I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Yeah, the headline writes itself... "Political party in claims-it-is-good-at-everything-and-opponents-bad-at-everything shocker compounded by attempt to make sure it is presented in best light. Supporters of other party cry hypocrisy."
''An enterprising bookmaker should launch a market on how long Dacre survives. ''
Personally I'd like to bet on when we get the headline 'who the f8ck does ed miliband think he is?'
A dictator complex before he's even got to government (is it OK if I say that, Ed?)
Hopefully the electorate will be able to smell it a mile off.
One for the archive of perpetual PB Tory misjudjment.
Nothing in politics is perpetual.
EdM is moving towards the end of the road on this one.
Be outraged at outrageous DM/MOS behaviour? Yep Wring it so that eveyone knows and DM/MOS accept they were outrageous? Yep also. Let the DM/MOS get back to their sordid (but slightly more careful) ways? Yep. Keep on and on on this one horse when he should retire a graceful winner with plenty of cross party support, both voters & MPs? Nope
" Daily Mail parliamentary sketch writer Quentin Letts last night said Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.
In a defiant defence of his newspaper on BBC Question Time, the columnist admitted the Daily Mail was never going to be popular among some sections of society.
The pundit also disassociated his paper from the Mail on Sunday’s botched attempt to doorstep members of Ed Miliband’s family at a memorial service for his uncle this week.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Yeah, the headline writes itself... "Political party in claims-it-is-good-at-everything-and-opponents-bad-at-everything shocker compounded by attempt to make sure it is presented in best light. Supporters of other party cry hypocrisy."
Just "Hypocrites" would be a more pithy headline, but your more detailed version is perfectly accurate, I agree.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Yeah, the headline writes itself... "Political party in claims-it-is-good-at-everything-and-opponents-bad-at-everything shocker compounded by attempt to make sure it is presented in best light. Supporters of other party cry hypocrisy."
Just "Hypocrites" would be a more pithy headline, but your more detailed version is perfectly accurate, I agree.
Yes, I mean it's a shame that English has separate words for "public political discourse" and "hypocrisy" but I guess the distinction may have served a purpose some time back.
The US won't default, they will prioritise debt repayment and interest payments over all other spending, even if it means shutting down social security and other mandatory spending programmes. Just one week of that and Congress will fall in line.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Yeah, the headline writes itself... "Political party in claims-it-is-good-at-everything-and-opponents-bad-at-everything shocker compounded by attempt to make sure it is presented in best light. Supporters of other party cry hypocrisy."
You appear to have me down as a supporter of a particular party, that is not and will never be the case.
I am far to independently minded for that old crap.
How about you P, you a supporter of a particular party?
Care to comment on what you think about Labour trying to keep us in the dark about health care failings whilst claiming the NHS is only safe in their hands?
Yes, I mean it's a shame that English has separate words for "public political discourse" and "hypocrisy" but I guess the distinction may have served a purpose some time back.
There may be exceptional cases where the distinction has merit, but in everyday usage they pretty much blur everywhere on the political spectrum. See Palmer, Nick et al for conveniently accessible specific examples.
Tim - You appear to be violating the site rules and talking about posts by Plato.
Please confirm you haven't forgotten that rule.
Because if you have, we will be happy to place all your comments automatically in the pending folder, then release thm when the moderators check the pending folder every few hours.
Andrew Bolt in Oz notices the same thing - he's an excellent read.
"If academics change the teaching of history to suit the Left, that’s called reforming the curriculum. In fact, it’s considered so normal it usually passes without comment.
Tim - You appear to be violating the site rules and talking about posts by Plato.
Please confirm you haven't forgotten that rule.
Because if you have, we will be happy to place all your comments in the pending folder, then released when the moderator checks the pending folder every few hours.
I haven't forgotten
So why did you violate the rule.
Any more violations, and your posting privileges will be suspended for a few days.
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Well, that's a Quent quote; anything from the rooted-through quotational bins of Ralph Miliband?
Conservatives are winning the war of words on the NHS At this autumn's party conferences, health secretary Jeremy Hunt's speech was aimed squarely at the voters while Labour's Andy Burnham wrote his for the party faithful
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Well, that's a Quent quote; anything from the rooted-through quotational bins of Ralph Miliband?
UD - I'd take QL's word for it for no other reason than life is surely too short for anyone else actually to read this miserable tome containing a dreary manifesto of failed leftism....
Miss Plato, that's correct, and part of the wider approach of the left. It's why they're better at presentation, PR, spin and smear. They better understand the power of language. In short, they're better able to manipulate the rules by which the game is played and often prefer to do so rather than compete 'fairly'.
[This is half-criticism, half-admiration. Historical revisionism and smearing are despicable, but the left is also superior when it comes to the 'good' use of language in making arguments in a better way].
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Well, that's a Quent quote; anything from the rooted-through quotational bins of Ralph Miliband?
UD - I'd take QL's word for it for no other reason than life is surely too short for anyone else actually to read this miserable tome containing a dreary manifesto of failed leftism....
