Kerry seemed to think that the Munich Agreement meant air strikes and ground war in Czechoslovakia in 1938.
It was all desperate stuff from Kerry - he's clearly furious with us for not supporting the interventionist line.
The US position has John Kerry's "I voted before it before I voted against it" all over it. They want a military attack on somebody else's military that isn't an act of war, and a military strike that isn't designed to affect who wins the war.
Anyone tempted to complain about the quality of the British party leaders should remember the time the US voters had a choice consisting of him or George W Bush.
It seems clear to me that the only way to get to the bottom of this murky story is for an Independent Inquiry to be held.
Or they could just release the Falkirk report. But little Ed won't and it's certainly not due to one or two union barons getting upset if he did. Why is that do you think?
According to the Sunday Times, the reason Labour have said there was no wrong doing by the Unite union , was because union officials leant on the chief witness & his wife & said he'd lose his job if he didn't withdraw his allegations.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
However, the pace of growth in Scotland remained below the UK-wide average.
This should be front-and-centre of the Independence argument: How unionism is damaging the long-term economic prospects of Scotland. So why Wee-Eck not doing so?
Simply because he has allied himself to Beelzebub: That soul-sucking sound of public-sectorism feeding off English taxes. There is too much of the UK government "invested" in Scottish Labour heartlands and the SNP are too scared to accept national rationalisation.
So anecdotes about how "well" Scotland survived the "Gormless" induced recession of 2008-2011 have as much substance as a Labour internal-party investigation. They may not have suffered the bruising that England took (from misguided Scottish machinations) but they are destined to fall behind an increasingly Tory England and her vibrant economy and populace.
And yet they - the Scots - could make a real choice next year; a choice that could see the rebirth of a traditional, diffident Scots' homeland. However the public-sector teet is too tempting....
Whether or not his move has public support is irrelevant. A fringe issue like this is not going to shift any votes but losing the union money will break Labour's chances in 2015. To avoid that fate would require a massive climb down from Ed which will be very, very damaging now that he has been so aggressive with his messaging about wanting to get away from the unions.
Ed has backed himself into a corner, either he will u-turn and keep the money but destroy his reputation, or plough ahead and lose masses of union funding. It's a lose/lose situation and public support makes not a single jot of difference.
How could tory supporters not support changes that might well bankrupt the Labour party? I certainly do.
Caught a chunk of Chukka this morning. He seemed to think that being solvent was less important than being right too. It has the attraction of consistency to what they did to the country I suppose.
Actually, putting the detail of money and paying the bills to one side I thought Chukka was quite good. A little sanctimonious and smug but clear potential there to speak to a broader audience than most of Labour's front bench. If we do not get PM Miliband he is going to be a serious candidate.
@MickPork – “Or they could just release the Falkirk report.”
That would certainly answer some of the questions – However, the likelihood of Miliband doing so voluntarily is zero. – Hence the call for an independent inquiry.
Personally, I'm all in favour of Ed's attempts to screw up Labour's links with the unions. He is providing us with great entertainment. I particularly enjoyed the warm-up by the Forces of Hell tribute band.
The fact that Yes was leading in some early polling for the AV referendum also seems to have been missed strangely enough.
Although I voted for AV, in a strange kind of way I regard No's victory in that referendum as one of the more positive developments in British politics for many a long year.
It proved that campaigns matter, that minds can be changed if one side of the argument argues its case with more intelligence and wit than the other.
That my side of the argument lost on that occasion will in future years come to be seen as a minor footnote to the triumphal march of reason and justice.
I may have missed this elsewhere, but what does one EXPECT a Nationalist party to do but major on it's very reason for existence?
Quite, but the irritation is with the length of time. Still a whole year to go. In the meantime we have a legislative agenda for the Scottish Parliament that is presumably designed to allow a lot of time for campaigning, the uncertainty risks inward investment into Scotland, the devolution issues are not being addressed and the SNP administration is more interested in not upsetting any vested interest than addressing Scottish problems.
How could tory supporters not support changes that might well bankrupt the Labour party? I certainly do.
Caught a chunk of Chukka this morning. He seemed to think that being solvent was less important than being right too. It has the attraction of consistency to what they did to the country I suppose.
Actually, putting the detail of money and paying the bills to one side I thought Chukka was quite good. A little sanctimonious and smug but clear potential there to speak to a broader audience than most of Labour's front bench. If we do not get PM Miliband he is going to be a serious candidate.
Labour is reducing it's debt quite nicely, and will increase it's membership after these proposals go through. The Tory Party on the other hand is dying so fast that it's reliance on a few mega rich donors determines it's thinking on the issue. Hence it will do all it can to avoid a donations cap
Question is why can't little Ed shift Clegg and the lib dems on this since it's pretty much an open door, yet another chance for lib dem differentiation on a subject his grassroots like and a potential vote in the commons with Cameron and his unreliable backbenchers against the other parties.
Whilst the effect on the SNP if Scotland does vote "no" will be interesting, I doubt they'll be that significant. It would have to cause civil war to make much difference, and there's no sign of that.
I may have missed this elsewhere, but what does one EXPECT a Nationalist party to do but major on it's very reason for existence?
Quite, but the irritation is with the length of time. Still a whole year to go. In the meantime we have a legislative agenda for the Scottish Parliament that is presumably designed to allow a lot of time for campaigning, the uncertainty risks inward investment into Scotland, the devolution issues are not being addressed and the SNP administration is more interested in not upsetting any vested interest than addressing Scottish problems.
