Why are The Sun Newspaper and the Tories working together attacking Miliband ? Because if Labour win with a majority, they will pass legislation for an independent regulator of the press.
Most people can see through this and it won't work. Ed Miliband is not the best candidate for PM at the moment and he has work to do to gain the trust of more people, so that Labour can form the next government.
What nobody has been able to answer is which segment of those voters currently saying Labour are going to be turned by all of this? Those who voted Labour at GE2010? No. The 2010 LDs now in the Labour camp? Maybe a few on the margins but Labour will still retain the lion's share in the CON-LAB marginals.
With that scenario and the efficient way we know the Labour votes are distributed make it very tough for the Tories who are also going to struggle to take LD seats where the incumbent is standing again.
But will reluctant Labour voters who don't rate Ed pitch up to vote ? .... And will Coalition voters hit Labour with a double whammy of differential turnout ??
IMO they will. Labour's advantage with FPTP will be considerably negated and Ed's chance of moving into No 10 will evaporate just as Kinnock's melted away in 1992.
Ed Kinnock is not so odd as it may look.
Remember that Labour has the better ground machine in the marginals and will get its vote out there if not so much elsewhere.
BTW Remember our little spat at GE2010 over Watford. You said LD - I said CON. Now I'm backing the yellows to do it at GE2015. I got on at 6/1 which has come in a fair bit since.
And what will Mr Messina's expertise do for the Tories in 2015? I suspect that it will be significant.
Labour/LD ground games may be under real pressure for a change. I hope so.
"Whether domestic or wild, they have a right to live as much as we do," she [an activist] said.
I can appreciate that sentiment. However, haven't we extirpated every natural predator of the badger (wolves spring to mind, perhaps bears likewise)? It isn't natural to drive a species to extinction, but if we annihilate another species with which it has a close relationship (whether a hunter-prey or symbiotic one) then we've already substantially affected how that species lives. I don't accept that it's legitimate to intervene to give a species an unfair advantage, anymore than it's ok to exterminate a whole species on a whim.
If badgers are protected and have no natural predators then they'll simply see a population explosion. As Miss Plato pointed out below, this will be bad for competitor species, and may see some population crashes once they start eating more food than can be sustained by the environment.
This reminds me a bit of the deer story from a few months ago. Reintroducing wolves would seem like the low maintenance, 'natural' option. However, I doubt anyone will do it. If a single person gets injured or killed by a wolf then the politician responsible will be lynched.
I am puzzled by people who favour re-introducing species- as if plonking one predator into an ecosystem will somehow magically revive the previous ecosystem. it won't, and there may be unpredictable effects for just the kind of reasons you mention. Even now I think there are people re-introducing beavers to scotland. Who the hell knows what the effect will be 50 years down the line? It might be good. On the other hand it might just introduce a rogue virus, or send a fish species extinct..
" Researchers believe that hedgehog numbers are falling because the booming badger population is eating them when food becomes scarce.
The decline is also being explained by the fact that badgers, whose numbers have increased in recent years since farmers were banned from culling them in the 1990s, compete for the same kind of food as hedgehogs. The findings come in a study which shows a close geographical link between the decline of hedgehogs and the presence of badgers.
Researcher Dr Anouschka Hof, of Royal Holloway University of London, estimates there are about a million hedgehogs in Britain. However, hedgehog numbers are falling rapidly, especially in the south and south west of England, and in urban areas. Dr Hof told the Daily Mail: "They have been declining over the last decade, especially in areas where there are a lot of badgers.
We used to have hundreds of hedgehogs here and few roadkill badgers - now its the complete opposite - roadkill badgers are every few miles and I haven't seen a squashed hedgehog in months.
Mr. Dugarbandier, those are legitimate concerns, I agree. I do think that giving a species such as deer or badger protected status and watching their population explode is ridiculous, though, and we should do something about it (not necessarily reintroducing wolves).
Possums are cute, and in Australia (where they are native) are tame enough to handfeed.
In NZ they were introduced in the 19th Century, and are pests not just to cattle but also native trees and animals. They know to avoid humans and are only seen dead on roads. Universally they are seen as pests.
In NZ there are feral cats, goats and pigs in the bush, all pests that are hunted because of threats to indigenous species. The truly stupid did not stop there, some idiot introduced wasps, which are a major nuisance in Nelson!
Possums are generally recognised as a feral introduced species in NZ, destructive of native forests as well as their role in TB. NZ greens would be keen to exterminate them rather than stand up to defend them.
The head of the NFU gave an impassioned defence of the cull on Any Questions last Friday. With the absence of the usual suspects it was an interesting change.
Badgers in New Zealand? Or were they culling something else?
Brush-tailed possums.
www.bovinetb.info/newzealand.php
I thought possums were rather cute looking - like koalas - and then I read up a little. I wouldn't want one in the house. Racoons are another great soft toy but rabies? No thanks. Or mink? Definitely not.
Mr. Dugarbandier, those are legitimate concerns, I agree. I do think that giving a species such as deer or badger protected status and watching their population explode is ridiculous, though, and we should do something about it (not necessarily reintroducing wolves).
Absolutely-if there are too many, get them shot, or otherwise culled.
I know it's an anecdote, but the number of dead badgers I see every day by the side of the road is huge, must mean that population numbers are pretty high...
I have no issues with a cull. The 'countryside' is largely a manmade construction anyway, and I see no problems with it, and the wildlife in it being managed as a whole..
Brian May... I'm not really a hypocrite. One thing leads to the culling of 200000 cattle but Bambi is really a menace...
"Last week, I was accused of being “utterly hypocritical” because my land management agent had licensed a gamekeeper to cull deer on my forest land in Dorset. The gamekeeper in question, no longer employed by us, boasted that he had killed 23 young animals purely “for sport”. The part about deer control is true – but the latter claim is shocking to me.