So that's it, the source is Quentin Letts? LOL.
If it means not reading this book of dismal statism then yeah whatever tim..
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
What is the punishment for rhetorical tautology ?
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
I'm considering petitioning Mike & RCS for a a button that labels a post "It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos".
The telegraph is now detailing possible invasions of privacy of David Cameron by the press, including going through his bins in 2007 and potential smears of his deceased father.
Does Ed Miliband think the papers involved should be reviewing their practices? Conducting internal enquiries?
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Well, that's a Quent quote; anything from the rooted-through quotational bins of Ralph Miliband?
UD - I'd take QL's word for it for no other reason than life is surely too short for anyone else actually to read this miserable tome containing a dreary manifesto of failed leftism....
So that's it, the source is Quentin Letts? LOL.
If it means not reading this book of dismal statism then yeah whatever tim..
I thought you might like to research it along with your claim that Himmler rather than Hess landed in Scotland
Oh dear - did your lionising of a tug boat deckhand render your irony meter useless ?
Interesting that you have QL down as a liar with no evidence to the contrary - not surprising but interesting..
A lot of Ralph Milibands writings are to be found here, and are surprisingly readable for a marxist academic. He expresses himself better than either son, though is clearly to the left of either politically: http://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Repeating what Letts said isn't a source, what's the source for Miliband wanting Britain to lose.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Yeah, the headline writes itself... "Political party in claims-it-is-good-at-everything-and-opponents-bad-at-everything shocker compounded by attempt to make sure it is presented in best light. Supporters of other party cry hypocrisy."
You appear to have me down as a supporter of a particular party, that is not and will never be the case.
I am far to independently minded for that old crap.
How about you P, you a supporter of a particular party?
Care to comment on what you think about Labour trying to keep us in the dark about health care failings whilst claiming the NHS is only safe in their hands?
Yeah, fair questions. I wouldn't necessarily pin you as supporting a particular party but had got the impression that (like many on here) you are substantially less likely to support Labour than the other alternative. Whether that's accurate or not in your case, it's similar to my position which is that I'm not affiliated to any party and have never been a member, but the Tories are such a long way from my political instincts that I'm instinctively more hostile towards them than other parties.
On the specific point, I don't think it's great that our politics work like that but I don't find it surprising. It wouldn't affect my likelihood to vote for Labour because I would expect any government to have behaved in that way. I do appreciate that some people attribute a particular type of self-righteousness to Labour's claims which they see as justifying accusations of hypocrisy, but I don't really agree with that. The game's as old as Parliamentary politics: I used to think it was a product of broadcast media but then read Trollope's political novels and realised the shape of the discourse was the same in the 1870s. I'd vote for the party that I think is most likely to do what I want done - of course everyone does that, but what I mean is that I don't have to like or approve of the fact that the party is involved in a grubby game of politics in order to do that stuff.
Conservatives are winning the war of words on the NHS At this autumn's party conferences, health secretary Jeremy Hunt's speech was aimed squarely at the voters while Labour's Andy Burnham wrote his for the party faithful
o/t Almost obligatory reports of "low turnout" so far in the referendums in Ireland. Isnt turnout always low before people get out of work? The reports certainly dont tempt me to take a position on Paddy Power's turnout market (personally I think the 11/10 on > 33.5% represents a little value but not enough to bother about).
"I'm disappointed we didn't hear the same outrage when the Guardian attacked David Cameron's father when he passed away after a completely spurious piece or the Mirror went through the dustbins of David Cameron to unearth the nappies of his disabled son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me that this should apply across the field."
"Forty years later, Professor Miliband's rage at the Falklands war and his accurate observation that it would strengthen the hand of Margaret Thatcher were equally a part of the contemporary discourse."
"Forty years later, Professor Miliband's rage at the Falklands war and his accurate observation that it would strengthen the hand of Margaret Thatcher were equally a part of the contemporary discourse."
It talks about his view of the occurrence of the war, not his hopes for the outcome, so a little unsure what you're getting at. I'm also not convinced that wanting your country to lose an unjust war (to be completely clear, I'm not saying I think the Falklands was an unjust war) means you hate your country. You can love your country but think it picked the wrong fight and needs to be forced out of it.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Thanks Robert, that's a good extension of my point. Countries have (tried to) control flooding long before the EU turned up, and have also traditionally been able to pick up the telephone (email / letter / parchment / flaming watchtower - delete as appropriate) to the country next door quite easily without needing a layer of politicians above both.
Not politicians as such, but the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine is one of the oldest international institutions with a permanent staff, dating back to 1815 (though I don't know whether it was permanently staffed that far back).
They would have been a bit busy blowing each other up at that point.
I haven't commented on the Miliband/Mail affair (not that that will stop tim lumping me in with others). I thought the original Mail article (which I read) was, as someone else might say, "an inverted pyramid of piffle".
