Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Are you seriously suggesting that people like Cash and Redwood represent the 52%? The men of the people who are going to launch a fightback on behalf of provincial England?
I'm saying a Tory Party that, after Brexit, continues to give the finger to voters in Middle England quite as freely as Dave did might not fare too well electorally. I personally quite like some of the policy thinking of Redwood but wouldn't let him or Cash or Gove anywhere near the public.
Leadsom will win. The Tory hard-right are absolutely loving the humiliation they inflicted upon Cameron, Osborne, Londoners, European leaders, the liberal media class and other assorted bogeymen who they've felt have had the whip hand over them in recent years. They're not going to stop there. A Leadsom victory will be yet another poke in the eye for all that lot and too delicious an opportunity to miss.
Yes, I think that's very likely.
This crisis is only going to get worse and there are no solutions in sight. It has already destroyed Cameron, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. It will certainly destroy Leadsom and quite possibly several more PMs after that.
What crisis?
Falling house prices, in London’s outer ring and the Home Counties anyway, are a problem for those downsizing, but not for those wanting to get their feet on the ladder.
Mr Cole, where did you get the idea that house prices are falling in the Home Counties? They certainly are not in this Home County, though I think I wish they were.
As for downsizing and staying in the same area we have looked at it and financially it just doesn't make sense. The costs of moving in the SE to a smaller house are appaling, for a start one has to pay 5% of the purchase price to HMG; for a modest 2 bed bungalow around here that is a tax bill of £80,000. I think it is actually possible to end up out of pocket for the privilege of moving to a smaller home (with all the loss of amenities that entails). The only way downsizing makes sense is to either move to a much cheaper area of the country (we are thinking about Northumberland) or to quit the UK altogether (we are thinking about Holland or Portugal).
Or, shock horror, a chancellor could realise Stamp Duty is a tax on mobility and zero rate it below a sum that equals small house/decent flat in a city (£500k?). The UK's housing sector is much more heavily taxed than most countries'. Or zero Stamp Tax on newbuilds and gut the planning laws. What we lack is Tory political will due to nimbyism.
Where are the areas where a modest 2 bedroom bungalow costs 1.6 million? That is almost Hampstead prices, rather than the South-East, if I have my numbers right.
Or he could remove CGT exemption on personal dwellings in London.
That would control prices a little, while generating revenue, and taking a small slice off money made from the house price bubble.
This is pb.com - you won't get any credible info about house prices here. Those looking to sell will talk them up, and would-be buyers will talk them down.
The Chicken Coup plotters were just using the EUref as an excuse to implement their anti-democratic exercise in ageism and bullying.I call as evidence ,Prof.J.Curtice.
On the coup incompetence scale - it scores a solid 9/10.
What's the point of demanding a head, when you don't have one to replace him with? It's baffling.
Once again, rather than making vacuous wiser-than-thou posts, could you suggest a strategy? When I put this out to appeal the other evening, I was given various ideas, some of them which had merit.
Yet your pronouncements on the subject belie your lack of knowledge the system. You do realise that the PLP and PCP are bound by different rules right? You do grasp that?
Oh, no. It seems you don't.
Frankly Bob, when you are berating Tories for not giving you great ideas to save the Labour Party.....you may have a problem.
Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents.
If someone is going to get involved with the Labour leadership debate and the mechanism behind it, I suggest they first puts the effort into understanding the system, just as I understand the PCP's rules. To do otherwise is to simply add to the vapid sanctimonious bilge, of which we have more than plenty.
Bob, we know when we're beaten!
(As, I suspect, do a large number of Labour MPs now....)
Leadsom will win. The Tory hard-right are absolutely loving the humiliation they inflicted upon Cameron, Osborne, Londoners, European leaders, the liberal media class and other assorted bogeymen who they've felt have had the whip hand over them in recent years. They're not going to stop there. A Leadsom victory will be yet another poke in the eye for all that lot and too delicious an opportunity to miss.
If you look at the list of species of animals which have been shown in lab tests to learn from their mistakes, it is so long that there must be some hope that even tory party members make the cut, and enough of them will think, yebbut IDS and look how that turned out. How badly do they want Leadsom back and turning up the volume at the 2022 party conference?
Parties that have added representatives in major assemblies after changing their Leader last time? Conservatives SNP Parties that have lost representatives in major assemblies after changing their Leader? Labour Lib Dems (Wales, London...)
On balance the members in Conservative and SNP parties are better at choosing Leaders than Labour and the Lib Dems.
LD’s picking Nick Clegg was a bad idea, but given that the alternative was Chris Huhne......
The LD's didn't pick Nick Clegg. The postal strike did....
If Huhne has been leader - would he still have been caught fibbing over those points/ended up in jail?
He was an MEP at the time IIRC, but can't recall when.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Calm down dear, we are leaving.
It is no more simple or complicated than Leadsome is just not up to the job of running the Party or the Country.
I think I agree with this. My preferred outcome is for May to get it, get us out, do as little damage as necessary and to push hugely on global trade and business positivism / market reform (low CT rates for example). We voted to Leave - not to leave on Nigel Farage's terms.
Falling house prices, in London’s outer ring and the Home Counties anyway, are a problem for those downsizing, but not for those wanting to get their feet on the ladder.
As for downsizing and staying in the same area we have looked at it and financially it just doesn't make sense. The costs of moving in the SE to a smaller house are appaling, for a start one has to pay 5% of the purchase price to HMG; for a modest 2 bed bungalow around here that is a tax bill of £80,000. I think it is actually possible to end up out of pocket for the privilege of moving to a smaller home (with all the loss of amenities that entails). The only way downsizing makes sense is to either move to a much cheaper area of the country (we are thinking about Northumberland) or to quit the UK altogether (we are thinking about Holland or Portugal).
Or, shock horror, a chancellor could realise Stamp Duty is a tax on mobility and zero rate it below a sum that equals small house/decent flat in a city (£500k?). The UK's housing sector is much more heavily taxed than most countries'. Or zero Stamp Tax on newbuilds and gut the planning laws. What we lack is Tory political will due to nimbyism.
Where are the areas where a modest 2 bedroom bungalow costs 1.6 million? That is almost Hampstead prices, rather than the South-East, if I have my numbers right.