For years, I have been a staunch opponent of the proposed badger cull, and I am firmly against all forms of cruelty to animals. But there is a vast difference between culling deer and massacring badgers. The two have very different aims. I acted on the best available advice in allowing deer culling for a limited time on my property, for the health and safety of the herd – and, as an animal rights campaigner, I certainly have no reason to apologise..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/9714195/Brian-May-the-deer-cull-on-my-land-was-not-hypocritical-but-humane.html
One of the dangers with polling analysis is to confuse correlation with causation. The fact that something has happened and that the polls have moved in a particular way does not prove that they are linked.
However weak EdM might appear it does not appear to have impacted on Labour shares - it is as though this is priced into the voting intention ratings.
Will people be voting for a party or a leader or is it a mix of the two? Add on to that the fact that their actual choice in their own constituencies is for an individual MP and it gets even more complicated.
There's a good article about this on the Yougov site. Labour's lead is about half what it was last Autumn, but Milliband's ratings have fallen far faster. I put Labour's gradual decline down to an improving economy, mostly.
Is Messina going to get more activists out knocking on doors?
I live in a super marginal that the Tories need to hold. Labour have been sending out canvassing teams three times a week for more than a year. The blues are invisible.
Databases need data and that comes from getting out on the knocker.
What nobody has been able to answer is which segment of those voters currently saying Labour are going to be turned by all of this? Those who voted Labour at GE2010? No. The 2010 LDs now in the Labour camp? Maybe a few on the margins but Labour will still retain the lion's share in the CON-LAB marginals.
With that scenario and the efficient way we know the Labour votes are distributed make it very tough for the Tories who are also going to struggle to take LD seats where the incumbent is standing again.
But will reluctant Labour voters who don't rate Ed pitch up to vote ? .... And will Coalition voters hit Labour with a double whammy of differential turnout ??
IMO they will. Labour's advantage with FPTP will be considerably negated and Ed's chance of moving into No 10 will evaporate just as Kinnock's melted away in 1992.
Ed Kinnock is not so odd as it may look.
Remember that Labour has the better ground machine in the marginals and will get its vote out there if not so much elsewhere.
BTW Remember our little spat at GE2010 over Watford. You said LD - I said CON. Now I'm backing the yellows to do it at GE2015. I got on at 6/1 which has come in a fair bit since.
And what will Mr Messina's expertise do for the Tories in 2015? I suspect that it will be significant.
Labour/LD ground games may be under real pressure for a change. I hope so.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
Mr. Dugarbandier, those are legitimate concerns, I agree. I do think that giving a species such as deer or badger protected status and watching their population explode is ridiculous, though, and we should do something about it (not necessarily reintroducing wolves).
The really stupid thing is making bats a protected species. They do so much damage to old buildings.
I know it's an anecdote, but the number of dead badgers I see every day by the side of the road is huge, must mean that population numbers are pretty high...
I have no issues with a cull. The 'countryside' is largely a manmade construction anyway, and I see no problems with it, and the wildlife in it being managed as a whole..
I'd never seen a badger live or dead until about 15 yrs ago - they became protected in 1992 and numbers have exploded here. If I drove two miles without seeing one by the side of the road it was a rarity. I had one living in a manure heap a few years ago and it was all very nice nature documentary stuff - but if it had TB, I'd have called the vet and had it put down if I could.
Badgers are handsome. Isn't that sufficient explanation of the public's reaction?
The honeybee is far more important to the lives of the average Briton, but its trials and tribulations get nowhere near the same coverage as those of badgers, because they're not big enough or cute enough.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
Hmm I have no idea really what's right or wrong on Syria...and there is not right or wrong answer.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
Laid mesself £11 more of Con maj at 4.2 this morning.
Just a question - given badgers not culled will take over the other's setts - won't the only way to make the cull effective to basically cull all of them ?
I was one of the three MPs who had an hour with Hilary Benn just before he decided against the cull. I'm against it, but think the "are badgers nice or nasty?" and "should we disturb the species balance?" arguments are beside the point. I don't especially favour one species over another but if we go in for widespread slaughter we need to have a clear idea that it will help.
The problem is that one cause of TB in cattle is the transfer (through urine in the ground) of TB by infected badgers. If you kill all badgers, that problem goes away. However, if you only kill badgers in some areas, which is what is being done, you create a vacuum into which other badgers move, some of whom will be infected. So the net effect is to increase badger mobility, speeding up circulation of the disease. That's why the scientific advice was on balance opposed (though the Chief Adviser disagreed).
The problem can be alleviated if you cull a really large, homogenous area (e.g. the entire southwest) 100%, since the movement increase comes in gradually from the margin, and IIRC that's what the Chief Adviser wanted. But The Government isn't proposing to do that, because it's expensive and requires unanimous landowner approval (or emergency legislation).
As with F&M, the problem comes down to money in the end. It would be possible to vaccinate cattle, but they couldn't then be exported since (oddly) there is no test that distinguishes cattle with TB from cattle vaccinated against TB, and the EU won't allow exports if you can't prove the cattle haven't got the disease. A humane alternative is to trap the badgers, inoculate them and release them to defend their territory - this is what's being done in Wales. I assume it's more expensive than the cull.
Is Messina going to get more activists out knocking on doors?
I live in a super marginal that the Tories need to hold. Labour have been sending out canvassing teams three times a week for more than a year. The blues are invisible.
Databases need data and that comes from getting out on the knocker.
What nobody has been able to answer is which segment of those voters currently saying Labour are going to be turned by all of this? Those who voted Labour at GE2010? No. The 2010 LDs now in the Labour camp? Maybe a few on the margins but Labour will still retain the lion's share in the CON-LAB marginals.
With that scenario and the efficient way we know the Labour votes are distributed make it very tough for the Tories who are also going to struggle to take LD seats where the incumbent is standing again.
But will reluctant Labour voters who don't rate Ed pitch up to vote ?
Remember that Labour has the better ground machine in the marginals and will get its vote out there if not so much elsewhere.
BTW Remember our little spat at GE2010 over Watford. You said LD - I said CON. Now I'm backing the yellows to do it at GE2015. I got on at 6/1 which has come in a fair bit since.
And what will Mr Messina's expertise do for the Tories in 2015? I suspect that it will be significant.
