Bought a large tranche of a certain UK share 12 months ago, just decided to take a profit as share price has doubled in that time - better than investing in cash for that period or even property - suppose Hunchman would say get out of all shares now.
I was much amused by tim's attempt (and not for the first time either) to portray Boris as a typical immigrant.
I suspect the Eton and Oxford educated son of British parents has little in common with the thousands of Balkan vegetable pickers the UK is now receiving.
Anyone read John Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' ?
We're creating the same sort of 'okie' workforce that the book portrayed.
Low productivity and low business investment but very profitable for those with a vested interest in reducing pay rates and increasing house prices.
Trust is not merely a question of 'Will this person rip me off'. In politics it is much more a question of 'Can I respect that face, can I believe he has what it takes, or is this the face of a knobber'?
I doubt very much if Redward is a thief - indeed he personally came out very well from Expensegate. I trust his general honesty (ish).
But...that face. I could no more trust him with the nation's future than I would Mr Blobby. He's a tool, a geek, a drip and a puffed up little fart. Redward's is not a face in whom the nation can place its trust. Sorry. You clearly have not really looked at the photo.
It's as much to do with the party as it is with the leader
That's precisely wrong. The recent poll on the issue showed Labour positively liked by voters - I think it's an odd question, but the contrast to the Tories, who were strongly disliked, was marked. The Miliband polling is a mix of Tories who don't like Labour leaders, full stop, and Labour voters who are uneasy he's not doing well enough and have doubts about how he's coming across. It's not preventing the latter from planning to vote Labour, though, as the last umpteen polls amply demonstrate. The Tory rating jumps up and down depending on people moving on the Tory-UKIP access. The Labour rating stays at 38, +/-2.
He'll stay till the next GE, Labour didn't get rid of Gordo - they won't top Milibland.
I mean for one - who are the potential assassins ? Blairite politicians are terrible, terrible assassins who couldn't knife a tranquilized elephant from a foot away if their lives depended on it. They ended up stabbing themselves in the front with Brown, Ed is safe (Even more so that Milibananas has left the building). If he was CON or LD the situation would perhaps be less secure.
On-topic: I don't think Miliband has anything to worry about. Labour desperately wanted to axe Brown for 2 years and couldn't manage it, and who would take over? Balls?
I was much amused by tim's attempt (and not for the first time either) to portray Boris as a typical immigrant.
I suspect the Eton and Oxford educated son of British parents has little in common with the thousands of Balkan vegetable pickers the UK is now receiving.
Anyone read John Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' ?
We're creating the same sort of 'okie' workforce that the book portrayed.
Low productivity and low business investment but very profitable for those with a vested interest in reducing pay rates and increasing house prices.
I think you missed the point. Which is that when Labour was in power this stat
Jonathan Portes @jdportes 14 Aug "All the new jobs went to immigrants!". In the last quarter foreign-born workers up 135K, British born workers down 15K (1/3)
used to get touted by the PB Tories day in day out but now they are silent.
I'm making the point that it's always been a useless stat because it includes people like Boris and Cliff Richard as immigrants. The point is about PB Tory hypocrisy - as with the crime figures they started to believe in May 2010.
Not sure that the words "immigrants" and "hypocrisy" sit comfortably in a post from a supporter of the party that set out to make the white man angry and to raise the saliency of immigration in order to damage the Conservatives in the polls. Now that's hypocrisy.
I still go back to the polling a few days ago when the majority (+14% net ) of Labour voters did not know who the shadow chancellor was with huge majorities having no idea about the shadow home secretary foreign secretary (+80%!!) and Home Secretary are.
What do we conclude from this? One possible explanation is that Labour supporters tend to be tribal and peculiarly uninformed but I fear that is not true. The truth is that the vast majority don't pay any attention to politics and have yet to reach any view on Miliband.
What Miliband should be concerned about is not what people think (they don't care) but the media narrative. When R5 are doing "how crap is Ed" phone ins he has a problem. But not an insuperable one. He can still be heard, If only he had something interesting to say.
To be fair, I'm a bit of a politics nerd and I would struggle with shadow foreign secretary. Without googling, I'd guess Douglas Alexander, but without any conviction.
Why was my post deleted? I was pointing out that spas or spaz is a particularly offensive term referring to a physical disability and used in an offhand way to denigrate a person.
It's as much to do with the party as it is with the leader
That's precisely wrong. The recent poll on the issue showed Labour positively liked by voters - I think it's an odd question, but the contrast to the Tories, who were strongly disliked, was marked. The Miliband polling is a mix of Tories who don't like Labour leaders, full stop, and Labour voters who are uneasy he's not doing well enough and have doubts about how he's coming across. It's not preventing the latter from planning to vote Labour, though, as the last umpteen polls amply demonstrate. The Tory rating jumps up and down depending on people moving on the Tory-UKIP access. The Labour rating stays at 38, +/-2.
You put it far too euphemistically. It's not exactly hard to come across Labour supporters who think that he is hopelessly unequipped for the job, expressing this view in terms every bit as cutting as the PB Tories* would. Right now, telling pollsters that if there was an election tomorrow they'd vote Labour is easy, because there isn't an election tomorrow. Will they all remain Labour voters when there is an election tomorrow and when it isn't easy? I'm sceptical.
*An unincorporated body of fluctuating membership.
I was much amused by tim's attempt (and not for the first time either) to portray Boris as a typical immigrant.