The SNP have been effective at getting votes for other reasons, including the Scotland-first type approach ("Westminster's a long way away").
Just how much attention are people paying to the campaigning (if any) this far out? I suspect most have made up their minds - though they may not tell posters so - and the remainder are both less likely to vote ('It won't make any difference to me, either way.') or are genuinely waiting to hear and see what is said and done both in Holyrood and Westminster over the next 13 months.
It seems clear to me that the only way to get to the bottom of this murky story is for an Independent Inquiry to be held.
Or they could just release the Falkirk report. But little Ed won't and it's certainly not due to one or two union barons getting upset if he did. Why is that do you think?
According to the Sunday Times, the reason Labour have said there was no wrong doing by the Unite union , was because union officials leant on the chief witness & his wife & said he'd lose his job if he didn't withdraw his allegations.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
Pork - you seem to be suggesting that the Falkirk affair was dreamt up by a Blairite faction to enable Ed to wage war on the barons - interesting angle on it - but not even Tom Watson is spinning it that way...
Whilst the effect on the SNP if Scotland does vote "no" will be interesting, I doubt they'll be that significant. It would have to cause civil war to make much difference, and there's no sign of that.
I have said before that I think we will see an increase in the number of SNP MPs in 2015 after a no vote. Given that Labour fought the last election under a very Scottish PM it would be very surprising if they could do as well again.
Some Lib Dem seats are in play with SNP MSPs already representing the area. Gordon, Salmond's own constituency, is an obvious example and I would be astonished if that was not an SNP gain.
The fact that Yes was leading in some early polling for the AV referendum also seems to have been missed strangely enough.
Although I voted for AV, in a strange kind of way I regard No's victory in that referendum as one of the more positive developments in British politics for many a long year.
It proved that campaigns matter, that minds can be changed if one side of the argument argues its case with more intelligence and wit than the other.
That my side of the argument lost on that occasion will in future years come to be seen as a minor footnote to the triumphal march of reason and justice.
The argument was lost because for reasons that pass understanding Clegg thought the "miserable little compromise" AV was a better better bet than holding out for PR or some alternative deal involving it.
However, the referendum was lost not just because AV is clearly problematic for a GE but because by then Clegg was toxic and No made damn sure he was the face of AV.
The AV referendum obviously won't be the last word on electoral reform but AV sure isn't coming back any time soon.
"After a referendum defeat for the SNP, an electorate awakening to the waste of money and three-year distraction of an independence referendum instead of dealing with the main issue may well choose to punish the SNP and keep it out of power for a generation."
Do the changes Ed Miliband is proposing to change Labour's relationship with the unions make you more or less likely to vote Labour or do they make no difference?
More likely/less likely
2010 voters
Con 12/2 Lab 21/7 Lib Dem 20/3
So that means
Cons 86% No difference Lab 72% No difference LD 77% No difference.
It seems clear to me that the only way to get to the bottom of this murky story is for an Independent Inquiry to be held.
Or they could just release the Falkirk report. But little Ed won't and it's certainly not due to one or two union barons getting upset if he did. Why is that do you think?
According to the Sunday Times, the reason Labour have said there was no wrong doing by the Unite union , was because union officials leant on the chief witness & his wife & said he'd lose his job if he didn't withdraw his allegations.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
Pork - you seem to be suggesting that the Falkirk affair was dreamt up by a Blairite faction to enable Ed to wage war on the barons - interesting angle on it - but not even Tom Watson is spinning it that way...
If you were an idiot who didn't bother to read my post you might think that. I specifically indicated there were two sides to this as should be blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't just constantly foaming at the mouth about unions. If you can't work out what that means or why the Falkirk report wasn't released that would be your problem.
Or do you seriously think the poisonous Blair Brown infighting was all due to just one side as well?
Unite the union 'paid no tax in 2011 and 2012' Unite, one of the country’s biggest public sector unions, did not pay any tax in 2011 and 2012, despite owning £51.6 million of stocks and shares, it has been claimed.
More accurately, it seems that the Tories and the Telegraph do not understand the UK's taxation system. I love the idea that Unite paid no tax in 2011 and 2012. That something so self-evidently nonsensical runs in a news story does undermine its credibility somewhat.
It seems clear to me that the only way to get to the bottom of this murky story is for an Independent Inquiry to be held.
Or they could just release the Falkirk report. But little Ed won't and it's certainly not due to one or two union barons getting upset if he did. Why is that do you think?
According to the Sunday Times, the reason Labour have said there was no wrong doing by the Unite union , was because union officials leant on the chief witness & his wife & said he'd lose his job if he didn't withdraw his allegations.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
Pork - you seem to be suggesting that the Falkirk affair was dreamt up by a Blairite faction to enable Ed to wage war on the barons - interesting angle on it - but not even Tom Watson is spinning it that way...
If you were an idiot who didn't bother to read my post you might think that. I specifically indicated there were two sides to this as should be blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't just constantly foaming at the mouth about unions. If you can't work out what that means or why the Falkirk report wasn't released that would be your problem.
I asked a serious question pork about an interesting point you raised - no need to resort to your usual uber defensive stance - it was nearly a compliment.
If there is another side to this story it's been well hidden by all sides - including you with your enigmatic posts.
