politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov CON member ratings of the three still in the race ra
Comments
-
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......PlatoSaid said:
Whether it's Leadsom or Gove - I'll vote for either in preference to May. She's a known quantity and I'm not impressed by her track record of hiding, sending out human shields and flip-flopping.SimonStClare said:
Exactly, those that actually have a say in the leadership contest, be they MPs or Members will be following the stories avidly. – It may change some voting intention, but not many IMO, they’ve already decided.Cyclefree said:
It's not the public who matter at this point but Tory MPs and I expect they are well aware or will be made so.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not seeing anything about Leadsom's CV on the BBC News page, even on the BBC New Politics page it doesn't feature. It's wall to wall Chilcott.Pauly said:The fieldwork was pre-CVgate too. Just crown May now, as much as the members should have a say it's a foregone conclusion and we need certainty & to get out asap.
So will it have that big an impact?
I'm not too bothered about tittle-tattle that she's a pain to work for or a micro manager or whatever. It's all partisan sniping between factions. The same applies to CV nitpicking or tax returns or who banks with Coutts et al. May was invisible during the Remain campaign - there was no bigger debate to be involved in. She hedged her bets and been slippery - I don't admire that sort of behaviour.
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
0 -
Past 11 o'clock and still Chilcot is LATE!0
-
Michael Fabricant
There are further hustings today at 5pm with Q&A for Leadsom, Gove, and May, in that order, for Conservative MPs. Final vote tomorrow.0 -
I said she fronted it in the debates. How is that re-writing anything? She did!Slackbladder said:
She was 'part' of the team which about 5m people watched. Gove, Johnson and Farage were all more high profile and influential than her.Philip_Thompson said:
The comparison is fatuitous.Slackbladder said:
The comparison is that Leadson represents who the members want, not who is best placed to win a general election. In addition she is backed, and to a certain degree represents the non-centre electorate.Philip_Thompson said:
Corbyn has been on the loony fringes of Labour's backbenches for three decades, never once serving as minister or shadow minister and having no real career either inside or outside politics and rebelling hundreds of times against the whip.Slackbladder said:
That's what worries me. it's like labour electing Corbyn, and that happened.Stark_Dawning said:Leadsom will pull off an amazing victory with the membership. For months now they've had it rammed down their throats that all Remainers are liars, careerists, idiots or all three and that only a true Leaver is fit to carry the Brexit flame. That sort of mindset can't be dispelled overnight. Leadsom will be seen as a Joan of Arc figure, leading the piratical crew of Brexiteers towards the glorious sunrise of their post-EU destiny. It's written in the stars...
Leadsom had a career before politics, joined Parliament recently and is a currently serving minister.
The two are not remotely comparable. The worst that can be said about Leadsom is that this may be too early for her, that she's not served in the cabinet yet. There seems to be no suggestion that she would never reach cabinet level otherwise.
Is she Corbyn, no, but it could be a similar error. More so if she's going to PM rather than just LoO
Leadsom may win a General Election, she recently fronted a winning campaign in the two biggest televised debates during the campaign. Corbyn has never in his life come close to doing anything like that.
Leadsome is centrist enough to have made ministerial level within six years of entering Parliament. That is not comparable to someone who couldn't become Minister for picking up dog turds after three decades.
To pretend she 'fronted' this campaign is shameless re-writing history. Much as it seems her CV was.0 -
The key to this will probably be the financial regulators. If she's claiming she did a job for which she would have needed certain records, approvals or qualifications that she doesn't have, then she is either being untruthful now, or was untruthful in the past.Cicero said:
Not so. In fact Leadsom was only a registered rep- I.e. Undertaking market business for a few months.David_Evershed said:May's CV in financial services as per Wikipedia.
Between 1977 and 1983 May worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 as a financial consultant and senior advisor in International Affairs at the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
So May's record in finance is far less distibguished than Leadsom's.
Her interview with the Select Committee could also be the undoing of her, if that is found to have contained untruths.0 -
She's still well clear of Gove. Gove vs Leadsom for the final ballot is the current battlerottenborough said:Leadsom now out above 7 on BF.
0 -
Chilcot showing his contempt to one and all.0
-
The piece in the Telegraph by Sajid Javid, which was flagged on the last thread, is clearly a pitch for the Chancellor job, and a good one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/my-economic-plan-for-britain-after-brexit/
0 -
I guess if you don't do anything, you can't get kicked out for cocking it up, but its not exactly a recommendation is it.Sandpit said:Her six years as Home Secretary is unprecedented since WWII, the vast majority of her predecessors in that role being forced out by a major scandal or policy failing.
0 -
It doesn't take much to say that X someone lied about their CV. Can someone who lies be trusted? The public can understand that point well enough.MaxPB said:
Again, we're not talking about the public, we're talking about 150,000 political types.TOPPING said:
I think trying to explain to the public the nuances of the difference between Senior Investment Officer and Chief Investment Officer might take long enough a) for them to lose interest, it is an investment officer, after all, right?*; and b) for her to have won the ballot.Cyclefree said:
What she did and what she said about it matter for two reasons:-RobC said:I'm actually much less interested in the precise nature of what Andrea Leadsom did in her past career than in how well she performed those roles whatever they were. Her performances on Newsnight etc and in the first EU debate were fairly creditable even though I strongly disagreed with her but to be frank I'd just be happy if she keeps the dangerous Gove off the Tory members ballot paper for the reasons Ken Clarke perfectly enunciated yesterday.