Or he could remove CGT exemption on personal dwellings in London.
That would control prices a little, while generating revenue, and taking a small slice off money made from the house price bubble.
This is pb.com - you won't get any credible info about house prices here. Those looking to sell will talk them up, and would-be buyers will talk them down.
:-)
Here are all the 2 bedroom bungalows currently on Rightmove in London:
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Calm down dear, we are leaving.
It is no more simple or complicated than Leadsome is just not up to the job of running the Party or the Country.
I think I agree with this. My preferred outcome is for May to get it, get us out, do as little damage as necessary and to push hugely on global trade and business positivism / market reform (low CT rates for example). We voted to Leave - not to leave on Nigel Farage's terms.
Yes that is my thinking (although remember I was a Remainer). I genuinely can't speak for the raspberry cord brigade; nothing gives me much comfort that they are seeing much sense at the moment.
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Calm down dear, we are leaving.
It is no more simple or complicated than Leadsome is just not up to the job of running the Party or the Country.
I think I agree with this. My preferred outcome is for May to get it, get us out, do as little damage as necessary and to push hugely on global trade and business positivism / market reform (low CT rates for example). We voted to Leave - not to leave on Nigel Farage's terms.
Yes that is my thinking (although remember I was a Remainer). I genuinely can't speak for the raspberry cord brigade; nothing gives me much comfort that they are seeing much sense at the moment.
How dare you impugn raspberry cords. They're the hipster choice I'll have you know.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The Chicken Coup plotters were just using the EUref as an excuse to implement their anti-democratic exercise in ageism and bullying.I call as evidence ,Prof.J.Curtice.
On the coup incompetence scale - it scores a solid 9/10.
What's the point of demanding a head, when you don't have one to replace him with? It's baffling.
Once again, rather than making vacuous wiser-than-thou posts, could you suggest a strategy? When I put this out to appeal the other evening, I was given various ideas, some of them which had merit.
Yet your pronouncements on the subject belie your lack of knowledge the system. You do realise that the PLP and PCP are bound by different rules right? You do grasp that?
Oh, no. It seems you don't.
Frankly Bob, when you are berating Tories for not giving you great ideas to save the Labour Party.....you may have a problem.
Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents.
If someone is going to get involved with the Labour leadership debate and the mechanism behind it, I suggest they first puts the effort into understanding the system, just as I understand the PCP's rules. To do otherwise is to simply add to the vapid sanctimonious bilge, of which we have more than plenty.
What I don't understand is why nobody has the balls to fight back. So what if the left is signing up people to keep Corbyn in place. Run against him and sign up people to remove him. There are far more moderates in the country. Run a campaign and recruit them. Show some fight for gods sake.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
Mr Llame, I get the impression..... just an impression, no scientific basis ....... that house priices round here (N Essex) have stopped rising. Must ask my grandson, who, with his girl-friend is looking for something, about the state of play in the S of the county.
And our modest, down-sized to, bungalow is valued at a LOT less than the figure quoted.
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
To be fair, no one in their right minds was ever going to pay those asking prices for a bleak corner of ex-industrial real estate stuck between the river and a very busy road, with nothing attractive in the vicinity and poor transport links to civilisation.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Mr. Herdson, For me at the time the question was not whether the war was legal, but whether it was morally justifiable. I could not see how Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK or its vital interests and therefore how could HMG commit its soldiers to fight, kill, die and be mained?
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
Then turn to how it was conducted. Blair refusing for political reasons to allow the MoD to order the kit the invasion forces would need, because to do so might make it seem that her had already determined on war whilst pretending he hadn't, was I think criminal and certainly led to some unnecessary deaths/maimings.
We also have all those other issues of incompetence by politicians, senior soldiers, MoD staff (and they were there again in the disastrous Afghan Campaign and again in Libya). Yet nobody is to be held account for any of it.
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
To be fair, no one in their right minds was ever going to pay those asking prices for a bleak corner of ex-industrial real estate stuck between the river and a very busy road, with nothing attractive in the vicinity and poor transport links to civilisation.
Battersea Park is nice, the Oval is in walking distance and Sloane Square is just across Chelsea Bridge. I thought it was a nice site but the prices were silly.
Mr. Jonathan, point of order: puritanism tends to be the preserve of the left.
Not sure that's true. Left and right aren't really very helpful terms when discussing matters of public morality. The left and the right can find arguments within both traditions to support either censorship or a libertarian approach.
There's also a strong tendency for Out Groups to argue for tolerance, but then when they become In Groups, to argue for the enforcement of the new orthodoxy.
That's a very good point an I suspect is quite a large part of explaining how both left and right can exhibit both traits due to their sharing power (not just office but also in terms of what's seen as socially acceptable behaviour).
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Mr. Herdson, For me at the time the question was not whether the war was legal, but whether it was morally justifiable. I could not see how Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK or its vital interests and therefore how could HMG commit its soldiers to fight, kill, die and be mained?
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
Then turn to how it was conducted. Blair refusing for political reasons to allow the MoD to order the kit the invasion forces would need, because to do so might make it seem that her had already determined on war whilst pretending he hadn't, was I think criminal and certainly led to some unnecessary deaths/maimings.
We also have all those other issues of incompetence by politicians, senior soldiers, MoD staff (and they were there again in the disastrous Afghan Campaign and again in Libya). Yet nobody is to be held account for any of it.
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
Pretty honest and no spin? Interesting claim.
Wind back to the videos trying to slope shoulders on his past support or terrorism, IRA etc.
Or deliberately mishearing awkward questions asking about his questionable relationships as if the journalist had launched a personal attack.
Or blaming everything on "the media".
Never mind his querulous demands that attacks on MPs he doesn't agree with must stop, while doing nothing to actually make them stop.
Leadsom will win. The Tory hard-right are absolutely loving the humiliation they inflicted upon Cameron, Osborne, Londoners, European leaders, the liberal media class and other assorted bogeymen who they've felt have had the whip hand over them in recent years. They're not going to stop there. A Leadsom victory will be yet another poke in the eye for all that lot and too delicious an opportunity to miss.