I suspect the Eton and Oxford educated son of British parents has little in common with the thousands of Balkan vegetable pickers the UK is now receiving.
Anyone read John Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' ?
We're creating the same sort of 'okie' workforce that the book portrayed.
Low productivity and low business investment but very profitable for those with a vested interest in reducing pay rates and increasing house prices.
Thanks for that nugget! I always wondered where James Blish got the term Okie City from in his Cities in Flight series.
Incidentally, all the secondaries on the economy moved sharply against the Government today compared with the ones two weeks ago which got a lot of people convinced that Osborne was breaking through. Like tim I suspect there may be a sample issue - this one is too Labour, the other one was too Tory - and actually not much is happening either way.
People feel the cuts are necessary in principle (56-31) but being done unfairly (59-29), too quickly (45/13 too slowly/29 about right), probably too deeply (41/13/29) and in a way bad for the economy (48-40). Outrside the 32% planning to vote Tory, the whole policy has very little support - e.g. 65% of UKIP voters and 52% of remaining LibDems feel the cuts are being done unfairly. What people are thinking of when they say "unfair" is an interesting question - possibly the focus on benefit cuts coupled with the residue of the 50p tax controversy.
I still go back to the polling a few days ago when the majority (+14% net ) of Labour voters did not know who the shadow chancellor was with huge majorities having no idea about the shadow home secretary foreign secretary (+80%!!) and Home Secretary are.
What do we conclude from this? One possible explanation is that Labour supporters tend to be tribal and peculiarly uninformed but I fear that is not true. The truth is that the vast majority don't pay any attention to politics and have yet to reach any view on Miliband.
What Miliband should be concerned about is not what people think (they don't care) but the media narrative. When R5 are doing "how crap is Ed" phone ins he has a problem. But not an insuperable one. He can still be heard, If only he had something interesting to say.
To be fair, I'm a bit of a politics nerd and I would struggle with shadow foreign secretary. Without googling, I'd guess Douglas Alexander, but without any conviction.
And you would be correct! A net 60% did not know Andy Burnham was shadow health secretary which rather puts the Stafford debate into some kind of a context.
Perhaps the missing link is Spitting Image. 30 years on I still remember Tom King because of the wonderful skit of him as the invisible man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoTFvRMiNUc
How are we supposed to remember the names of our politicians if we don't laugh at them?
I was much amused by tim's attempt (and not for the first time either) to portray Boris as a typical immigrant.
I suspect the Eton and Oxford educated son of British parents has little in common with the thousands of Balkan vegetable pickers the UK is now receiving.
Anyone read John Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' ?
We're creating the same sort of 'okie' workforce that the book portrayed.
Low productivity and low business investment but very profitable for those with a vested interest in reducing pay rates and increasing house prices.
I think you missed the point. Which is that when Labour was in power this stat
Jonathan Portes @jdportes 14 Aug "All the new jobs went to immigrants!". In the last quarter foreign-born workers up 135K, British born workers down 15K (1/3)
used to get touted by the PB Tories day in day out but now they are silent.
I'm making the point that it's always been a useless stat because it includes people like Boris and Cliff Richard as immigrants. The point is about PB Tory hypocrisy - as with the crime figures they started to believe in May 2010.
"...The local Trades Union Council has tabled a vote of no confidence in Cambridge-educated Stride, an advisor to Labour’s leader in the House of Lords who won the nomination in an all-women shortlist with the backing of Unite in December 2011. Her perceived failure to campaign on blacklisting of union members, banks and the "bedroom tax" has led to union members dubbing her “Silent Suzy”.
The motion, tabled by David Forman, a member of Unite and the Communication Workers Union, suggests that if she does not resign, members should refuse to campaign for her in 2015, adding: “We are deeply concerned that we have received far more support from Conservative MP Robert Halfon on the issues of trade union facility time and job losses at Comet and Tesco than we have from Suzy.”
Crosby knows what he's doing and banging on about immigration is a master strategy that can't fail.
Salience of immigration among Conservatives Dec 2012 28% Salience of immigration among Conservatives April 2013 48% UKIP VI Dec 2012 7% UKIP VI April 2013 15%
Have the PB Tories worked out the trend yet?
Can you clarify: when you are posting the salience are you talking about 2010 Conservatives or current Conservatives? Makes a big difference to the interpretation
If there were to be a Labour leadership change it would have to be done Sep-Jan. 2014/5 is packed full of elections. Because of the ScotRef campaign, Summer 2014 is out. Autumn 2014 is leaving it very late for the LoO to establish themselves.
What people are thinking of when they say "unfair" is an interesting question - possibly the focus on benefit cuts coupled with the residue of the 50p tax controversy.
Or that the first thing to be cut should be foreign aid.
If there were to be a Labour leadership change it would have to be done Sep-Jan. 2014/5 is packed full of elections. Because of the ScotRef campaign, Summer 2014 is out. Autumn 2014 is leaving it very late for the LoO to establish themselves.
How about the March, 2014? That sets the next bloke up nicely to fight the Euro elections off their new leader bounce.
O/T we are at that time of the year when those charming people who make it so hard to get to my work in Edinburgh produce their funniest jokes. The winner this year:
“I heard a rumour that Cadbury is bringing out an oriental chocolate bar. Could be a Chinese Wispa.”
Presumably you had to be there. The winner is a fomer paint brush salesman. Comments about the day job are superfluous.