Labour/LD ground games may be under real pressure for a change. I hope so.
Bedford - the seat that changed the world. I seem to recall claims that a visit from Lansley caused a decline in Tory votes and that was debunked several times.
Mr. Dugarbandier, those are legitimate concerns, I agree. I do think that giving a species such as deer or badger protected status and watching their population explode is ridiculous, though, and we should do something about it (not necessarily reintroducing wolves).
The really stupid thing is making bats a protected species. They do so much damage to old buildings.
Don't know much about bats - I have them in my roof and a cat caught one a few years ago and brought it in - what amazing creatures they are and so teeny. I always quite fancied a fruit bat as a pet - my Aus tweeters tell me they are very noisy chirruping when roosting despite being silent fliers.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
Hmm I have no idea really what's right or wrong on Syria...and there is not right or wrong answer.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
I guess the same could've been said about the Balkans, or Northern Ireland
The Balkans maybe, but then Syria has much much wider impact, and it's much larger, and you have all sorts of outside interests.
I would disagree with Northern Ireland though, as you have large proportions of both sides wanting to reach a settlement, and the scale and level of violence in NI is/was tiny compared with Syria.
Each situation has its own unique factors, and it's simplistic to say 'oh we did X in Y, so we can do the same here'.
Silly university political games played by people who have very little idea of the real world.
I think you just demonstrated the ultimate in anoraky acronyms there - never heard of it before.
I made it up. Let's see if it enters the lexicon!!
The real point here is how juvenile political debate has become. I blame Tweets, the 24 hour news cycle and our current clique of political leaders who cut their teeth at university and have never operated in the real world
So true - and sadly too much in evidence even on this site at times.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
Not sure Labour can criticise this after the Hague-Thatcher montage. Clearly this pays homage. Does seem to lack the wit of the original though and fails to spot that few people remember Kinnock.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
I guess the same could've been said about the Balkans, or Northern Ireland
The Balkans maybe, but then Syria has much much wider impact, and it's much larger, and you have all sorts of outside interests.
I would disagree with Northern Ireland though, as you have large proportions of both sides wanting to reach a settlement, and the scale and level of violence in NI is/was tiny compared with Syria.
Each situation has its own unique factors, and it's simplistic to say 'oh we did X in Y, so we can do the same here'.
The idea that one part of the world can be left alone with no consequences is a nonsense though, particulary when we drive petrol cars and a NATO member borders Syria. What can be done militarily two years in is a different matter, but the notion that "the West" has no strategic interests in the region doesn't stand up.
I would agree with that, but I should have been clearer in 'nothing to do' in a military sense. Syria is right in the heart of the middle east, has a reasonable army, and outside support from various nations and groups. That's a mindfield (not literally) to be getting stuck in, without a good end result and an exit strategy.
Western nations are even more than ever worried about 'going to war', and that's been growing within society for decades now. That's probably a good thing but it also means we are more hesitant and prone to inaction, and have less of a taste for it, but it means the 'casus belli' must be higher than ever.
1) First, Do No Harm. If we're not sure whether what we are intending to do is going to improve things (whether in Syria or elsewhere), we shouldn't do it. Thanks to Barack Obama's diplomatic ineptness, the USA is now probably going to have to do something in order to keep some credibility in other areas of the world. You can't have red lines and then ignore that they've been crossed. But that's the USA's problem, not ours.
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people. Can we do much about those? If we can neutralise chemical weapons facilities, perhaps. Dropping a few bombs in anger from 30,000 feet may make David Cameron feel good, but it's unlikely to help any Syrians very much. If we are impotent to achieve our aims, then perhaps for once we should admit it. Britain isn't the world's policeman any more, and hasn't been for two or three generations.
3) State our aims. Many Arabs, reasonably, feel that the USA and other western countries have prevaricated. We need to explain what it is we intend to achieve. At least we can then be measured against our words.
1) First, Do No Harm. If we're not sure whether what we are intending to do is going to improve things (whether in Syria or elsewhere), we shouldn't do it. Thanks to Barack Obama's diplomatic ineptness, the USA is now probably going to have to do something in order to keep some credibility in other areas of the world. You can't have red lines and then ignore that they've been crossed. But that's the USA's problem, not ours.
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people. Can we do much about those? If we can neutralise chemical weapons facilities, perhaps. Dropping a few bombs in anger from 30,000 feet may make David Cameron feel good, but it's unlikely to help any Syrians very much. If we are impotent to achieve our aims, then perhaps for once we should admit it. Britain isn't the world's policeman any more, and hasn't been for two or three generations.
3) State our aims. Many Arabs, reasonably, feel that the USA and other western countries have prevaricated. We need to explain what it is we intend to achieve. At least we can then be measured against our words.
Messina -- this Google Tech Talk, entitled "Politicos, Geeks & Kool-Aid Drinkers: Tall Tales of Design Chicanery from inside Obama for America," by someone else on Obama's tech team may give a better idea of the sort of things Messina will be advising on. Try not to be drinking tea (or Kool-Aid) when he mentions the budget was only $1 billion.
http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBSiuVGQECs
I'd expect to see more web and twitter campaigns in the next couple of months about nothing in particular, whose real aim is to harvest contact details of small-c Conservative supporters.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
Hmm I have no idea really what's right or wrong on Syria...and there is not right or wrong answer.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
I guess the same could've been said about the Balkans, or Northern Ireland
"I guess the same could've been said about the Balkans, or Northern Ireland"
The UK getting involved in Northern Ireland the same as interfering in the Balkans or Syria?
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people.
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what the attacks on Ed M are about. To understand what is going on, don't look at the silly photo mock-up, look instead at Michael Gove's speech.
This is about the potentially lethal mistake Ed made over Falkirk and the whole relationship with the unions. Clearly, it's a battle he's not going to win - quite apart from anything else, many, perhaps most, of his colleagues actively support close links with the unions, and they have the history of the Labour Party as a strong argument on their side.