@tim - As Ed's counter-attack is going so well (as conclusively shown in that Indy poll you are clutching so tightly to your manly bosom), how well will be doing on this month's MORI Leaders' ratings?
A return to the 'natural order' with his overtaking Dave?
Thinking now specifically about the Labour Party, how much influence, if any, do you think the trade unions have over what Labour does? (Should Have)
Total: 63 (25)
Interesting breakouts among TU members:
Do the changes Ed Miliband is proposing to change Labour's relationship with the unions make you more or less likely to vote Labour or do they make no difference?
More: 18 Less: 9 No diff - vote Lab anyway: 31 No diff - NOT vote Lab: 35
It seems clear to me that the only way to get to the bottom of this murky story is for an Independent Inquiry to be held.
Or they could just release the Falkirk report. But little Ed won't and it's certainly not due to one or two union barons getting upset if he did. Why is that do you think?
According to the Sunday Times, the reason Labour have said there was no wrong doing by the Unite union , was because union officials leant on the chief witness & his wife & said he'd lose his job if he didn't withdraw his allegations.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
Pork - you seem to be suggesting that the Falkirk affair was dreamt up by a Blairite faction to enable Ed to wage war on the barons - interesting angle on it - but not even Tom Watson is spinning it that way...
If you were an idiot who didn't bother to read my post you might think that. I specifically indicated there were two sides to this as should be blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't just constantly foaming at the mouth about unions. If you can't work out what that means or why the Falkirk report wasn't released that would be your problem.
I asked a serious question pork about an interesting point you raised - no need to resort to your usual uber defensive stance - it was nearly a compliment.
If there is another side to this story it's been well hidden by all sides
No it most certainly has not. It's been obscured on here by the usual PB tory shrieking about unions but the fact of the matter is that little Ed can't release the report and his own shadow cabinet are split over this for reasons that are entirely due to factionalism, disagreements over future direction of policy and who was involved in the entire Falkirk affair.
It is neither as simple as a purely Blairite plot or Brownites and the unions being to blame for everything. Both sides are heavily involved. Which is why it's so destabalising to little Ed.
Unite the union 'paid no tax in 2011 and 2012' Unite, one of the country’s biggest public sector unions, did not pay any tax in 2011 and 2012, despite owning £51.6 million of stocks and shares, it has been claimed.
More accurately, it seems that the Tories and the Telegraph do not understand the UK's taxation system. I love the idea that Unite paid no tax in 2011 and 2012. That something so self-evidently nonsensical runs in a news story does undermine its credibility somewhat.
Neither do labour and the left understand the tax system on past form as well...doesn't stop political parties spinning it though.
Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said it was wrong to assume that the 351-mph HS2 network would make northern cities wealthier.
Thinking now specifically about the Labour Party, how much influence, if any, do you think the trade unions have over what Labour does? (Should Have)
Total: 63 (25)
Interesting breakouts among TU members:
Do the changes Ed Miliband is proposing to change Labour's relationship with the unions make you more or less likely to vote Labour or do they make no difference?
More: 18 Less: 9 No diff - vote Lab anyway: 31 No diff - NOT vote Lab: 35
That does show how foolish constant Tory attacks on trade unions are.
Doddy... I already answered you yet you appear too stupid to realise it. Rest assured your deranged and creepy stalking habits are always a source of constant amusement on here.
From the BBC ticker: "TUC Conference in Bournemouth has voted for campaign of "co-ordinated industrial action" in protest at public sector pay cap"
Will that actually lead to such a programme of strikes? The economy's finally left the up-and-down stage and seems to be improving. Not sure strike action will impress the general public.
'Or indeed according to another apparent reading of referendum voting intention that is to be found buried in the tables in the first of the more conventionally sized polls Lord Ashcroft has released today. Conducted online in June (so still not an up to date reading), this poll appears to have put Yes on 32%, No on 57% – again a rather narrower lead that is not dissimilar to the results of a number of other polls conducted at around the same time. In truth, the finding from the mega poll that Lord Ashcroft has chosen to headline looks as much of an outlier as some of Panelbase’s polls have done in the opposite direction...
Any effort to get beneath the headlines on where Scotland stands on the constitutional issue is to be welcomed. It is just a pity that in this instance at least Lord Ashcroft did not get more bang for his mega bucks.'
Ed will certainly get something from his membership reform campaign - it's inconceivable that he will emerge empty-handed and even McCluskey isn't stupid enough to press home what would be a pyhrric victory. But whereas Blair's triumph over Clause IV in the early nineties was due to a new and overwhelmingly elected Leader asserting his authority almost out of the blue, Ed Miliband was compelled to respond to events at a time when his own leadership had lost momentum (though he was never in danger of being ousted and still isn't).
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
Mr. Taffys, why are you asking me what Miliband's response will be? I'm neither the Russian Foreign Minister, nor the President of France, let alone a union baron. How would I know?
The way that NO should be campaigning: Don’t deal with the core issue but attack the Scottish government for giving it the priority it is giving it.
The problem with this strategy is that the Referendum is on that issue. Voters will be making the best choice as they see it, and would be dismissive of anyone who says, don't bother. The future of your country is clearly an important decision to make, even if you are more concerned about day to day issues.
As Lord Ashcroft hints, the idea of of NOT giving Mr Salmond even more power would resonate with many Scots I believe. I am not quite sure how a NO campaign would phrase this.
