Reading between the lines, I think Tony and Al think Labour are going to elect Ed Miliband with a Scouse accent
Yes, and the Labour Party will spend three years agonising about how useless he is, before concluding (or in fact half-concluding) that it's too late to get rid of him, and anyway there really isn't any mechanism to do so.
It's all shaping up very nicely.
I don't know about that. This is the first time I can see, Labour this early on are talking about getting rid of a leader if it turns out he's a bit shite. There seems to be some political will to do among some MPs too, such as Stephen Kinnock.
My big problem with Kendall is not that she's right-wing, it's that she comes out with such utter banal platitudes like this. Who on earth would ever be "in favour of budget deficits for the sake of it" (as opposed to thinking deficits are a price worth paying if it means not throwing people into poverty)?
It's the same with her constant mantra about how Labour "needs to win over Conservative voters", as if there's hordes of people arguing that Labour shouldn't try to win Tories (with the debate being how you win them).
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
I don't know about that. This is the first time I can see, Labour this early on are talking about getting rid of a leader if it turns out he's a bit shite. There seems to be some political will to do among some MPs too, such as Stephen Kinnock.
You all have to unite around a new leader, have perfect trust in whoever it is, and leave him or her to get on and define the new strategy . If you start out with doubts, and everyone having huddled conversations about whether the new leader is going to make the grade, then it's never going to work.
That was one thing which Labour got right in the last parliament. Having got saddled with a disastrous choice of leader - and not even their own choice - they did at least stay united and loyal, which must have required enormous self-control. That limited the damage.
I know that the counter-argument is IDS, but the shift to Michael Howard only worked because the entire party knew it was a damage-limitation exercise and there was no realistic chance of winning the 2005 election whatever they did. His role was to give the party space to get itself into some sort of order.
My big problem with Kendall is not that she's right-wing, it's that she comes out with such utter banal platitudes like this. Who on earth would ever be "in favour of budget deficits for the sake of it" (as opposed to thinking deficits are a price worth paying if it means not throwing people into poverty)?
It's the same with her constant mantra about how Labour "needs to win over Conservative voters", as if there's hordes of people arguing that Labour shouldn't try to win Tories (with the debate being how you win them).
Piling debt on our children is not a core Socialist value. It is perfectly possible to spend more if more has come from taxation. The deficit was caused by pretending it was possible to spend loads and have low taxes.
Small 2016 alert, first proper poll that shows Hillary having difficulties: Eric Bradner @ericbradner 6h6 hours ago .@HillaryClinton's fav/unfav is way underwater in a new @ppppolls Ohio poll at 38/54; she loses head-to-head vs. @JohnKasich and @RandPaul.
Somehow Paul would force Hillary to actually campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania, although it's only a single poll and I still believe Hillary would easily win thanks to Virginia.
Funny how Falkirk was always presented as a safe labour seat, you get selected there, you are set for life. It now has an SNP 19,000 majority. Its hard not to laugh.
Raises the interesting question of how many of SLAB's 2015 candidates are going to hang around for five more years just to turn a 17k SNP majoriity into a 12k SNP majority.....
Having a look through those majorities, with the exception of Berwickshire, which could have been a tory gain! Those majorities are enormous. How on earth do Labour even contemplate pulling that back?
Even if Sturgeon was caught in the back of a car with Farage in a state of undress, and this was put on the front page of every newspaper, it still wouldnt shift those numbers.
What if these SNP MPs turn out to be reasonably competent constituency mps? Youve got incumbency bonus to reckon with on top. People who have been neglected for some time get used to a bit of TLC by having an MP who puts themselves about a bit.
My big problem with Kendall is not that she's right-wing, it's that she comes out with such utter banal platitudes like this. Who on earth would ever be "in favour of budget deficits for the sake of it" (as opposed to thinking deficits are a price worth paying if it means not throwing people into poverty)?
It's the same with her constant mantra about how Labour "needs to win over Conservative voters", as if there's hordes of people arguing that Labour shouldn't try to win Tories (with the debate being how you win them).
