Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
Any plans to become a judge?
No. I am sure you are all relieved.
Och, there'll always be a sizeable lying bastard constituency that strongly supports judges that give lying bastards the benefit of the doubt.
Hutton had a chance to repair some of the damage. And he blew it in the most disgraceful way. Shameful.
I think I've mentioned before that reading Lord Hutton's conclusion was the first time in my life that I discovered that the phrase 'jaw-dropping' was not just a figure of speech.
LOL. If you had I'd forgotten. What was particularly frustrating about Hutton, unlike the subsequent inquiries, is that it was quite good about getting and collating the evidence. Only to ignore it in those conclusions.
No inquiry will ever plumb the depths that Leveson did.
Newspapers should pay legal costs of plaintiffs, even if found not guilty? Sheer, unmitigated stupidity.
He should have listened a little more carefully to the lecture on the importance of press freedom he got from Michael Gove.
One of my many problems with going to war with Iraq was that was not a part of the war on terror. Saddam, for all the bad things he was, was not an Islamic fundamentalist. If the war on terror was really as important as it was said to be then it needed to be confided to terrorists.
My other main complaint was we still had work to do in Afghanistan. I approved of the decision to invade it on the basis we would build up the country into a workable democracy.
I didn't believe the weapons of mass destruction line but if I'm being honest as a very passionate teenager that last part at least may have been more based on being against the war rather than sound unbiased analysis.
For once I find myself agreeing with you, especially on your second paragraph. The Iraq war was not only a disaster in itself, it was also a disaster in terms of distracting attention and effort from Afghanistan, where there genuinely had been a necessity to respond to terrorism.
Exactly, with the huge international cooperation we had going in there was a chance to really bring people together in this. Afghanistan was supposed to be an example of what we could achieve, not only destroying our enemies but building their country up and turning it into a positive example of the West and the wider worlds intention. Instead we blew it on an utterly divisive Iraq war for reasons I'm struggling to put much beyond some crazy Republicans influencing the president.
Silly question....if Rocket man has gone to Beijing on a train.
Isn't it rather a long way from Pyongyang to Beijing and rather boring way of getting there?
Yes but you can’t get shot down. By accident of course. Don’t think Stalin was keen on flying either. Odd that.
Looks like Rocket Man is taking a leaf from his dad’s book, who was notoriously afraid of flying, once travelling by train all the way to Moscow. Whether it was because he had a genuine phobia, was afraid of assassination by SAM, or simply because Air Koryo is Skytrax’s only 1-star airline is not known. Interestingly, one time Kim père took a train to Beijing, a tanker train blew up on the NK-China border shortly after his had passed. Pure coincidence of course.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
Any plans to become a judge?
No. I am sure you are all relieved.
Och, there'll always be a sizeable lying bastard constituency that strongly supports judges that give lying bastards the benefit of the doubt.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Being a moderate does not mean being a liar. Blair was a liar but you cannot paint everyone in the centre of the party with his brush. The UK needs a credible alternative government. It would, amongst other things, force the current government to up its game and focus on the many real issues we face instead of obsessing with the side show that is Brexit. Labour is letting the country down and it is already damaging us, even without them being elected.
I’m not too sold on the idea that only a moderate can provide a credible alternative government. A lot of them could barely lead decent leadership campaigns within the Labour Party.
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
Any plans to become a judge?
No. I am sure you are all relieved.
Och, there'll always be a sizeable lying bastard constituency that strongly supports judges that give lying bastards the benefit of the doubt.
Yet you seem to be the only person talking this way.
Other PB Remain voters aren't.
I don't see any BBC or Guardian articles referring to London being in the mood of a city under occupation.
Look at the swings to Labour in London last year. That’s the sea change in votes.
So why was there no big swing to the Conservatives in places like Romford, Feltham, Uxbridge and Carshalton ?
Perhaps issues like housing and student debt had an effect as well in places where they affect many ?
And if Brexit is the big issue are you predicting huge gains for the LibDems in London this year ?
But you ignored my point - other London PBers are picking up on this mood nor are the media. That's not to say you're wrong and they are right but how is an outsider, like me, to judge ?
The Lib Dems are irrelevant. Brexit has irretrievably severed the connection between prudent London voters and the Conservatives. For now Labour is the default. As someone who is appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, this deeply saddens me.