I have however discovered my sister in law went to the same grammar school and was in the same year as Leadsom. Unfortunately I can't add to the sum of public knowledge as she can only remember her as being a quiet girl.
1. She is claiming - or allowing her supporters to claim - that her vast City experience ("managing funds and large teams") is one reason why despite her very limited political experience she is fit to be PM at this critical time. So the nature of what she did matters to see if it really does give her the sort of experience that would be worth considering. And bear in mind that successful business people don't necessarily make successful politicians (cf: Archie Norman).
2. If what she said about herself is untrue / exxaggerated / a lie (take your pick depending on how charitable you feel) then that raises serious questions about her probity and judgment, both key qualities I would have thought for a potential PM.
Being able to string a few coherent sentences together in a debate or TV interview is a pretty low bar frankly.
I am with @Stark_Dawning on this. She is the anti-candidate. Anti-candidates are doing quite well atm.
*And yes I do know the difference and the egregious nature of her miswriting. But then we are a rarefied bunch on PB.
I'm going to put my straw poll out again on Friday to see if there has been any movement towards Leadsom. I don't expect anything.
Or you can say that X has not been straightforward. We have seen from Chilcott what damage politicians who are not straightforward can do. Do we want to repeat the mistake? I think the public will understand that point too.
0 -
How aboutTOPPING said:
I think trying to explain to the public the nuances of the difference between Senior Investment Officer and Chief Investment Officer might take long enough a) for them to lose interest, it is an investment officer, after all, right?*; and b) for her to have won the ballot.Cyclefree said:
What she did and what she said about it matter for two reasons:-RobC said:I'm actually much less interested in the precise nature of what Andrea Leadsom did in her past career than in how well she performed those roles whatever they were. Her performances on Newsnight etc and in the first EU debate were fairly creditable even though I strongly disagreed with her but to be frank I'd just be happy if she keeps the dangerous Gove off the Tory members ballot paper for the reasons Ken Clarke perfectly enunciated yesterday.
I have however discovered my sister in law went to the same grammar school and was in the same year as Leadsom. Unfortunately I can't add to the sum of public knowledge as she can only remember her as being a quiet girl.
1. She is claiming - or allowing her supporters to claim - that her vast City experience ("managing funds and large teams") is one reason why despite her very limited political experience she is fit to be PM at this critical time. So the nature of what she did matters to see if it really does give her the sort of experience that would be worth considering. And bear in mind that successful business people don't necessarily make successful politicians (cf: Archie Norman).
2. If what she said about herself is untrue / exxaggerated / a lie (take your pick depending on how charitable you feel) then that raises serious questions about her probity and judgment, both key qualities I would have thought for a potential PM.
Being able to string a few coherent sentences together in a debate or TV interview is a pretty low bar frankly.
I am with @Stark_Dawning on this. She is the anti-candidate. Anti-candidates are doing quite well atm.
*And yes I do know the difference and the egregious nature of her miswriting. But then we are a rarefied bunch on PB.
"She's got a track record all right... a track record of lying, exaggerating her experience and claiming credit for other people's achievements"
[although you could say that about most politicians!)0 -
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.Cyclefree said:
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......PlatoSaid said:
Whether it's Leadsom or Gove - I'll vote for either in preference to May. She's a known quantity and I'm not impressed by her track record of hiding, sending out human shields and flip-flopping.SimonStClare said:
Exactly, those that actually have a say in the leadership contest, be they MPs or Members will be following the stories avidly. – It may change some voting intention, but not many IMO, they’ve already decided.Cyclefree said:
It's not the public who matter at this point but Tory MPs and I expect they are well aware or will be made so.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not seeing anything about Leadsom's CV on the BBC News page, even on the BBC New Politics page it doesn't feature. It's wall to wall Chilcott.Pauly said:The fieldwork was pre-CVgate too. Just crown May now, as much as the members should have a say it's a foregone conclusion and we need certainty & to get out asap.
So will it have that big an impact?
I'm not too bothered about tittle-tattle that she's a pain to work for or a micro manager or whatever. It's all partisan sniping between factions. The same applies to CV nitpicking or tax returns or who banks with Coutts et al. May was invisible during the Remain campaign - there was no bigger debate to be involved in. She hedged her bets and been slippery - I don't admire that sort of behaviour.
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.0 -
Why are remainers trying to sell May so hard on these forums anyway, there is probably about 10 posters that actually get a vote, and they are probably all Tory activists anyway.0
-
Chilcot findings: Leadsom innocent - was attending papal conclave during key events0
-
Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
0 -
Not quite: she said Eddie George called together a few senior bankers, including her, and they worked through the weekend. As a result there was no panic and banking crisis on the Monday.David_Evershed said:
The Guardian doesn't have the best contacts in Banking.Chris said:
Perhaps some scepticism is called for regarding the Barclays section of her CV as well as the other sections:David_Evershed said:Leadsom seems to have been head of the the team dealing with Barclays financial service customers in the 1990's. As a standalone business it would make it into the FTSE 250.