Piling debt on our children is not a core Socialist value. It is perfectly possible to spend more if more has come from taxation. The deficit was caused by pretending it was possible to spend loads and have low taxes.
I agree. Why do the left (as a group) seem to think making your numbers add up is some crazy right wing concept.
I dont think running small deficits is too bad, somtimes you need to loosen and tighten spending as the situation requires. But the kind of deficits we've had (and still have) since the crash are insanely irresponsible and are not sustainable.
My big problem with Kendall is not that she's right-wing, it's that she comes out with such utter banal platitudes like this. Who on earth would ever be "in favour of budget deficits for the sake of it" (as opposed to thinking deficits are a price worth paying if it means not throwing people into poverty)?
It's the same with her constant mantra about how Labour "needs to win over Conservative voters", as if there's hordes of people arguing that Labour shouldn't try to win Tories (with the debate being how you win them).
Wasn't Ed's strategy that he didnt need the Tory vermin and their vile running dogs, UKIP. He was going to get into Government by a progressive alliance.
You could feel the utter disgust they had for Tory voters.
O/T Britain’s polling industry should be brought under the control of a state-backed external regulator in the wake of their failure to predict the outcome of the 2015 general election
Fortunately this isn't going to happen but if it was a possibility the outcome would not be better polls but fewer polls.
There is no money in political polling.I went to a talk by Ben Page of Ipsos who said they made a loss on their political polls. The main reason for doing it is for the PR value. I expect if a new QUANGO starts putting onerous restrictions on political polling then a lot of the companies would just pack in.
There already is an industry body. Unlike newspapers if they publish rubbish, the Polls predictions can be tested. Interestingly ... ''in evidence to the inquiry, the Labour peer Lord Lipsey has accused the industry of encouraging exaggerated reporting of their findings, tailoring questions to fit the views of those who commission polls, and abusing anyone who dares to criticise their methods.'' Savage words which would not be allowed on here and if remotely true would surely end in prosecution. Meantime, The Times' autopsy on Labour's election defeat points out that Labour's own polling showed them 6 points behind the Tories. Labour can hardly complain if they chose not to publish their own polls.
I agree. Why do the left (as a group) seem to think making your numbers add up is some crazy right wing concept.
With some of them it's a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. They pick up the argument that government finance is more complex than household finance and end up believing that anyone who thinks you need to balance the books is a simpleton who hasn't yet reached their level of sophistication in economic matters.
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
It will be pretty awful for the Tory party if it requires Labour and backbenchers to enforce a free and fair referendum on the EU. Hopefully Cameron comes to his senses and brings back the purdah requirement, as has happened on the Scottish referendum. He also needs to give a free vote for ministers too: if it was the right thing in 1973 its the right thing today.
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
Spot on. Even Labour needs a purpose other than jobs for the boys and girls if it is to thrive. I have yet to see what she really believes in. Its like she hasn't quite clicked she needs to win over Labour supporters rather than the general populace. Its positively amateurish.
It's getting even more surrealist : Graeme Wearden @graemewearden 3m3 minutes ago Reuters: MERKEL, HOLLANDE, TSIPRAS AGREE GREEK DEBT TALKS WITH CREDITORS MUST BE INTENSIFIED - GERMAN SPOKESMAN #hmmm
I don't know about that. This is the first time I can see, Labour this early on are talking about getting rid of a leader if it turns out he's a bit shite. There seems to be some political will to do among some MPs too, such as Stephen Kinnock.
You all have to unite around a new leader, have perfect trust in whoever it is, and leave him or her to get on and define the new strategy . If you start out with doubts, and everyone having huddled conversations about whether the new leader is going to make the grade, then it's never going to work.
That was one thing which Labour got right in the last parliament. Having got saddled with a disastrous choice of leader - and not even their own choice - they did at least stay united and loyal, which must have required enormous self-control. That limited the damage.