Ed Miliband's problem is not that he's boring, it's that his political messaging has been all over the place. We still don't know whether he has any coherent view whatsoever on what to do about government over-spending, or even if he thinks anything should be done. He has lurched from opposing all savings, no matter how uncontroversial, to accepting everything. No wonder Labour supporters, who hoped to be told that no savings were necessary, are bewildered.
However, this is the key sentence from Mike's piece: "The only saving grace for Ed is that the poll finds no clear alternative". In fact, it's not so much the only saving grace, as the most important factor. This is not a Gillard/Rudd, or Blair/Brown, situation, where the parties knew who they'd get if they ditched the incumbent. In fact, in that respect Ed M's position is even stronger than Brown's was, when at least for a while there was a general consensus that David Miliband would be the replacement. In the current circumstances, who knows what would happen if Ed M were ditched? If you're Ed Balls, you wouldn't want to trigger a leadership challenge which might end up making Andy Burnham leader, would you?
Incidentally, all the secondaries on the economy moved sharply against the Government today compared with the ones two weeks ago.
Not quite "all": And who do you think is most to blame for the current spending cuts? Coalition: 25 (+1) Labour: 35 (-1)
Easily within MOE of Labour's average +12 of 2012 & 2013 YTD
Sure, but does it matter? The proportion of Labour voters who think Labour was to blame is 4%. Among Tories it's 85%, but so what? The electorate is extremely polarised, which is why the leadership ratings and good economic news aren't shifting the polls. I think these things do cap Labour's ability to win lots more voters, but moving from 29 to 40+ is a bit ambitious unless you're looking for the frothy voters, who have mostly gone UKIP this time.
Incidentally, ComRes showed UKIP voters more certain to vote than anyone, again. Very little difference among the rest.
But many more Labour voters think they are "both" to blame: Con: 8 Lab: 31
The overall "blame" figure hasn't shifted in the last 18 months - with an improving economy, why should we expect to shift in the run up to the GE?
I don't. But I also don't expect it to affect 2015 voting: it's increasingly a historical argument and opinions about it are factored kinto voting intention. The Tories will try the "Don't let them back!" line but nothing so far suggests that it will work.
On another subject, a minor bug that could have become serious in terms of global revival has been eliminated:
Monster month new mortgages- 29% up on last july. nearly £17bn, highest month since, errrr, Oct '08.... "
Excellent news. The seizing-up of the housing market has been one of the prime impediments to economic recovery, with massive knock-on effects to lots of other parts of the economy.
Another day where the Labour percentage is in the 36%-40% bracket
Another day where Labour is 7% ahead
Long may it last!
To be fair, none of that is mutually exclusive.
Let's say Ghandi was Labour's leader. I suspect they would be further ahead.
Charles,it just seesm to be a re-occuring theme, well the first two anyway, since August 2010 over 95% of all polls have show Labour in this bracket, the third one depends on how well UKIP are performing.
1) Labour's share is soft, as many people won't vote for Miliband when push comes to shove unless his ratings improve.
2) Miliband's ratings are "priced in", and people will vote for Labour despite them.
There's quite a lot of evidence suggesting 2) is more accurate - the remarkable consistency of Labour's share, the fact that the Labour party generally is quite well liked.
So perhaps Labour's current supporters just want to see the party performing even better so they're more certain of winning, which is causing Miliband's low ratings?
There's also historical evidence suggesting leader ratings are a good signpost this far out, however.
Ho hum. Either way, the Tories will be delighted that their latest "Ed is crap" narrative has taken off, after the previous two (or three?) withered.
"Lib Dem West Oxfordshire District Council member Liz Leffman said: “I think it is very unlikely he is ever going to have to live up to that because, as far as I can gather, there are no shale gas reserves in West Oxfordshire."
I know some PBers have a much better idea than me, is this true? Is it likely to remain true?
Another day where the Labour percentage is in the 36%-40% bracket
Another day where Labour is 7% ahead
Long may it last!
To be fair, none of that is mutually exclusive.
Let's say Ghandi was Labour's leader. I suspect they would be further ahead.
I'm not convinced about that actually. Labour's drubbing was so recent, I think there's a chunk of the electorate (a good proportion of 2010 Tories, die hard Lib Dems, those on the far right flirting with UKIP) who wouldn't dream of voting Labour again so soon, no matter how good their leader was.
There's limited scope for Labour to go much above where they currently stand, I suspect. Where would the support come from?
"So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.
We know that the release of this information would be damaging, for two reasons. The first is because Glenn Greenwald boasted that it would. On hearing of his partner’s detention, Greenwald said: “I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.” Whatever Miranda was carrying, it had the potential to make an entire nation (with due apologies to our Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish cousins) sorry." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
Slightly surprised there has been no commentary on this story. Would have thought it is symptomatic of how UKIP will find it hard to get a very strong vote at the GE if they are totally reliant on enthusiastic amateurs. Well meaning, but perhaps not hugely productive in terms of actually getting out the vote.
UKIP chief executive Will Gilpin leaves job ...
Sources within the party said Mr Gilpin hoped to return to corporate IT, something one source said "he is far better suited to". The source suggested Mr Gilpin was not well suited to working for a small organisation whose "DNA is individualistic" and which relies on numerous volunteers.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
As for the 'no legal rights in the UK': is that true?
1) Labour's share is soft, as many people won't vote for Miliband when push comes to shove unless his ratings improve.
2) Miliband's ratings are "priced in", and people will vote for Labour despite them.