"The Guardian contacted several senior City sources who worked at BZW and Barclays at the same time as Leadsom, but could find none who could recall her spell at the bank, which concluded 19 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsoms-the-city-high-profile-roles-under-radar-barclays-brexit-negotiations
Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.
[I am sure that she worked through the weekend - she was the person who had authorised Barclay's loan to Barings after all - but I very much doubt that she was in the room. I'll have to ask my Dad (who was there for some - but not all - of the meetings)0 -
I hope he is Chancellor it will certainly make selling an event I have with him somewhat easier...Richard_Nabavi said:The piece in the Telegraph by Sajid Javid, which was flagged on the last thread, is clearly a pitch for the Chancellor job, and a good one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/my-economic-plan-for-britain-after-brexit/0 -
Leadsome exaggerated her CV, Blair exaggerated his reasons for war. Politicians, eh?0
-
Leadsom and Gove will get a pretty thorough grilling.PlatoSaid said:Michael Fabricant
There are further hustings today at 5pm with Q&A for Leadsom, Gove, and May, in that order, for Conservative MPs. Final vote tomorrow.
I'll bet Mr Fox is being pumped by everyone for the full 'Gove warmonger' story mentioned by Mr Clarke.
0 -
My contribution pales in comparison.geoffw said:
Didn't you do that?Gravitation said:People forget how Andrea Leadsome single handedly brought down the Berlin Wall.
0 -
Bearing in mind the track record of the previous incumbent for telling the most outrageous whoppers and then trying to downgrade them to plans and eventually aspirations, I am not sure attacks on the basis of veracity have a lot of mileage in the Tory party.Cyclefree said:It doesn't take much to say that X someone lied about their CV. Can someone who lies be trusted? The public can understand that point well enough.
Or you can say that X has not been straightforward. We have seen from Chilcott what damage politicians who are not straightforward can do. Do we want to repeat the mistake? I think the public will understand that point too.
0 -
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.0 -
We're talking about someone who wants to be PM not some junior who has embellished his title a bit to get ahead.PlatoSaid said:
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
You seem so desperate to back someone ideologically pure that you're willing to overlook serious character flaws in two candidates who want to the the next PM. Both of whom may lose to Corbyn.0 -
I get a vote and will be voting in the best interest of the nation and that is without doubt Theresa May.Indigo said:Why are remainers trying to sell May so hard on these forums anyway, there is probably about 10 posters that actually get a vote, and they are probably all Tory activists anyway.
0 -
I must confess I have doubts. He seems to have done nothing about deregulation, which he is supposed to have been championing for the last 14 months. Still, the article is a good blueprint.ToryJim said:I hope he is Chancellor it will certainly make selling an event I have with him somewhat easier...
0 -
The credit department will have authorised the loan. She will have communicated it and may well have given her input. But loans to banks where there are rumours of trouble will be escalated to senior credit officials (usually very senior ones) within the lending bank. Leadsom was not such a person and will not have made the final decision to make such a loan, If so we would have heard about it at the time.Charles said:
Not quite: she said Eddie George called together a few senior bankers, including her, and they worked through the weekend. As a result there was no panic and banking crisis on the Monday.David_Evershed said:
The Guardian doesn't have the best contacts in Banking.Chris said:
Perhaps some scepticism is called for regarding the Barclays section of her CV as well as the other sections:David_Evershed said:Leadsom seems to have been head of the the team dealing with Barclays financial service customers in the 1990's. As a standalone business it would make it into the FTSE 250.
"The Guardian contacted several senior City sources who worked at BZW and Barclays at the same time as Leadsom, but could find none who could recall her spell at the bank, which concluded 19 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsoms-the-city-high-profile-roles-under-radar-barclays-brexit-negotiations
Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.
[I am sure that she worked through the weekend - she was the person who had authorised Barclay's loan to Barings after all - but I very much doubt that she was in the room. I'll have to ask my Dad (who was there for some - but not all - of the meetings)0 -
Do we have any idea how long Chilcot is speaking for? I fear an Oscar Pistorius summing up...
0 -
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.0 -
and if she was for EEA/EFTA you would vote for her like a shot, lets not be coyMaxPB said:
We're talking about someone who wants to be PM not some junior who has embellished his title a bit to get ahead.PlatoSaid said:
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
You seem so desperate to back someone ideologically pure that you're willing to overlook serious character flaws in two candidates who want to the the next PM. Both of whom may lose to Corbyn.
0 -
If he were to read the entire report for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 120 wpm, he finish around August 22.PlatoSaid said:Do we have any idea how long Chilcot is speaking for? I fear an Oscar Pistorius summing up...
0 -
Depends how many Sir Humphries have been involved.PlatoSaid said:Do we have any idea how long Chilcot is speaking for? I fear an Oscar Pistorius summing up...
0 -
Yes, and you would have done that before the last couple of days of verbiage, so my question stands.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I get a vote and will be voting in the best interest of the nation and that is without doubt Theresa May.Indigo said:Why are remainers trying to sell May so hard on these forums anyway, there is probably about 10 posters that actually get a vote, and they are probably all Tory activists anyway.
