 5 Kendal 13 Kendal 7 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 0
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
BTW, the lie had everything to do with party politics, and it is asinine for you to say otherwise.
I mean, do you really believe that? Remember the ovation Tony Wooodley got when the Sun magically became evil when it shifted support from Labour to the Conservatives?
As for your point about the Guardian supporting the Lib Dems in 2010: so they did but that is irrelevant given that the lies were printed a year later in 2011, when the Guardian were well and truly back in the Labour camp and against the Lib Dems.
Not entirely sure what he means by radical thinking, but Miliband did little to encourage anything other than a core vote. Yet how far were Labour divorced from policies of PC, SNP, or The Greens?
Radical is rather like progressive, a cover for all sorts of catch all policies.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.
I did read it. Your response was to Sandpit's point, and is in that context.
And FFS, it is not 'only partly true'. It is absolutely true. To say otherwise is nothing other than low smear. ("Oh, it is unlikely they did it, but I don't like them and therefore they must have").
This Irish referendum for Gay Marriage has been, for some, a real pain in the arse.
Still it's funny that the Irish priesthood, who have been accused of shagging young lads since St. Patric arrived, are now giving a grudging approval to liberal practices.
Yes, except that Number 4 on your list was explicitly disproved, and the Guardian had to print an apology over the accusation.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.
I did read it. Your response was to Sandpit's point, and is in that context.
And FFS, it is not 'only partly true'. It is absolutely true. To say otherwise is nothing other than low smear. ("Oh, it is unlikely they did it, but I don't like them and therefore they must have").
You have the timeline wrong in that outrage had already been caused before it was doubted who deleted the messages. Cause must come before effect, so later doubts are irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up.
All the talk of David Miliband as being some sort of saviour of the Labour Party is based on what exactly? He lost a 2 horse race to his weedy little brother and promptly sulked and took himself off to chase the money abroad. His burgeoning reputation in some quarters is based purely on how bad his brother was not on anything he's achieved himself.
I went to one of DMs hustings and he said he had allowed 90or so of his paid "workers" to work for charity.
ScottP There already is, he is Peter Mandelson and Osborne copied him
Completely agree. However, keeping (or re-engaging with) Mandelson as a core member of the party's campaigning makes it harder, if not impossible, to move on from the Blair / Brown years.
That or may not be true but it is hardly relevant to the question of why NI hacking was a far larger story than Mirror hacking. NI had public outrage (over Milly Dowler) and political intrigue (via Cameron's links to Coulson and Brooks). Unfair or not, them's the facts.
"That or may not be true"
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
You seem to be agreeing with me that it was the Milly Dowler point that outraged the public and in your words, "directly fed the explosion in the story". That's the point: nothing to do with party politics (and the Guardian endorsed the LibDems, and before 2010, the Sun and News of the World had endorsed Labour).
I was responding to your comment that 'it may or may not be true' that the Dowler accusations were unproved, and that the Guardian printed an apology. Which demonstrably are true.
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
Read what I wrote. Whether that part is true (or only partly true) is irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up. And, again, it has nothing to do with party politics -- and even there, the papers were not aligned as you imply.
I did read it. Your response was to Sandpit's point, and is in that context.
And FFS, it is not 'only partly true'. It is absolutely true. To say otherwise is nothing other than low smear. ("Oh, it is unlikely they did it, but I don't like them and therefore they must have").
The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.
That is its great strength and also its great weakness. The numbers in Labour who would prefer to lose with honour than to win with compromise is, I'd estimate, a good deal higher then in the Conservatives. That gives the Tories a greater hunger for power and Labour a greater sense of purpose. It also gives Labour its sense of moral superiority, which is at best a double-edged sword.
Surbiton Don't Know normally leads at this stage in party ballots, as it did in 2005 for the Tory leadership, but Burnham leads not only with Labour voters but with all voters too of those who do know and is therefore clearly the man to beat
Media scare tactics on Putin (or should I say Vladolph?) clearly rapidly losing their effectiveness (except on PB).
We got 5 points. But I'm sure this was the year when they said we've got a real, real, chance of winning?
Why fans of Russian foreign policy (or rather that absurd idea that because Western powers also engage in questionable activities for their own gain, that Russia is above reproach) are making coming second as some point about media scare tactics on Russia not working, I've no idea. Personally I thought Russia deserved to win last year, when media feeling against them was a lot stronger, and they still placed well then, so perhaps it's just that in addition to their reasonable bloc vote they also pick decent entries?