There's quite a lot of evidence suggesting 2) is more accurate - the remarkable consistency of Labour's share, the fact that the Labour party generally is quite well liked.
So perhaps Labour's current supporters just want to see the party performing even better so they're more certain of winning, which is causing Miliband's low ratings?
There's also historical evidence suggesting leader ratings are a good signpost this far out, however.
Ho hum. Either way, the Tories will be delighted that their latest "Ed is crap" narrative has taken off, after the previous two (or three?) withered.
My guess is that it will impact the "hovering pencil" voters. People who aren't strongly committed either way and don't really decide until the polling booth.
Presumably they are "don't know" in the polls so are adjusted out?
I have no idea on how significant a factor this will be however.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
You can only guess at Plato's reaction had it been the Telegraph involved and a Labour Government in power.
She'd be in full "trampling over Civil Liberties!" "libertarian" cry, I expect.
Amusing, like Louise Mensch going slightly mad on Newsnight last night.
What people are thinking of when they say "unfair" is an interesting question - possibly the focus on benefit cuts coupled with the residue of the 50p tax controversy.
Or that the first thing to be cut should be foreign aid.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
I of course have no greater insight into the facts of this particular case.
But "whistle-blower" doesn't give you a free pass to do any old thing. Suppose we are at the height of the Cold War and an intelligence agent does a similar thing, with hundreds of Western agents in the Soviet Union at threat.
Does being a "whistle-blower" give you immunity from a nation's security concerns?
On the understanding that we still have, you know, spies, an' all, is today's situation so very different?
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
But surely being in possession of stolen material is a crime in any event? And if there was a threat that it would be released that could be argued to endager UK national interests / agents?
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
Exposing illegal behaviour by the state is a legitimate form of whistle-blowing. The fact that it might harm the state is unfortunate and is the price the state pays for behaving illegally. That there should be harmful consequences to illegal behaviour by the state is the only game-theory motive the state has to continue to behaving legally. Removing that consequence is exceptionally dangerous.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
As for the 'no legal rights in the UK': is that true?
What has that got to do with detaining someone under terrorism legislation? Isn't that the point Hodges is missing (deliberately, like Mensch I guess)
The documents might be useful to terrorist groups: it might contain sources, identities, and methods.
But in short we don't know. But if Labour hadn't wanted the law to be used in such ways, they shouldn't have made it as loose as it apparently is. After all, Scotland Yard believes it was 'legally sound'.
You can only guess at Plato's reaction had it been the Telegraph involved and a Labour Government in power.
She'd be in full "trampling over Civil Liberties!" "libertarian" cry, I expect.
Yes, laughable hypocrisy, considering previous postings. The Telegraph's line on this has also been lamentable, and even the notoriously partisan Telegraph commenters are angry about it.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
It's perfectly possible to be completely against New Labour's terrorism act (even as much against it as to actually favour repealing many aspects of it - if only we had a Government that prioritised that) and still have little time for the Guardian pair.
Why would terrorism laws be used in the case of possession of stolen material? Isn't that the top and bottom of this case
The top and bottom of the case is surely the draconian legislation that New Labour passed that was always likely to be abused by the authorities at some stage (whether or not this particular case is a good example of such abuse).
Why would terrorism laws be used in the case of possession of stolen material? Isn't that the top and bottom of this case, the Snowden camp on one hand and the Mensch people on the other are deliberately conflating a load of different issues.
Yes, this is what's being deliberately ignored by those who hate The Guardian. The fact that any crime is now terrorism in the eyes of the police and state means that a whole raft of legislation that was designed to be used in exceptional circumstances is now a free-for-all.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
Exposing illegal behaviour by the state is a legitimate form of whistle-blowing. The fact that it might harm the state is unfortunate and is the price the state pays for behaving illegally. That there should be harmful consequences to illegal behaviour by the state is the only game-theory motive the state has to continue to behaving legally. Removing that consequence is exceptionally dangerous.
But the whistle blowing has been done.
That doesn't mean that potentially damaging information should be left out there if it is possible that it can be reclaimed.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
Exposing illegal behaviour by the state is a legitimate form of whistle-blowing. The fact that it might harm the state is unfortunate and is the price the state pays for behaving illegally. That there should be harmful consequences to illegal behaviour by the state is the only game-theory motive the state has to continue to behaving legally. Removing that consequence is exceptionally dangerous.
Do all the document released and collected illegally show illegal behaviour by the state? Or are most of the documents irrelevant for that?
And how do you know what he was carrying?
These are murky waters, and I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't blindly believe the journalist's side of this, nor the police's. The sad thing is I don't have enough expertise in law (or indeed access to the relevant facts) to work out which side is right. And neither, with one or two exceptions, do the rest of us.
Even if we did have access to the facts and expertise in the relevant law, it is perfect possible for such learned people to disagree.
Hence the story falls down to a who-do-I-best-believe argument.
As it stands, I veer towards the following position: the detention was legal. It may have been moral. It probably should not have been legal under the law applied.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
As for the 'no legal rights in the UK': is that true?
Mr Miranda had legal rights - he was detained for the 9 hrs available under the provision of the Act. About 40 people a year are held for this long.
He was offered a lawyer. He turned it down. He was then released and sent on his way to Brazil. I'm totally puzzled by the outrage.
He didn't disappear for 9 yrs. Or end up in a salt mine in Siberia.
1) Labour's share is soft, as many people won't vote for Miliband when push comes to shove unless his ratings improve.
I think this is a worry for labour, getting the vote out.