I know that the counter-argument is IDS, but the shift to Michael Howard only worked because the entire party knew it was a damage-limitation exercise and there was no realistic chance of winning the 2005 election whatever they did. His role was to give the party space to get itself into some sort of order.
The reason they stayed united and loyal was that despite everything the polls were showing that they were on for a decent majority. If instead they had been five points behind...
I feel like I've wandered into the twilight zone. There's no difference between TTIP and any other future agreement negotiate solely by this country on its own behalf that could possibly come to pass? Ok. It would annoy the Americans too much to have to negotiate a seperate deal? Um.
Perhaps you could outline the deal you'd like, and how it differs from TTIP?
Let's hear it.
A game attempt to dig yourself out of a logical rabbit hole, but I believe our discussion was about your innovative notion that all negotiations are futile because every international trade deal, despite the circumstances and negotiators, is exactly the same. Perhaps you should tell our international statesmen - it could save a lot of jabbering, not to mention stationary.
It's astonishing how so many countries are able to prosper, without being part of the EU.
Europhiles tell us that this is just not possible.
Madness seems to be contagious amongst Kippers - you seem to have caught a nasty dose, having previously been completely sane.
'Europhiles' (whoever they are - certainly there are none posting here, and almost none in the Conservative Party, and not many in the Labour Party) say absolutely nothing of the sort. You know this perfectly well.
If by 'Europhiles' you mean sensible people who take a balanced view of the pros and cons of EU membership, what they say is that, yes, of course we could prosper perfectly well outside the EU, provided we bought straight back into a lot of the Single Market rules by means of a trade treaty, which of course we would. Therefore the question is one of degree, convenience, and influence.
I have certainly heard many on the pro-EU side that say it would be an economic disaster if we left. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband certainly said as much. I would certainly prefer to hear the rational In case from people like yourself. Although your accusation of madness for someone that seems a sound commenter raises a question mark.
How does TTIP differ from a US-UK trade deal signed by a UK not a member of the EU?
The answer is that, were we not a member of the EU, we would almost certainly piggyback the TTIP and join it anyway. With the exception of the mega-deals (like TTIP), most trade agreements are negotiated under WTO auspices. The result of this is that it is highly unlikely our external trade situation would change meaningfully were we to leave the EU.
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
She's thrown out some fluffy talk about how she believes every child deserves the same chances as everyone else, no matter what their background.
The problem is it's not much bloody good saying you want that if you're not prepared to go for any of the methods of doing it (spending, taxes on the rich, crackdown on big businesses).
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
Spot on. Even Labour needs a purpose other than jobs for the boys and girls if it is to thrive. I have yet to see what she really believes in. Its like she hasn't quite clicked she needs to win over Labour supporters rather than the general populace. Its positively amateurish.
Yep. It's like Kendall hasn't understood that she isn't at the point of needing to win over the GBP. She has to get elected by members first to do that. Kendall's big issue, noted by Danny565, is that because of her relative inexperience Labour members won't be sure if voting for a candidate like her will pay off in a GE. Both Blair and David Miliband had built up a profile, and a support base within the party before their leadership bids. As a result of this, Labour members could assess whether they had GE-winning potential. Kendall, as such an unknown doesn't have that on her side. This is why she needs to tread carefully.
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
She's thrown out some fluffy talk about how she believes every child deserves the same chances as everyone else, no matter what their background.
The problem is it's not much bloody good saying you want that if you're not prepared to go for any of the methods of doing it (spending, taxes on the rich, crackdown on big businesses).
That is another issue with Kendall. Although, her positions are bit nuanced than that e.g. on Free Schools, she won't close down a good one, on the surface it'll look like she is endorsing the government's policy. And while there is a very good case that Labour needs to regain the centre-ground, Kendall at times seems to be almost an imitation of government policy. That won't win GE 2020 too - facing a choice between Tory, and Tory Lite why would the public for Tory Lite? I would really love for Kendall to differentiate herself over the coming months, in comparison to the government. The public needs a choice in 2020, not the same choice under two different rosettes. Not even Blair in 1994 was a carbon copy of Major's, or even Thatcher's governments, in the way Kendall at times has come across with the government.