Therefore, what is likely to happen is a face-saving fudge to get him out of the hole - some minor tweaks to the relationship followed by a conference where all sides make (with varying degrees of sincerity) fraternal noises of reconciliation and unity.
When that fudge happens, Labour will try to spin it as a historic victory for Ed. What we are seeeing is a pre-emptive strike to portray it for what it actually will be - a climbdown for Ed, who (unlike Kinnock) failed to take on those challenging his authority. But make no mistake - the reason this flank has been opened is because Ed Miliband opened it himself, quite unnecessarily; before he did that, the attacks on union links were having no effect.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what the attacks on Ed M are about. To understand what is going on, don't look at the silly photo mock-up, look instead at Michael Gove's speech.
This is about the potentially lethal mistake Ed made over Falkirk and the whole relationship with the unions. Clearly, it's a battle he's not going to win - quite apart from anything else, many, perhaps most, of his colleagues actively support close links with the unions, and they have the history of the Labour Party as a strong argument on their side.
Therefore, what is likely to happen is a face-saving fudge to get him out of the hole - some minor tweaks to the relationship followed by a conference where all sides make (with varying degrees of sincerity) fraternal noises of reconciliation and unity.
When that fudge happens, Labour will try to spin it as a historic victory for Ed. What we are seeeing is a pre-emptive strike to portray it for what it actually will be - a climbdown for Ed, who (unlike Kinnock) failed to take on those challenging his authority. But make no mistake - the reason this flank has been opened is because Ed Miliband opened it himself, quite unnecessarily; before he did that, the attacks on union links were having no effect.
True but really this is a Westminster Village story. What Labour and Conservative SpAds and spinners have missed is that most voters could not find Falkirk on a map, and will neither know nor care what happened there.
True but really this is a Westminster Village story. What Labour and Conservative SpAds and spinners have missed is that most voters could not find Falkirk on a map, and will neither know nor care what happened there.
Absolutely, which is why it is so odd that Ed M made such a fuss about it. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately using it as a pretext.
On Syria, we have no business interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. It was folly for the United States to state that the use of chemical weapons marked a red line. Would the slaughter of a million people be acceptable if done by machete?
On badgers, it is manifestly absurd that a person should need a licence from the Secretary of State to destroy a badger on his property, but not a licence if he wishes to destroy other vermin (rats, cats etc.) It is also extraordinary that to have a live badger in one's possession or under one's control is a criminal offence, but that the keeping of a live cat is thought to be the birthright of an Englishman.
Just re-reading the relevant legislation, and it turns out that a constable has the power under section 11 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to stop and search without a warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect has a live badger in his possession or under his control, and to seize and detain any badger found as a result. Weren't the coalition supposed to be in favour of protecting civil liberties?
Messina -- this Google Tech Talk, entitled "Politicos, Geeks & Kool-Aid Drinkers: Tall Tales of Design Chicanery from inside Obama for America," by someone else on Obama's tech team may give a better idea of the sort of things Messina will be advising on. Try not to be drinking tea (or Kool-Aid) when he mentions the budget was only $1 billion.
I'd expect to see more web and twitter campaigns in the next couple of months about nothing in particular, whose real aim is to harvest contact details of small-c Conservative supporters.
web and twitter campaigns about nothing in particular -> and there was such a shortage of those
Just re-reading the relevant legislation, and it turns out that a constable has the power under section 11 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to stop and search without a warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect has a live badger in his possession or under his control, and to seize and detain any badger found as a result. Weren't the coalition supposed to be in favour of protecting civil liberties?
I'm as keen on civil liberties as just about any poster on this site, but even I can't get worked up on behalf of melophiles.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what the attacks on Ed M are about. To understand what is going on, don't look at the silly photo mock-up, look instead at Michael Gove's speech.
This is about the potentially lethal mistake Ed made over Falkirk and the whole relationship with the unions. Clearly, it's a battle he's not going to win - quite apart from anything else, many, perhaps most, of his colleagues actively support close links with the unions, and they have the history of the Labour Party as a strong argument on their side.
Therefore, what is likely to happen is a face-saving fudge to get him out of the hole - some minor tweaks to the relationship followed by a conference where all sides make (with varying degrees of sincerity) fraternal noises of reconciliation and unity.
When that fudge happens, Labour will try to spin it as a historic victory for Ed. What we are seeeing is a pre-emptive strike to portray it for what it actually will be - a climbdown for Ed, who (unlike Kinnock) failed to take on those challenging his authority. But make no mistake - the reason this flank has been opened is because Ed Miliband opened it himself, quite unnecessarily; before he did that, the attacks on union links were having no effect.
True but really this is a Westminster Village story. What Labour and Conservative SpAds and spinners have missed is that most voters could not find Falkirk on a map, and will neither know nor care what happened there.
I think Clinton regretted non intervention in Rwanda. iirc.
If the test for intervention is to be measured objectively by the number of people a regime slaughters, rather than the way it slaughters them (as Cameron et al. argue), then will those in support of intervention tell us what is the magic number of deaths needed to justify intervention?
What nobody has been able to answer is which segment of those voters currently saying Labour are going to be turned by all of this? Those who voted Labour at GE2010? No.
It is tempting to imagine that, because Labour were down below 30%, their 2010 voters were all rock-solid loyal core voters - but that may not be the case.
There may be a substantial slice of those voters who voted for Brown because he was a known quantity, the incumbent Prime Minister, and they were fearful of change at an uncertain time. If these Labour 2010 voters did exist then they are the people who could be turned by a campaign that demeans Miliband.
Ming on Sky:- 'one of the most dangerous statements in military strategy is "something must be done"'
'Cameron cannot commit the UK to military action without parliament having its say'
'International law say intervention is only justified if things are going to be better as a result.'
'Remember Blair's carnage in Iraq'
1. Alternatively you say "nothing can be done" and regimes like Assad's know there are no limits to which they can go in order to hold on to power. Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? Is there no point in which the world say's "enough is enough?"
2. As we don't have a constitution is this really true? I always thought as long as the Prime Minister had consent of the Monarch he could wage war against whoever he liked?
