Saturday 7th March & Sunday 8th March 2015

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 7:31 am

Is this even legal ? From Dacre's rag, the use of the word "says" implies this is a direct quote surely ?

'Knifing David was worse than I expected, says Ed Miliband'

Ed Miliband last night admitted his decision to knife brother David in the Labour leadership race led to a worse deterioration in their relationship than he expected.

Morning btw.

: ScreenShot00300.jpg (103.18 KiB) Viewed 21550 times

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 8:22 am

Morning all.

Wirral University Hospital Trust's finances re-examined - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-31761216" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Troubling news on the Wirral. Can we expect a comment from McVey?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 8:37 am

Morning, Toby.

The only thing in that article that hasn't been published elsewhere is the word "knifing" - an expression that I doubt Miliband would use.
The Heil faithful BTL have picked up on the word, though - the comments are full of it.

What the Mail has done is cherry-pick quotes from the G interview and play about with them. It's typical behaviour from them.
I don't think it's all that bad. I suspect there will be worse before the election is over.

Ed has been quite clever in choosing which battles to bother with - I doubt he'll waste his time on this. Most people know - even Mail readers - that he won't tolerate insults or lies about his family, but he'll take any amount of crap about himself. I think that's sensible, as it gives the impression that he really doesn't care what they say about him personally and would rather talk about his policies.

Most of the tabloids (Mirror excepted) do this sort of thing to him all the time. It's obvious why - he said he would implement Leveson in full.
The same applies to the Telegraph (which gets more like a tabloid every day).
They are scared of him, and they know that he will not prat about. Cameron kicked Leveson into the long grass ages ago; but people like Dacre know perfectly well they're on borrowed time if Ed wins in May.

I wouldn't worry too much, Toby. Be kind to your blood pressure, stay calm and expect a lot more of this!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:03 am

ephemerid wrote:Morning, Toby.

The only thing in that article that hasn't been published elsewhere is the word "knifing" - an expression that I doubt Miliband would use.
The Heil faithful BTL have picked up on the word, though - the comments are full of it.

What the Mail has done is cherry-pick quotes from the G interview and play about with them. It's typical behaviour from them.
I don't think it's all that bad. I suspect there will be worse before the election is over.

Ed has been quite clever in choosing which battles to bother with - I doubt he'll waste his time on this. Most people know - even Mail readers - that he won't tolerate insults or lies about his family, but he'll take any amount of crap about himself. I think that's sensible, as it gives the impression that he really doesn't care what they say about him personally and would rather talk about his policies.

Most of the tabloids (Mirror excepted) do this sort of thing to him all the time. It's obvious why - he said he would implement Leveson in full.
The same applies to the Telegraph (which gets more like a tabloid every day).
They are scared of him, and they know that he will not prat about. Cameron kicked Leveson into the long grass ages ago; but people like Dacre know perfectly well they're on borrowed time if Ed wins in May.

I wouldn't worry too much, Toby. Be kind to your blood pressure, stay calm and expect a lot more of this!

The Mail online piece is a classic example of their current approach to journalism - borderline copywrite theft with a twist of malice thrown in.

There is an excellent article in the Guardian today, which they are (not) quoting. This is what Miliband said.

When he stood against David, did he realise what he was risking? “I knew it was a big decision at the time, but it was an even bigger decision. It had bigger ramifications for my family, and for my relationship with David, than I had anticipated.”

- Source The Guardian.

In the small print, buried at the bottom will be an attribution to the G article somewhere.

I think the Mail deserves reporting to the toothless regulator for glorifying knife crime

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:07 am

Knifed in the back, stabbed in the back. That was Hitler's explanation for Germany's defeat in the first world war : The JEWS had 'knifed' Germany in the back.

Similarly, Miliband, who looks weird and whose father 'hated Britiain', has 'knifed his brother' in the back.

I don't think the Heil is unaware of this.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:08 am

Actually half way down the Mail article, hidden at the bottom is this.

Of his decision to run, Ed Miliband told the Guardian: 'I knew it was a big decision at the time, but it was an even bigger decision.
'It had bigger ramifications for my family, and for my relationship with David, than I had anticipated.'