From the BBC ticker: "TUC Conference in Bournemouth has voted for campaign of "co-ordinated industrial action" in protest at public sector pay cap"
Will that actually lead to such a programme of strikes? The economy's finally left the up-and-down stage and seems to be improving. Not sure strike action will impress the general public.
I wonder how in today’s climate such threats are received by the general population. – We’ve had several ‘strikes’ since 2010 with subsequent polls showing little or no discernible effect.
IMRC, even a ‘million +’ strong protest was knocked off the front pages by the comments of JC.
@tim - As I have patiently explained to you once before, if George was behind that recall of Parliament, he is indeed the Master Strategist, First Class with Oak Leaves. You have seen the Dave vs Ed polling post that vote, haven't you? Of course you have. Now cease being a wally and take yourself off for hearty lunch of petit chat au gratin.
"Let me give an example of the kind of disaster I mean. Just 25 miles from where I sit, they are putting the finishing touches to a stupendous and brilliant project – a new deep-water port for London and the UK. With the help of colossal investment from Dubai, we will next month be opening the DP World port at Thurrock.
This will begin to undo the damage that was done in the Sixties and Seventies, when union militancy and government hopelessness brought the London docks to ruin. We failed to invest, we failed to expand and to meet the challenge of containerisation – and we saw our business go to Rotterdam. The population of London plummeted; thousands of jobs were lost; the docks were turned into a wasteland.
Now all that is being reversed, and at breathtaking speed.With the DP World port, London will be able once again to handle the very biggest ships, and a huge logistics park is being created at the site. There will be about 27,000 jobs and £2.5 billion worth of growth.
And what is the response of Unite members? Are they celebrating the good news for working people? On the contrary, they are picketing the site, jumping on cars and hurling abuse like something from the Seventies. Unite has done nothing to bring this investment to Britain. It didn’t think of it. It didn’t promote it.
Yet the union somehow believes that it has a right to be a partner in the running of the port, and that the owners should be compelled to deal with it rather than with their employees. McCluskey wants to run the place, just as he wants to run the Labour Party, and he threatens exactly the same madness that brought this country to its knees in the Seventies – the strikes and the militancy that drove investors away, and that cost London its port."
Porky.. Ignoring your juvenile attempt to close me down I can only conclude that A ..you are a member of a Union B ..You are not a member of a Union C..That you dont know, as in ..no one has told you..
We’ve had several ‘strikes’ since 2010 with subsequent polls showing little or no discernible effect.
Industrial action is intended to achieve industrial aims not to shift polls!
N.S.Sherlock - which is why my question was "I wonder how in today’s climate such threats are received by the general population." and not what is the aim of strike action.
Doddy if it will finally stop your pitiful whining and deranged stalking. I already said quite clearly I wasn't a union official. That is what No means you doddering old codger. A member of a union? Yes.
Now does this mean that..
A/ I am somehow in your paranoid mind involved in the Falkirk affair and/or too biased and too dumb to know that there are self-evidently two sides involved in this labour infighting?
or
B/ You are a very strange and peculiar old chap who spends most of their time on this website whining and trying to find out the personal details of other posters?
The Port of London moved downstream due to containerisation, Boris is just writing a pot boiler piece justifiying the non-recognisition of Trade Unions. I know there's little chance of it penetrating among the fundamentalists on here but a quick look at the British car industry management-union relationship provides a better model that Willie Walsh type boneheadeness.
Do the people picketing the Port even work there ?
Enjoying the desperate backpedalling by the EU on high energy costs, reported in the Telegraph. We all respect climate change...but.......but......
Amazing how the threat of evisceration by the coming Anglo German pincer movement concentrates the mind....
BTW I couldn't see the original article about reducing the number of commissioners that I guess you're getting your "pincer movement" thing from because it was paywalled. Were you able to tell what the actual suggestion was, ie whether it was:
a) Just appoint commissioners on merit instead of per nation (=> Remove the British commissioner and move towards a federal superstate, Cameron will get lynched by the Eurosceptics)
b) Buggins turn system where countries only sometimes get commissioners. (=> Cameron still gets lynched, and it gets argued about forever and never actually gets done)
c) Only the big countries get commissioners. (=> The small countries won't agree, plan is DOA)
I don't know about anyone else, but I get the impression from Pork's constant descriptions of posters who don't agree with him as "idiots" and of any non-SNP politicians as "little" or "tiny" are intended to make him appear big and intelligent. They make me think quite the opposite of him.
How could tory supporters not support changes that might well bankrupt the Labour party? I certainly do.
Caught a chunk of Chukka this morning. He seemed to think that being solvent was less important than being right too. It has the attraction of consistency to what they did to the country I suppose.
Actually, putting the detail of money and paying the bills to one side I thought Chukka was quite good. A little sanctimonious and smug but clear potential there to speak to a broader audience than most of Labour's front bench. If we do not get PM Miliband he is going to be a serious candidate.
Labour is reducing it's debt quite nicely, and will increase it's membership after these proposals go through. The Tory Party on the other hand is dying so fast that it's reliance on a few mega rich donors determines it's thinking on the issue. Hence it will do all it can to avoid a donations cap
In terms of membership, Labour are about 5 years from where the Conservatives are now. Both organisations have a tiny fraction of the members they once had.
Which side of the HS2 debate is this a boost for ?
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1h BBC News Channel reveals that Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle has missed her interview with them - because her train was delayed.