3. "Better" is a point of view. How can you possibly define it?
4. It's ironic that we went to war to rid a country of WMD when they didn't have it and now we're prevaricating about going to war with a country that clearly does have it.
BTW, I'm neither for or against an assault on Syria, but there is a debate to be had.
This is about the potentially lethal mistake Ed made over Falkirk and the whole relationship with the unions. Clearly, it's a battle he's not going to win
(1) No more default opt in to funding Labour for trade union members; needs to be a deliberate choice. (2) People choosing to contribute this way would become full members of the party. (3) More ordinary working people as candidates. (4) New code of conduct for parliamentary selections. (5) Spending limits for parliamentary selections covering everyone (ie trade unions - including for leadership elections, ha!). (6) Standard constituency agreements with trade unions. (7) Limit on outside earnings for MPs. (8) New rules on conflict of interest for MPs. (9) Open primary for London mayoral candidate. (10) Cap on donations.
Which of 1 to 10 above do you think was a potentially lethal mistake that he is going to be unable to get through?
True but really this is a Westminster Village story. What Labour and Conservative SpAds and spinners have missed is that most voters could not find Falkirk on a map, and will neither know nor care what happened there.
Absolutely, which is why it is so odd that Ed M made such a fuss about it. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately using it as a pretext.
It is now widely accepted by the political classes that each new leader needs a "clause 4 moment" and some inept Labour SpAd decided this was to be Ed's.
You will doubtless recall Michael Portillo, in similar vein, urging David Cameron to pick a fight with his backbenchers. Has it helped?
Perhaps it was even part of Clegg's reasoning for reneging on tuition fees, which imo will cost LibDems many seats in 2015.
I'm not even sure voters gave a damn about the original clause 4 moment. As Blair himself said, no-one really believed Labour planned to nationalise "the means of production, distribution and exchange".
It is all part of what SO called the JCRisation of politics.
A humane alternative is to trap the badgers, inoculate them and release them to defend their territory
I suppose you come across this proposal a lot working in the field you do, but the obvious solution would be to arm and train the innoculated badgers so they could take over the territory of the uninnoculated ones.
@GIN1138 (1) It is worth remembering that we fought the Second World War because the German Reich invaded one of our allies, not because of how the German Reich managed its internal affairs. We later allied with the Soviet Empire, one of the most murderous regimes in history. (2) The powers to declare war and command the armed forces of the Crown are prerogative powers, but in practice, no government can wage war without the consent of the House of Commons.
Ming on Sky:- 'one of the most dangerous statements in military strategy is "something must be done"'
'Cameron cannot commit the UK to military action without parliament having its say'
'International law say intervention is only justified if things are going to be better as a result.'
'Remember Blair's carnage in Iraq'
1. Alternatively you say "nothing can be done" and regimes like Assad's know there are no limits to which they can go in order to hold on to power. Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? Is there no point in which the world say's "enough is enough?"
2. As we don't have a constitution is this really true? I always thought as long as the Prime Minister had consent of the Monarch he could wage war against whoever he liked?
3. "Better" is a point of view. How can you possibly define it?
4. It's ironic that we went to war to rid a country of WMD when they didn't have it and now we're prevaricating about going to war with a country that clearly does have it.
BTW, I'm neither for or against an assault on Syria, but there is a debate to be had.
The public has a strong distaste for 'doing what needs to be done' however. War is a dirty business, and innocents are always likely to get caught in the middle. I don't want to see British Soliders branded as war criminals by the usual suspects just for doing an impossible job.
Obama had his red lines, they've been passed. If he doesn't follow through in some way now, then the US should just stop being the worlds policemen, as it has no teeth. But that doesn't mean we have to get involved.
@GIN1138 (1) It is worth remembering that we fought the Second World War because the German Reich invaded one of our allies, not because of how the German Reich managed its internal affairs. We later allied with the Soviet Empire, one of the most murderous regimes in history. (2) The powers to declare war and command the armed forces of the Crown are prerogative powers, but in practice, no government can wage war without the consent of the House of Commons.
I do wonder what would have happened if Hitler has kept his actions internally inside Germany (ie final solution etc)... would we still have declared war on him?
@Neil - 1, 5, 7, 10, but, more to the point, the overall message was 'Ed the Dragon Slayer', and what will be delivered is that the dragon will remain in rude health. Of course Ed's friends will try to spin the line that he never really intended to slay the dragon, just trim its toenails a bit, and that anyway it's not really a dragon, more like a cuddly panda; but by originally portraying this as a mortal battle, he has set himself up to be portrayed in turn as frit (whatever the actual outcome) - unlike even Kinnock.
I do wonder what would have happened if Hitler has kept his actions internally inside Germany (ie final solution etc)... would we still have declared war on him? Maybe we wouldn't have.
An interesting counter-factual, although the final solution was, of course, itself a product of the Second World War. But those who argue in principle that an intervention in Syria is acceptable must agree that the People's Republic of China has a right to intervene in the United Kingdom, if it judges that the Queen's Peace is being poorly kept in the Rhondda.
Ming on Sky:- 'one of the most dangerous statements in military strategy is "something must be done"'
'Cameron cannot commit the UK to military action without parliament having its say'
'International law say intervention is only justified if things are going to be better as a result.'
'Remember Blair's carnage in Iraq'
1. Alternatively you say "nothing can be done" and regimes like Assad's know there are no limits to which they can go in order to hold on to power. Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? Is there no point in which the world say's "enough is enough?"
2. As we don't have a constitution is this really true? I always thought as long as the Prime Minister had consent of the Monarch he could wage war against whoever he liked?
3. "Better" is a point of view. How can you possibly define it?
4. It's ironic that we went to war to rid a country of WMD when they didn't have it and now we're prevaricating about going to war with a country that clearly does have it.
BTW, I'm neither for or against an assault on Syria, but there is a debate to be had.
The public has a strong distaste for 'doing what needs to be done' however. War is a dirty business, and innocents are always likely to get caught in the middle. I don't want to see British Soliders branded as war criminals by the usual suspects just for doing an impossible job.