Ed was right to go to his father's defence, certainly on the basis of that article. But the points that strike me are:
- that both Cameron and Clegg rapidly went to Ed's defence might be the decent thing to do, but did rather play to the argument that all politicians are alike - all looking to defend their own reputations. Would have been more of a party political event if say Farage had taken the Mail's side...
- the alacrity of the response by Ed to the trashing of a family member's reputation was in stark contrast to his silence over the trashing of the reputation of his Labour Party colleagues when in Government. I did idly mull over whether Ed would have been so prompt to demand a reply if the Mail had been trashing his brother's reputation courtesy of lines fed from one Mr. McBride...
- Ed has clearly now got a defence of "well, they would say that wouldn't they..." when the Mail goes after him on anything. But he has now made an implacable enemy. Every opportunity to trash Labour will be taken. Which will be in stark contrast to the kid gloves Labour got from the Mail 2007-2010. Their running today with Labour trying to manipulate the bad news out of the NHS before the last election is evidence of this. How Ed responds to this may ultimately be more telling than how he responded to the story about his father.
The most concerning thing about today's NHS revelations is not to do with Andy Burnham but that the CQC seems to have regarded its main job to be to present the NHS at all times in the best possible light rather than to present what it had found in a neutral and fully informed basis.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Yeah, fair questions. I wouldn't necessarily pin you as supporting a particular party but had got the impression that (like many on here) you are substantially less likely to support Labour than the other alternative. Whether that's accurate or not in your case, it's similar to my position which is that I'm not affiliated to any party and have never been a member, but the Tories are such a long way from my political instincts that I'm instinctively more hostile towards them than other parties.
On the specific point, I don't think it's great that our politics work like that but I don't find it surprising. It wouldn't affect my likelihood to vote for Labour because I would expect any government to have behaved in that way. I do appreciate that some people attribute a particular type of self-righteousness to Labour's claims which they see as justifying accusations of hypocrisy, but I don't really agree with that. The game's as old as Parliamentary politics: I used to think it was a product of broadcast media but then read Trollope's political novels and realised the shape of the discourse was the same in the 1870s. I'd vote for the party that I think is most likely to do what I want done - of course everyone does that, but what I mean is that I don't have to like or approve of the fact that the party is involved in a grubby game of politics in order to do that stuff.
Thanks for your answers.
You are right in that I am substantially less likely to support Labour than other parties. I despise their hypocrisy and their actions in office. That said I absolutely loathed the tories in the 90's and into the 00's as well. But Labour really opened my eyes to sleazy incompetent government and the tories circa mid 90's is no longer my benchmark of either standard.
And Ralphe "Adolphe" Miliband found this whole 'f*cking Falklands' business - the business of defeating Fascism -so 'depressing and bitter' he was unable to write about it.
Just being mischevious here, but is "Adolphe" a Jewish name, and is that why he changed it ;-?
Re the Falklands, Ralph Miliband certainly gave a very good impression of a man who was depressed that we had won.
"Ralph Miliband opposed the Falklands War with such ferocity that he even swore — a rare occurrence — at the sight of Margaret Thatcher’s soaring popularity.
He said resentfully: ‘I won’t write about the f****** Falklands now. It’s a most depressing and bitter business and it seems to have turned Thatcher into a major political figure.'"
Let's go over this. British territory was invaded by Fascist junta. British citizens were held captive by that junta. These Britons were then liberated from Fascism by brave British soldiers, many of whom died.
And Ralphe "Adolphe" Miliband found this whole 'f*cking Falklands' business - the business of defeating Fascism -so 'depressing and bitter' he was unable to write about it.
The Mail was right.
Or you could take the other obvious interpretation: it's depressing that the Falklands were invaded. That winning the war was better than losing it doesn't make the scenario less depressing. You don't exactly win wars, you lose less than the other side. Alongside that, if it reinforces the position of a politician who you despise, it's hardly going to improve your mood. None of those things equate to wanting your country to lose a war.
"I'm disappointed we didn't hear the same outrage when the Guardian attacked David Cameron's father when he passed away after a completely spurious piece or the Mirror went through the dustbins of David Cameron to unearth the nappies of his disabled son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me that this should apply across the field."
Classy from the Mirror.
The pice about Camerons father using tax havens was related to Camerons attack on Jimmy Carr for using tax avoidance, and his refusal to condemn his friend Gary Barlow in the same terms, it was a not "when he passed away' thats a straight lie.
'Ralph Miliband did not love his country because he wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War.'
I presume Quent was able to produce some kind of a quote that RM wanted Britain to 'lose'?
from that PG article
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Well, that's a Quent quote; anything from the rooted-through quotational bins of Ralph Miliband?
UD - I'd take QL's word for it for no other reason than life is surely too short for anyone else actually to read this miserable tome containing a dreary manifesto of failed leftism....
So that's it, the source is Quentin Letts? LOL.
He specifically cites the authorised biography of Ralph Miliband.
However, although I've got a pretty good collection of political bios (including one Michael Foot gave me for Christmas), that one passed me by...