There you go.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:08 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Wirral University Hospital Trust's finances re-examined - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-31761216" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Troubling news on the Wirral. Can we expect a comment from McVey?

Yes.

It will go something like this -
"The £5 Million overspend is not the issue, the fact is that under this government we have treated many many more people at Arrowe Park Hospital than anywhere in the UK and nobody can deny that millions of hardworking people are now much better off because of the tough decisions we have taken to support people with incentives and deterrents and employed 20,000 more nurses and 50,000 more doctors at Arrowe Park Hospital alone and the hardworking people of the Wirral deserve nothing less and there are no targets for Arrowe Park Hospital and there never ever have been and people tell me all the time that they are grateful for the deterrents because it makes them try much much harder as the figures show......" (Cont. P.94)

Hansard has some wonderful stuff from McVey in the written questions section; too numerous to mention them all, but I found a real corker the other day.
Alison McGovern, Labour MP for Wirral South, asked McVey on 10th.February how many ZHCs were advertised on Universal Jobmatch in each of the past 12 months. (Written Question 223999 if you want to see for yourself)
The reply came on 25th.February and it took McVey two whole weeks to write a 6-paragraph response that didn't answer the question.
In a long rambling piece McVey droned on about what UJM is and how it works, whether or not sanctions applied, and added a bit of puffery for Universal Credit. Ms.McGovern still has no idea how many ZHCs have been advertised on UJM.

I really think that if I were PM, I would insist that questions are bloody well answered, and if the minister doesn't know the answer they should be made to say so.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:13 am

Meanwhile in the NL, the average man on the street thinks that "the British hate Europe don't they?".

We're becoming a laughing stock.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:17 am

The Mail's headline re Ed was one chosen on last nights Press Preview where Christina Patterson (Indy?) & Matthew Syed (Times) were the guests.

Paterson - anti everything Ed does but is supposed to be left-leaning though I can never see the evidence for that - was unexpectedly declaring how terrible Ed was to have done that to Dave etc

Syed strongly disagreed & said in an open contest, both brothers had the right to stand.

I tweeted my agreement with Syed & Danny Finklestein amazed me by agreeing with me (we had already been in a conversation which is how he saw my tweet)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:29 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Has anyone actually specified what Ed did to 'knife' David? Do they actually think that the older brother should automatically get dibs? ('Buggins turn', very meritocratic). Or do they think there was some deal that Ed went back on?

This really annoys me.

In 2008, David Miliband wrote an article in the G about his vision for Labour - he was heavily criticised for it, because not once did he mention the then PM Brown, he was accused of timing the publication for maximum impact by doing it when Brown was away.
It was obvious to me then that he was after the top job; Brown was not doing well at the time and had recently lost a bye-election.

I think he (and others) saw him as Blair's heir apparent, and he wasted no time to cement that impression. When Ed decided to stand for the leadership, he said he wanted an end to the factions and the drama associated with them. He also said very clearly that he was a socialist - and that's why the big unions gave him their support. David thought he was a shoo-in. Whether that was because he was the older brother or because he thought he could coast into the job on the coattails of Blair, I don't know.

ALL politicians - and I include Ed in this - are willing to be ruthless to get into office and to influence the politics of the day.
That's why they're politicians. It seems to me that David Miliband made assumptions and Ed Miliband didn't.

It was a fair fight. Ed won.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:33 am

ephemerid wrote:
It was a fair fight. Ed won.

thank god.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:49 am

letsskiptotheleft vis a vis Rees Mogg yesterday wrote:the MP for the 15th Century

excellent.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 9:57 am

ephemerid wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Has anyone actually specified what Ed did to 'knife' David? Do they actually think that the older brother should automatically get dibs? ('Buggins turn', very meritocratic). Or do they think there was some deal that Ed went back on?
This really annoys me.

In 2008, David Miliband wrote an article in the G about his vision for Labour - he was heavily criticised for it, because not once did he mention the then PM Brown, he was accused of timing the publication for maximum impact by doing it when Brown was away.
It was obvious to me then that he was after the top job; Brown was not doing well at the time and had recently lost a bye-election.