The combination of an uninspiring leader and IVR for 2015 could be problematic.
I can't imagine it will hit their 2010 vote. People who voted for Brown not voting for Miliband? Can't see it.
Possibly 2010 Lib Dems might peel off or stay at home unless they are convinced by the leader. But there's nothing in the polls to suggest that's going to happen, with Labour's share so eerily consistent.
Why would terrorism laws be used in the case of possession of stolen material? Isn't that the top and bottom of this case, the Snowden camp on one hand and the Mensch people on the other are deliberately conflating a load of different issues.
Don't have a strong view on whether it was right to use this particular legislation or not. The Met says it was - I don't know. Presumably (unless being in transit is different?) there would be some other legislation that could be used as well? I'm working on the assumption that, fundamentally, Miranda was in possession of stolen goods and that it is reasonable to intercept him to reclaim them.
Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the guy was detained for 9 hours (well within the range under non-terrorist legislation), was offered a lawyer, appears prime facia to have been committing a crime and was allowed to go on his journey in a reasonable timeframe.
Frankly I don't see any huge civil liberty issues here. Perhaps some concerns about potential for mission creep in the interpretation of the terrorist legislation, but nothing that is out of the ordinary for legislation and nothing that can't be fixed by a sensible review.
''I can't imagine it will hit their 2010 vote. People who voted for Brown not voting for Miliband? Can't see it.''
Their 2010 vote was 29% under the ludicrous old rules of householder declaring number of voters for postal votes. As I understand it, 2015 will need each postal vote to be registered and matched with an NI number. Some protection at least.
I am not sure what to make of the Miranda story to be honest. It appears he was detained for 9 hours as allowed by Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. This entitles the authorities to detain someone without having reasonable suspicion that they are involved in terrorist acts in order to make inquiries.
He does not ever seem to have been classed as being under such suspicion. Given that he was allegedly in possession of encrypted memory sticks allegedly containing classified information this seems quite bizarre to me. Did they believe that he was an innocent mule who did not know what he was carrying? The possession of such material was itself far more than sufficient to entitle them to detain him for longer under actual suspicion. But they chose not to do so.
A relative of a whistleblower who, it is alleged, was carrying classified documents. Would you want such documents (and we cannot be sure if they existed, or what they contained) released into the public domain, without knowing such answers?
Exposing illegal behaviour by the state is a legitimate form of whistle-blowing. The fact that it might harm the state is unfortunate and is the price the state pays for behaving illegally. That there should be harmful consequences to illegal behaviour by the state is the only game-theory motive the state has to continue to behaving legally. Removing that consequence is exceptionally dangerous.
Do all the document released and collected illegally show illegal behaviour by the state? Or are most of the documents irrelevant for that?
And how do you know what he was carrying?
These are murky waters, and I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't blindly believe the journalist's side of this, nor the police's. The sad thing is I don't have enough expertise in law (or indeed access to the relevant facts) to work out which side is right. And neither, with one or two exceptions, do the rest of us.
Even if we did have access to the facts and expertise in the relevant law, it is perfect possible for such learned people to disagree.
Hence the story falls down to a who-do-I-best-believe argument.
As it stands, I veer towards the following position: the detention was legal. It may have been moral. It probably should not have been legal under the law applied.
This was a guy who was involved both directly and by association with someone who chose to expose state secrets.
They probably wanted to hold him to interrogate him which I find reasonable. Louise Mensch, arguably the least sensible person to be commenting, nevertheless seems to have found evidence of some encrypted files.
The Guardian seems to have taken the position that the security services per se are a bad thing, which is ridiculous.
The police, meanwhile, who might legitimately have wanted to interrogate him, seemed to have used what they might have believed was a convenient piece of law to do so. It was clumsy to say the least but not knowing how else they could have done so I cannot comment on its appropriateness.
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
It's perfectly possible to be completely against New Labour's terrorism act (even as much against it as to actually favour repealing many aspects of it - if only we had a Government that prioritised that) and still have little time for the Guardian pair.
Not sure why one should be 'against' the Guardian pair. They are journalists doing what journalists are supposed to do (at least in part) which is expose government wrong doing.
That the government response is to misuse anti-terrorist legislation to try and threaten and pressurise journalists in an attempt to prevent embarrassment for the government and its allies seems to me to say much about the government and very little about the journalists beyond the fact they are obviously doing their job rather too well.
I think the the Greenwald/Miranda/Guardian argument that the anti-terrorism legislation has been shamefully misused might have been somewhat undermined by Greenwald saying “I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.”
Sounds prima facie like a terrorist threat, doesn't it?
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
But surely being in possession of stolen material is a crime in any event? And if there was a threat that it would be released that could be argued to endager UK national interests / agents?
Being in possession of stolen material may well be a crime but it is not one that allows the authorities to use section 7 to detain people and remove their right to silence.
Not sure why one should be 'against' the Guardian pair.
No reason at all. I dont really buy their line that the detention was primarily about intimidating one of them though. But that's rather a side issue compared to the major problem of the draconian legislation still being on the statute books.
I think the the Greenwald/Miranda/Guardian argument that the anti-terrorism legislation has been shamefully misused might have been somewhat undermined by Greenwald saying “I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.”
Sounds prima facie like a terrorist threat, doesn't it?
@Plato - I'm very surprised at your reaction to the Miranda case. You appear to be falling for the same line at The Telegraph in this story, that because the Guardian are behind it it's not a problem that being the relative of a whistle-blower now makes you a terrorist with no legal rights in the UK.