Obama had his red lines, they've been passed. If he doesn't follow through in some way now, then the US should just stop being the worlds policemen, as it has no teeth. But that doesn't mean we have to get involved.
The question is whether the red line was crossed by Assad (who gains nothing from killing a lot of non-combatants while he was winning anyway but stands to lose everything by provoking America to topple him) or by opposition forces who are already known to have nerve gasses.
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people. Can we do much about those? If we can neutralise chemical weapons facilities, perhaps. Dropping a few bombs in anger from 30,000 feet may make David Cameron feel good, but it's unlikely to help any Syrians very much. If we are impotent to achieve our aims, then perhaps for once we should admit it. Britain isn't the world's policeman any more, and hasn't been for two or three generations.
In this situation it's the refugees in the border camps who often get overlooked. There are lots of Syrian refugees in Turkey and Jordan now, and there's much that could be done to help them, but it is a lot less glamorous than sending the fighter jets in, and serves only to ameliorate rather than solve the problem.
It depends on what people are prepared to accept in terms of intervention. Iraq and Afghan both failed for want of boots on the ground (in Iraq even the Anbar Awakening was problematic not to say a crutch for the allies); in Afghan we didn't even ask the right question, let alone have any of the answers.
In order to "solve" the problems of Syria and other ME states we would need to dominate the ground and forcefully create the kind of government we think is best (begging the question best for whom).
But the overwhelming problems that "The West" faces are: the disconnect between the resources required to address properly the Syria issue and those that the Western nations are prepared to commit; the notion of invading and subsequently ruling by proxy a sovereign state; and the shape of a longer term solution in the absence of a commitment to stay forever or at least for a long time.
We are of course about to face just such a problem in Afghan and in that theatre there are no good solutions or outcomes, just least awful ones.
more to the point, the overall message was 'Ed the Dragon Slayer', and what will be delivered is that the dragon will remain in rude health. Of course Ed's friends will try to spin the line that he never really intended to slay the dragon
But if he does achieve everything he said he would in that speech (everything internal anyway, obviously issues like MP earnings etc. require a majority in Parliament) you of course will accept that he won the battle and not try to spin it as a major setback...
EdM on his own is bad enough, why associate him, as people have said, with in his day a powerful operator who, but for an alright here and a whoa there might have been a decent enough PM in the early 90s.
Plus Kinnock doesn't have such recognition that a forehead will make people say: "oh, him".
But if he does achieve everything he said he would in that speech (everything internal anyway, obviously issues like MP earnings etc. require a majority in Parliament) you of course will accept that he won the battle and not try to spin it as a major setback...
Well, if I were a Tory spinner, I'd spin it as a major setback, on the basis that nothing has changed, the unions still run the show, Ed is weak and just made a lot of noise without really changing anything, and that he couldn't even match Kinnock in leadership. And I'd write speeches now to prepare the ground for that spin line, very much along the lines of what Michael Gove is saying.
But if he does achieve everything he said he would in that speech (everything internal anyway, obviously issues like MP earnings etc. require a majority in Parliament) you of course will accept that he won the battle and not try to spin it as a major setback...
Well, if I were a Tory spinner, I'd spin it as a major setback, on the basis that nothing has changed, the unions still run the show, Ed is weak and just made a lot of noise wiithout really changing anything, and that he couldn't even match Kinnock in leadership. And I'd write speeches now to prepare the ground for that spin line, very much along the lines of what Michael Gove is saying.
Whereas the reality is that he set out very clearly what he intended to do in the speech and we can all judge for ourselves whether he actually achieves it or not by the time the special conference closes.
But you are right to highlight the nefarious misdeeds of the Tory spinners!
EdM on his own is bad enough, why associate him, as people have said, with in his day a powerful operator who, but for an alright here and a whoa there might have been a decent enough PM in the early 90s.
Plus Kinnock doesn't have such recognition that a forehead will make people say: "oh, him".
Bin it Lynton.
Those who vote most remember Kinnock - not keen on this tactic myself but its not without merit during Silly Season.
Ridiculous and really puts me off the perpetrators. Who but political wonks remember who Mr Kinnock is/was? Still, it will probably help Mr Miliband into No 10 - anything that raises his profile painlessly has to be a good thing in that respect. Reminiscent of their image of Mr Blair.
But if he does achieve everything he said he would in that speech (everything internal anyway, obviously issues like MP earnings etc. require a majority in Parliament) you of course will accept that he won the battle and not try to spin it as a major setback...
Well, if I were a Tory spinner, I'd spin it as a major setback, on the basis that nothing has changed, the unions still run the show, Ed is weak and just made a lot of noise without really changing anything, and that he couldn't even match Kinnock in leadership. And I'd write speeches now to prepare the ground for that spin line, very much along the lines of what Michael Gove is saying.
Michael Gove is saying that Rowenna Davis is a Militant entryist, he needs to keep out of the sun.
A humane alternative is to trap the badgers, inoculate them and release them to defend their territory
I suppose you come across this proposal a lot working in the field you do, but the obvious solution would be to arm and train the innoculated badgers so they could take over the territory of the uninnoculated ones.
But that raises the terrifying prospect of a radicalised badger 9/11.
Comments
Most people can see through this and it won't work. Ed Miliband is not the best candidate for PM at the moment and he has work to do to gain the trust of more people, so that Labour can form the next government.
Labour/LD ground games may be under real pressure for a change. I hope so.
Mr. Dugarbandier, those are legitimate concerns, I agree. I do think that giving a species such as deer or badger protected status and watching their population explode is ridiculous, though, and we should do something about it (not necessarily reintroducing wolves).
In NZ they were introduced in the 19th Century, and are pests not just to cattle but also native trees and animals. They know to avoid humans and are only seen dead on roads. Universally they are seen as pests.
In NZ there are feral cats, goats and pigs in the bush, all pests that are hunted because of threats to indigenous species. The truly stupid did not stop there, some idiot introduced wasps, which are a major nuisance in Nelson!