Noted Kipper headbanger (and former French Prime Minister) Francois Fillon says:
“Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe,” Fillon told the BFMTV channel.
The ex-French prime minister, who served in Nicolas Sarkozy’s government from 2007 till 2012, lashed out at Washington and its policies.
Washington, Fillon said, pursues “extremely dangerous” policies in the Middle East that the EU and European states have to agree with.
Reminds me of that other noted Kipper tinfoiler former Australian PM (now sadly late) Malcolm Fraser:
Fraser labelled the United States a "dangerous ally" as Australia has become progressively more enmeshed in American strategic and military affairs since the end of Cold War.
Just as with the armed conflicts in the Middle East, Fraser said that the conflict in Ukraine took place partially due to Washington's attempt to include Ukraine in NATO. He went on to blame the United States lack of historical understanding towards Russia on the matter.
Washington's policy to "contain" China can eventually lead to trouble for Australia. Believing that the United States will eventually use Australia as a base to attack China, Fraser suggested the removal of all American military facilities from Darwin in the north and Pine Gap in the center of the country as soon as possible. The former Australian leader added that the country should be more independent of the United States in both defense and foreign affairs. http://www.sott.net/article/291980-Former-Australian-prime-minister-warns-that-US-is-a-dangerous-ally
But there's nothing to see here folks, let's have US nuclear weapons on our soil, it will make us much safer - OOH LOOK Russia is having a military parade!!
I think Liz needs to do something to appeal to Labour party members. Even David Miliband would have publicly disagreed with the Tories on something. Hey, even Tony Blair would have done so.
That's why she won't win the leadership election.
This. What's odd, is how she doesn't realise this. She has gone far enough in establishing her position as more on the right of the Labour party. But she does have to articulate to members as to why exactly she joined Labour in the first place.
She's thrown out some fluffy talk about how she believes every child deserves the same chances as everyone else, no matter what their background.
The problem is it's not much bloody good saying you want that if you're not prepared to go for any of the methods of doing it (spending, taxes on the rich, crackdown on big businesses).
If the Labour party thinks that those are the ways to help every child have the same life chances then she and they are in trouble.
Liz is using the 2015 campaign to raise her profile. I reckon she is playing the long game, anticipating that the really big push for leader should be in 2020.
I don't think that there is much mystery to her image - basically a pragmatist who believes that Labour can use the money from a successful economy in a more caring and efficient way than the Tories. (Which was an election winning formula before Blair went mad and made his name mud in the party)
I think what Kendall is seeking to do is show that there are no shibboleths that can't be rethought and that she is open to new thinking.
Which is fair enough but there is a difference between means and objectives. It is ok to think again about whether at least some free schools have helped kids from poorer backgrounds but you need to be clear about what the objective is. This government believes in equality of opportunity (it says) but is arguably not willing enough to take on vested interests (other than Unions, natch) to achieve this.
Labour needs to decide whether it is fully committed to opportunity or outcomes. If it decides opportunity I think that there are many possible policy options that could push that equality that are not currently being done. Some might be stolen by the government but that is no bad thing in itself.
All of this is the sort of hard work on policy that an Opposition is supposed to do but Ed never got around to until it was way too late. I have no vote in this but if I did I would like her to be clearer about her objectives and to give some evidence she is capable of that hard work.
S&P lowers Greece's credit rating to CCC from CCC+
[That's two notches above default].
Credit rating agencies are generally reactive and late....
My stint as Guest Editor begins this weekend, and as we all know, nothing major ever happens when Mike's on holiday.
When was the last time Mike was on holiday?
When Mark Reckless defected.
Has he gone to greece for his holiday? it would be real bad luck to buy all those inflated Euros in advance, only to need devalued Drachmas when you get there.
I don't know about that. This is the first time I can see, Labour this early on are talking about getting rid of a leader if it turns out he's a bit shite. There seems to be some political will to do among some MPs too, such as Stephen Kinnock.