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
It's perfectly possible to be completely against New Labour's terrorism act (even as much against it as to actually favour repealing many aspects of it - if only we had a Government that prioritised that) and still have little time for the Guardian pair.
Not sure why one should be 'against' the Guardian pair. They are journalists doing what journalists are supposed to do (at least in part) which is expose government wrong doing.
That the government response is to misuse anti-terrorist legislation to try and threaten and pressurise journalists in an attempt to prevent embarrassment for the government and its allies seems to me to say much about the government and very little about the journalists beyond the fact they are obviously doing their job rather too well.
Greenwald seems to be conflating PRISM which was a solid bit of whistleblowing by Snowden with doing an Assange and using stolen secrets to destabilise countries he doesn't like including putting their agents at risk.
The first is laudible, buggering off to Russia isn't as that makes Snowden look more like Kim Philby - but Greenwald has like Assnage let his ego run wild.
You seem to be confusing me with someone who thinks past housing bubbles over a forty year period are a good thing.
I dont think it's possible for even a casual reader of pbc to be confused about the nature of your politics, tim. I was simply putting the "soaring" mortgage lending quote into context.
Possibly 2010 Lib Dems might peel off or stay at home unless they are convinced by the leader. But there's nothing in the polls to suggest that's going to happen, with Labour's share so eerily consistent.
Interestingly it's the eerie consistency that makes me think it is vulnerable.
There are basically two explanations:
(1) I hate Nick Clegg and all he stands for. I've hated him since he formed a coalition. I will continue to hate him with the same level of intensity for all time.
(2) I'm pissed off with Nick Clegg so I'm going to tell the pollsters that. But I haven't really thought hard about who I'm going to vote for next time. Could be Ed Milliband, could be Nick Clegg, or may be I just won't bother.
Now I appreciate that lefties have an unusually well-developed capacity for hatred, but (2) seems a more likely explanation for the consistency.
Now you are just being silly. What other possible interpretation is there for someone threatening to take revenge and make the UK (we'll gloss over the fact that this Guardian journalist seems a bit confused about which country he is referring to) 'sorry for what they did'?
Mr Miranda had legal rights - he was detained for the 9 hrs available under the provision of the Act. About 40 people a year are held for this long.
He was offered a lawyer. He turned it down. He was then released and sent on his way to Brazil. I'm totally puzzled by the outrage.
He didn't disappear for 9 yrs. Or end up in a salt mine in Siberia.
Well at least we know where your red lines on civil liberties are now. Putin would be proud of you Plato.
Miranda was not suspected of terrorism. The police had no "reasonable suspicion" he had committed ay crime. He was not even entering the country (which this law requires) - he was in the transit lounge. Yet he was held for 9 hours and told (correctly) that if he failed to answer any question on any subject he would go to jail. That this is happening in the UK, rather than Russia, or China is a disgrace. Our descent to the mid-table of nations economically is being matched only by our descent legally. Shocking.
Comments
Bought a large tranche of a certain UK share 12 months ago, just decided to take a profit as share price has doubled in that time - better than investing in cash for that period or even property - suppose Hunchman would say get out of all shares now.
The site owner does not wish to receive more letters from m'learned friends on this topic.
I suspect the Eton and Oxford educated son of British parents has little in common with the thousands of Balkan vegetable pickers the UK is now receiving.
Anyone read John Steinbeck's 'Grapes of Wrath' ?
We're creating the same sort of 'okie' workforce that the book portrayed.
Low productivity and low business investment but very profitable for those with a vested interest in reducing pay rates and increasing house prices.
Trust is not merely a question of 'Will this person rip me off'. In politics it is much more a question of 'Can I respect that face, can I believe he has what it takes, or is this the face of a knobber'?
I doubt very much if Redward is a thief - indeed he personally came out very well from Expensegate. I trust his general honesty (ish).
But...that face. I could no more trust him with the nation's future than I would Mr Blobby. He's a tool, a geek, a drip and a puffed up little fart. Redward's is not a face in whom the nation can place its trust. Sorry. You clearly have not really looked at the photo.
"a tool, a spas, a geek, a drip and a puffed up little fart."
Ah! You're a public school boy!
I mean for one - who are the potential assassins ? Blairite politicians are terrible, terrible assassins who couldn't knife a tranquilized elephant from a foot away if their lives depended on it. They ended up stabbing themselves in the front with Brown, Ed is safe (Even more so that Milibananas has left the building). If he was CON or LD the situation would perhaps be less secure.
F1: early discussion thread for Belgium is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/belgium-early-discussion.html
On-topic: I don't think Miliband has anything to worry about. Labour desperately wanted to axe Brown for 2 years and couldn't manage it, and who would take over? Balls?
"At least 900 children in Wales attended a slimming club this year alone prompting a call for nursery-aged youngsters to be taught healthy eating.
In July, nearly 170 children aged between 11 and 15 went to a single session run by a weight-loss club.
Figures from Public Health Wales showed over 28% of five-year-olds are overweight, with 12.5% of children classed as obese.
The National Obesity Forum said healthy eating needs to be taught earlier."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23761520
*An unincorporated body of fluctuating membership.