I have no issues with a cull. The 'countryside' is largely a manmade construction anyway, and I see no problems with it, and the wildlife in it being managed as a whole..
"Last week, I was accused of being “utterly hypocritical” because my land management agent had licensed a gamekeeper to cull deer on my forest land in Dorset. The gamekeeper in question, no longer employed by us, boasted that he had killed 23 young animals purely “for sport”. The part about deer control is true – but the latter claim is shocking to me.
For years, I have been a staunch opponent of the proposed badger cull, and I am firmly against all forms of cruelty to animals. But there is a vast difference between culling deer and massacring badgers. The two have very different aims. I acted on the best available advice in allowing deer culling for a limited time on my property, for the health and safety of the herd – and, as an animal rights campaigner, I certainly have no reason to apologise..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/9714195/Brian-May-the-deer-cull-on-my-land-was-not-hypocritical-but-humane.html
Venison's a bit dear isn't it.
I'll get my coat.
Is Messina going to get more activists out knocking on doors?
I live in a super marginal that the Tories need to hold. Labour have been sending out canvassing teams three times a week for more than a year. The blues are invisible.
Databases need data and that comes from getting out on the knocker.
Presumably Labour is ultimately going to oppose military intervention? Anything else would be hard to square with the repentance on Iraq (and potentially leave the peacenik vote vulnerable to attack from the Greens and Respect). And surely Nick Clegg is going to have to yank on William Hague's choke chain sometime soon?
The honeybee is far more important to the lives of the average Briton, but its trials and tribulations get nowhere near the same coverage as those of badgers, because they're not big enough or cute enough.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2402329/Immature-advisers-moral-indignation-folly-wading-bloody-morass.html
Just a question - given badgers not culled will take over the other's setts - won't the only way to make the cull effective to basically cull all of them ?
The problem is that one cause of TB in cattle is the transfer (through urine in the ground) of TB by infected badgers. If you kill all badgers, that problem goes away. However, if you only kill badgers in some areas, which is what is being done, you create a vacuum into which other badgers move, some of whom will be infected. So the net effect is to increase badger mobility, speeding up circulation of the disease. That's why the scientific advice was on balance opposed (though the Chief Adviser disagreed).
The problem can be alleviated if you cull a really large, homogenous area (e.g. the entire southwest) 100%, since the movement increase comes in gradually from the margin, and IIRC that's what the Chief Adviser wanted. But The Government isn't proposing to do that, because it's expensive and requires unanimous landowner approval (or emergency legislation).
As with F&M, the problem comes down to money in the end. It would be possible to vaccinate cattle, but they couldn't then be exported since (oddly) there is no test that distinguishes cattle with TB from cattle vaccinated against TB, and the EU won't allow exports if you can't prove the cattle haven't got the disease. A humane alternative is to trap the badgers, inoculate them and release them to defend their territory - this is what's being done in Wales. I assume it's more expensive than the cull.
If only it returned a LD MP.
The big ones have a 2ft wing-span!!
The suggested cost of vaccinating and releasing badgers in Wales is over £3k per badger - even if this is 90% inaccurate - its uneconomic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10266250/Timpson-has-key-to-giving-ex-convicts-second-chance.html
I would disagree with Northern Ireland though, as you have large proportions of both sides wanting to reach a settlement, and the scale and level of violence in NI is/was tiny compared with Syria.
Each situation has its own unique factors, and it's simplistic to say 'oh we did X in Y, so we can do the same here'.
The Middle East is just an entire ****hole, and a grim indictment of the human race. Until people stop killing each other over sky-fairies, or what one group of people a thousand years ago did, or didn't do, then it's not going to sort itself out, if it ever will.
We should have as little as possible to do with it, whilst still being able to look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning...
Absolutely spot on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hs2-is-a-giant-folly-and-should-be-scrapped-warns-iod-8785139.html
Tokyo down 0.5%
London down 0.9%
Paris down 1.4%
Frankfurt down 1.5%
Moscow down 1.5%
Bombay down 3.2%
Something up?
US intervention in Syrian civil war spooking the markets?
Western nations are even more than ever worried about 'going to war', and that's been growing within society for decades now. That's probably a good thing but it also means we are more hesitant and prone to inaction, and have less of a taste for it, but it means the 'casus belli' must be higher than ever.
1) First, Do No Harm. If we're not sure whether what we are intending to do is going to improve things (whether in Syria or elsewhere), we shouldn't do it. Thanks to Barack Obama's diplomatic ineptness, the USA is now probably going to have to do something in order to keep some credibility in other areas of the world. You can't have red lines and then ignore that they've been crossed. But that's the USA's problem, not ours.
2) Work out what our interest is, and stick to securing that. The sole British interest that I identify that we can clearly pursue is the humanitarian one of minimising the suffering of the Syrian people. Can we do much about those? If we can neutralise chemical weapons facilities, perhaps. Dropping a few bombs in anger from 30,000 feet may make David Cameron feel good, but it's unlikely to help any Syrians very much. If we are impotent to achieve our aims, then perhaps for once we should admit it. Britain isn't the world's policeman any more, and hasn't been for two or three generations.
3) State our aims. Many Arabs, reasonably, feel that the USA and other western countries have prevaricated. We need to explain what it is we intend to achieve. At least we can then be measured against our words.
4) Not be distracted.
http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBSiuVGQECs
I'd expect to see more web and twitter campaigns in the next couple of months about nothing in particular, whose real aim is to harvest contact details of small-c Conservative supporters.
"I guess the same could've been said about the Balkans, or Northern Ireland"
The UK getting involved in Northern Ireland the same as interfering in the Balkans or Syria?
http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Iran-Iraq-Syria-Pipeline-Must-Tempt-Europe.html
Does ANYONE actually have an answer ?
Ie get frackking..
Syria is a tragedy, but apart from humanitarian aid, there is nothing useful that we can do there.
Intervening as the worlds policeman was something that should have gone out with Empire.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about what the attacks on Ed M are about. To understand what is going on, don't look at the silly photo mock-up, look instead at Michael Gove's speech.