Re the Falklands, Ralph Miliband certainly gave a very good impression of a man who was depressed that we had won.
"Ralph Miliband opposed the Falklands War with such ferocity that he even swore — a rare occurrence — at the sight of Margaret Thatcher’s soaring popularity.
He said resentfully: ‘I won’t write about the f****** Falklands now. It’s a most depressing and bitter business and it seems to have turned Thatcher into a major political figure.'"
Let's go over this. British territory was invaded by Fascist junta. British citizens were held captive by that junta. These Britons were then liberated from Fascism by brave British soldiers, many of whom died.
And Ralphe "Adolphe" Miliband found this whole 'f*cking Falklands' business - the business of defeating Fascism -so 'depressing and bitter' he was unable to write about it.
The Mail was right.
So nothing in there that he wanted Britain to lose. I'm amazed that our esteemed researcher into the Khmer Rouge, who discovered Bob Ainsworths complicity in Pol Pots crimes but who managed to miss the fact that Margaret Thatcher was arming and training the Khmer Rouge for a decade can't dig it up. If not Sean then who?
Ralph Miliband was "bitter and depressed" by the fact Britain had won the "f*cking Falklands" war and defeated Fascism. Don't know about you, but I have no need to hear any more; I now have a pretty firm opinion of this unpleasant man.
However if you can dig up something that proves Miliband Senior was even nastier than this - go ahead. Knock yourself out.
You have no idea whether he was unpleasant or otherwise - you have never met him. You'd come across as unpleasant to those who don't know you and take your rightwing rants on here as evidence of your nature. In real life, of course, you a nice guy. A good father. Enthusiast Primrose Hill resident and friend-at-large to a raft of London lefties.
In the grand scheme of things, the possibility, even the outside possibility, of default by the US is rather more important than the injured feelings of politicians and journalists. But it's rather easier to have an opinion about the rights and wrongs of politicians and journalists than it is to determine what's going to come next in the US, so much more time is spent discussing Miliband vs The Mail.
Wouldn't "Tell the truth, Mr Cameron. Your EU strategy is designed to "fail"" be the truth?
Yup.
While we are in the EU we will never repatriate a single tiny competence and we will be somehow shackled to the 'ever closer' horseshit. He leads a party that includes probably more than its fair share of fruitloops - but on the one overriding central question about freedom, soverignty, self-rule and democracy Farage is dead right. The only party leader who is.
I dont see any evidence of Labour being on the defensive on this issue. They seem to be laying into the Mail group, doing very well with it and having a ball all at the same time.
The anti-Semitic move is indeed shameless - and clever. Puts Labour on the backfoot. They could theoretically sue Labour figures who have said they are anti-Semitic - and they would probably win damages.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Some here predicted this spat would end up as farce – personally I think Ed should have taken it on the chin and left a four day old story that few had seen or heard of to disappear on its own accord.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
One of the country’s top Jewish journalists has rebutted claims that the Daily Mail strayed into antisemitism in its attack on the father of Labour leader Ed Miliband.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
It may end up as a for / against issue, with those in the red team in one corner, and those in the blue on the other.
Anyone else is likely to get squeezed out.
It could also increase turnout at the next election.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Thanks Robert, that's a good extension of my point. Countries have (tried to) control flooding long before the EU turned up, and have also traditionally been able to pick up the telephone (email / letter / parchment / flaming watchtower - delete as appropriate) to the country next door quite easily without needing a layer of politicians above both.
Not politicians as such, but the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine is one of the oldest international institutions with a permanent staff, dating back to 1815 (though I don't know whether it was permanently staffed that far back).
They would have been a bit busy blowing each other up at that point.
It was created at the peace conference that concluded after the 'blowing each other up' thing ended.
One of the country’s top Jewish journalists has rebutted claims that the Daily Mail strayed into antisemitism in its attack on the father of Labour leader Ed Miliband.
The row over the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Miliband’s father intensified this week when a leading campaigner against antisemitism accused the paper of an anti-Jewish slur. In a tweet on Wednesday, John Mann, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, called the article on the late Ralph Miliband a “classical age-old antisemitic smear about disloyal Jews”
The anti-Semitic move is indeed shameless - and clever. Puts Labour on the backfoot. They could theoretically sue Labour figures who have said they are anti-Semitic - and they would probably win damages.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
I rather think it more clearly shows that Labour are winning this little battle and the Mail are squirming . Where is Dacre in all this ? - still in hiding !!!
One of the country’s top Jewish journalists has rebutted claims that the Daily Mail strayed into antisemitism in its attack on the father of Labour leader Ed Miliband.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
I think we can both agree that this is now boring the pants off almost everyone, and that alone is dangerous for Labour, if they continue to try and milk it.
Yes, in the real world things have definitely moved on. Though I think it reached well beyond the usual political geek audience when it was in full flow.