You all have to unite around a new leader, have perfect trust in whoever it is, and leave him or her to get on and define the new strategy . snip.
The reason they stayed united and loyal was that despite everything the polls were showing that they were on for a decent majority. If instead they had been five points behind...
I think what Kendall is seeking to do is show that there are no shibboleths that can't be rethought and that she is open to new thinking.
Which is fair enough but there is a difference between means and objectives. It is ok to think again about whether at least some free schools have helped kids from poorer backgrounds but you need to be clear about what the objective is. This government believes in equality of opportunity (it says) but is arguably not willing enough to take on vested interests (other than Unions, natch) to achieve this.
Labour needs to decide whether it is fully committed to opportunity or outcomes. If it decides opportunity I think that there are many possible policy options that could push that equality that are not currently being done. Some might be stolen by the government but that is no bad thing in itself.
All of this is the sort of hard work on policy that an Opposition is supposed to do but Ed never got around to until it was way too late. I have no vote in this but if I did I would like her to be clearer about her objectives and to give some evidence she is capable of that hard work.
This is an excellent post - especially on the bit regarding the government being reluctant to take on vested interests.
This is an excellent post - especially on the bit regarding the government being reluctant to take on vested interests.
+1
The only thing that I would add is that sometimes you just have to aim for equality of outcome, even when your main ideal is equality of opportunity. But, yes, an excellent post.
DavidL = Leader writer and poster, the new star of PB!
Reminds me of that other noted Kipper tinfoiler former Australian PM (now sadly late) Malcolm Fraser...Washington's policy to "contain" China can eventually lead to trouble for Australia. Believing that the United States will eventually use Australia as a base to attack China, Fraser suggested the removal of all American military facilities from Darwin in the north and Pine Gap in the center of the country as soon as possible...
I doubletaked twice (quadrupletaked?) on this.
1) Why would USA attack China unprovoked? It's possible if China kicks off with Taiwan or Japan, but if that happened, USA would be the reactor, not the initiator 2) Why would USA attack China from Australia? Japan and the Phillippines are far closer to China than Australia is.
Plus, given its status as an unreliable source, it would help if you picked a source other than RT.
The reason they stayed united and loyal was that despite everything the polls were showing that they were on for a decent majority. If instead they had been five points behind...
Labour's own polls showed them behind.
Which Labour polls showed them behind, when did they show it, and do you have a link please? Genuine question.
The reason they stayed united and loyal was that despite everything the polls were showing that they were on for a decent majority. If instead they had been five points behind...
Labour's own polls showed them behind.
Which Labour polls showed them behind, when did they show it, and do you have a link please? Genuine question.
@viewcode. Apparently it was in the times. Lower down this thread it is stated: "Meantime, The Times' autopsy on Labour's election defeat points out that Labour's own polling showed them 6 points behind the Tories. Labour can hardly complain if they chose not to publish their own polls."
I don't have access to the Times since it is behind a paywall and I don't subscribe, so I can't confirm this. However you may be able to access the relevant article(s).
Simply not true. As far as their own trade is concerned Norway has far more influence and control than we do over ours. Just go and read about the EEA agreement. You clearly don't understand it as you still use the idiotic fax machine argument that was developed by the virulently pro EU Norwegian government in the 1990s when they were trying to persuade their voters to join the EU. It has now been so comprehensively debunked in Norway that it is considered a running joke that anyone who uses it obviously knows nothing about the subject.
I have read about it and I agree with the analogy which is why I use it. Since you think Norway has it so great, I'd appreciate if wish to name a single achievement Norway has been able to negotiate in a major deal like TTIP that they couldn't from inside the EU.
If you agree with the analogy then you are one of a tiny number of people who do and clearly you don't understand the relationship. As I say most Norwegians would consider that a joke.
EFTA have FTAs with 35 countries excluding the EEA agreement which is currently more than the EU have in place. This includes countries like Canada with whom the EU had being trying to secure a deal for the last 8 years.