If you look at the list of species of animals which have been shown in lab tests to learn from their mistakes, it is so long that there must be some hope that even tory party members make the cut, and enough of them will think, yebbut IDS and look how that turned out. How badly do they want Leadsom back and turning up the volume at the 2022 party conference?
Parties that have added representatives in major assemblies after changing their Leader last time? Conservatives SNP Parties that have lost representatives in major assemblies after changing their Leader? Labour Lib Dems (Wales, London...)
On balance the members in Conservative and SNP parties are better at choosing Leaders than Labour and the Lib Dems.
LD’s picking Nick Clegg was a bad idea, but given that the alternative was Chris Huhne......
The LD's didn't pick Nick Clegg. The postal strike did....
If Huhne has been leader - would he still have been caught fibbing over those points/ended up in jail?
He was an MEP at the time IIRC, but can't recall when.
Would he still have had time to have the affair?
No. If he'd been leader he wouldn't have had time to step out of his creases.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Are you seriously suggesting that people like Cash and Redwood represent the 52%? The men of the people who are going to launch a fightback on behalf of provincial England?
I'm saying a Tory Party that, after Brexit, continues to give the finger to voters in Middle England quite as freely as Dave did might not fare too well electorally. I personally quite like some of the policy thinking of Redwood but wouldn't let him or Cash or Gove anywhere near the public.
How did Cameron give the finger to voters in middle England? Not meeting his immigration pledge? He did by the way win the first Tory majority in over 20 years.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Mr. Herdson, For me at the time the question was not whether the war was legal, but whether it was morally justifiable. I could not see how Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK or its vital interests and therefore how could HMG commit its soldiers to fight, kill, die and be mained?
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
Then turn to how it was conducted. Blair refusing for political reasons to allow the MoD to order the kit the invasion forces would need, because to do so might make it seem that her had already determined on war whilst pretending he hadn't, was I think criminal and certainly led to some unnecessary deaths/maimings.
We also have all those other issues of incompetence by politicians, senior soldiers, MoD staff (and they were there again in the disastrous Afghan Campaign and again in Libya). Yet nobody is to be held account for any of it.
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
Stubborn as an old goat? Yep. Even when it will kill the Labour Party.
I was just trying to cheer up Mr Jobabob!
I really don;t know where this leaves the soft left. When labour beat militant in the 1980s, I think Kinnock realised that they were as much his enemy as the tories.
Moderate labour need to do the same, for me. They need to start saying the 3 quidders are not labour's friends, and they are not the friends of the poor.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Mr. Herdson, For me at the time the question was not whether the war was legal, but whether it was morally justifiable. I could not see how Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK or its vital interests and therefore how could HMG commit its soldiers to fight, kill, die and be mained?
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
snip
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
Absolutely.
IIRC Brown hesitated over whether to block TB's Iraq policy. I think he decided that it wasn't his role as CoE to block something that was clearly foreign policy. Plus they had the infamous Granita deal about GB being allowed to run domestic and economic policy and TB the rest.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Mr. Herdson, For me at the time the question was not whether the war was legal, but whether it was morally justifiable. I could not see how Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK or its vital interests and therefore how could HMG commit its soldiers to fight, kill, die and be mained?
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
snip
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
Absolutely.
IIRC Brown hesitated over whether to block TB's Iraq policy. I think he decided that it wasn't his role as CoE to block something that was clearly foreign policy. Plus they had the infamous Granita deal about GB being allowed to run domestic and economic policy and TB the rest.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
The Chicken Coup plotters were just using the EUref as an excuse to implement their anti-democratic exercise in ageism and bullying.I call as evidence ,Prof.J.Curtice.
On the coup incompetence scale - it scores a solid 9/10.
What's the point of demanding a head, when you don't have one to replace him with? It's baffling.
Once again, rather than making vacuous wiser-than-thou posts, could you suggest a strategy? When I put this out to appeal the other evening, I was given various ideas, some of them which had merit.
Yet your pronouncements on the subject belie your lack of knowledge the system. You do realise that the PLP and PCP are bound by different rules right? You do grasp that?
Oh, no. It seems you don't.
Frankly Bob, when you are berating Tories for not giving you great ideas to save the Labour Party.....you may have a problem.
Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents.
If someone is going to get involved with the Labour leadership debate and the mechanism behind it, I suggest they first puts the effort into understanding the system, just as I understand the PCP's rules. To do otherwise is to simply add to the vapid sanctimonious bilge, of which we have more than plenty.
What I don't understand is why nobody has the balls to fight back. So what if the left is signing up people to keep Corbyn in place. Run against him and sign up people to remove him. There are far more moderates in the country. Run a campaign and recruit them. Show some fight for gods sake.
The whole PLP seems to be utterly spineless.
Have you seen the turkeys upposing him, they could not punch their way out of a wet paper bag. They are useless spineless talentless troughers
Miss Plato, I actually thought the PLP, after the no-confidence vote, might actually take Corbyn on. And they've bottled it. Again.
Months ago, I said they should either have a separate PLP leader or split. They're prevaricating and the risk for Labour is that they're signing the death warrant of the party by not splitting and having a Not-Quite-Labour Party (which is effectively the same) because they lack the nerve.
Labour might be undergoing tricky times anyway, with the metropolitan multi-cultural side of their support seemingly opposed to the traditional working class support, but Corbyn isn't helping that.
If he remains, UKIP may well be eyeing up the north-east.
If UKIP are not eyeing the North East they are utterly mad. It's ripe for the taking - the number of people who would vote for anyone who can win that is not Labour (and not the Tories as we can't vote for them come what may) is enough to win every seat...
Wouldn't having a Leave leader get the Tories another look? They already voted with her once.
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
To be fair, no one in their right minds was ever going to pay those asking prices for a bleak corner of ex-industrial real estate stuck between the river and a very busy road, with nothing attractive in the vicinity and poor transport links to civilisation.
It's not just Battersea......St John's Wood (cough)....
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
Even if Labour members only pay £10 each pa, £10 times 600,000 members is £6m per year. Helps to offset the union influence as well.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Mr. D., I never watch television (though I sometimes watch interesting documentaries on iplayer), so no I didn't see that.