People feel the cuts are necessary in principle (56-31) but being done unfairly (59-29), too quickly (45/13 too slowly/29 about right), probably too deeply (41/13/29) and in a way bad for the economy (48-40). Outrside the 32% planning to vote Tory, the whole policy has very little support - e.g. 65% of UKIP voters and 52% of remaining LibDems feel the cuts are being done unfairly. What people are thinking of when they say "unfair" is an interesting question - possibly the focus on benefit cuts coupled with the residue of the 50p tax controversy.
Perhaps the missing link is Spitting Image. 30 years on I still remember Tom King because of the wonderful skit of him as the invisible man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoTFvRMiNUc
How are we supposed to remember the names of our politicians if we don't laugh at them?
"...The local Trades Union Council has tabled a vote of no confidence in Cambridge-educated Stride, an advisor to Labour’s leader in the House of Lords who won the nomination in an all-women shortlist with the backing of Unite in December 2011. Her perceived failure to campaign on blacklisting of union members, banks and the "bedroom tax" has led to union members dubbing her “Silent Suzy”.
The motion, tabled by David Forman, a member of Unite and the Communication Workers Union, suggests that if she does not resign, members should refuse to campaign for her in 2015, adding: “We are deeply concerned that we have received far more support from Conservative MP Robert Halfon on the issues of trade union facility time and job losses at Comet and Tesco than we have from Suzy.”
But that show of local dissent has been met with a furious 1,170-word response from Jenny Formby, Unite’s £75,000 a year political director and a close personal friend of Len McCluskey, who described Mr Forman's position as "unacceptable"... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100231702/silent-suzy-the-unite-chief-and-the-workers-who-prefer-the-tory-mp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
All this focus on him and his leadership from the Tories and his Party's poll lead rises.
What was the deficit in May 2010 when the coalition began, and what is it right now, in £billions?
Rough estimates will do.
And who do you think is most to blame for the current spending cuts?
Coalition: 25 (+1)
Labour: 35 (-1)
Easily within MOE of Labour's average +12 of 2012 & 2013 YTD
Thanks to those who posted messages of goodwill. During paternity leave I lurked a bit between feeds, burps and nappy changes.
Of course, it would require some kind of special conference...
“I heard a rumour that Cadbury is bringing out an oriental chocolate bar. Could be a Chinese Wispa.”
Presumably you had to be there. The winner is a fomer paint brush salesman. Comments about the day job are superfluous.
The complete list of side splitters is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/edinburgh-2013-former-paintbrush-salesman-rob-auton-raises-the-bar-with-cadbury-gag-to-win-funniest-joke-of-the-year-award-8774567.html
Regrettably entirely suitable for work, especially for those in a state of supreme boredom.
However, this is the key sentence from Mike's piece: "The only saving grace for Ed is that the poll finds no clear alternative". In fact, it's not so much the only saving grace, as the most important factor. This is not a Gillard/Rudd, or Blair/Brown, situation, where the parties knew who they'd get if they ditched the incumbent. In fact, in that respect Ed M's position is even stronger than Brown's was, when at least for a while there was a general consensus that David Miliband would be the replacement. In the current circumstances, who knows what would happen if Ed M were ditched? If you're Ed Balls, you wouldn't want to trigger a leadership challenge which might end up making Andy Burnham leader, would you?
So Miliband is safe.
RT@itvnews: ONS: Adoptions in England and Wales in 2012 up nearly 10% in on previous year itv.co/14RZ0Nq
Incidentally, ComRes showed UKIP voters more certain to vote than anyone, again. Very little difference among the rest.
"Which should I leave first, Twitter or Facebook?
Twitter is the first global conversation – but it is becoming morally depopulated. We need radical, collective action to save it"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/leave-twitter-facebook-paul-mason
Con: 8
Lab: 31
The overall "blame" figure hasn't shifted in the last 18 months - with an improving economy, why should we expect to shift in the run up to the GE?
Another article full of Ed is crap posts
Another day where the Labour percentage is in the 36%-40% bracket
Another day where Labour is 7% ahead
Long may it last!
moneyallgone: - Leave Facebook first, then you can tweet to let everybody know.
Recommend 166
Let's say Ghandi was Labour's leader. I suspect they would be further ahead.
On another subject, a minor bug that could have become serious in terms of global revival has been eliminated:
http://www.euractiv.com/video/eu-china-reach-amicable-solution-529626?utm_source=EurActiv Newsletter&utm_campaign=322a96a0df-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-322a96a0df-245514803
1) Labour's share is soft, as many people won't vote for Miliband when push comes to shove unless his ratings improve.
2) Miliband's ratings are "priced in", and people will vote for Labour despite them.
There's quite a lot of evidence suggesting 2) is more accurate - the remarkable consistency of Labour's share, the fact that the Labour party generally is quite well liked.
So perhaps Labour's current supporters just want to see the party performing even better so they're more certain of winning, which is causing Miliband's low ratings?
There's also historical evidence suggesting leader ratings are a good signpost this far out, however.
Ho hum. Either way, the Tories will be delighted that their latest "Ed is crap" narrative has taken off, after the previous two (or three?) withered.
UKIP's one to keep an eye on, conference season has potential for big changes there (certainly the Tories will be hoping so).
PM ‘happy’ for fracking to go ahead on his turf
"Lib Dem West Oxfordshire District Council member Liz Leffman said: “I think it is very unlikely he is ever going to have to live up to that because, as far as I can gather, there are no shale gas reserves in West Oxfordshire."
I know some PBers have a much better idea than me, is this true? Is it likely to remain true?
There's limited scope for Labour to go much above where they currently stand, I suspect. Where would the support come from?