Even Iceland has a free trade agreement with China, something the EU have failed to do, partly due to the size and complexity of any deal and acute differences and needs within EU as a whole.
It's astonishing how so many countries are able to prosper, without being part of the EU.
Europhiles tell us that this is just not possible.
Madness seems to be contagious amongst Kippers - you seem to have caught a nasty dose, having previously been completely sane.
'Europhiles' (whoever they are - certainly there are none posting here, and almost none in the Conservative Party, and not many in the Labour Party) say absolutely nothing of the sort. You know this perfectly well.
If by 'Europhiles' you mean sensible people who take a balanced view of the pros and cons of EU membership, what they say is that, yes, of course we could prosper perfectly well outside the EU, provided we bought straight back into a lot of the Single Market rules by means of a trade treaty, which of course we would. Therefore the question is one of degree, convenience, and influence.
I have certainly heard many on the pro-EU side that say it would be an economic disaster if we left. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband certainly said as much. I would certainly prefer to hear the rational In case from people like yourself. Although your accusation of madness for someone that seems a sound commenter raises a question mark.
Anyone who doesn't agree with the letter of current Conservative policy is by definition mad according to some posters, even when the policy is unachievable fantasy or based on a blatant lie, such is the role of a party true believer.
Comments
It's the same with her constant mantra about how Labour "needs to win over Conservative voters", as if there's hordes of people arguing that Labour shouldn't try to win Tories (with the debate being how you win them).
That was one thing which Labour got right in the last parliament. Having got saddled with a disastrous choice of leader - and not even their own choice - they did at least stay united and loyal, which must have required enormous self-control. That limited the damage.
I know that the counter-argument is IDS, but the shift to Michael Howard only worked because the entire party knew it was a damage-limitation exercise and there was no realistic chance of winning the 2005 election whatever they did. His role was to give the party space to get itself into some sort of order.
If he doesn't, expect Dodgy dossiers on Burnham.
Eric Bradner @ericbradner 6h6 hours ago
.@HillaryClinton's fav/unfav is way underwater in a new @ppppolls Ohio poll at 38/54; she loses head-to-head vs. @JohnKasich and @RandPaul.
Somehow Paul would force Hillary to actually campaign in Ohio and Pennsylvania, although it's only a single poll and I still believe Hillary would easily win thanks to Virginia.
Even if Sturgeon was caught in the back of a car with Farage in a state of undress, and this was put on the front page of every newspaper, it still wouldnt shift those numbers.
What if these SNP MPs turn out to be reasonably competent constituency mps? Youve got incumbency bonus to reckon with on top. People who have been neglected for some time get used to a bit of TLC by having an MP who puts themselves about a bit.
The NHS is Burnham's weak spot.
Live Squawk - @livesquawk
S&P lowers Greece's credit rating to CCC from CCC+
[That's two notches above default].
Credit rating agencies are generally reactive and late....
I dont think running small deficits is too bad, somtimes you need to loosen and tighten spending as the situation requires. But the kind of deficits we've had (and still have) since the crash are insanely irresponsible and are not sustainable.
Buzz in the press room that @atsipras meeting w/@fhollande & #Merkel breaking up
You could feel the utter disgust they had for Tory voters.
Interestingly ... ''in evidence to the inquiry, the Labour peer Lord Lipsey has accused the industry of encouraging exaggerated reporting of their findings, tailoring questions to fit the views of those who commission polls, and abusing anyone who dares to criticise their methods.'' Savage words which would not be allowed on here and if remotely true would surely end in prosecution.
Meantime, The Times' autopsy on Labour's election defeat points out that Labour's own polling showed them 6 points behind the Tories. Labour can hardly complain if they chose not to publish their own polls.
Live Squawk @livesquawk 57s58 seconds ago
Greece Continues To Agree Talks With Creditors
Graeme Wearden @graemewearden 3m3 minutes ago
Reuters: MERKEL, HOLLANDE, TSIPRAS AGREE GREEK DEBT TALKS WITH CREDITORS MUST BE INTENSIFIED - GERMAN SPOKESMAN #hmmm
The unresigning again once he's sobered up.