"Labour party bosses are to give Ed Miliband’s wife Justine a more high profile role in a bid to give her husband a popularity boost.
The child actress-turned-barrister is expected to make a series of public appearances and speeches at the Labour party conference last this month to ‘humanise’ her husband. But the decision to use Ms Thornton on the political frontline will draw comparisons with failed attempts by Gordon Brown and Iain Duncan Smith to use their other halves to rescue their leadership."
How long before she cries at the thought of a zero hours contract ?
I don't know about anyone else, but I get the impression from Pork's constant descriptions of posters who don't agree with him as "idiots" and of any non-SNP politicians as "little" or "tiny" are intended to make him appear big and intelligent. They make me think quite the opposite of him.
Anyway, back to lurking.
I'll somehow try to get over the heartbreak of missing yet more of your amusing posts on this tory dominated website JimmyJohnny.
Mr. Pork, just on the 'ancient practice' point, I think that during the crusades (perhaps earlier, when Islam was taking the Byzantine possessions in Anatolia and Syria) that chemical weapons (naptha rings a bell... could be wrong) were used to take fortresses, or at least give attackers an edge. It was some sort of toxic gas.
Apologies for vagueness, I'm pretty sure it was used but the details escape me. It's quite interesting, though, to consider cutting edge technology in warfare, such as the Greek fire of Byzantium or the giant flamethrower the Thebans used at the Battle of Delium.
Edited extra bit: "In medieval times, pots containing naphtha were used in battle as a form of primitive grenade."
Porky.. you are the only one I have ever asked.. mainly because you think all Rightwingers are Union bashers..not true.. Just another of your Tory/Right wing hating paranoid sayings.
"Labour party bosses are to give Ed Miliband’s wife Justine a more high profile role in a bid to give her husband a popularity boost.
Personally I find ‘Ms Thornton’ quite charming and her decision thus far to remain aloof from the fray admirable - I fear this decision will be a mistake by Mrs Miliband, with unpleasant, and unforeseen consequence.
If it's an actual point rather than mere pedantry then obviously what is considered acceptable practice in warfare changes along with technology and what society deems permissible over the years. Not quite long enough to pretend there isn't a barrel load of hypocrisy being thrown about on chemical weapons right now though. Nor does it's use by any side in Syria confer a blank cheque to anyone far more interested in regime change than the International Criminal Court and war crimes prosecutions.
"Labour party bosses are to give Ed Miliband’s wife Justine a more high profile role in a bid to give her husband a popularity boost.
The child actress-turned-barrister is expected to make a series of public appearances and speeches at the Labour party conference last this month to ‘humanise’ her husband. But the decision to use Ms Thornton on the political frontline will draw comparisons with failed attempts by Gordon Brown and Iain Duncan Smith to use their other halves to rescue their leadership."
How long before she cries at the thought of a zero hours contract ?
Please god no. The last thing we need is Daves Date Nights remakes.
This is just what politicans do though tim. Your smart enough to realise that. I'm confused though when you mock Cameron for doing X, you're surprised when Miliband does exactly the same thing.. It's what they do..
This is really funny.. So far today .. Pork has called me A pitiful whiner A deranged stalker. A doddering old codger. Paranoid. Too Biased. Too dumb. A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities. A foam flecked tory. A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
Mr. Pork, indeed. It was interesting to read in By Sword and Fire, an excellent boook recommended to me by Mr. T, that a leader who would today be considered cruel and vicious was often welcomed in medieval times because that sort of willingness to inflict pain was needed to try and bring order to a world of lawless violence.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it back Doddy.
You are infamous for stalking left wing posters on here, trying to find out their personal details and throwing abuse at them. It's about all you ever do. How's about you grow a pair or give it a rest for once?
Mr. Pork, indeed. It was interesting to read in By Sword and Fire, an excellent boook recommended to me by Mr. T, that a leader who would today be considered cruel and vicious was often welcomed in medieval times because that sort of willingness to inflict pain was needed to try and bring order to a world of lawless violence.
He'd also have better spinners now and cloak it in language of collateral damage and the technobabble of modern weaponry some seem far too enamoured with. 'Drone' might sound slightly sinister but 'remote controlled flying killing machine' is not a very appealing alternative.
After a pause for the best part of a month we once again seem to be seeing a succession of polls with a very small, well within MOE, drift to the tories again. If it was a single poll, or even 2 it might be insignificant but it does seem to be more than that. I wonder if the uplift in economic optimism and more positive headlines is having an effect.
It could also be the flak Ed has got for Syria but that seems less likely to me.
"Labour party bosses are to give Ed Miliband’s wife Justine a more high profile role in a bid to give her husband a popularity boost.
The child actress-turned-barrister is expected to make a series of public appearances and speeches at the Labour party conference last this month to ‘humanise’ her husband. But the decision to use Ms Thornton on the political frontline will draw comparisons with failed attempts by Gordon Brown and Iain Duncan Smith to use their other halves to rescue their leadership."
How long before she cries at the thought of a zero hours contract ?
Please god no. The last thing we need is Daves Date Nights remakes.
This is just what politicans do though tim. Your smart enough to realise that. I'm confused though when you mock Cameron for doing X, you're surprised when Miliband does exactly the same thing.. It's what they do..