However on the point Tugendhat appears to have made. I would disagree. I don't think any squaddie thinks that HMG, the generals or the diplomats should act in his/her best interest. They are realistic, they have taken the oath and know what might be expected of them. What they expect is not to be thrown into a life or death situation of a fool's errand for some feckin politician's vanity rather than the vital interests of the UK and they expect that their generals will be competent and that they will be provided with sufficient amounts of the kit needed to do the job.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
The question is are the extra members in the right place. If they are all in London it doesn't help that much as Labour outperformed in London last time. Only 3 of Lab's top 50 targets are in London.
Mr. Jonathan, point of order: puritanism tends to be the preserve of the left.
Not sure that's true. Left and right aren't really very helpful terms when discussing matters of public morality. The left and the right can find arguments within both traditions to support either censorship or a libertarian approach.
There's also a strong tendency for Out Groups to argue for tolerance, but then when they become In Groups, to argue for the enforcement of the new orthodoxy.
That's a very good point an I suspect is quite a large part of explaining how both left and right can exhibit both traits due to their sharing power (not just office but also in terms of what's seen as socially acceptable behaviour).
I think I've riffed on a similar line before, but the interest for me lies in how, probably during the 1980s, the resentment against those who told people what to do transferred from the post-war patrician, officer-class right (as exemplified by a 1950s onwards office politics cartoon whose name I forget) to the PC, health & safety, right-on left.
I think PC attitudes that often do, but sometimes don't, relate to the well being of people, are the left's most enduring comfort blanket from the battering it took at the hands of Thatcherism, as it was in this respect that the left made most progress from 1980s onwards and it was the life blood of the student politics that those going into real politics could not leave behind.
It's a little explored but key avenue of politics right up to the present day.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Did they write her CV, or claim she had been responsible for hundreds of people and billions of pounds?
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Rubbish, it's her stupid CV lies and undesirable policy positions which hace undermined her. This is the scrutiny that comes with running for the higbest office in the land, she wasn't prepared for it. I note she still hasn't released her tax returns as she promised to do if she made the ballot.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Rubbish, it's her stupid CV lies and undesirable policy positions which hace undermined her. This is the scrutiny that comes with running for the higbest office in the land, she wasn't prepared for it. I note she still hasn't released her tax returns as she promised to do if she made the ballot.
@Max: I spent an hour last night investigating "tier point runs" thanks to you.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Like omitting "Deputy" from her job description in Who's Who? Or changing "Senior Investment Officer" to "Chief Investment Officer" on her LinkedIn CV?
These are sins of commission, and she is damned by them.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Did they write her CV, or claim she had been responsible for hundreds of people and billions of pounds?
Ms Leadsom had two long interviews recently, she was asked about her CV in those. The impression I got was that political journalists just didn't understand the different roles in the financial services industry.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
I don't see any other way of making it happening though. The shock of prolonged weak Sterling is the only medicine for our atrocious goods deficit.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
The question is are the extra members in the right place. If they are all in London it doesn't help that much as Labour outperformed in London last time. Only 3 of Lab's top 50 targets are in London.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Rubbish, it's her stupid CV lies and undesirable policy positions which hace undermined her. This is the scrutiny that comes with running for the higbest office in the land, she wasn't prepared for it. I note she still hasn't released her tax returns as she promised to do if she made the ballot.
@Max: I spent an hour last night investigating "tier point runs" thanks to you.
How do you think I keep my silver status every year! Not senior enough to go for gold yet though. The Muscat special is the best bang for buck IMO. The flight isn't too long, you get loads of points for a normal business flight and there's usually business to do for us there which justifies my presence.
My primary problem with Leadsom is not really about views - it's about communication. Her blog for example isn't full of bad ideas, though there are some I don't agree with. But they show no finesse. She approaches difficult issues with the tact of a toilet brush. Or to be a bit more favourable, she talks the language of thirty years ago on issues she will need to address today.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
25 years ago when I moved to Leicester there was a thriving ragtrade and hosiery as well as much light engineering. It is pretty much all gone now apart from some specialist products. There are food related industries still, but import substitution is not on the cards at least in the short term. We import a lot of these from high wage economies in Italy and Germany so it is not purely a labour cost issue, though obviously SE asia has the edge on these.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Good points.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
Supporting May:
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson is backing Theresa May as the next Tory leader, describing her as “someone who can unite the country and the party”,
While praising Andrea Leadsom’s “guts” in putting her name forward, Davidson told BBC’s Newsnight programme that “in terms of the person who’s got the steel for the job, who can go eyeball to eyeball with Angela Merkel, and indeed Nicola Sturgeon, it can only be Theresa May.”
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
The question is are the extra members in the right place. If they are all in London it doesn't help that much as Labour outperformed in London last time. Only 3 of Lab's top 50 targets are in London.
Good point.
Really, I may be an old cynic, but I just don't believe these numbers. They are mainly rejoiners surely?
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Somewhere.... can’t find it now ..... there’s a translation of what “orders” mean, when passed down the ranks to the people who have actually got to do the job. Starts off with “we need that hilltop” and ends up with “get your ruddy selves up the top and stay there” Or something like that.
I have two relations who served in Afghanistan. One, an officer, went there “hoping to do some good”. By the time he left he just wanted out, although he’s currently lecturing at Sandhurst. The other, a TA squaddie, has “put it all behind him” although he was decorated. AFAIK he’s left the TA.
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
The problem is that British manufacturing - over the last 35 years - has been hollowed out.
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
There is just not going to be import substitution on many of things J Lewis sell. Take TVs, iphones, computers for starters. These are global products made by global companies.
I'm struck by the contrast between the YouGov poll of Conservative members and the virulently negative views of Leadsom being expressed by Conservative supporters here. YouGov found that only 16% had a negative opinion of here, only May having a lower negative figure of 12%, out of the nine people on whom opinions were sought.
The explanation is very simple: most Conservative party members and supporters had barely heard of her until this week and still don't know much about her, whereas posters here have been folllowing events more closely.
IIRC, I gave her a neutral rating in the YouGov poll. If and when they poll me again, she'll have moved to Very Negative.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
Rubbish, it's her stupid CV lies and undesirable policy positions which hace undermined her. This is the scrutiny that comes with running for the higbest office in the land, she wasn't prepared for it. I note she still hasn't released her tax returns as she promised to do if she made the ballot.