But no, let's make some implicit point about how fantastic Russia are and how terrible we in the West are, as tiresome as that is.
dh Mandelson can still have a role behind the scenes, don't forget he was involved in 1987 too even before Blair and Brown and began the first steps in the recovery from Labour's 1983 trouncing
dh Mandelson can still have a role behind the scenes, don't forget he was involved in 1987 too even before Blair and Brown and began the first steps in the recovery from Labour's 1983 trouncing
True, though some might also suggest Mandelson contributed in part to the 1992 defeat and had nothing to do with Labour's recovery under John Smith.
You have the timeline wrong in that outrage had already been caused before it was doubted who deleted the messages. Cause must come before effect, so later doubts are irrelevant to the question of why the story blew up.
Eh? It was always 'under doubt' who deleted the messages. It was an accusation - a false one - made in the media, mainly by people who could not be bothered asking experts how the system worked. There were always alternatives to what may have happened, and therefore doubt.
dh Mandelson can still have a role behind the scenes, don't forget he was involved in 1987 too even before Blair and Brown and began the first steps in the recovery from Labour's 1983 trouncing
True, though some might also suggest Mandelson contributed in part to the 1992 defeat ...
I'm sure they would because they hate Mandelson and what he stands for. I'd be intrigued to hear their evidence.
The Sheffield rally was Philip Gould's idea though has become more significant in retrospect than it ostensibly was at the time. Labour's Shadow Budget in 1992 was probably a bigger mistake. Smith probably did more to cost Labour the election than anyone and if their recovery afterwards was due to anyone it was a default effect against Conservative failings. Smith probably would have gone on to win in 1997 - he was safe enough to enough - but not on the scale Blair did.
Media scare tactics on Putin (or should I say Vladolph?) clearly rapidly losing their effectiveness (except on PB).
We got 5 points. But I'm sure this was the year when they said we've got a real, real, chance of winning?
Why fans of Russian foreign policy (or rather that absurd idea that because Western powers also engage in questionable activities for their own gain, that Russia is above reproach) are making coming second as some point about media scare tactics on Russia not working, I've no idea. Personally I thought Russia deserved to win last year, when media feeling against them was a lot stronger, and they still placed well then, so perhaps it's just that in addition to their reasonable bloc vote they also pick decent entries?
But no, let's make some implicit point about how fantastic Russia are and how terrible we in the West are, as tiresome as that is.
I don't know why you keep getting bolshy about this issue and taking it so personally. It is not 'we' in the West - the Western populace are the victims of a mainstream media distortion, not the perpetrators of it. No-one has said Russia is 'fantastic' - I read RT in the full knowledge that it is state media. But I also read The Telegraph, The Mail, the BBC etc. in the same light, which is what most of us completely fail to do, hence we're marched up to the top of the hill with all the ridiculous denunciations of 'Putin' as a latter-day Hitler and a threat to the free world, whereas now it seems there will be a rapprochement of sorts (though obviously no political or media climbdown). This media slant is not just cynical and reprehensible, it is downright homicidal - they were grinding the gears for nothing less than all out war with the world's biggest nuclear power.
"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.
"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.
Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).
Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.
"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.
"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.
Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).
Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.
There are many seats in Wales where Labour has lost one third of its vote since the 1997 high-water mark. Not the redoubt it was by any means (I said here I'd expected Wales to be a poor result for Labour - and it came to pass...)
DecrepitJohnL/ScottP There is no doubt Mandelson played a key role in Labour's revival under Kinnock and its victories under Blair and even preventing a Tory majority in 2010, he did not get involved until after the 1983 election and played no role in the 2015 election and it showed
DecrepitJohnL/ScottP There is no doubt Mandelson played a key role in Labour's revival under Kinnock and its victories under Blair and even preventing a Tory majority in 2010, he did not get involved until after the 1983 election and played no role in the 2015 election and it showed
In 2010, Mandelson managed to use the fact that everybody expected Labour to lose as a springboard for them fighting the election as the opposition, not the Govt.
Which you have to respect. Even though I will be delighted to see him on the Devils rotisserie, together with Al Campbell....
"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.
"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.
Well, yes, true to an extent. However, I think if he took the trouble to check his figures carefully he would notice that the fact Labour held the actual seats in the old coalfields because the other parties divided the opposition vote between them masked a very large drop in the vote share. Labour's vote in its heartlands did a passable impression of a stone - Scotland was the most stunning example, but there were an awful lot of seats in Wales and the North of England that would have gone had any other party managed to attract the tactical votes, seats where Labour used to have an absolute majority (like Aberavon, Bridgend or even Rhondda).
Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.
Indeed. The key battlegrounds remain primarily those made up of towns near or abutting bigger cities in the midlands, North West and Yorkshire.
The Morley & Outwood example is a good one of how the ex-mining areas are trending away from Labour. Balls obviously won the seat when it was created, in 2010, from the previous constituencies of Normanton (which he previously represented) and Morley & Rothwell.