They don't all do it, Miliband has avoided it for the most part, and Farage completely. Dave taking cameramen on Date Nights is yet to be matched. The spinners love it and always try to persuade them, they tried to get Brown to use his disabled son when Cameron was using his family to increase trust on the NHS but he refused to his credit.Although the vomitworthy stuff they got Sarah to do was cringemaking
Lets see what happens in the run up to the election and if Miliband gets to be PM. We've already had plenty of cringeworthy stuff from him, but (understandably) you've ignored it. When he's got a higher profile, he'll find it harder and harder.
I mean.. 'now' magazine is hardly highbrow stuff is it?
@PB Moderator Apologies for inadverdently breaching the ban earlier; I thought referring to a live interview was fair, but I can understand that in the context, it was not.
This is really funny.. So far today .. Pork has called me A pitiful whiner A deranged stalker. A doddering old codger. Paranoid. Too Biased. Too dumb. A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities. A foam flecked tory. A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
His doorstep technique must be a wow.
Unspoofable
Absolutely shocking , we had no idea Pork could make so many correct statements in one day .
This is really funny.. So far today .. Pork has called me A pitiful whiner A deranged stalker. A doddering old codger. Paranoid. Too Biased. Too dumb. A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities. A foam flecked tory. A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
His doorstep technique must be a wow.
Unspoofable
Absolutely shocking , we had no idea Pork could make so many correct statements in one day .
Very good.
I'll give you another.
No matter how little attention is being paid to it on PB Sarah Teather standing down and her statement on Clegg is causing quite a bit of disquiet for the lib dem grassroots. Not least because of the surprisingly vicious way some of Clegg's spinners have immediately turned her entire lib dem career into one vote on gay marriage to attack her with.
Tim Farron will be looking on at this with more than a touch of trepidation if that's what he can expect to be on the receiving end of in any future leadership battle. Which has some betting implications I would think. I for one don't know how he would cope with that kind of attack and up till now I thought him the obvious frontrunner with little to stop him.
Is Ed Miliband to blame for making Obama the lamest of lame ducks?
Did the HofC defeat lead to Obama's decision to get the approval of Congress?
If Congress says No, is Obama's authority shot to pieces?
Can we blame Ed?
Alternatively you could blame (or thank, depending on your perspective) Cameron for setting the precedent of asking parliament, or Robin Cook for getting Blair to set the precedent for the precedent over Iraq. But mostly I'd be inclined to blame John Kerry for being a total useless twonk.
Is Ed Miliband to blame for making Obama the lamest of lame ducks?
Did the HofC defeat lead to Obama's decision to get the approval of Congress?
If Congress says No, is Obama's authority shot to pieces?
Can we blame Ed?
Trying to appease the Neocons who think a couple of hundred cruise missiles missile is nowhere near enough, while trying to keep onside those who think it's a step too far towards outright regime change and irreversible entanglement in yet another intractable middle east war, always looked like a bit of a stretch.
This is really funny.. So far today .. Pork has called me A pitiful whiner A deranged stalker. A doddering old codger. Paranoid. Too Biased. Too dumb. A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities. A foam flecked tory. A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
His doorstep technique must be a wow.
Unspoofable
You have missed one Mr Dodd, he also mentioned - 'Tw*t' ;-)
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
But mostly I'd be inclined to blame John Kerry for being a total useless twonk.
Yes, that cannot be overstated to be fair.
Kerry seems designed to make Dems look back in fondness to when Hillary was Secretary of State. I also doubt she'd want to inherit another middle east clusterf*** somehow.
This is really funny.. So far today .. Pork has called me A pitiful whiner A deranged stalker. A doddering old codger. Paranoid. Too Biased. Too dumb. A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities. A foam flecked tory. A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
His doorstep technique must be a wow.
Unspoofable
You have missed one Mr Dodd, he also mentioned - 'Tw*t' ;-)
He's added some too. As long as it keeps the old fellow chuntering along obliviously who are we to spoil his fun? ;-)
Comments
Anyone tempted to complain about the quality of the British party leaders should remember the time the US voters had a choice consisting of him or George W Bush.
Bollocks. That's only one side of the entire Falkirk debacle. The other side is a little more problematic for little Ed than just empty posturing against union influence.
Dig deeper into the article and reality hits: This should be front-and-centre of the Independence argument: How unionism is damaging the long-term economic prospects of Scotland. So why Wee-Eck not doing so?
Simply because he has allied himself to Beelzebub: That soul-sucking sound of public-sectorism feeding off English taxes. There is too much of the UK government "invested" in Scottish Labour heartlands and the SNP are too scared to accept national rationalisation.
So anecdotes about how "well" Scotland survived the "Gormless" induced recession of 2008-2011 have as much substance as a Labour internal-party investigation. They may not have suffered the bruising that England took (from misguided Scottish machinations) but they are destined to fall behind an increasingly Tory England and her vibrant economy and populace.
And yet they - the Scots - could make a real choice next year; a choice that could see the rebirth of a traditional, diffident Scots' homeland. However the public-sector teet is too tempting....
Ed has backed himself into a corner, either he will u-turn and keep the money but destroy his reputation, or plough ahead and lose masses of union funding. It's a lose/lose situation and public support makes not a single jot of difference.
Caught a chunk of Chukka this morning. He seemed to think that being solvent was less important than being right too. It has the attraction of consistency to what they did to the country I suppose.
Actually, putting the detail of money and paying the bills to one side I thought Chukka was quite good. A little sanctimonious and smug but clear potential there to speak to a broader audience than most of Labour's front bench. If we do not get PM Miliband he is going to be a serious candidate.