The row over the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Miliband’s father intensified this week when a leading campaigner against antisemitism accused the paper of an anti-Jewish slur. In a tweet on Wednesday, John Mann, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, called the article on the late Ralph Miliband a “classical age-old antisemitic smear about disloyal Jews”
"Meanwhile Conservative MP Stephen Metcalfe, the local MP for one of the hospitals involved, has written to Sir Jeremy Heywood to call for an investigation into whether the civil service code has been breached."
The row over the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Miliband’s father intensified this week when a leading campaigner against antisemitism accused the paper of an anti-Jewish slur. In a tweet on Wednesday, John Mann, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, called the article on the late Ralph Miliband a “classical age-old antisemitic smear about disloyal Jews”
The most concerning thing about today's NHS revelations is not to do with Andy Burnham but that the CQC seems to have regarded its main job to be to present the NHS at all times in the best possible light rather than to present what it had found in a neutral and fully informed basis.
That's an important point about government agencies generally. I've always thought that one of the causes of the Iraq misjudgments was that the security services interpreted the request for information about Saddam's WMDs as de facto "Please tell us whether you have information that supports what we want to do" rather than "Please give us your best objective assessment". When Chilcott finally reports I guess we'll know more.
While I'm not especially a transparency zealot I think that the correspondence between Government and agencies should always be public (or at least open to Parliamentary committee scrutiny) unless there is some compelling objective reason why not, and agencies should be sufficiently detached from government to feel they can tell them awkward things. The National Statistics Office is doing a good job of positioning themselves in that way; the OBR is maybe getting there too though I think probably still too close to the Treasury for comfort. Generally, either a Government Department should take complete responsibility without any agencies, or the agencies should be quite clearly independent in operation and attitude.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
I think we can both agree that this is now boring the pants off almost everyone, and that alone is dangerous for Labour, if they continue to try and milk it.
It's boring me, but less politically obsessive people need a good few news cycles to cotton on.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
It may end up as a for / against issue, with those in the red team in one corner, and those in the blue on the other.
Anyone else is likely to get squeezed out.
It could also increase turnout at the next election.
I don't think so , a London luvvies handbag fight will make little difference to majority of the country, limited to anoraks and wonks like Ed. Impact on turnout ZERO.
"There are two important conclusions from this shoddy saga. The first is that Labour’s claim to the moral high ground over the NHS is utterly specious. Indeed, we would suggest that Mr Burnham apologise to the public – if he still had the credibility to be believed. The second is that, to echo David Cameron, sunlight is the best disinfectant."
"Under Labour, the NHS’s failings were covered up for the convenience of the politicians."
The row over the Daily Mail’s attack on Ed Miliband’s father intensified this week when a leading campaigner against antisemitism accused the paper of an anti-Jewish slur. In a tweet on Wednesday, John Mann, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, called the article on the late Ralph Miliband a “classical age-old antisemitic smear about disloyal Jews”
So nothing in there that he wanted Britain to lose. I'm amazed that our esteemed researcher into the Khmer Rouge, who discovered Bob Ainsworths complicity in Pol Pots crimes but who managed to miss the fact that Margaret Thatcher was arming and training the Khmer Rouge for a decade can't dig it up. If not Sean then who?
Ralph Miliband was "bitter and depressed" by the fact Britain had won the "f*cking Falklands" war and defeated Fascism. Don't know about you, but I have no need to hear any more; I now have a pretty firm opinion of this unpleasant man.
However if you can dig up something that proves Miliband Senior was even nastier than this - go ahead. Knock yourself out.
You have no idea whether he was unpleasant or otherwise - you have never met him. You'd come across as unpleasant to those who don't know you and take your rightwing rants on here as evidence of your nature. In real life, of course, you a nice guy. A good father. Enthusiast Primrose Hill resident and friend-at-large to a raft of London lefties.
It's entirely possible for someone to be perfectly pleasant on an interpersonal level while holding deeply unpleasant views.
I'd regard any Marxist - certainly any Marxist capable of reflection and thought rather than just repetitious spouting - as unpleasant simply on account of those views. A Marxist must disapprove of so many economic, political and social liberties that are widely cherished that they have to advocate a dictatorial kleptocracy. No freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no representative democracy, no freedom to own and develop property, businesses or ideas; just people as cogs in someone else's machine, allocated according to the greater good. That's unpleasant.
David, if Obama raised the debt ceiling unilaterally, that would clearly be unconstitutional and raises issues of Congress (both Houses) vs the Presidency that would cause Senate democrats way more concern than you imply by assuming they would simply go along with it. What happens when there is a Republican president who ignores Congress' constitutional powers and the Presidency's constitutional limits. No, that situation would cause a genuine constitutional crises.
Given the intense feelings it would elicit, I think it would be suicidal for Obama to pursue, both politically and, possibly, literally.
@tim "as will Saddams chemical weapons manufacturers"
I don't recall the UK supplying any of the items for Saddam's CW. Production equipment, IIRC, came from France and Germany, chemicals from pretty much everywhere but the UK, munitions mainly from USSR.