As for who’s right, I’m just one voice. London Leave PBers are, I suspect, well-known for their proclivities on that front. They are unlikely to be hearing the same conversations with anything like the same regularity. Their unfailingly charming manner no doubt encourages Remain voters to take them into their confidence. As for other London Remain PBers, they can speak for themselves.
Anyway, you asked for my experience and I gave it to you. You’ll have to form your own view I’m afraid.
But the LibDems aren't irrelevant are they.
Aside from their stronghold in SW London there have been plenty of other heavily Remain boroughs where the LibDems controlled the council only a decade ago - Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Haringey and your own Islington.
Now with the Conservatives nearly non-existent in these areas and with Corbyn's promises on student debt etc irrelevent this year surely there should be a big swing to the LibDems if Brexit is such a big issue.
The Lib Dems have definitely never controlled Haringey. I'm not certain they actually had overall majority control in all of Camden, Lambeth and Southwark either though they definitely held the council leadership of all three a decade or so ago.
Brexit or not, none of those boroughs were ever going to be very fruitful for the Lib Dems eight years into Tory/Tory-led government. It was the unpopularity of the late Blair period that led to Labour losing those councils.
Incidentally I think it's almost certain the Lib Dems will gain Richmond and Kingston councils in May.
Yet you seem to be the only person talking this way.
Other PB Remain voters aren't.
I don't see any BBC or Guardian articles referring to London being in the mood of a city under occupation.
Look at the swings to Labour in London last year. That’s the sea change in votes.
So why was there no big swing to the Conservatives in places like Romford, Feltham, Uxbridge and Carshalton ?
Perhaps issues like housing and student debt had an effect as well in places where they affect many ?
And if Brexit is the big issue are you predicting huge gains for the LibDems in London this year ?
But you ignored my point - other London PBers are picking up on this mood nor are the media. That's not to say you're wrong and they are right but how is an outsider, like me, to judge ?
The Lib Dems are irrelevant. Brexit has irretrievably severed the connection between prudent London voters and the Conservatives. For now Labour is the default. As someone who is appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, this deeply saddens me.
Anyway, you asked for my experience and I gave it to you. You’ll have to form your own view I’m afraid.
But the LibDems aren't irrelevant are they.
Aside from their stronghold in SW London there have been plenty of other heavily Remain boroughs where the LibDems controlled the council only a decade ago - Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Haringey and your own Islington.
Now with the Conservatives nearly non-existent in these areas and with Corbyn's promises on student debt etc irrelevent this year surely there should be a big swing to the LibDems if Brexit is such a big issue.
The Lib Dems have definitely never controlled Haringey. I'm not certain they actually had overall majority control in all of Camden, Lambeth and Southwark either though they definitely held the council leadership of all three a decade or so ago.
Brexit or not, none of those boroughs were ever going to be very fruitful for the Lib Dems eight years into Tory/Tory-led government. It was the unpopularity of the late Blair period that led to Labour losing those councils.
Incidentally I think it's almost certain the Lib Dems will gain Richmond and Kingston councils in May.
I agree about Richmond and Kingston. It'll be interesting though to see what happens in Sutton which voted for Brexit.
The Lib Dems are irrelevant. Brexit has irretrievably severed the connection between prudent London voters and the Conservatives. For now Labour is the default. As someone who is appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, this deeply saddens me.
As for who’s right, I’m just one voice. London Leave PBers are, I suspect, well-known for their proclivities on that front. They are unlikely to be hearing the same conversations with anything like the same regularity. Their unfailingly charming manner no doubt encourages Remain voters to take them into their confidence. As for other London Remain PBers, they can speak for themselves.
Anyway, you asked for my experience and I gave it to you. You’ll have to form your own view I’m afraid.
Remainer PBer here, just south of the Greater London boundary.
I've noticed a bit of a sigh of relief of late in business / city circles that May appears to have steered us away from a Mogg Brexit and that a transition period followed by a softish final deal now seems the most likely end-result. Not to say that that can't change, but coupled with the terrible few weeks Corbyn has had it might be enough for the Tories to scrape home in Westminster & Wandsworth.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Only if you think that “moderate” means the same as “untrustworthy lying bastard”.
I don't. But forgive me if I don't entirely trust their judgement. Not that Corbyn is any more reliable.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
Hutton had a chance to repair some of the damage. And he blew it in the most disgraceful way. Shameful.