That would certainly answer some of the questions – However, the likelihood of Miliband doing so voluntarily is zero. – Hence the call for an independent inquiry.
It proved that campaigns matter, that minds can be changed if one side of the argument argues its case with more intelligence and wit than the other.
That my side of the argument lost on that occasion will in future years come to be seen as a minor footnote to the triumphal march of reason and justice.
I suspect most have made up their minds - though they may not tell posters so - and the remainder are both less likely to vote ('It won't make any difference to me, either way.') or are genuinely waiting to hear and see what is said and done both in Holyrood and Westminster over the next 13 months.
Pork - you seem to be suggesting that the Falkirk affair was dreamt up by a Blairite faction to enable Ed to wage war on the barons - interesting angle on it - but not even Tom Watson is spinning it that way...
Some Lib Dem seats are in play with SNP MSPs already representing the area. Gordon, Salmond's own constituency, is an obvious example and I would be astonished if that was not an SNP gain.
However, the referendum was lost not just because AV is clearly problematic for a GE but because by then Clegg was toxic and No made damn sure he was the face of AV.
The AV referendum obviously won't be the last word on electoral reform but AV sure isn't coming back any time soon.
http://www.cityam.com/article/1378696114/scrap-licence-fee-and-drag-british-tv-21st-century
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-monteith-snp-can-survive-yes-vote-doom-1-3082108
Cons 86% No difference
Lab 72% No difference
LD 77% No difference.
Or do you seriously think the poisonous Blair Brown infighting was all due to just one side as well?
If there is another side to this story it's been well hidden by all sides - including you with your enigmatic posts.
A return to the 'natural order' with his overtaking Dave?
We need newssense and we need it now.
Total: 63 (25)
Interesting breakouts among TU members:
Do the changes Ed Miliband is proposing to change Labour's relationship with the unions make you more or less likely to vote Labour or do they make no difference?
More: 18
Less: 9
No diff - vote Lab anyway: 31
No diff - NOT vote Lab: 35
It is neither as simple as a purely Blairite plot or Brownites and the unions being to blame for everything. Both sides are heavily involved. Which is why it's so destabalising to little Ed.
No difference - would note vote Lab anyway; 38
Seriously? An almost 600-klicks p.h. train? In England?
Who to shoot first: Journalists or politicians...?
Amazing how the threat of evisceration by the coming Anglo German pincer movement concentrates the mind....
"TUC Conference in Bournemouth has voted for campaign of "co-ordinated industrial action" in protest at public sector pay cap"
Will that actually lead to such a programme of strikes? The economy's finally left the up-and-down stage and seems to be improving. Not sure strike action will impress the general public.
I'd say that's a bit of an understatement. What will Ed's position be?
Full judge led enquiry?
'Or indeed according to another apparent reading of referendum voting intention that is to be found buried in the tables in the first of the more conventionally sized polls Lord Ashcroft has released today. Conducted online in June (so still not an up to date reading), this poll appears to have put Yes on 32%, No on 57% – again a rather narrower lead that is not dissimilar to the results of a number of other polls conducted at around the same time. In truth, the finding from the mega poll that Lord Ashcroft has chosen to headline looks as much of an outlier as some of Panelbase’s polls have done in the opposite direction...
Any effort to get beneath the headlines on where Scotland stands on the constitutional issue is to be welcomed. It is just a pity that in this instance at least Lord Ashcroft did not get more bang for his mega bucks.'
http://tinyurl.com/pk9l292
Personal insults. After Osborne destroyed your man on the economy, that's all you're left with.
Demonstrably democratizing a political party is a good thing but I suspect the more potent electoral fall-out will be one of the oldest and irrefutable iron laws of politics: voters do not like divided parties.
The problem with this strategy is that the Referendum is on that issue. Voters will be making the best choice as they see it, and would be dismissive of anyone who says, don't bother. The future of your country is clearly an important decision to make, even if you are more concerned about day to day issues.
As Lord Ashcroft hints, the idea of of NOT giving Mr Salmond even more power would resonate with many Scots I believe. I am not quite sure how a NO campaign would phrase this.
IMRC, even a ‘million +’ strong protest was knocked off the front pages by the comments of JC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10294976/Milisecond-n-the-time-it-takes-Ed-to-do-the-unions-bidding.html
"Let me give an example of the kind of disaster I mean. Just 25 miles from where I sit, they are putting the finishing touches to a stupendous and brilliant project – a new deep-water port for London and the UK. With the help of colossal investment from Dubai, we will next month be opening the DP World port at Thurrock.
This will begin to undo the damage that was done in the Sixties and Seventies, when union militancy and government hopelessness brought the London docks to ruin. We failed to invest, we failed to expand and to meet the challenge of containerisation – and we saw our business go to Rotterdam.
The population of London plummeted; thousands of jobs were lost; the docks were turned into a wasteland.
Now all that is being reversed, and at breathtaking speed.With the DP World port, London will be able once again to handle the very biggest ships, and a huge logistics park is being created at the site. There will be about 27,000 jobs and £2.5 billion worth of growth.
And what is the response of Unite members? Are they celebrating the good news for working people? On the contrary, they are picketing the site, jumping on cars and hurling abuse like something from the Seventies. Unite has done nothing to bring this investment to Britain. It didn’t think of it. It didn’t promote it.