(Beside which as a remainer you would logically vote for the most remain candidate on offer, and if she managed to not quite leave your heart would not be broken)0 -
Wasn't really commenting on suitability. Merely it will be easier to sell an event with the Chancellor than with the Business SecretaryRichard_Nabavi said:
I must confess I have doubts. He seems to have done nothing about deregulation, which he is supposed to have been championing for the last 14 months. Still, the article is a good blueprint.ToryJim said:I hope he is Chancellor it will certainly make selling an event I have with him somewhat easier...
0 -
I assumed she was the relationship manager for Barings.Cyclefree said:
The credit department will have authorised the loan. She will have communicated it and may well have given her input. But loans to banks where there are rumours of trouble will be escalated to senior credit officials (usually very senior ones) within the lending bank. Leadsom was not such a person and will not have made the final decision to make such a loan, If so we would have heard about it at the time.Charles said:
Not quite: she said Eddie George called together a few senior bankers, including her, and they worked through the weekend. As a result there was no panic and banking crisis on the Monday.David_Evershed said:
The Guardian doesn't have the best contacts in Banking.Chris said:
Perhaps some scepticism is called for regarding the Barclays section of her CV as well as the other sections:David_Evershed said:Leadsom seems to have been head of the the team dealing with Barclays financial service customers in the 1990's. As a standalone business it would make it into the FTSE 250.
"The Guardian contacted several senior City sources who worked at BZW and Barclays at the same time as Leadsom, but could find none who could recall her spell at the bank, which concluded 19 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsoms-the-city-high-profile-roles-under-radar-barclays-brexit-negotiations
Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.
[I am sure that she worked through the weekend - she was the person who had authorised Barclay's loan to Barings after all - but I very much doubt that she was in the room. I'll have to ask my Dad (who was there for some - but not all - of the meetings)
She certainly said that she discussed it with her credit department, and she called the Barings CFO with the questions.
(So you are right "authorised" was the wrong term to use - but she would definitely have been involved. I don't know how BZW worked at the time, but I'd assume that something like that would have gone through a commitment committee even though it was just a drawdown on a standby facility rather than a new loan)0 -
@rogerh
'Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.'
Did anyone believe the government would tell a pack of lies about such a serious issue ?.0 -
I backed Iraq War v1 based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up Iraq, effed up the West and destroyed trust in HMG over military action.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
What a colossal mistake - based on a lie.0 -
Better not tell the police, they might start to think that if they can't arrest all the burglars they better give up and arrest noneTwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for. 0 -
Theresa May's long service medal and clock from the Home Office tells us more about David Cameron's reluctance to reshuffle than anything else. Under another Prime Minister, she might easily have gone for Border Force, immigration or various policing scandals.Sandpit said:
To be fair, May's not standing on her record in finance, as much as she's standing on her quite considerable record in politics and government.David_Evershed said:May's CV in financial services as per Wikipedia.
Between 1977 and 1983 May worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 as a financial consultant and senior advisor in International Affairs at the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
So May's record in finance is far less distibguished than Leadsom's.
Her six years as Home Secretary is unprecedented since WWII, the vast majority of her predecessors in that role being forced out by a major scandal or policy failing.0 -
Two wrongs don't make a right.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
Also how many of those have we already been at war with, are actually on a ceasefire with rather than at peace and are continuing military operations enforcing a new fly zone and sanctions?0 -
Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!0 -
david_herdson said:
If he were to read the entire report for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 120 wpm, he finish around August 22.PlatoSaid said:Do we have any idea how long Chilcot is speaking for? I fear an Oscar Pistorius summing up...
0 -
About that surge in wages ...
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/7506188097032929280 -
Chilcot political dynamite...0
-
Nah, they just go for the low hanging fruit, like Saddam!Indigo said:
Better not tell the police, they might start to think that if they can't arrest all the burglars they better give up and arrest noneTwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.0 -
The f-ing up was as much to do with not having a plan after the fighting was completed, what does that remind me of that has happened over the last couple of weeks. Cameron truly is the heir to Blair.PlatoSaid said:
I backed Iraq War v1 based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up Iraq, effed up the West and destroyed trust in HMG over military action.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
What a colossal mistake - based on a lie.0 -
Maybe it is, but he seems to have been pretty useless at BIS. Is that really a good reason to promote him?Richard_Nabavi said:The piece in the Telegraph by Sajid Javid, which was flagged on the last thread, is clearly a pitch for the Chancellor job, and a good one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/my-economic-plan-for-britain-after-brexit/
I'd say that he has been the most disappointing minister of this government, and that is up against some very tough competition. Mind you, one of his competitors pushing hard for that prize is Theresa May.0 -
When I was recruiting a manager to work for me in a bank, I made a job offer to a candidate. When Personnel checked out his CV, he had a third class degree not the lower second class he claimed.