@Max: I spent an hour last night investigating "tier point runs" thanks to you.
How do you think I keep my silver status every year! Not senior enough to go for gold yet though. The Muscat special is the best bang for buck IMO. The flight isn't too long, you get loads of points for a normal business flight and there's usually business to do for us there which justifies my presence.
And Muscat is a cracking city to go to. Loved my time there and would not have come back except for herself not being able to cope with the heat.
When you go over do you get a chance to get out into the desert? If you haven't done so yet then you really should try it. Go off road and camp out over-night.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Somewhere.... can’t find it now ..... there’s a translation of what “orders” mean, when passed down the ranks to the people who have actually got to do the job. .
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
Miss Plato, I actually thought the PLP, after the no-confidence vote, might actually take Corbyn on. And they've bottled it. Again.
Months ago, I said they should either have a separate PLP leader or split. They're prevaricating and the risk for Labour is that they're signing the death warrant of the party by not splitting and having a Not-Quite-Labour Party (which is effectively the same) because they lack the nerve.
Labour might be undergoing tricky times anyway, with the metropolitan multi-cultural side of their support seemingly opposed to the traditional working class support, but Corbyn isn't helping that.
If he remains, UKIP may well be eyeing up the north-east.
If UKIP are not eyeing the North East they are utterly mad. It's ripe for the taking - the number of people who would vote for anyone who can win that is not Labour (and not the Tories as we can't vote for them come what may) is enough to win every seat...
Wouldn't having a Leave leader get the Tories another look? They already voted with her once.
I think the hatred of the Tories is so great that many could never vote for them... Also UKIP would be picking up a combination of disinterested Labour voters and the unfranchised none voters. I don't believe either group would vote for the Tory party - it does need to be someone else...
That's not to say that the Tories will do badly out of the destruction of Labour. There will be a few seats (Darlington for one, I need figures to work out the others) where the end result will be the Conservative party sneaking through the middle...
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
I have no idea if Leadsom does represent that brand of Conservatism, and if it is widespread and so whether it should be represented in a May cabinet, but although I like people working together and there's no reason leadership rivals could not come together afterward, there are some who seem to think the defeated should automatically be offered a place under the winner, which I think would go too far.
Gove, Leadsome, Fox and Crabb might well be good additions to a May Cabinet, but if she decided to include none of them that would surely be ok.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
The question is are the extra members in the right place. If they are all in London it doesn't help that much as Labour outperformed in London last time. Only 3 of Lab's top 50 targets are in London.
Good point.
The Momentum entryists are not only metropolitan, they are also largely bone idle. I wouldn't count on them to get the vote out.
I think that both May and Leadsom need to be very careful on policy changes that were not in the manifesto as this would create a real question of the mandate. I am not too worried about Brexit as that is a different issue.
For those leavers on here I am absolutely convinced they were right and am as pro Brexit as any Brexiteer and it just has to happen.
However, I do not think Andrea Leadsom would receive the same reception to do a deal by Merkel or Juncker (if he is still in Office) and for that reason, and the need to unite the party, Theresa May can be the only choice in this election.
Just as a matter of interest how many remainer's voted for Andrea. Many leavers voted for Theresa including David Davis, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Priti Patel all of whom would make an excellent part of Theresa's Brexit team
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
You make my point. Tactically, locally we win (at least in today's technologically unequal world). But, like shell splashes in a sea that just rushes back in to fill a void, the 'Afghanistan wins' reality swamps all. In some ways Afghanistan was an even more egregious waste of British lives than Iraq in my view. WTF were we there to achieve? Putting radical Islam back in its box? Good luck with that.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
So a metropolitan liberal lock-out of the 52% is a good idea? Kensington 1 - Kettering 0?
Calm down dear, we are leaving.
It is no more simple or complicated than Leadsome is just not up to the job of running the Party or the Country.
I think I agree with this. My preferred outcome is for May to get it, get us out, do as little damage as necessary and to push hugely on global trade and business positivism / market reform (low CT rates for example). We voted to Leave - not to leave on Nigel Farage's terms.
Quite so. A lot of people, not just him and UKIP, might be disappointed with May or Leadsom's version of leaving, but the how of leave was left to the government and that's that.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Good points.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
I remember at the time army chiefs were keen for the soldiers deployed in the ME in readiness for the operation to "get on with the job". I wondered why we weren't better equipped to deploy in a holding position for longer, which seemed appropriate for the circumstances. It drove the timetable almost as much as George Bush did in my memory of events. Chilcott seems to back up that impression.
From the executive summary report:
830. A military timetable should not be allowed to dictate a diplomatic timetable. If a strategy of coercive diplomacy is being pursued, forces should be deployed in such a way that the threat of action can be increased or decreased according to the diplomatic situation and the policy can be sustained for as long as necessary.
812.... The large scale force deployed was a one‑shot capability. It would have been difficult to sustain the force if combat operations had been delayed until autumn 2003 or longer, and it constrained the capabilities which were available for a UK military contribution to post‑conflict operations
As to Libya, I still think the lesson of 'don't commit ground troops' was learned, in that we just did a 'let the Libyans live to fight another day' operation and the failure of Libya afterwards does not reflect back on DC in the public's mind in anything like the same way as Iraq does on Blair. That said at-distance stabilisation efforts were woeful and the possibility of Libya becoming an IS bolt hole could yet bring that failure to the fore.
''Well PB at its best is when intelligent posters from left and right are broad-minded enough to come up with ideas, even if those ideas are for their opponents. ''
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The reported increase in Labour Party membership is certainly impressive. If that translates into volunteers and donations Labour should be a very strong election force.
The question is are the extra members in the right place. If they are all in London it doesn't help that much as Labour outperformed in London last time. Only 3 of Lab's top 50 targets are in London.
Good point.
Really, I may be an old cynic, but I just don't believe these numbers. They are mainly rejoiners surely?
The electoral commission report party finances every year. Hundreds of thousands of new members should show up there somehow.