I think I've mentioned before that reading Lord Hutton's conclusion was the first time in my life that I discovered that the phrase 'jaw-dropping' was not just a figure of speech.
LOL. If you had I'd forgotten. What was particularly frustrating about Hutton, unlike the subsequent inquiries, is that it was quite good about getting and collating the evidence. Only to ignore it in those conclusions.
He couldn’t quite bring himself to believe where the evidence led.
He perhaps had an old-fashioned belief in the essential honourableness of men who went into public service and was too gentlemanly to say what seemed evident to those who listened to or read the evidence.
Not the first judge to shy away from troubling conclusions (cf: Lord Denning and his Birmingham 6 judgment).
One of my many problems with going to war with Iraq was that was not a part of the war on terror. Saddam, for all the bad things he was, was not an Islamic fundamentalist. If the war on terror was really as important as it was said to be then it needed to be confided to terrorists.
My other main complaint was we still had work to do in Afghanistan. I approved of the decision to invade it on the basis we would build up the country into a workable democracy.
I didn't believe the weapons of mass destruction line but if I'm being honest as a very passionate teenager that last part at least may have been more based on being against the war rather than sound unbiased analysis.
For once I find myself agreeing with you, especially on your second paragraph. The Iraq war was not only a disaster in itself, it was also a disaster in terms of distracting attention and effort from Afghanistan, where there genuinely had been a necessity to respond to terrorism.
Exactly, with the huge international cooperation we had going in there was a chance to really bring people together in this. Afghanistan was supposed to be an example of what we could achieve, not only destroying our enemies but building their country up and turning it into a positive example of the West and the wider worlds intention. Instead we blew it on an utterly divisive Iraq war for reasons I'm struggling to put much beyond some crazy Republicans influencing the president.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
If it’s not too personal a question, why did you move?
Leanne Wood leader of Plaid Cymru is a disgrace - she wont back Russian actions as she doesn't believe a word the Tories say without evidence as they have form
It's an argument that doesn't make any sense to me.
The US case for Iraqi WMD as presented by Colin Powell at the UN was based on one major defector, satellite imagery, and signals intelligence intercepts. The UK intelligence community presumably had very similar information. Fundamentally it was an assessment of things that were remote, covert, and fragmentary. It was mostly wrong, although there were a few remants of previous Iraqi WMD programmes found after the war.
The UK intelligence assessment of the nerve agent attack is based on first-hand analysis of the agent and its effects, and likely includes some very clever chemical forensics capability that we have built up since the Litvinenko murder. The identification was so prompt that I think we have surprised the Russians by our capabilities.
I get why people are suspicious post Iraq, but it's really not a like for like comparable issue.
Her position is even more confused as the Tories were not involved in the Iraq process at all...
If Tory MPs hadn't backed Blair then Blair would have been defeated in the vote, Blair would have resigned and we wouldn't have been involved in Iraq.
Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld rang IDS to thank him for his support.
An interesting counterfactual is if Ken Clarke had beaten IDS for the Tory leadership in 2001.
With the opposition party opposing him on Iraq and many of his backbenchers too Blair may not have risked it without clear parliamentary backing and in the US Bush would have found it harder to get the US public behind him without the support of at least 1 major ally like the UK (Canada, France and Germany having all refused to support the Iraq War).
Even had Blair managed to get backing for the War through Parliament there would have been a chance Clarke could have got a hung parliament in 2005 much as Corbyn did in 2017 with Iraq being a key dividing line as Brexit was, certainly much of the LD vote in 2005 was anti Iraq War and may have voted for a Clarke led Tories against Blair's New Labour in a way they would not have considered doing for a Howard or IDS led Tory Party.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Being a moderate does not mean being a liar. Blair was a liar but you cannot paint everyone in the centre of the party with his brush. The UK needs a credible alternative government. It would, amongst other things, force the current government to up its game and focus on the many real issues we face instead of obsessing with the side show that is Brexit. Labour is letting the country down and it is already damaging us, even without them being elected.
I’m not too sold on the idea that only a moderate can provide a credible alternative government. A lot of them could barely lead decent leadership campaigns within the Labour Party.