I would have still recruited him if I had known he had a 'third' but because he lied on his CV I could not possibly take him on.0 -
If people who lied on their CV saw that there were consequences for lying, there would be less of it about. It's precisely your attitude ("past trivia" indeed) that makes the job of people like me, trying to get wrong'uns out of the industry so much harder than it should be.PlatoSaid said:
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.Cyclefree said:
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......PlatoSaid said:SimonStClare said:Cyclefree said:Philip_Thompson said:Pauly said:
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
And then the very same people complain about politicians lying to them and breaking their trust. Well if you trust people who have shown that they cannot be trusted, what do you expect?
0 -
No.john_zims said:@rogerh
'Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.'
Did anyone believe the government would tell a pack of lies about such a serious issue ?.0 -
I suspect those meetings were the BofE telling and the banks listening. Whoever the bank sent along was just there to take notes and report back.David_Evershed said:
The Guardian doesn't have the best contacts in Banking.Chris said:
Perhaps some scepticism is called for regarding the Barclays section of her CV as well as the other sections:David_Evershed said:Leadsom seems to have been head of the the team dealing with Barclays financial service customers in the 1990's. As a standalone business it would make it into the FTSE 250.
"The Guardian contacted several senior City sources who worked at BZW and Barclays at the same time as Leadsom, but could find none who could recall her spell at the bank, which concluded 19 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsoms-the-city-high-profile-roles-under-radar-barclays-brexit-negotiations
Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.0 -
It's not just fibbing on CVs ...Cyclefree said:
If people who lied on their CV saw that there were consequences for lying, there would be less of it about. It's precisely your attitude ("past trivia" indeed) that makes the job of people like me, trying to get wrong'uns out of the industry so much harder than it should be.PlatoSaid said:
No - I'm saying that past trivia doesn't bother me. If everyone who'd ever fibbed on their CV was excluded from office - well the dole queues would be very much longer.Cyclefree said:
You're not bothered if Leadsom was less than truthful.......PlatoSaid said:SimonStClare said:Cyclefree said:Philip_Thompson said:Pauly said:
I often get that approach from managers who want to hire a candidate who has lied on their CV (oh, it's only nit picking) and they get sent away with a flea in their ear.
The two biggest fraudsters of recent City history - Adoboli and Hayes - told lies about themselves, small ones which were waved away as mere CV nitpicking. They were a bloody big clue that they were both not to be trusted as the banks in question later found out, to their - and our - great cost.
It's precisely this reaction ("I want this person and therefore will ignore any inconvenient facts or dismiss them as malicious. I will believe only the facts which suit my opinion rather than let the facts determine my opinion.") which makes changing culture in the City - and evidently elsewhere - so hard.
I really don't care about it. I'm measuring the rival candidates by their record in Parliament and how they perform now.
And then the very same people complain about politicians lying to them and breaking their trust. Well if you trust people who have shown that they cannot be trusted, what do you expect?
https://twitter.com/johngapper/status/750584816211460096
0 -
That may be like saying that the fire prevention officer is a waste of space because there don't seem to be any fires to prevent. Quite often the people who are best at their jobs go unnoticed, unless they are also good at self promotion, since thinking ahead and avoiding problems draws a lot less attention than either allowing things to blow up but being good in a crisis, or cocking things up completely.Indigo said:
I guess if you don't do anything, you can't get kicked out for cocking it up, but its not exactly a recommendation is it.Sandpit said:Her six years as Home Secretary is unprecedented since WWII, the vast majority of her predecessors in that role being forced out by a major scandal or policy failing.
0 -
david_herdson said:
If he were to read the entire report for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 120 wpm, he finish around August 22.PlatoSaid said:Do we have any idea how long Chilcot is speaking for? I fear an Oscar Pistorius summing up...
Is there not a 100,000 word executive summary we can read somewhere, that might take only a few days?0 -
Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.0
-
Given what we've learned about the other parts of her CV over the last 24 hours, I think it would be a mistake to argue that, in effect, "it must be true because it would have been unwise to make it up."David_Evershed said:Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.
0 -
Agreed. Javid has been a monumental disappointment at BIS. Almost no sign of him in anything the Govt has done. No bonfire of the red tape for example.HurstLlama said:
Maybe it is, but he seems to have been pretty useless at BIS. Is that really a good reason to promote him?Richard_Nabavi said:The piece in the Telegraph by Sajid Javid, which was flagged on the last thread, is clearly a pitch for the Chancellor job, and a good one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/05/my-economic-plan-for-britain-after-brexit/
I'd say that he has been the most disappointing minister of this government, and that is up against some very tough competition. Mind you, one of his competitors pushing hard for that prize is Theresa May.
0 -
However the lack of any noticeable progress of immigration, border force, various policing scandals etc rather militates against the suggestion of someone making quiet progress behind the scenes, and more suggests someone hiding under their desk and hoping no one blamed them for anything.IanB2 said:
That may be like saying that the fire prevention officer is a waste of space because there don't seem to be any fires to prevent. Quite often the people who are best at their jobs go unnoticed, unless they are also good at self promotion, since thinking ahead and avoiding problems draws a lot less attention than either allowing things to blow up but being good in a crisis, or cocking things up completely.Indigo said:
I guess if you don't do anything, you can't get kicked out for cocking it up, but its not exactly a recommendation is it.Sandpit said:Her six years as Home Secretary is unprecedented since WWII, the vast majority of her predecessors in that role being forced out by a major scandal or policy failing.