Mr. Eek, don't know about indycars, but the vast majority of F1 teams are based here. Ferrari is in Italy, and Sauber Switzerland. I *think* Haas is a bit split, with some in the US and some here.
All the rest are here. And not just Force India, McLaren, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Mercedes, Manor, Renault and Williams, but all the supporting companies down the supply chain. The country makes a billion pounds a year just from the taxes paid.
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
You make my point. Tactically, locally we win (at least in today's technologically unequal world). But, like shell splashes in a sea that just rushes back in to fill a void, the 'Afghanistan wins' reality swamps all. In some ways Afghanistan was an even more egregious waste of British lives than Iraq in my view. WTF were we there to achieve? Putting radical Islam back in its box? Good luck with that.
For me this comes from the modern (or is just modern?) rush to 'we must do something' allied with the fear of being attacked for 'not doing anything'. There are times, in fact, where not doing anything is the strongest response, if you don't treat everything with manic importance then those trying to destabilise you don't get their wish.
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
Sadly, this is par for the course. WWI, Crimea for example.
Mr. Borough, I'd prefer to leave WWI on one side because the situation was a lot more nuanced than most popular histories and, hence common understanding would have us believe. If we get into that we could be here for ever.
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Good points.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
I should bloody well hope we do have better kit now, Mr. Borough. The problems is that we didn't have the kit at the time. Chilcot noted it took three years from the time the need was recognised (which was at least five years after the need was known) until they could start to source something approximating satisfying the need).
Then there was the politically inspired bullshit. For example Gordon Brown, for no reason other than money and, probably, his hatred of the armed forces, slashed the Helicopter budget. That meant that were not enough helicopters in Afghanistan for all the jobs they were needed for - especially casualty evacuation. Stories started to appear in the press about the result of this and a fuss was building. The most senior army doctor, whose name escapes me now, but you'll find it if your google-foo is strong enough, put out a press release saying that he didn't want, or need, specialist casualty evacuation helicopters. That was clearly bollocks as was demonstrated later in the campaign when that is what the troops eventually got*.
*As an aside the very robust attitude to "first-aid" developed in Afghanistan not only saved many lives but has now, I am told, largely been taken up by the NHS to the benefit of all.
Mr. Eek, don't know about indycars, but the vast majority of F1 teams are based here. Ferrari is in Italy, and Sauber Switzerland. I *think* Haas is a bit split, with some in the US and some here.
All the rest are here. And not just Force India, McLaren, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Mercedes, Manor, Renault and Williams, but all the supporting companies down the supply chain. The country makes a billion pounds a year just from the taxes paid.
That wasn't me I've avoided the import substitution / manufacturing debate as I don't have an opinion - well I do but I have work to do rather than writing a long argument...
Haas is about 95% based in Banbury (it needs to be in the UK just to get knowledgeable staff). I think the US bit is just branding necessity.
Should May give Leadsome a big job if she wins? Rude not to I suppose. But what?
No.
She comes with baggage (Cash, Redwood, other assorted nutters). Giving her a post would be inviting this strand of Conservatism, call it "nasty", back into the mainstream party.
Is my opinion.
I have no idea if Leadsom does represent that brand of Conservatism, and if it is widespread and so whether it should be represented in a May cabinet, but although I like people working together and there's no reason leadership rivals could not come together afterward, there are some who seem to think the defeated should automatically be offered a place under the winner, which I think would go too far.
Gove, Leadsome, Fox and Crabb might well be good additions to a May Cabinet, but if she decided to include none of them that would surely be ok.
It wouldn't be ok; it'd be building a government which has several big and difficult jobs to do on a very narrow base. Fox can be left out - he's yesterday's man and demonstrated no support. But Leadsom needs to be brought into the cabinet and Gove kept there (in his current job preferably, which he's set about in the right manner).
The simple political fact is that any Conservative leader is vulnerable in the House to a rebellion of less than a dozen MPs: he or she simply cannot afford to make too many enemies.
I can't get over how quickly the news moves on - yet on other subjects, they twaddle on about fluff for days.
Chilcot has barely a mention now - and it's just two days ago.
Chilcot wasn't "news" - it told us what we'd known for many years. Hard to keep recycling that.
Well, this a betting site. Not much betting to be had on Chilcot. Although a book on how long before he would publish might have been interesting.
Personally, I think Goldsmith comes out the worst in the report over changing his legal advice. But then again, why didn't the Cabinet challenge and ask to see the written legal advice?
Apart from Gordon Brown the Cabinet was weak. Gordon Brown could have challenged Blair about the legality of the war but did not. Why not?
To be fair to Robin Cook, he did seem to have done as much as he could from inside and it got him nowhere.
FWIW, I don't think the war was illegal. Both UNSCR 1441 and 687 (I think) provided a legal basis - Saddam was clearly in breach of the inspection regime. The question shouldn't just be whether it was legal but whether it was sensible and whether its effects were on the whole beneficial. I can't honestly see how either of those questions can be answered remotely in the positive.
Any amount of pretending about UN this and UN that or "bad man" does not cut the mustard, it was totally wrong , totally unnecessary and has led to the ME being a disaster area and all the migration etc. A clusterfcuk of immense proportions and down to one man and a set of Westminster patsies.
Pretty much sums it up Malcolm. It is alarming that more than a decade on from our worst foreign adventure since Suez we seem incapable of holding a liar and a fantasist to account for undermining our system of government and costing many better men than him their lives. Personally I would lock him up.
David, is Ruthie out of the country, not seen or heard of her since Brexit, not like her not to be in the papers
Needs time to try to figure out a new strategy! She's good, but she's not superhuman.
The centre for cities has published a very interesting report on tax revenue on a UK city by city basis.
One key point arising is the dominance of London. Another is that the impact of the personal allowance has reduced the total tax take non proportionately.
This feeds into what sort of economy do we want going forward for the UK.
Actually some major bits of British kit are absolutely exemplary and battlefield dominating (Challenger - see battle of 73 Easting, or Longbow Apache - even the yanks are jealous). What we seem to suck at harder than the vacuum of deep space is providing clarity of politico/military objectives and strategy. We perform brilliantly at the tactical level. Only to see local gains dissolve to nothing in a broader morass of woolly targets. We can splat the shit out of anyone in Afghanistan we damn well please - but to what end? For how long?