This is about the potentially lethal mistake Ed made over Falkirk and the whole relationship with the unions. Clearly, it's a battle he's not going to win - quite apart from anything else, many, perhaps most, of his colleagues actively support close links with the unions, and they have the history of the Labour Party as a strong argument on their side.
Therefore, what is likely to happen is a face-saving fudge to get him out of the hole - some minor tweaks to the relationship followed by a conference where all sides make (with varying degrees of sincerity) fraternal noises of reconciliation and unity.
When that fudge happens, Labour will try to spin it as a historic victory for Ed. What we are seeeing is a pre-emptive strike to portray it for what it actually will be - a climbdown for Ed, who (unlike Kinnock) failed to take on those challenging his authority. But make no mistake - the reason this flank has been opened is because Ed Miliband opened it himself, quite unnecessarily; before he did that, the attacks on union links were having no effect.
'one of the most dangerous statements in military strategy is "something must be done"'
'Cameron cannot commit the UK to military action without parliament having its say'
'International law say intervention is only justified if things are going to be better as a result.'
'Remember Blair's carnage in Iraq'
On badgers, it is manifestly absurd that a person should need a licence from the Secretary of State to destroy a badger on his property, but not a licence if he wishes to destroy other vermin (rats, cats etc.) It is also extraordinary that to have a live badger in one's possession or under one's control is a criminal offence, but that the keeping of a live cat is thought to be the birthright of an Englishman.
Oh yes, 11/2 at Paddy Power.
There may be a substantial slice of those voters who voted for Brown because he was a known quantity, the incumbent Prime Minister, and they were fearful of change at an uncertain time. If these Labour 2010 voters did exist then they are the people who could be turned by a campaign that demeans Miliband.
2. As we don't have a constitution is this really true? I always thought as long as the Prime Minister had consent of the Monarch he could wage war against whoever he liked?
3. "Better" is a point of view. How can you possibly define it?
4. It's ironic that we went to war to rid a country of WMD when they didn't have it and now we're prevaricating about going to war with a country that clearly does have it.
BTW, I'm neither for or against an assault on Syria, but there is a debate to be had.
Glad to see they incorporate voter fraud by having 101% vote.
(1) No more default opt in to funding Labour for trade union members; needs to be a deliberate choice.
(2) People choosing to contribute this way would become full members of the party.
(3) More ordinary working people as candidates.
(4) New code of conduct for parliamentary selections.
(5) Spending limits for parliamentary selections covering everyone (ie trade unions - including for leadership elections, ha!).
(6) Standard constituency agreements with trade unions.
(7) Limit on outside earnings for MPs.
(8) New rules on conflict of interest for MPs.
(9) Open primary for London mayoral candidate.
(10) Cap on donations.
Which of 1 to 10 above do you think was a potentially lethal mistake that he is going to be unable to get through?
You will doubtless recall Michael Portillo, in similar vein, urging David Cameron to pick a fight with his backbenchers. Has it helped?
Perhaps it was even part of Clegg's reasoning for reneging on tuition fees, which imo will cost LibDems many seats in 2015.
I'm not even sure voters gave a damn about the original clause 4 moment. As Blair himself said, no-one really believed Labour planned to nationalise "the means of production, distribution and exchange".
It is all part of what SO called the JCRisation of politics.
(1) It is worth remembering that we fought the Second World War because the German Reich invaded one of our allies, not because of how the German Reich managed its internal affairs. We later allied with the Soviet Empire, one of the most murderous regimes in history.
(2) The powers to declare war and command the armed forces of the Crown are prerogative powers, but in practice, no government can wage war without the consent of the House of Commons.
Obama had his red lines, they've been passed. If he doesn't follow through in some way now, then the US should just stop being the worlds policemen, as it has no teeth. But that doesn't mean we have to get involved.
Maybe we wouldn't have.
I would say we could get a "rogue" poll giving the Conservatives a lead at any point now!
When you have polls that give Labour a 3% lead, clearly we're almost within MOE for of a possible Tory lead.
However, for consistent Tory leads and the Tories taking a definite lead on voting intention graphs, I'll say Q4 2014 or Q1 2015.
Cui bono?
In order to "solve" the problems of Syria and other ME states we would need to dominate the ground and forcefully create the kind of government we think is best (begging the question best for whom).
But the overwhelming problems that "The West" faces are: the disconnect between the resources required to address properly the Syria issue and those that the Western nations are prepared to commit; the notion of invading and subsequently ruling by proxy a sovereign state; and the shape of a longer term solution in the absence of a commitment to stay forever or at least for a long time.
We are of course about to face just such a problem in Afghan and in that theatre there are no good solutions or outcomes, just least awful ones.
EdM on his own is bad enough, why associate him, as people have said, with in his day a powerful operator who, but for an alright here and a whoa there might have been a decent enough PM in the early 90s.
Plus Kinnock doesn't have such recognition that a forehead will make people say: "oh, him".
Bin it Lynton.
But you are right to highlight the nefarious misdeeds of the Tory spinners!
Toughen up, Scottish nationalists, and stop playing nice
Yes campaigners will have to change their tactics to counteract Better Together's negativity
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/25/toughen-up-scottish-nationalists-mckenna
Also worth backing the Aussies to win the one day series
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23850063
*I know he's captained them before
Its symptoms are an affected statesmanship, acting in concert with the world's most powerful people and mobilising Britain's armed forces.
Decisions made whilst under the influence of Churchill's delusion are rarely if ever beneficial.
He needs to see a political doctor, now.
http://t.co/QyYGcootg5
And exactly how many Irishmen do England need in their squad for them to feel happy with their chances of winning there?
England v Ireland in the 2011 World Cup was one of PB's most profitable afternoons.
Men: Con 37% Lab 34%
Women: Con 29% Lab 40%
Unusually, the SNP are doing better among women than men in that poll.
Press Gazette @pressgazette
Guardian withdraws Japanese eyeball licking story - but debunked tale remains live on Sun, Mail and Telegraph ow.ly/oiKGY