0 -
Not a Mayite at all - but on reflection it seems to me that there is difference between what she does and what she says.SandyRentool said:Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
As an example - she keeps going on about 'reducing immigration' - but not actually doing anything to bring it down.
Equally, she keeps proposing and talking about lunatic bills and suggestions on the Snoopers Charter / IPBill - but it's still not got anywhere so I am starting to wonder if she actually recognizes the technological idiocy embedded in it and just keeps pushing it out / having discussions about amendments rather than ditching it and starting again in order to 'save face' / enable her to be perceived as 'being tough' - without actually doing anything.0 -
What a period of politics we're currently living in. Scary, but absolutely fascinating.SouthamObserver said:Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.
0 -
I can see why this report has taken so long. Sir John has been wanting to make sure that it is watertight in every respect before issuing something that will destroy the credibility of a former Prime Minister.SouthamObserver said:Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.
0 -
Joe Watts
#Chilcot - Cabinet did not discuss the military options or their implications0 -
Yes that works for meCharles said:
How aboutTOPPING said:
I think trying to explain to the public the nuances of the difference between Senior Investment Officer and Chief Investment Officer might take long enough a) for them to lose interest, it is an investment officer, after all, right?*; and b) for her to have won the ballot.Cyclefree said:
What she did and what she said about it matter for two reasons:-RobC said:I'm actually much less interested in the precise nature of what Andrea Leadsom did in her past career than in how well she performed those roles whatever they were. Her performances on Newsnight etc and in the first EU debate were fairly creditable even though I strongly disagreed with her but to be frank I'd just be happy if she keeps the dangerous Gove off the Tory members ballot paper for the reasons Ken Clarke perfectly enunciated yesterday.
I have however discovered my sister in law went to the same grammar school and was in the same year as Leadsom. Unfortunately I can't add to the sum of public knowledge as she can only remember her as being a quiet girl.
1. She is claiming - or allowing her supporters to claim - that her vast City experience ("managing funds and large teams") is one reason why despite her very limited political experience she is fit to be PM at this critical time. So the nature of what she did matters to see if it really does give her the sort of experience that would be worth considering. And bear in mind that successful business people don't necessarily make successful politicians (cf: Archie Norman).
2. If what she said about herself is untrue / exxaggerated / a lie (take your pick depending on how charitable you feel) then that raises serious questions about her probity and judgment, both key qualities I would have thought for a potential PM.
Being able to string a few coherent sentences together in a debate or TV interview is a pretty low bar frankly.
I am with @Stark_Dawning on this. She is the anti-candidate. Anti-candidates are doing quite well atm.
*And yes I do know the difference and the egregious nature of her miswriting. But then we are a rarefied bunch on PB.
"She's got a track record all right... a track record of lying, exaggerating her experience and claiming credit for other people's achievements"
[although you could say that about most politicians!)
But it can also be spun as all sticking it to the man.0 -
In her only senior job at HO , in six years she has done or achieved ZERO. A faceless administrator , how low has the UK sunk that the sum talent is this.SimonStClare said:
Exactly, those that actually have a say in the leadership contest, be they MPs or Members will be following the stories avidly. – It may change some voting intention, but not many IMO, they’ve already decided.Cyclefree said:
It's not the public who matter at this point but Tory MPs and I expect they are well aware or will be made so.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not seeing anything about Leadsom's CV on the BBC News page, even on the BBC New Politics page it doesn't feature. It's wall to wall Chilcott.Pauly said:The fieldwork was pre-CVgate too. Just crown May now, as much as the members should have a say it's a foregone conclusion and we need certainty & to get out asap.
So will it have that big an impact?0 -
Based on a lie and incompetence of the UK and US governments.PlatoSaid said:
I backed Iraq War v1 based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up Iraq, effed up the West and destroyed trust in HMG over military action.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
What a colossal mistake - based on a lie.0 -
He has a sufficient bank balance to console himself with.SouthamObserver said:Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.
0 -
Just wow.0
-
Key Chilcot finding:
"Decision on legal basis for war unsatisfactory"
Can only be a matter of time before someone tries to get Blair indited to The Hague?0 -
You mean 150,000 rich troughers who would sell their granny for an extra poundMaxPB said:
Again, we're not talking about the public, we're talking about 150,000 political types.TOPPING said:
I think trying to explain to the public the nuances of the difference between Senior Investment Officer and Chief Investment Officer might take long enough a) for them to lose interest, it is an investment officer, after all, right?*; and b) for her to have won the ballot.Cyclefree said:
What she did and what she said about it matter for two reasons:-RobC said:I'm actually much less interested in the precise nature of what Andrea Leadsom did in her past career than in how well she performed those roles whatever they were. Her performances on Newsnight etc and in the first EU debate were fairly creditable even though I strongly disagreed with her but to be frank I'd just be happy if she keeps the dangerous Gove off the Tory members ballot paper for the reasons Ken Clarke perfectly enunciated yesterday.
I have however discovered my sister in law went to the same grammar school and was in the same year as Leadsom. Unfortunately I can't add to the sum of public knowledge as she can only remember her as being a quiet girl.