Normanton was solidly Labour, with them polling above 50% in all elections bar two since at least the 1920s, peaking at an 84% share in 1945 (unless you count the two times when Lab was returned unopposed in 1924 and a by-election in 1933). Prior to 1909, it was Lib or Lib-Lab back to its creation in 1885. Andrea Jenkyn's victory there thus provided the first Tory representation for the town since 1880 (i.e. before the Third Reform Act).
Morley & Rothwell, was no more marginal throughout its existence, coinciding with the Blair victories, consistently returning Labour MPs with 30% majorities. Before then, it was essentially Morley & Leeds South, from the 1983-92 elections, and was also consistently Labour (not by as much but even in 1983, Labour still had a 14% margin). Prior to that, the Batley & Morley constituency is the relevant predecessor and was also Labour from its creation in 1918 with the sole exception of 1931.
Now, you could argue that M&O and its predecessors was never the kind of pit-village constituency that parts of S Yorks or S Wales are/were, which has an element of truth but the numbers speak for themselves.
Chasing after votes in the south is all very well but pretty pointless if Labour leak votes to UKIP and seats to the Tories.
Of course, PR would resolve the dilemma, meaning that all parties would need to campaign everywhere.
Comments
Both effective
I blame the press as well as politicians. They seem to set the rules such that anyone who deviates from the party line is a "splitter".
The referendum question was a good one. 'No referendum' was the line from Ed so all had to appear to agree. It causes uncertainty, blah, blah. All spokesmen on TV did agree. They'll will row back furiously now and claim it's for the best.
Whether it's avoidance or direct lie, it still seems like the Bill Clinton quote "I did not agree to a referendum with that woman."
Remind me again, who are the nasty party?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3048276/Tory-minister-calls-Miliband-condemn-sexist-campaign-against-branded-murderer-going-hell-Labour-rivals.html
No Government since 1945 have done more to help people at the very bottom of society. Yet, they throw blood at her constituency offices, sing songs about how she will die and go to hell.
"MPs believe veteran Labour MP Barry Sheerman, whose daughter, Madlin Sadler, is an aide to David Miliband, could quit to allow him to stand. A friend of Sheerman said: “Barry would be delighted if David came back. In two years’ time, who knows?”
In their inimitable style, Paddy Power allowed me a maximum stake of just £1.07 at odds of 80/1 against DM becoming the next PM. A longshot certainly, but probably worth a quid at these odds.
DYOR
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vandals-wreck-Bristol-MP-candidate-Charlotte/story-26425029-detail/story.html
1) David Cameron not to resign mid-term (because if he does, the next PM will be Conservative)
2) David Miliband to be parachuted into a safe seat (and win the by-election)
3) The leader of the Labour Party to resign
4) David Miliband to be elected as new leader
5) Labour to win the 2020 general election.
I'm not tempted, even though, of course, if (2) happens before (1) there may be a chance to lay off for a profit on Betfair.
Sometimes age has its advantages. I've seen PRECISELY this sequence under Harold Wilson.
If he did return to British politics at a high level (and it is a big conditional), I wonder how long it would be before someone in the media called him 'Ed' ?
1) NI came first. News is news.
2) Andy Coulson was employed at Number 10. Rebekah Brooks was very close to Cameron and had been close to Brown.
3) Rupert Murdoch.
4) Milly Dowler.
It is the last named in particular that ignited public outrage. Before then, most people probably took the view that even if it was a bit iffy, celebrities were fair game and so were criminals (via police leaks).
Wasnt it shown that the major allegation re milly dowler was untrue?
It's why independent NCAP-style test labs need setting up. They would test cars when models are first introduced, and then, for every 100,000 (say) cars sold in a country, one is picked randomly from a showroom and tested.
If each major European country had a test lab (as I think happens with Euro NCAP), then you would detect outliers as well.
I see little downside to this. The cost would not even be that great in the larger scale of things.
All the press of course are happy to spread rumours and innuendo and scream when threatened with independent regulation. In the Guardian's case it was against another paper because it was opposed to the government plan to permit a take over.
All Labour Tory UKIP
Burnham 20 Burnham 25 Burnham 15 Burnham 21
Cooper 10 Cooper 14 Cooper 8 Cooper 9
Kendal 8 Kendal 5 Kendal 13 Kendal 7
Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 1 Creagh 0
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2g0umt985b/SundayTimesResults_150522_Website.pdf
What a stupid thing to say. It is true. Look at the list of articles printed by the Guardian in which this lie (*) was mentioned:
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications
It was the Dowler lie that directly fed the explosion in the story.
If Labour supporters want to pretend their party is so much better than their opponents, they should start treating their own party to the same harsh criteria they do their opponents.