Historically of course we cannot “splat the shit” out of anyone in Afghanistan. Probably more British disasters there than anywhere else in the world, Flanders included.
You make my point. Tactically, locally we win (at least in today's technologically unequal world). But, like shell splashes in a sea that just rushes back in to fill a void, the 'Afghanistan wins' reality swamps all. In some ways Afghanistan was an even more egregious waste of British lives than Iraq in my view. WTF were we there to achieve? Putting radical Islam back in its box? Good luck with that.
Agreed. So many years, so much death, so much money, and how much was really achieved. Some good things, yes, but when the Taliban still exist in quite a powerful way in much of the country, the problem that a lot of people supported them and still do makes it such an utter waste.
John Lewis is complaining that the lower pound will mean their prices of imported goods will rise.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
As a rule of thumb, half the value of an aircraft is in the fuselage, half in the engines.
Rolls Royce make many of the engines.
As a rule of thumb of of a fuselage, half the value is in the wings, half in the rest.
We make most of the wings for Airbus.
Although Airbus aircraft leaving Toulouse look 'French' more than half the value was made in Britain....
To complicate things further, RR subcontract a lot of value to companies outside the UK, including its own subsidiaries and most of the cost of the engines comes as service contracts that aren't necessarily exercised in the UK.
Comments
(As, I suspect, do a large number of Labour MPs now....)
He could resist everything but temptation.
Here are all the 2 bedroom bungalows currently on Rightmove in London:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^93917&maxBedrooms=2&minBedrooms=2&numberOfPropertiesPerPage=24&radius=0.0&sortType=2&index=0&propertyTypes=bungalow&primaryDisplayPropertyType=bungalows&viewType=LIST
Nothing over a million.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/angry-remain-voter-working-class-division-britain
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/for-brexits-sake-and-for-britains-theresa-may-should-be-the-next-prime-minister.html
More than 50 luxury flats on sale at London’s iconic Battersea Power Station have had their prices slashed since January, with some seeing discounts as large as 38 per cent in a sign that wealthy foreign investors are scrambling to desert the scheme.
http://www.cityam.com/235984/battersea-panic-stations-investors-flee-luxury-scheme-as-up-to-2m-is-knocked-off-some-asking-prices
3 March 2016
Jeremy Corbyn may have many faults, but I'll tell you one thing. He is one stubborn b8st8rd. And that will win more votes than some on here think. Also, he's pretty honest. There's no spin. That will also be a big plus with some.
He is not going away, and he will fight 2020 on a platform he believes in.
The whole PLP seems to be utterly spineless.
And our modest, down-sized to, bungalow is valued at a LOT less than the figure quoted.
Edited for clarity.
So, for me, the whole basis of the war was unjustifiable.
Then turn to how it was conducted. Blair refusing for political reasons to allow the MoD to order the kit the invasion forces would need, because to do so might make it seem that her had already determined on war whilst pretending he hadn't, was I think criminal and certainly led to some unnecessary deaths/maimings.
We also have all those other issues of incompetence by politicians, senior soldiers, MoD staff (and they were there again in the disastrous Afghan Campaign and again in Libya). Yet nobody is to be held account for any of it.
British military personnel sign on the dotted line to, if necessary die or be maimed, that is the deal. However a contract has two sides and those squaddies are also entitled to a government that will not throw their lives away without good reason, without making sure they have the best kit (and enough of it), and that their senior leaders have some suitable level of competence. Chilcott exposed how badly HMG and the generals kept their side of the bargain.
Wind back to the videos trying to slope shoulders on his past support or terrorism, IRA etc.
Or deliberately mishearing awkward questions asking about his questionable relationships as if the journalist had launched a personal attack.
Or blaming everything on "the media".
Never mind his querulous demands that attacks on MPs he doesn't agree with must stop, while doing nothing to actually make them stop.
Or, indeed, the misrepresentations he made to the Commons Committee last week.
http://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/leave-jez-alone.html
Stubborn as an old goat? Yep. Even when it will kill the Labour Party.
And Tory leadership hopefuls take note! A radical policy on the covenant would go down extremely well
I saw perhaps the first 10-15 minutes, and Tugendhat (Con MP, ex-soldier, served in Iraq) was politely scathing about the failure of military top brass and diplomats to act in the interests of soldiers on the ground.
I was just trying to cheer up Mr Jobabob!
I really don;t know where this leaves the soft left. When labour beat militant in the 1980s, I think Kinnock realised that they were as much his enemy as the tories.
Moderate labour need to do the same, for me. They need to start saying the 3 quidders are not labour's friends, and they are not the friends of the poor.
John Lewis forget import substitution. They could buy British made substitutes for imported goods.
Any suggestions?
Discuss. Use your imagination. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.
@_DavidGoodman: Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer https://t.co/QxGAzCzElc by @aragaomarianna https://t.co/8RW9Tacn8M
Oh, wait...
We await Brown's memoirs with interest.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brown-kept-clear-of-war-talks-to-leave-blame-with-blair-fsp35c25p
World War II shermans against tigers. The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers'
US soldiers refer to the British as 'the borrowers' because they are always short of kit.
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/flats/london/nw8/st-johns-wood/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&q=NW8&radius=0.25&results_sort=most_reduced&search_source=refine
However on the point Tugendhat appears to have made. I would disagree. I don't think any squaddie thinks that HMG, the generals or the diplomats should act in his/her best interest. They are realistic, they have taken the oath and know what might be expected of them. What they expect is not to be thrown into a life or death situation of a fool's errand for some feckin politician's vanity rather than the vital interests of the UK and they expect that their generals will be competent and that they will be provided with sufficient amounts of the kit needed to do the job.
I think PC attitudes that often do, but sometimes don't, relate to the well being of people, are the left's most enduring comfort blanket from the battering it took at the hands of Thatcherism, as it was in this respect that the left made most progress from 1980s onwards and it was the life blood of the student politics that those going into real politics could not leave behind.
It's a little explored but key avenue of politics right up to the present day.