1. She is claiming - or allowing her supporters to claim - that her vast City experience ("managing funds and large teams") is one reason why despite her very limited political experience she is fit to be PM at this critical time. So the nature of what she did matters to see if it really does give her the sort of experience that would be worth considering. And bear in mind that successful business people don't necessarily make successful politicians (cf: Archie Norman).
2. If what she said about herself is untrue / exxaggerated / a lie (take your pick depending on how charitable you feel) then that raises serious questions about her probity and judgment, both key qualities I would have thought for a potential PM.
Being able to string a few coherent sentences together in a debate or TV interview is a pretty low bar frankly.
I am with @Stark_Dawning on this. She is the anti-candidate. Anti-candidates are doing quite well atm.
*And yes I do know the difference and the egregious nature of her miswriting. But then we are a rarefied bunch on PB.
I'm going to put my straw poll out again on Friday to see if there has been any movement towards Leadsom. I don't expect anything.0 -
her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?SandyRentool said:Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
1. Survived.
2. Upset the police.
3. Upset the Lib Dems
4. Upset civil libertarians
5. Extradited one man to Jordan
6. Blocked extradition of one man to USA.0 -
Regarding Theresa May's record, this is what I posted a couple of days ago:
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Qatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing net immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.0 -
Beats me, old chap, especially since many of those now pushing MAY would without the referendum have been slagging her off as an authoritarian unfit for office.Indigo said:Why are remainers trying to sell May so hard on these forums anyway, there is probably about 10 posters that actually get a vote, and they are probably all Tory activists anyway.
On a broader note, our next prime minister will be elected by the votes of about 150,000 people. The vast majority of the electorate will have no say at all but will have to abide by the result. I really don't think that in the 21st century that is good enough.
I would like the system changed. Ideally I would like to see a directly elected PM who could then appoint to his/her cabinet any one he/she wants, whether an MP or not and the whole pack of them would then be held to account by Parliament. At the very least a PM taking over mid-term should be required to call a GE.0 -
Yes, you need.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Cons may or may not have been warmongers, but when the government tells the House that the UK is in mortal danger and that your enemy has WMD, your only option is to vote for war.
With no access to the intelligence, consider for a moment (if you are the type so to do) what the response would have been if, having been so warned, the Cons voted against war.
Was it true? Well there's a question..0 -
I think Chilcot's means that the process for deciding whether legal or not was unsatisfactory. He specifically said the inquiry did not make a decision on legal or not, only a court at international level could actually decide.GIN1138 said:Key Chilcot finding:
"Decision on legal basis for war unsatisfactory"
Can only be a matter of time before someone tries to get Blair indited to The Hague?0 -
Possibly,- however I’m expecting 50 shades of whitewash. I hope I’m wrong.GIN1138 said:Chilcot political dynamite...
0 -
Blair Straw Campbell will not be war criminals as law does not allow that -but now wide open to claims from all sorts of people. Suspect Blair has spent last few years offing assets to the Mrs,0
-
"I backed Brexit based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up the UK, effed up Europe and destroyed trust in the Conservative party over the economy."PlatoSaid said:
I backed Iraq War v1 based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up Iraq, effed up the West and destroyed trust in HMG over military action.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
What a colossal mistake - based on a lie.0 -
superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!Richard_Nabavi said:Regarding Theresa May's record, this is what I posted a couple of days ago:
Her record at the Home Office is superb by any standard. Firstly, and most importantly, she has quietly and effectively handled the day-by-day terrorist threat. Secondly she has dealt very effectively with long-running sores such as Abu Qatada and the Calais camp - building up very good relations with her French counterpart and patiently working with them despite the fact that it was a sensitive issue in France. Thirdly crime has fallen, and she's managed the relationship with the police deftly at a time when spending cuts make that hard. And fourthly, she has simply avoid pratfalls in this most pratfall-ridden post.
Against this, the naysayers blame her for not reducing immigration. But no-one ever says what she is supposed to have done or not done in this respect.0 -
six years of invisibility doing nothing at the HO, known only for the shoes she wears , what a record.Sandpit said:
To be fair, May's not standing on her record in finance, as much as she's standing on her quite considerable record in politics and government.David_Evershed said:May's CV in financial services as per Wikipedia.
Between 1977 and 1983 May worked at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 as a financial consultant and senior advisor in International Affairs at the Association for Payment Clearing Services.
So May's record in finance is far less distibguished than Leadsom's.
Her six years as Home Secretary is unprecedented since WWII, the vast majority of her predecessors in that role being forced out by a major scandal or policy failing.0 -
We are waiting for the bit where Chilcot confirms that responsibility for the invasion was delegated to our Angela.AlastairMeeks said:
I can see why this report has taken so long. Sir John has been wanting to make sure that it is watertight in every respect before issuing something that will destroy the credibility of a former Prime Minister.SouthamObserver said:Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.