Yet the union somehow believes that it has a right to be a partner in the running of the port, and that the owners should be compelled to deal with it rather than with their employees. McCluskey wants to run the place, just as he wants to run the Labour Party, and he threatens exactly the same madness that brought this country to its knees in the Seventies – the strikes and the militancy that drove investors away, and that cost London its port."
A ..you are a member of a Union
B ..You are not a member of a Union
C..That you dont know, as in ..no one has told you..
That you are ashamed of all of the options above
Vey amusing.. Unspoofable..
I already said quite clearly I wasn't a union official. That is what No means you doddering old codger. A member of a union? Yes.
Now does this mean that..
A/ I am somehow in your paranoid mind involved in the Falkirk affair and/or too biased and too dumb to know that there are self-evidently two sides involved in this labour infighting?
or
B/ You are a very strange and peculiar old chap who spends most of their time on this website whining and trying to find out the personal details of other posters?
a) Just appoint commissioners on merit instead of per nation
(=> Remove the British commissioner and move towards a federal superstate, Cameron will get lynched by the Eurosceptics)
b) Buggins turn system where countries only sometimes get commissioners.
(=> Cameron still gets lynched, and it gets argued about forever and never actually gets done)
c) Only the big countries get commissioners.
(=> The small countries won't agree, plan is DOA)
'Osborne's hair makeover is now complete to match the voice reconstruction.'
What a stupid post.
Anyway, back to lurking.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 1h
BBC News Channel reveals that Shadow Transport Secretary Maria Eagle has missed her interview with them - because her train was delayed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415849/Send-Justine-Ed-Milibands-wife-come-fighting-Labour-leader-party-conference-bid-woo-voters.html
"Labour party bosses are to give Ed Miliband’s wife Justine a more high profile role in a bid to give her husband a popularity boost.
The child actress-turned-barrister is expected to make a series of public appearances and speeches at the Labour party conference last this month to ‘humanise’ her husband.
But the decision to use Ms Thornton on the political frontline will draw comparisons with failed attempts by Gordon Brown and Iain Duncan Smith to use their other halves to rescue their leadership."
How long before she cries at the thought of a zero hours contract ?
Mark Nixon @markalannixon 1h
Bitter Tony Blair is making a big mistake over Syria http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/bitter-tony-blair-making-big-2259212 …
ormiga @ormiga 6h
#Syria chemical weapons attack not ordered by Assad--Germany intelligence agency http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild … YAWN wheres yo! #blair!
You often seem keener to engage in name-calling than in arguing against someone's position.
*rolleyes*
Apologies for vagueness, I'm pretty sure it was used but the details escape me. It's quite interesting, though, to consider cutting edge technology in warfare, such as the Greek fire of Byzantium or the giant flamethrower the Thebans used at the Battle of Delium.
Edited extra bit: "In medieval times, pots containing naphtha were used in battle as a form of primitive grenade."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha#Other_applications
Just another of your Tory/Right wing hating paranoid sayings.
So far today .. Pork has called me
A pitiful whiner
A deranged stalker.
A doddering old codger.
Paranoid.
Too Biased.
Too dumb.
A strange and peculiar old chap who spends his time trying to find out other posters identities.
A foam flecked tory.
A union basher
And all because I asked him if he was a member of a Union
His doorstep technique must be a wow.
Unspoofable
You are infamous for stalking left wing posters on here, trying to find out their personal details and throwing abuse at them. It's about all you ever do. How's about you grow a pair or give it a rest for once?
He'd also have better spinners now and cloak it in language of collateral damage and the technobabble of modern weaponry some seem far too enamoured with. 'Drone' might sound slightly sinister but 'remote controlled flying killing machine' is not a very appealing alternative.
It could also be the flak Ed has got for Syria but that seems less likely to me.
Labour 1.89
Con 2.1
I mean.. 'now' magazine is hardly highbrow stuff is it?
http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/546114/ed-miliband-my-brother-david-is-hotter-that-s-not-what-my-wife-says
Apologies for inadverdently breaching the ban earlier; I thought referring to a live interview was fair, but I can understand that in the context, it was not.
I'll give you another.
No matter how little attention is being paid to it on PB Sarah Teather standing down and her statement on Clegg is causing quite a bit of disquiet for the lib dem grassroots. Not least because of the surprisingly vicious way some of Clegg's spinners have immediately turned her entire lib dem career into one vote on gay marriage to attack her with.
Tim Farron will be looking on at this with more than a touch of trepidation if that's what he can expect to be on the receiving end of in any future leadership battle. Which has some betting implications I would think. I for one don't know how he would cope with that kind of attack and up till now I thought him the obvious frontrunner with little to stop him.
Did the HofC defeat lead to Obama's decision to get the approval of Congress?
If Congress says No, is Obama's authority shot to pieces?
Can we blame Ed?
Do other pollsters prompt similarly, or include "Don't know" as an option?
I suppose you could argue that "forcing" a "yes/no" choice will either favour:
1) the affirmative "yes", or
2) the status quo "no"......
The most dangerous thing for Ed miliband is for Clegg's head to roll ~ December 2014 and a Farron lead LD party to head into the next GE.
In your own inimitable style Porky .. Unspoofable..heheh
Kerry seems designed to make Dems look back in fondness to when Hillary was Secretary of State. I also doubt she'd want to inherit another middle east clusterf*** somehow.
This conversation ends now, and neither of you are allowed to refer to each other directly or indirectly.