I think he (and others) saw him as Blair's heir apparent, and he wasted no time to cement that impression. When Ed decided to stand for the leadership, he said he wanted an end to the factions and the drama associated with them. He also said very clearly that he was a socialist - and that's why the big unions gave him their support. David thought he was a shoo-in. Whether that was because he was the older brother or because he thought he could coast into the job on the coattails of Blair, I don't know.

ALL politicians - and I include Ed in this - are willing to be ruthless to get into office and to influence the politics of the day.
That's why they're politicians. It seems to me that David Miliband made assumptions and Ed Miliband didn't.

It was a fair fight. Ed won.

Quite, it was a democratic vote of which there were more than two contestants. Fish pointer often omits to mention that he only got where he is because of a phone call from Buckingham Palace. http://www.nextleft.org/2011/02/david-c ... -good.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:03 am

In-depth piece following Ed on the election trail & it exposes more of Ed 'the man' than I have ever read in the Graun before:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth a read.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:05 am

Lol, methinks my jibe touched a raw nerve with the Tory-supporting Anthony Wells.

He has moderated my comment that simply said:

There will not be a grand coalition, no matter how many more ex-Tory ministers yap on about it.

One would be excused for thinking they might be coming up with this as a diversionary tactic to try and make the electorate look away from the chaos that is the Tory party and its handling of the tv debates….

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:06 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
letsskiptotheleft vis a vis Rees Mogg yesterday wrote:the MP for the 15th Century
excellent.
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?

Helena de Chair (b. 1977), a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry... married the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, on 13 January 2007 at Canterbury Cathedral. They have three sons, Peter Theodore Alphoge (b. 2007), Tom (b. 2010), and Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam (b. 2012) and one daughter Mary (b. 2008).

Is that some kind of (misspelt) viral pathogen of seaweed?

Post by **refitman** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:07 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Has anyone actually specified what Ed did to 'knife' David? Do they actually think that the older brother should automatically get dibs? ('Buggins turn', very meritocratic). Or do they think there was some deal that Ed went back on?

I keep asking people when they bring this up. Funily enough, I've never had an answer.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:08 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
letsskiptotheleft vis a vis Rees Mogg yesterday wrote:the MP for the 15th Century
excellent.
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?

Helena de Chair (b. 1977), a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry... married the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, on 13 January 2007 at Canterbury Cathedral. They have three sons, Peter Theodore Alphege (b. 2007), Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan (b. 2010), and Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam (b. 2012) and one daughter Mary Anne Charlotte Emma (b. 2008).

Wow ! Fancy being saddled with a name like that going through school....

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm as surprised he has fathered 3 children as the names that were chosen for them.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:24 am

Well Alphege was a saint and there is a Saint Alphege's (Catholic) church on the south side of Bath, right next to his constituency so he may have some personal connections with it. But he can have no excuses for Anselm.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:35 am

Notice that Andrew Sparrow devoted an entire day to the Green party conference yesterday yet there isn't so much as a sniff at Labour's Scottish one which is arguably of far more importance.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:39 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Has anyone actually specified what Ed did to 'knife' David? Do they actually think that the older brother should automatically get dibs? ('Buggins turn', very meritocratic). Or do they think there was some deal that Ed went back on?

The latter has been alleged by some Blairites in particular, but without any real evidence.

Not unlike his doing a "deal" with Cameron to support military action in Syria and then "reneging" on it - something which has no backing in anything Miliband said on the record in that period, so we only have Hamface's word for it (which is, depressingly, enough for quite a few people)

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:43 am

https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/factual/far ... 17653.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

faridge not sent from god shocker.

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:52 am

pk1 wrote:Lol, methinks my jibe touched a raw nerve with the Tory-supporting Anthony Wells.

He has moderated my comment that simply said:

There will not be a grand coalition, no matter how many more ex-Tory ministers yap on about it.

One would be excused for thinking they might be coming up with this as a diversionary tactic to try and make the electorate look away from the chaos that is the Tory party and its handling of the tv debates….

He does claim he'll moderate anyone who isn't talking about polling or being too party political but frankly his moderation seems to be a little one-sided. His Tory denizens seem to get away with some impressively off-topic abuse of Labour without him reacting.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 10:53 am

Cameron has just repeated the Mid Staffs ''drinking out of vases'' lie, in a speech, in Harrow, broadcast on Sky News, no doubt he will get away without too much scrutiny.