Goodnight.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGKum0jWQAAI4ct.jpg
The problem is it's not much bloody good saying you want that if you're not prepared to go for any of the methods of doing it (spending, taxes on the rich, crackdown on big businesses).
“Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe,” Fillon told the BFMTV channel.
The ex-French prime minister, who served in Nicolas Sarkozy’s government from 2007 till 2012, lashed out at Washington and its policies.
Washington, Fillon said, pursues “extremely dangerous” policies in the Middle East that the EU and European states have to agree with.
He accused German intelligence of spying on France “not in the interests of Germany but in the interests of the United States.”
http://rt.com/news/266362-europe-us-russia-crusade/
Reminds me of that other noted Kipper tinfoiler former Australian PM (now sadly late) Malcolm Fraser:
Fraser labelled the United States a "dangerous ally" as Australia has become progressively more enmeshed in American strategic and military affairs since the end of Cold War.
Just as with the armed conflicts in the Middle East, Fraser said that the conflict in Ukraine took place partially due to Washington's attempt to include Ukraine in NATO. He went on to blame the United States lack of historical understanding towards Russia on the matter.
Washington's policy to "contain" China can eventually lead to trouble for Australia. Believing that the United States will eventually use Australia as a base to attack China, Fraser suggested the removal of all American military facilities from Darwin in the north and Pine Gap in the center of the country as soon as possible. The former Australian leader added that the country should be more independent of the United States in both defense and foreign affairs.
http://www.sott.net/article/291980-Former-Australian-prime-minister-warns-that-US-is-a-dangerous-ally
But there's nothing to see here folks, let's have US nuclear weapons on our soil, it will make us much safer - OOH LOOK Russia is having a military parade!!
I don't think that there is much mystery to her image - basically a pragmatist who believes that Labour can use the money from a successful economy in a more caring and efficient way than the Tories. (Which was an election winning formula before Blair went mad and made his name mud in the party)
Izakson diagnosed with Parkinsons - will run for new term
FIFA refuses to tackle concussion head on
Which is fair enough but there is a difference between means and objectives. It is ok to think again about whether at least some free schools have helped kids from poorer backgrounds but you need to be clear about what the objective is. This government believes in equality of opportunity (it says) but is arguably not willing enough to take on vested interests (other than Unions, natch) to achieve this.
Labour needs to decide whether it is fully committed to opportunity or outcomes. If it decides opportunity I think that there are many possible policy options that could push that equality that are not currently being done. Some might be stolen by the government but that is no bad thing in itself.
All of this is the sort of hard work on policy that an Opposition is supposed to do but Ed never got around to until it was way too late. I have no vote in this but if I did I would like her to be clearer about her objectives and to give some evidence she is capable of that hard work.
The only thing that I would add is that sometimes you just have to aim for equality of outcome, even when your main ideal is equality of opportunity. But, yes, an excellent post.
DavidL = Leader writer and poster, the new star of PB!
1) Why would USA attack China unprovoked? It's possible if China kicks off with Taiwan or Japan, but if that happened, USA would be the reactor, not the initiator
2) Why would USA attack China from Australia? Japan and the Phillippines are far closer to China than Australia is.
Plus, given its status as an unreliable source, it would help if you picked a source other than RT.
"Meantime, The Times' autopsy on Labour's election defeat points out that Labour's own polling showed them 6 points behind the Tories. Labour can hardly complain if they chose not to publish their own polls."
I don't have access to the Times since it is behind a paywall and I don't subscribe, so I can't confirm this. However you may be able to access the relevant article(s).
I refer you to those well known members of the single market South Korea, Chile, South Africa and Mexico
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/international/facilitating-trade/free-trade/index_en.htm
Not to mention Malaysia, Singapore, ASEAN, India, Ukraine etc currently being negotiated, all members of the single market I am sure you will agree.