David, if Obama raised the debt ceiling unilaterally, that would clearly be unconstitutional and raises issues of Congress (both Houses) vs the Presidency that would cause Senate democrats way more concern than you imply by assuming they would simply go along with it. What happens when there is a Republican president who ignores Congress' constitutional powers and the Presidency's constitutional limits. No, that situation would cause a genuine constitutional crises.
Given the intense feelings it would elicit, I think it would be suicidal for Obama to pursue, both politically and, possibly, literally.
But the House and Senate (and president) have already mandated the spending in past budgets. If Obama were to ignore the Debt Ceiling, his argument would have to be that the Ceiling itself is an unconstitutional incumberance on his executing the responsibilities of his office i.e. that having set the tax and spending for the government, it cannot also limit such borrowing as naturally results.
Actually, I'm not really trying to argue any particular side. It's not so much about what Obama should do; it's about what the various politicians will (or could) do. There is the trillion-dollar coin option that's been mooted but debasing the currency could be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.
Common sense and cool heads ought to prevail but the question is: will they? If not, any option the president chooses - including default - is open to challenge.
Labour may have pushed this a bit too far, they are certainly getting close to the edge.
Don't think I agree with that. The thing about this particular ding-dong is that it's working out fine for both sides. Ed Miliband firms up his ratings on the left while the Mail raise their profile and enjoy the pageviews.
I think we can both agree that this is now boring the pants off almost everyone, and that alone is dangerous for Labour, if they continue to try and milk it.
I got to that stage this morning when I heard Ed Miliband on the radio complaining that the Mail might have apologised but they hadn't apologised for the original article.
My reaction was, FFS, you've won (or can present it as such). Just move along on to something else - don't try to carry on the fight at this point.
The double standards of the left does make me laugh.
This week we have milibands father being *Defended* vigorously for something he wote as a 17 year old - from left and right in politics/media.
A week half back,we had all the leftwing media going into overdrive on the 17 year old nigel farage over concerns of his views at the time.
Tbf it was hardly overdrive over Nige's youthful indiscretions. Perhaps no one was that surprised.
I suppose that makes it acceptable then.
Was anyone surprised at the revelations of Mili senior? I wasn't.
I wonder what Mili senior would have said about this?
Reacting to news of Hobsbawm's death, Ed Miliband called him "an extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics [...] He brought history out of the ivory tower and into people's lives
So nothing in there that he wanted Britain to lose. I'm amazed that our esteemed researcher into the Khmer Rouge, who discovered Bob Ainsworths complicity in Pol Pots crimes but who managed to miss the fact that Margaret Thatcher was arming and training the Khmer Rouge for a decade can't dig it up. If not Sean then who?
However if you can dig up something that proves Miliband Senior was even nastier than this - go ahead. Knock yourself out.
s.
It's entirely possible for someone to be perfectly pleasant on an interpersonal level while holding deeply unpleasant views.
I'd regard any Marxist - certainly any Marxist capable of reflection and thought rather than just repetitious spouting - as unpleasant simply on account of those views. A Marxist must disapprove of so many economic, political and social liberties that are widely cherished that they have to advocate a dictatorial kleptocracy. No freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no representative democracy, no freedom to own and develop property, businesses or ideas; just people as cogs in someone else's machine, allocated according to the greater good. That's unpleasant.
You know sod all about Marxism. All the Spiked Online crowd, Brendan O'Neill, Frank Furedi, that Barrister who pops up on C4 News every month to go on about getting rid of the age of consent, they are all Marxists who never bloody shut up about freedom of speech. From what I can rember Raph Milibands protests against the Soviet union were very much centred around the freedom of speech. As ever a PB Tory simply makes the leap from Marxist to Stalinist without even thinking.
tim - are you putting yourself forward as a pleasant Marxist ?
Comments
If Ed didn't know what Damien was up to at the next desk, how could an editor know what his reporter was doing outside the office.
EdM is moving towards the end of the road on this one.
Be outraged at outrageous DM/MOS behaviour? Yep
Wring it so that eveyone knows and DM/MOS accept they were outrageous? Yep also.
Let the DM/MOS get back to their sordid (but slightly more careful) ways? Yep.
Keep on and on on this one horse when he should retire a graceful winner with plenty of cross party support, both voters & MPs? Nope
In a defiant defence of his newspaper on BBC Question Time, the columnist admitted the Daily Mail was never going to be popular among some sections of society.
The pundit also disassociated his paper from the Mail on Sunday’s botched attempt to doorstep members of Ed Miliband’s family at a memorial service for his uncle this week.
He said the Mail on Sunday was a completely different newspaper and was correct in apologising for its attempt to speak to Miliband’s family at the memorial service to his uncle Prof Harry Keen. > http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/quentin-letts-defends-mails-miliband-coverage-its-not-if-we-rooted-through-his-bins
Greg Hands @GregHands
The cover up of bad care & deaths at Basildon NHS not featuring in even top 15 @BBCBreaking stories today. Why not?