The Labour party leadership is not a hereditary procession, 1000s of people like me have a vote, much to the disgust of Hodges and his ilk, I have never had a slightest doubt I chose the right brother.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:03 am

Not sure if this is a spoof account: Doesn't appear to be.

From UKIP Cheltenham to Winston McKenzie.

@WinstonMcK Hi Winston. How's my favourite black politician.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:04 am

pk1 wrote:In-depth piece following Ed on the election trail & it exposes more of Ed 'the man' than I have ever read in the Graun before:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth a read.

Broke my vow and read it. An unusually good piece from Hattenstone and very moving in parts; and who'd have thought he was such a big snooker and pool fan? Favourite bit though had to be about that photograph:

The thing he says he’s learned most since becoming leader is to be himself. It took him a while. Even his team says this: that he was too willing to be moulded into something he clearly wasn’t. Were the bacon sarnie photographs an example? “No!” he says, suddenly exasperated. “I like bacon effing sarnies. I think eating one on camera was clearly a mistake.” Was he trying to convey his secular non-Jewishness? “Nooooooo! I was about to start a long day, and I was hungry.”

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:06 am

pk1 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote: excellent.
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?

Helena de Chair (b. 1977), a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry... married the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, on 13 January 2007 at Canterbury Cathedral. They have three sons, Peter Theodore Alphege (b. 2007), Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan (b. 2010), and Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam (b. 2012) and one daughter Mary Anne Charlotte Emma (b. 2008).
Wow ! Fancy being saddled with a name like that going through school....

If I'm perfectly honest, I'm as surprised he has fathered 3 children as the names that were chosen for them.

He'd better not have a fourth.

Helena won't get any child benefit.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:08 am

Cameron call Labour a ''bunch of placard waving hypocrites'' whilst being surrounded by placards.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
letsskiptotheleft vis a vis Rees Mogg yesterday wrote:the MP for the 15th Century
excellent.
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?

Helena de Chair (b. 1977), a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry... married the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, on 13 January 2007 at Canterbury Cathedral. They have three sons, Peter Theodore Alphege (b. 2007), Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan (b. 2010), and Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam (b. 2012) and one daughter Mary Anne Charlotte Emma (b. 2008).

Steady on. We people of NE Somerset haven't returned Rees-Mogg yet. Before the boundary was changed to create a weird doughnut shaped constituency that stretched around Bath to take in part of solid Tory voting Wiltshire in 2010 we used to return the rather lovely Labour bod Dan Norris. Whether the good folk of NE Somerset will vote for Rees-Mogg now they know what he's like is yet to be tested.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:15 am

I've just ventured BTL on the Simon Hattenstone article about Ed Miliband.

There are people posting this - "No". I have to say I am appalled at the paucity of decent trolling these days.

"No" what? "No, SH writes badly" or "No, Ed's crap" or "No, he shouldn't be PM" - WHAT?????? Pathetic.
Maybe they think they're answering the question which forms the headline. Morons.

I have also felt the need to comment on (yet another) post from Tea & Chocolate, who keeps on with this mantra that Ed is no different and Labour is no different etc. etc. and is beginning to sound like a cracked record doused in vinegar.
I used to have respect for T&C and I used to enjoy reading the posts - but for some time now this vitriolic anti-Labour stuff has really pissed me off. Not because I am a huge Labour fan (er, no) but because it's unthinking criticism with nothing to back it up.
I thought T&C was better than that.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:19 am

ephemerid wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Wirral University Hospital Trust's finances re-examined - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-31761216" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Troubling news on the Wirral. Can we expect a comment from McVey?

Yes.