"So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.
We know that the release of this information would be damaging, for two reasons. The first is because Glenn Greenwald boasted that it would. On hearing of his partner’s detention, Greenwald said: “I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.” Whatever Miranda was carrying, it had the potential to make an entire nation (with due apologies to our Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish cousins) sorry." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Fortunately for you, there are others who care much more about your civil liberty than you do.
UKIP chief executive Will Gilpin leaves job ...
Sources within the party said Mr Gilpin hoped to return to corporate IT, something one source said "he is far better suited to". The source suggested Mr Gilpin was not well suited to working for a small organisation whose "DNA is individualistic" and which relies on numerous volunteers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23759338
As for the 'no legal rights in the UK': is that true?
Presumably they are "don't know" in the polls so are adjusted out?
I have no idea on how significant a factor this will be however.
She'd be in full "trampling over Civil Liberties!" "libertarian" cry, I expect.
Amusing, like Louise Mensch going slightly mad on Newsnight last night.
But "whistle-blower" doesn't give you a free pass to do any old thing. Suppose we are at the height of the Cold War and an intelligence agent does a similar thing, with hundreds of Western agents in the Soviet Union at threat.
Does being a "whistle-blower" give you immunity from a nation's security concerns?
On the understanding that we still have, you know, spies, an' all, is today's situation so very different?
But in short we don't know. But if Labour hadn't wanted the law to be used in such ways, they shouldn't have made it as loose as it apparently is. After all, Scotland Yard believes it was 'legally sound'.
I think this is a worry for labour, getting the vote out.
The combination of an uninspiring leader and IVR for 2015 could be problematic.
That doesn't mean that potentially damaging information should be left out there if it is possible that it can be reclaimed.
And how do you know what he was carrying?
These are murky waters, and I can see both sides of the argument. I just don't blindly believe the journalist's side of this, nor the police's. The sad thing is I don't have enough expertise in law (or indeed access to the relevant facts) to work out which side is right. And neither, with one or two exceptions, do the rest of us.
Even if we did have access to the facts and expertise in the relevant law, it is perfect possible for such learned people to disagree.
Hence the story falls down to a who-do-I-best-believe argument.
As it stands, I veer towards the following position: the detention was legal. It may have been moral. It probably should not have been legal under the law applied.
He was offered a lawyer. He turned it down. He was then released and sent on his way to Brazil. I'm totally puzzled by the outrage.
He didn't disappear for 9 yrs. Or end up in a salt mine in Siberia.
Possibly 2010 Lib Dems might peel off or stay at home unless they are convinced by the leader. But there's nothing in the polls to suggest that's going to happen, with Labour's share so eerily consistent.
Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the guy was detained for 9 hours (well within the range under non-terrorist legislation), was offered a lawyer, appears prime facia to have been committing a crime and was allowed to go on his journey in a reasonable timeframe.
Frankly I don't see any huge civil liberty issues here. Perhaps some concerns about potential for mission creep in the interpretation of the terrorist legislation, but nothing that is out of the ordinary for legislation and nothing that can't be fixed by a sensible review.
Their 2010 vote was 29% under the ludicrous old rules of householder declaring number of voters for postal votes. As I understand it, 2015 will need each postal vote to be registered and matched with an NI number. Some protection at least.
He does not ever seem to have been classed as being under such suspicion. Given that he was allegedly in possession of encrypted memory sticks allegedly containing classified information this seems quite bizarre to me. Did they believe that he was an innocent mule who did not know what he was carrying? The possession of such material was itself far more than sufficient to entitle them to detain him for longer under actual suspicion. But they chose not to do so.
It is all very strange.
They probably wanted to hold him to interrogate him which I find reasonable. Louise Mensch, arguably the least sensible person to be commenting, nevertheless seems to have found evidence of some encrypted files.
The Guardian seems to have taken the position that the security services per se are a bad thing, which is ridiculous.
The police, meanwhile, who might legitimately have wanted to interrogate him, seemed to have used what they might have believed was a convenient piece of law to do so. It was clumsy to say the least but not knowing how else they could have done so I cannot comment on its appropriateness.
That the government response is to misuse anti-terrorist legislation to try and threaten and pressurise journalists in an attempt to prevent embarrassment for the government and its allies seems to me to say much about the government and very little about the journalists beyond the fact they are obviously doing their job rather too well.
Sounds prima facie like a terrorist threat, doesn't it?
The first is laudible, buggering off to Russia isn't as that makes Snowden look more like Kim Philby - but Greenwald has like Assnage let his ego run wild.
There are basically two explanations:
(1) I hate Nick Clegg and all he stands for. I've hated him since he formed a coalition. I will continue to hate him with the same level of intensity for all time.
(2) I'm pissed off with Nick Clegg so I'm going to tell the pollsters that. But I haven't really thought hard about who I'm going to vote for next time. Could be Ed Milliband, could be Nick Clegg, or may be I just won't bother.
Now I appreciate that lefties have an unusually well-developed capacity for hatred, but (2) seems a more likely explanation for the consistency.
Miranda was not suspected of terrorism. The police had no "reasonable suspicion" he had committed ay crime. He was not even entering the country (which this law requires) - he was in the transit lounge. Yet he was held for 9 hours and told (correctly) that if he failed to answer any question on any subject he would go to jail. That this is happening in the UK, rather than Russia, or China is a disgrace. Our descent to the mid-table of nations economically is being matched only by our descent legally. Shocking.