I am far to independently minded for that old crap.
How about you P, you a supporter of a particular party?
Care to comment on what you think about Labour trying to keep us in the dark about health care failings whilst claiming the NHS is only safe in their hands?
Please confirm you haven't forgotten that rule.
Because if you have, we will be happy to place all your comments automatically in the pending folder, then release thm when the moderators check the pending folder every few hours.
Sounds like the kind of place where a Labour spin doctor would hang out.
No wonder you're so familiar with it.
"If academics change the teaching of history to suit the Left, that’s called reforming the curriculum. In fact, it’s considered so normal it usually passes without comment.
But if conservatives wish to strip history teaching of some of the worst of Leftist ideology, that’s called a “culture war” or a “history war” and must be resisted." http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_left_started_this_history_war_conservatives_will_just_liberate_the_occu/
Any more violations, and your posting privileges will be suspended for a few days.
"He (Letts) said: “Ralph Miliband was furious when we won the Falklands War. Is that the behaviour of a man who loves his country? I’m not sure it is. But it is a point of view. It is an essay. It is a political argument. It was from his authorised biography. It is not as if his bins were rooted through like the Sunday Mirror once did to David Cameron.” "
Conservatives are winning the war of words on the NHS
At this autumn's party conferences, health secretary Jeremy Hunt's speech was aimed squarely at the voters while Labour's Andy Burnham wrote his for the party faithful
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2013/oct/03/conservatives-labour-party-conferences-nhs
[This is half-criticism, half-admiration. Historical revisionism and smearing are despicable, but the left is also superior when it comes to the 'good' use of language in making arguments in a better way].
I think this would be effective.
Does Ed Miliband think the papers involved should be reviewing their practices? Conducting internal enquiries?
Interesting that you have QL down as a liar with no evidence to the contrary - not surprising but interesting..
On the specific point, I don't think it's great that our politics work like that but I don't find it surprising. It wouldn't affect my likelihood to vote for Labour because I would expect any government to have behaved in that way. I do appreciate that some people attribute a particular type of self-righteousness to Labour's claims which they see as justifying accusations of hypocrisy, but I don't really agree with that. The game's as old as Parliamentary politics: I used to think it was a product of broadcast media but then read Trollope's political novels and realised the shape of the discourse was the same in the 1870s. I'd vote for the party that I think is most likely to do what I want done - of course everyone does that, but what I mean is that I don't have to like or approve of the fact that the party is involved in a grubby game of politics in order to do that stuff.
"I'm disappointed we didn't hear the same outrage when the Guardian attacked David Cameron's father when he passed away after a completely spurious piece or the Mirror went through the dustbins of David Cameron to unearth the nappies of his disabled son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me that this should apply across the field."
Classy from the Mirror.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-ed-miliband-attack
Do you trust the Guardian more?
And the sellers of irony meters have a bumper year.....
It may start to evaporate.
http://www.heart.co.uk/cambridge/news/local/cambridgeshire-mp-reveals-nhs-cover/
"The Death of the IFA" as a headline grabbing banner is cheering me up for the weekend immensely...
What does tim get - "welcome home, shall I put the kettle on"
Ed was right to go to his father's defence, certainly on the basis of that article. But the points that strike me are:
- that both Cameron and Clegg rapidly went to Ed's defence might be the decent thing to do, but did rather play to the argument that all politicians are alike - all looking to defend their own reputations. Would have been more of a party political event if say Farage had taken the Mail's side...
- the alacrity of the response by Ed to the trashing of a family member's reputation was in stark contrast to his silence over the trashing of the reputation of his Labour Party colleagues when in Government. I did idly mull over whether Ed would have been so prompt to demand a reply if the Mail had been trashing his brother's reputation courtesy of lines fed from one Mr. McBride...
- Ed has clearly now got a defence of "well, they would say that wouldn't they..." when the Mail goes after him on anything. But he has now made an implacable enemy. Every opportunity to trash Labour will be taken. Which will be in stark contrast to the kid gloves Labour got from the Mail 2007-2010. Their running today with Labour trying to manipulate the bad news out of the NHS before the last election is evidence of this. How Ed responds to this may ultimately be more telling than how he responded to the story about his father.
Concerning, but hardly surprising, considering the totemic significance of the NHS under labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10355351/Nigel-Farage-Tell-the-truth-Mr-Cameron.-Your-EU-strategy-is-doomed-to-fail.html
This is descending into farce...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24395790
#FAIL
However, although I've got a pretty good collection of political bios (including one Michael Foot gave me for Christmas), that one passed me by...
Like many people, I didn't like the Mail article. But surely we have had enough debate about it now. Both sides have made their case a million times.
It is very unlikely that any consensus will emerge.
This is why they're winning the internet.