It will go something like this -
"The £5 Million overspend is not the issue, the fact is that under this government we have treated many many more people at Arrowe Park Hospital than anywhere in the UK and nobody can deny that millions of hardworking people are now much better off because of the tough decisions we have taken to support people with incentives and deterrents and employed 20,000 more nurses and 50,000 more doctors at Arrowe Park Hospital alone and the hardworking people of the Wirral deserve nothing less and there are no targets for Arrowe Park Hospital and there never ever have been and people tell me all the time that they are grateful for the deterrents because it makes them try much much harder as the figures show......" (Cont. P.94)

Hansard has some wonderful stuff from McVey in the written questions section; too numerous to mention them all, but I found a real corker the other day.
Alison McGovern, Labour MP for Wirral South, asked McVey on 10th.February how many ZHCs were advertised on Universal Jobmatch in each of the past 12 months. (Written Question 223999 if you want to see for yourself)
The reply came on 25th.February and it took McVey two whole weeks to write a 6-paragraph response that didn't answer the question.
In a long rambling piece McVey droned on about what UJM is and how it works, whether or not sanctions applied, and added a bit of puffery for Universal Credit. Ms.McGovern still has no idea how many ZHCs have been advertised on UJM.

I really think that if I were PM, I would insist that questions are bloody well answered, and if the minister doesn't know the answer they should be made to say so.

Easy to see why Dave's s******g a brick at the thought of debates. Imagine him trying to arm himself with the ~~answers~~ excuses for five years of shambolic policies.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:29 am

I don't understand the reasoning behind the view that Ed shafted his brother. I am not a fan of our leader, but he was just as entitled to stand as his brother was.

Here is Norman Geras, someone I admired and a friend of Ralph, arguing that Ed should not have stood

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/20 ... eader.html

His claim seems to be that Ed's winning ended David's political career (which it did), when the converse would not have been true (which is also true). But so what?

I thought, and think, that his brother would have been the better leader (the arguments against seems to be that Iraq would have handicapped him, and that the thinly veiled anti-semitism to which his brother is subject would have also applied).

Ed doesn't seem to have any hinterland (see the Hattenstone interview). Snooker?

ephemerid: T&C is a buffoon. She was loudly proclaiming that Yes would win the referendum.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:54 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote:In-depth piece following Ed on the election trail & it exposes more of Ed 'the man' than I have ever read in the Graun before:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Worth a read.
Broke my vow and read it. An unusually good piece from Hattenstone and very moving in parts; and who'd have thought he was such a big snooker and pool fan? Favourite bit though had to be about that photograph:

The thing he says he’s learned most since becoming leader is to be himself. It took him a while. Even his team says this: that he was too willing to be moulded into something he clearly wasn’t. Were the bacon sarnie photographs an example? “No!” he says, suddenly exasperated. “I like bacon effing sarnies. I think eating one on camera was clearly a mistake.” Was he trying to convey his secular non-Jewishness? “Nooooooo! I was about to start a long day, and I was hungry.”

This says it all for me. And I wish those that hate what Blair did, but still knock Ed, would take this on board.

Their politics are really, really different. Ed’s big thing is how to solve inequality. [He, Ed said] "We would be bombing Syria if David was leader. ”

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:56 am

Hello Hugo!

You have lost your bet - both as yourself and as "SpellingMistake" etc, elsewhere.

Darren McCaffrey of SKY News has just Tweeted that Ed Miliband has announced Labour has formally accepted the invitations to attend all three debates on April 2nd, 16th and 30th.

Re.T&C - she wasn't the only person to think Yes would win; as it was the margin was very close. Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 11:57 am

"you have lost your bet"

Not yet....

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:01 pm

Willow904 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote: excellent.
It never ceases to astound me that the people of North Somerset can keep returning this idiot. Obviously there's his politics, the fact that he treats politics as a mildly amusing game (his chief talent seems to be for extravagent filibustering), and the enormous privilege that has served him as well as it has served the rest of us badly. But taking all that aside, have you seen what he named his children?

Helena de Chair (b. 1977), a writer on a trade magazine for the oil industry... married the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of former Times editor William Rees-Mogg, on 13 January 2007 at Canterbury Cathedral. They have three sons, Peter Theodore Alphege (b. 2007), Thomas Wentworth Somerset Dunstan (b. 2010), and Anselm Charles Fitzwilliam (b. 2012) and one daughter Mary Anne Charlotte Emma (b. 2008).
Steady on. We people of NE Somerset haven't returned Rees-Mogg yet. Before the boundary was changed to create a weird doughnut shaped constituency that stretched around Bath to take in part of solid Tory voting Wiltshire in 2010 we used to return the rather lovely Labour bod Dan Norris. Whether the good folk of NE Somerset will vote for Rees-Mogg now they know what he's like is yet to be tested.