(*) 'lie' is a strong word to use, but IMHO is justified. It is such a severe claim that great care needed to be taken before it was printed, and there were many other alternative explanations for what may have happened.
- We know Greece is really short of ready cash.
- While the interior minister isn't directly responsible for the repayment, he is a representative voice of Syriza's left wing.
- Tsipras has form in using / allowing his ministers to float possibilities in a deniable way.
Labourlist opine the Osborne is a Master Political Strategist. Some might even say genius...
@LabourList: Before Labour finds it’s next leader, it needs to find its George Osborne - and fast, writes @OllyDeed http://labli.st/1GwEQjt
Greece 'cannot afford IMF repayment' in June - minister
A road bump for the Eurozone - or a brick wall?
Still, anything that furthers Labour's cause is good, eh?
Sadly, these days of zero or low inflation is a problem. In the old days, inflation would have taken care of the borrowings which remain in their nominal values whereas the nominal GDP goes up with inflation.
*innocent face*
I mean, do you really believe that? Remember the ovation Tony Wooodley got when the Sun magically became evil when it shifted support from Labour to the Conservatives?
As for your point about the Guardian supporting the Lib Dems in 2010: so they did but that is irrelevant given that the lies were printed a year later in 2011, when the Guardian were well and truly back in the Labour camp and against the Lib Dems.
"Labour's biggest successes were in the city and coal field regeneration areas.
"If we ever want to be back in government again, we need to win southern England," he said.
He also attacked Ed Miliband for promoting "unmitigated gloom" which he described as "dull, it's boring, it does not inspire anyone".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32863727
Not entirely sure what he means by radical thinking, but Miliband did little to encourage anything other than a core vote. Yet how far were Labour divorced from policies of PC, SNP, or The Greens?
Radical is rather like progressive, a cover for all sorts of catch all policies.
And FFS, it is not 'only partly true'. It is absolutely true. To say otherwise is nothing other than low smear. ("Oh, it is unlikely they did it, but I don't like them and therefore they must have").
Still it's funny that the Irish priesthood, who have been accused of shagging young lads since St. Patric arrived, are now giving a grudging approval to liberal practices.
He was so sure of victory !
That is its great strength and also its great weakness. The numbers in Labour who would prefer to lose with honour than to win with compromise is, I'd estimate, a good deal higher then in the Conservatives. That gives the Tories a greater hunger for power and Labour a greater sense of purpose. It also gives Labour its sense of moral superiority, which is at best a double-edged sword.
But no, let's make some implicit point about how fantastic Russia are and how terrible we in the West are, as tiresome as that is.
Maybe he has been made redundant?
The Sheffield rally was Philip Gould's idea though has become more significant in retrospect than it ostensibly was at the time. Labour's Shadow Budget in 1992 was probably a bigger mistake. Smith probably did more to cost Labour the election than anyone and if their recovery afterwards was due to anyone it was a default effect against Conservative failings. Smith probably would have gone on to win in 1997 - he was safe enough to enough - but not on the scale Blair did.
Winning in southern England would be great - but it needs to make sure it's not losing everywhere else at the same time.
uh oh, HCOTITAFPTHWNPMNCNIAMY or HCOTITAFPTHWNPM
Which you have to respect. Even though I will be delighted to see him on the Devils rotisserie, together with Al Campbell....
NEW THREAD
The Morley & Outwood example is a good one of how the ex-mining areas are trending away from Labour. Balls obviously won the seat when it was created, in 2010, from the previous constituencies of Normanton (which he previously represented) and Morley & Rothwell.
Normanton was solidly Labour, with them polling above 50% in all elections bar two since at least the 1920s, peaking at an 84% share in 1945 (unless you count the two times when Lab was returned unopposed in 1924 and a by-election in 1933). Prior to 1909, it was Lib or Lib-Lab back to its creation in 1885. Andrea Jenkyn's victory there thus provided the first Tory representation for the town since 1880 (i.e. before the Third Reform Act).
Morley & Rothwell, was no more marginal throughout its existence, coinciding with the Blair victories, consistently returning Labour MPs with 30% majorities. Before then, it was essentially Morley & Leeds South, from the 1983-92 elections, and was also consistently Labour (not by as much but even in 1983, Labour still had a 14% margin). Prior to that, the Batley & Morley constituency is the relevant predecessor and was also Labour from its creation in 1918 with the sole exception of 1931.
Now, you could argue that M&O and its predecessors was never the kind of pit-village constituency that parts of S Yorks or S Wales are/were, which has an element of truth but the numbers speak for themselves.
Chasing after votes in the south is all very well but pretty pointless if Labour leak votes to UKIP and seats to the Tories.
Of course, PR would resolve the dilemma, meaning that all parties would need to campaign everywhere.