When Burnham told Parlt 'no shred of evidence' of NHS political interference, it's now possible he misled Commons. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443051/Labour-s-cover-failing-hospitals-Ministers-tried-silence-watchdog-eve-general-election.html …
While we are in the EU we will never repatriate a single tiny competence and we will be somehow shackled to the 'ever closer' horseshit. He leads a party that includes probably more than its fair share of fruitloops - but on the one overriding central question about freedom, soverignty, self-rule and democracy Farage is dead right. The only party leader who is.
What do you think will happen in the states next?
I think the threat of default is serious.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/112066/top-journalist-defends-mail-over-miliband-article
Anyone else is likely to get squeezed out.
It could also increase turnout at the next election.
One of the country's top Daily Mail journalists has rebutted claims that the Daily Mail strayed into antisemitism.
In a tweet on Wednesday, John Mann, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, called the article on the late Ralph Miliband a “classical age-old antisemitic smear about disloyal Jews”
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/111993/daily-mail-accused-antisemitic-attack-over-miliband-story
Miliband could have followed Wellington - Publish and be damned, it would have a better approach.
Isn't that a bit like UKIP getting Amjad Bashir to refute accusations of racism?
Blimey people who take what Barrosso says seriously and think he is calling the shots in Europe....
Or Merkel, to the Munich Bugle?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/10/the-daily-mail-is-disreputable-twisted-tendentious-and-malignant-thank-heavens-for-that/
Also - Burnham in trouble
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2013/10/the-knives-are-out-for-andy-burnham/
"Meanwhile Conservative MP Stephen Metcalfe, the local MP for one of the hospitals involved, has written to Sir Jeremy Heywood to call for an investigation into whether the civil service code has been breached."
Miliband used to be the guy who stabbed his brother in the back - now he's the guy who loved his Dad a lot.
While I'm not especially a transparency zealot I think that the correspondence between Government and agencies should always be public (or at least open to Parliamentary committee scrutiny) unless there is some compelling objective reason why not, and agencies should be sufficiently detached from government to feel they can tell them awkward things. The National Statistics Office is doing a good job of positioning themselves in that way; the OBR is maybe getting there too though I think probably still too close to the Treasury for comfort. Generally, either a Government Department should take complete responsibility without any agencies, or the agencies should be quite clearly independent in operation and attitude.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-24397834
"There are two important conclusions from this shoddy saga. The first is that Labour’s claim to the moral high ground over the NHS is utterly specious. Indeed, we would suggest that Mr Burnham apologise to the public – if he still had the credibility to be believed. The second is that, to echo David Cameron, sunlight is the best disinfectant."
"Under Labour, the NHS’s failings were covered up for the convenience of the politicians."
Resign Mr Burnham resign.
I'd regard any Marxist - certainly any Marxist capable of reflection and thought rather than just repetitious spouting - as unpleasant simply on account of those views. A Marxist must disapprove of so many economic, political and social liberties that are widely cherished that they have to advocate a dictatorial kleptocracy. No freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no representative democracy, no freedom to own and develop property, businesses or ideas; just people as cogs in someone else's machine, allocated according to the greater good. That's unpleasant.
Did I miss John Mann's rebuke of Ken Livingstone last year?
I wonder how long the evidence for that story has been sat on by the newspapers concerned.
Given the intense feelings it would elicit, I think it would be suicidal for Obama to pursue, both politically and, possibly, literally.
And then as if by magic:
Lab 38 -1
Con 33 -3
LibDem 11
UKIP 10 +3
This week we have milibands father being *Defended* vigorously for something he wote as a 17 year old - from left and right in politics/media.
A week half back,we had all the leftwing media going into overdrive on the 17 year old nigel farage over concerns of his views at the time.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-fire-crew-rescued-man-who-got-his-penis-stuck-in-a-toaster-8858912.html
Was the toaster unplugged.
I don't recall the UK supplying any of the items for Saddam's CW. Production equipment, IIRC, came from France and Germany, chemicals from pretty much everywhere but the UK, munitions mainly from USSR.
http://order-order.com/2013/10/04/non-union-backed-labour-candidate-stands-aside/
Actually, I'm not really trying to argue any particular side. It's not so much about what Obama should do; it's about what the various politicians will (or could) do. There is the trillion-dollar coin option that's been mooted but debasing the currency could be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.
Common sense and cool heads ought to prevail but the question is: will they? If not, any option the president chooses - including default - is open to challenge.
My reaction was, FFS, you've won (or can present it as such). Just move along on to something else - don't try to carry on the fight at this point.
Was anyone surprised at the revelations of Mili senior? I wasn't.
I wonder what Mili senior would have said about this?
Reacting to news of Hobsbawm's death, Ed Miliband called him "an extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics [...] He brought history out of the ivory tower and into people's lives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobsbawm
http://order-order.com/2013/10/04/tories-call-for-burnham-to-resign-2/
Looking at his website, he also seems to have investigated NHS treatment of whistleblowers too.
http://stevebarclay.net/uncovering-4m-of-secret-nhs-payoffs-to-gag-potential-whistleblowers/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/cambridgeshirenortheast/