0 -
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
It's finally over. All the lies. All the deception. It's taken too long. But Chilcot has exposed everything.0 -
Incompetence of politicians - now gone, but also of civil servants some of whom are still in the system. A system putting together the UK plans for Brexit...............David_Evershed said:
Based on a lie and incompetence of the UK and US governments.PlatoSaid said:
I backed Iraq War v1 based on the supposed evidence. I've regretted it ever since - it effed up Iraq, effed up the West and destroyed trust in HMG over military action.TwistedFireStopper said:
I can understand that, but there are plenty of vile dictators that we do feck all about.Philip_Thompson said:
No. It was the right thing to do, Saddam was an evil vile dictator who deserved to be removed. It was also the right thing to do to honour our alliance with our most valued partners.rogerh said:Just a reminder of how the parties voted on the motion to go to war against Iraq.
% in favour of going to war. Con 98%,Lab,75%,LD 0%.
if the 146 votes from the Tories had gone against war the total figures would have been for war 266 against 295.
not only were the Tories the strongest supporters of war but their leader IDS wanted us to go to war even if there was no support from the UN.
need I say more
Shame Blair's case wasn't either of these issues and what unravelled was his lies as well as the disastrous lack of operational planning for the post-war period neither of which the Opposition is responsible for.
What a colossal mistake - based on a lie.
0 -
The standard I set is the Home Office ministers of the 50 years or so that I've been following politics.Brom said:superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!
0 -
Those doing the actual work were those on the ground in Singapore who were being asked by their various banks to look at the books to see if Barings could be rescued. One of those - a former colleague of mine - did just that and reported back that they were such a mess that no-one could have a clue what they were taking on. Far too great a risk. And that became evident pretty quickly hence the BoE's actions.IanB2 said:
I suspect those meetings were the BofE telling and the banks listening. Whoever the bank sent along was just there to take notes and report back.David_Evershed said:
The Guardian doesn't have the best contacts in Banking.Chris said:
Perhaps some scepticism is called for regarding the Barclays section of her CV as well as the other sections:David_Evershed said:Leadsom seems to have been head of the the team dealing with Barclays financial service customers in the 1990's. As a standalone business it would make it into the FTSE 250.
"The Guardian contacted several senior City sources who worked at BZW and Barclays at the same time as Leadsom, but could find none who could recall her spell at the bank, which concluded 19 years ago."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsoms-the-city-high-profile-roles-under-radar-barclays-brexit-negotiations
Leadsom says when Barings collapsed because of the Nick Leeson fraud, it was one of her customers and consequently she attended emergency meeting(s) with Eddie George, Governor of the BofE. Surely not a claim to make if not true.0 -
And this is the guy our political class, from Cameron and Osborne down, have been so in awe of for the past 22 years... A man who might actually be a war criminal...0
-
Daily Mail goes straight for it:
"BREAKING NEWS: Chilcot's damning verdict on Blair's Iraq War: 'WMD threat was NOT justified', military action 'was NOT a last resort' and invasion was based on 'flawed intelligence' "0 -
I'm expecting a Bad Al twitter meltdown, once he starts getting trolled.0
-
That's a summary of a summary rather than a quote, isn't it?GIN1138 said:Key Chilcot finding:
"Decision on legal basis for war unsatisfactory"
Can only be a matter of time before someone tries to get Blair indited to The Hague?
The Beeb's direct quote is:
"We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."
The direct criticism is of the circumstances in which the decision was taken, not of the decision itself (though implicitly, that decision could have been wrong or at least unsound if it wasn't taken in the right way).0 -
Yep - Blair is being totally destroyed. This is without precedent.AlastairMeeks said:
I can see why this report has taken so long. Sir John has been wanting to make sure that it is watertight in every respect before issuing something that will destroy the credibility of a former Prime Minister.SouthamObserver said:Whatever was left of Tony Blair's reputation is now being shredded.
By implication, I guess, the same thing is happening to Bush, not that anyone in the US will notice or care very much.
0 -
you've nailed it. She's somewhat draconian and because there is little doubt in my mind she will execute Brexit it beats me why certain remainers are so keen on her.TCPoliticalBetting said:
her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?SandyRentool said:Can any Mayites offer up her three greatest achievements in 6 years at the Home Office?
Record net migration doesn't count!
1. Survived.
2. Upset the police.
3. Upset the Lib Dems
4. Upset civil libertarians
5. Extradited one man to Jordan
6. Blocked extradition of one man to USA.0 -
The Master. The Middle East Peace Envoy.GIN1138 said:And this is the guy our political class, from Cameron and Osborne down, have been so in awe of for the past 22 years... A man who might actually be a war criminal...
0 -
Judge on on what little she achieved rather than her length of stay.Richard_Nabavi said:
The standard I set is the Home Office ministers of the 50 years or so that I've been following politics.Brom said:superb by any standard? how low are the standards you set!
0 -
The only question re. Leadsom that matters now is whether her tax returns were compiled in the same spirit as her CV.0
-
Speaking seriously, this was totally worth the wait - John is so eloquent and crucifying with every assertion.0
-
Indeed. They can't pass judgement on legality but based on what they are saying it can only be a matter of time before someone tries to bring a case, IMO.rottenborough said:
I think Chilcot's means that the process for deciding whether legal or not was unsatisfactory. He specifically said the inquiry did not make a decision on legal or not, only a court at international level could actually decide.GIN1138 said:Key Chilcot finding:
"Decision on legal basis for war unsatisfactory"
Can only be a matter of time before someone tries to get Blair indited to The Hague?0