They did the same with boundary changes with Bracknell. The Labour PPC for Somerset appears to be a very nice man.
I hope he wins.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:04 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:"you have lost your bet"

Not yet....

Oh FFS.

This is desperate stuff even from you.

ED MILIBAND WILL ATTEND ALL THREE DEBATES !!!!!!!

Is formal written acceptance not enough? Do we have to wait until the the nano-second before his bum goes on the seat before you will finally admit he's doing the bloody sodding debates?

Hugo, you are a prat.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:06 pm

ephemerid wrote:Hello Hugo!

You have lost your bet - both as yourself and as "SpellingMistake" etc, elsewhere.

Darren McCaffrey of SKY News has just Tweeted that Ed Miliband has announced Labour has formally accepted the invitations to attend all three debates on April 2nd, 16th and 30th.

Re.T&C - she wasn't the only person to think Yes would win; as it was the margin was very close. Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.

I don't bother with BTL at the Guardian much, but your mentioning T&C, I'm pretty damn sure that quite a while ago, she posted she was off to live in France. Not sure whether for good or temporarily.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:10 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:I don't understand the reasoning behind the view that Ed shafted his brother. I am not a fan of our leader, but he was just as entitled to stand as his brother was.

Here is Norman Geras, someone I admired and a friend of Ralph, arguing that Ed should not have stood

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/20 ... eader.html

His claim seems to be that Ed's winning ended David's political career (which it did), when the converse would not have been true (which is also true). But so what?

I thought, and think, that his brother would have been the better leader (the arguments against seems to be that Iraq would have handicapped him, and that the thinly veiled anti-semitism to which his brother is subject would have also applied).

Ed doesn't seem to have any hinterland (see the Hattenstone interview). Snooker?

ephemerid: T&C is a buffoon. She was loudly proclaiming that Yes would win the referendum.

Someone should point out to him that David's political career only ended due to his own petulance. He could have taken a cabinet post (Home Sec?) but chose to flounce off in a sulk.
I disagree that David would have made a better leader, we have had enough of petulance and arrogance over the last 5 years. During the leaders debates I thought he had less vision, "go get" and passion than even the lamentable Diane Abbott.
As for hinterland ? Come on, don't go all Denis Healey and meaningless sound bites on us! That question can be applied to any of the current batch of politicians we have.
Agree on T&C.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:10 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:I don't understand the reasoning behind the view that Ed shafted his brother.

Because it makes him look devious, untrustworthy, unprincipled, if he can do this to his own brother why should we trust him; and I think mikems is spot on with the "stabbing Germany in the back" comparison. Everybody expected David to win, including David, and he was a known and manageable quantity as far as the meeja and big business were concerned; but Ed was a wild card, somebody known to have a more principled stance and worst of all, had the support of the dreaded Unions so it was important to attempt to destabilise him from the outset.

But he has more steel than any of them realised and now, as has been mentioned upthread, the Press especially know their cosy little game is over if he gets into Number 10; hence the desperate spinning of many papers over the TV debates (and sometimes silence is spinning) because they know there is only going to be one winner of the TV debates (the Sky "Meet The Leaders" event showed that) - actually, I think we the electorate will win as well.

Re. T & C, the change was similar to that I saw in friends, ex-pat Scots living in England who were suddenly speaking like cult members; their every perception is viewed through the Scotland First prism and the rest of us simply don't matter - I heard more than once variations on the "we can't be looking after you lot anymore" theme. Deeply saddening.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:16 pm

Darren McCaffrey @DMcCaffreySKY · 2h 2 hours ago
Cameron berates 'placard waving hypocrites' in front of people waving placards. He was however referring to Labour.