Don't believe the spin from the Gove camp and May camp when making a judgement. They have been trying to undermine her with dirty tricks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/07/world-faces-deflation-shock-as-china-devalues-at-accelerating-pa/
We produce cars (although quite a lot fewer than, for example, Spain). We produce high value add products like Rolls Royce engines. We produce bits of Airbus planes.
We produce lots of 'software': whether it's music or movies or microcode or microprocessor designs.
But we don't produce a lot of consumer goods, and I can't see that changing. When I was involved with my solar battery company, we had design, marketing, and finance in the UK; and we had manufacturing in France. Sad to say, the banks understood manufacturing businesses there. There was existing infrastructure. And there were employees who knew about making things. Getting a factory manager for EUR60,000/year was dead simple.
Our economy has become hollowed out. We teach our children about marketing and finance, not about making things. East Germany in 1990 was a disaster area. It's now one of the most productive manufacturing centres in the world.
This isn't an EU point. This is a point that the political class has failed us for the last 30 years. We've been content to settle into a niche as the marketing centre of the world.
Attempting to suddenly shock ourselves into being a manufacturing economy is likely to be extremely painful.
These are sins of commission, and she is damned by them.
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36736091
Channel 4.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv3jtI4tha0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTrAVpK9blw
However, the Crimea is a much better example. The failure of generalship and army administration in that campaign led to two parliamentary enquiries and a wholesale reorganisation and reform of the army. I am struggling to see any such reform following the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed the lesson I draw from the Libya campaign was that the politicians and the MoD had learned nothing from the earlier failures.
Her blog for example isn't full of bad ideas, though there are some I don't agree with. But they show no finesse. She approaches difficult issues with the tact of a toilet brush. Or to be a bit more favourable, she talks the language of thirty years ago on issues she will need to address today.
Although the army now have vehicles that are a bit more IED resistant. Terrier I think its called from memory.
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson is backing Theresa May as the next Tory leader, describing her as “someone who can unite the country and the party”,
While praising Andrea Leadsom’s “guts” in putting her name forward, Davidson told BBC’s Newsnight programme that “in terms of the person who’s got the steel for the job, who can go eyeball to eyeball with Angela Merkel, and indeed Nicola Sturgeon, it can only be Theresa May.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/08/theresa-may-next-prime-minister-andrea-leadsom-politics-live?page=with:block-577f6159e4b04ae4a10b9a9a#block-577f6159e4b04ae4a10b9a9a
Or something like that.
I have two relations who served in Afghanistan. One, an officer, went there “hoping to do some good”. By the time he left he just wanted out, although he’s currently lecturing at Sandhurst.
The other, a TA squaddie, has “put it all behind him” although he was decorated. AFAIK he’s left the TA.
Rolls Royce make many of the engines.
As a rule of thumb of of a fuselage, half the value is in the wings, half in the rest.
We make most of the wings for Airbus.
Although Airbus aircraft leaving Toulouse look 'French' more than half the value was made in Britain....
When you go over do you get a chance to get out into the desert? If you haven't done so yet then you really should try it. Go off road and camp out over-night.
That's not to say that the Tories will do badly out of the destruction of Labour. There will be a few seats (Darlington for one, I need figures to work out the others) where the end result will be the Conservative party sneaking through the middle...
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/andrew-gimson-michael-gove-s-excuses-for-knifing-boris-johnson-insult-our-intelligence-a3291351.html
Gove, Leadsome, Fox and Crabb might well be good additions to a May Cabinet, but if she decided to include none of them that would surely be ok.
For those leavers on here I am absolutely convinced they were right and am as pro Brexit as any Brexiteer and it just has to happen.
However, I do not think Andrea Leadsom would receive the same reception to do a deal by Merkel or Juncker (if he is still in Office) and for that reason, and the need to unite the party, Theresa May can be the only choice in this election.
Just as a matter of interest how many remainer's voted for Andrea. Many leavers voted for Theresa including David Davis, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Priti Patel all of whom would make an excellent part of Theresa's Brexit team
From the executive summary report:
830. A military timetable should not be allowed to dictate a diplomatic timetable.
If a strategy of coercive diplomacy is being pursued, forces should be deployed in
such a way that the threat of action can be increased or decreased according to the
diplomatic situation and the policy can be sustained for as long as necessary.
812....
The large scale force deployed was a one‑shot capability. It would have been
difficult to sustain the force if combat operations had been delayed until autumn
2003 or longer, and it constrained the capabilities which were available for a UK
military contribution to post‑conflict operations
As to Libya, I still think the lesson of 'don't commit ground troops' was learned, in that we just did a 'let the Libyans live to fight another day' operation and the failure of Libya afterwards does not reflect back on DC in the public's mind in anything like the same way as Iraq does on Blair. That said at-distance stabilisation efforts were woeful and the possibility of Libya becoming an IS bolt hole could yet bring that failure to the fore.
All the rest are here. And not just Force India, McLaren, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Mercedes, Manor, Renault and Williams, but all the supporting companies down the supply chain. The country makes a billion pounds a year just from the taxes paid.
Then there was the politically inspired bullshit. For example Gordon Brown, for no reason other than money and, probably, his hatred of the armed forces, slashed the Helicopter budget. That meant that were not enough helicopters in Afghanistan for all the jobs they were needed for - especially casualty evacuation. Stories started to appear in the press about the result of this and a fuss was building. The most senior army doctor, whose name escapes me now, but you'll find it if your google-foo is strong enough, put out a press release saying that he didn't want, or need, specialist casualty evacuation helicopters. That was clearly bollocks as was demonstrated later in the campaign when that is what the troops eventually got*.
*As an aside the very robust attitude to "first-aid" developed in Afghanistan not only saved many lives but has now, I am told, largely been taken up by the NHS to the benefit of all.
Haas is about 95% based in Banbury (it needs to be in the UK just to get knowledgeable staff). I think the US bit is just branding necessity.
The simple political fact is that any Conservative leader is vulnerable in the House to a rebellion of less than a dozen MPs: he or she simply cannot afford to make too many enemies.
The centre for cities has published a very interesting report on tax revenue on a UK city by city basis.
One key point arising is the dominance of London. Another is that the impact of the personal allowance has reduced the total tax take non proportionately.
This feeds into what sort of economy do we want going forward for the UK.