Hypocrites, placards & Cameron are words that very easily fit together.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:18 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I don't understand the reasoning behind the view that Ed shafted his brother.
Because it makes him look devious, untrustworthy, unprincipled, if he can do this to his own brother why should we trust him; and I think mikems is spot on with the "stabbing Germany in the back" comparison. Everybody expected David to win, including David, and he was a known and manageable quantity as far as the meeja and big business were concerned; but Ed was a wild card, somebody known to have a more principled stance and worst of all, had the support of the dreaded Unions so it was important to attempt to destabilise him from the outset.

But he has more steel than any of them realised and now, as has been mentioned upthread, the Press especially know their cosy little game is over if he gets into Number 10; hence the desperate spinning of many papers over the TV debates (and sometimes silence is spinning) because they know there is only going to be one winner of the TV debates (the Sky "Meet The Leaders" event showed that) - actually, I think we the electorate will win as well.

Re. T & C, the change was similar to that I saw in friends, ex-pat Scots living in England who were suddenly speaking like cult members; their every perception is viewed through the Scotland First prism and the rest of us simply don't matter - I heard more than once variations on the "we can't be looking after you lot anymore" theme. Deeply saddening.

Yes. Progressive to the core.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:20 pm

pk1 wrote:
Darren McCaffrey @DMcCaffreySKY · 2h 2 hours ago
Cameron berates 'placard waving hypocrites' in front of people waving placards. He was however referring to Labour.

Hypocrites, placards & Cameron are words that very easily fit together.

If I was being really cruel I'd say the ones at the front look like placed cardboard cut-outs -

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:21 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Is this even legal ? From Dacre's rag, the use of the word "says" implies this is a direct quote surely ?

'Knifing David was worse than I expected, says Ed Miliband'

Ed Miliband last night admitted his decision to knife brother David in the Labour leadership race led to a worse deterioration in their relationship than he expected.

Morning btw.

ScreenShot00300.jpg

No. Or it shouldn't be because it is very far from a direct quote. But it's shorter and more hard hitting than the colloquial phrase 'stabbing in the back', even though that is, itself, misused given what actually happened in a formal, and democratic, leadership challenge. The word knifing is just vicious and doesn't carry the same colloquial meaning. But what does that rag care? They'll carry on painting Ed as a cheat and a villain until, um, actually I'm not sure there is an 'until.' Even being somehow forced to publish a same-page-same-size apology, retraction, and correction, doesn't mean as much visibility given the way online news is read and shared.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:24 pm

The most comprehensive twitter a/c for the Scottish Labour conference appears to be Gemma Doyle's:

https://twitter.com/GemmaWDMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but if all you want is one where Labour is slagged off, have a look at Kenny Farquharson's. He is the Deputy Editor of The Scotsman & Scotland on Sunday. There's no doubting which party he supports...

https://twitter.com/KennyFarq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:24 pm

SH, I always thought Ed's "hinterland", in sporting terms anyway, was baseball (he is a genuine fan)

He has also claimed to support Leeds United, rather him than me there

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:35 pm

AngryAsWell

Geras is dead.

I think DM's leaving was the right decision, as does his brother in that Graun interview.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:35 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, I always thought Ed's "hinterland", in sporting terms anyway, was baseball (he is a genuine fan)

He has also claimed to support Leeds United, rather him than me there

Meh, I call you a Plastic football fan for that.

Ed is a Leeds fan and a baseball fan, he also likes American Football and I see nothing wrong with any of that.

As for David Miliband - he lost because he is crap. He had a huge advantage but his refusal to move on from the dead hand of Blairism cost him the election; that and the fact he has the charisma and vision of a wet fish. If he was leader now Cameron would be 5-10 points ahead.

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:43 pm

: debates.jpg (82.27 KiB) Viewed 19804 times

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 07 Mar, 2015 12:51 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, I always thought Ed's "hinterland", in sporting terms anyway, was baseball (he is a genuine fan)

He has also claimed to support Leeds United, rather him than me there

Ed spent 5 years up in Leeds when he was growing up - for all of the 'privileged background' there was a fair bit of moving around before settling back in London.

I don't get the sneering at him liking ordinary stuff - it's as if people don't believe him. You could just as easily question Cameron for saying that he supports Villa or Gove for QPR (although I do have a sneaking suspicion about Toady's liking for QPR too).