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
You are correct in interpreting my view, ta. It is a world view made obsolete by the GFC. Knee-jerk privatisation, outsourcing, free market whatever the social cost is simply not a viable platform to win. It is still the platform of many on the Labour right. It is in steep decline in the Conservative Party.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
If it’s not too personal a question, why did you move?
For family support reasons I need a good income as long as I can keep going, and in Nottingham I was dependent on freelance translation and seminars, both inherently unreliable. To my surprise, I was recruited as head of policy for Compassion in World Farming - criteria are thorough knowledge of politics at home and abroad, a professional readiness to recognise good in all parties, good media skills, concern for animals without getting too easily upset, and ideally some foreign languages. It's really worked out well. Despite being in the middle of a zillion bloody trees.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
Did you see QMC on #hospital tonight?
Bit to familiar to me, but interesting see even the managers getting a sympathetic hearing. In Leics we have had no elective inpatient surgery for 3 months. No wonder Mr Hunt quietly dumped the targets for the year.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
Did you see QMC on #hospital tonight?
Bit to familiar to me, but interesting see even the managers getting a sympathetic hearing. In Leics we have had no elective inpatient surgery for 3 months. No wonder Mr Hunt quietly dumped the targets for the year.
No, sorry to miss that, will try to get it on catchup.
Surgery position sounds horrific - waiting lists will just go through the roof.
The Lib Dems are irrelevant. Brexit has irretrievably severed the connection between prudent London voters and the Conservatives. For now Labour is the default. As someone who is appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, this deeply saddens me.
As for who’s right, I’m just one voice. London Leave PBers are, I suspect, well-known for their proclivities on that front. They are unlikely to be hearing the same conversations with anything like the same regularity. Their unfailingly charming manner no doubt encourages Remain voters to take them into their confidence. As for other London Remain PBers, they can speak for themselves.
Anyway, you asked for my experience and I gave it to you. You’ll have to form your own view I’m afraid.
But the LibDems aren't irrelevant are they.
Aside from their stronghold in SW London there have been plenty of other heavily Remain boroughs where the LibDems controlled the council only a decade ago - Camden, Lambeth, Southwark, Haringey and your own Islington.
Now with the Conservatives nearly non-existent in these areas and with Corbyn's promises on student debt etc irrelevent this year surely there should be a big swing to the LibDems if Brexit is such a big issue.
The Lib Dems have definitely never controlled Haringey. I'm not certain they actually had overall majority control in all of Camden, Lambeth and Southwark either though they definitely held the council leadership of all three a decade or so ago.
Brexit or not, none of those boroughs were ever going to be very fruitful for the Lib Dems eight years into Tory/Tory-led government. It was the unpopularity of the late Blair period that led to Labour losing those councils.
Incidentally I think it's almost certain the Lib Dems will gain Richmond and Kingston councils in May.
You're right about Haringey - the LibDems got 27/57 councillors there in 2006.
But the point is that those middle class wards in Haringey etc happily voted LibDem only a decade ago and in which Remain voters apparently 'feel like their under occupation'.
They are also the sort of places which should be most appalled about Corbyn's current problems.
If AM is right these elections should be a free hit for the LibDems in the Remain boroughs of London.
Its the equivalent of 2013 and 2014 were for UKIP in eastern England.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Being a moderate does not mean being a liar. Blair was a liar but you cannot paint everyone in the centre of the party with his brush. The UK needs a credible alternative government. It would, amongst other things, force the current government to up its game and focus on the many real issues we face instead of obsessing with the side show that is Brexit. Labour is letting the country down and it is already damaging us, even without them being elected.
I’m not too sold on the idea that only a moderate can provide a credible alternative government. A lot of them could barely lead decent leadership campaigns within the Labour Party.
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
You are correct in interpreting my view, ta. It is a world view made obsolete by the GFC. Knee-jerk privatisation, outsourcing, free market whatever the social cost is simply not a viable platform to win. It is still the platform of many on the Labour right. It is in steep decline in the Conservative Party.
Economically May is left of Blair, let alone Corbyn. May is certainly more socially conservative than Blair was though and in some respects so is Corbyn too.
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Being a moderate does not mean being a liar. Blair was a liar but you cannot paint everyone in the centre of the party with his brush. The UK needs a credible alternative government. It would, amongst other things, force the current government to up its game and focus on the many real issues we face instead of obsessing with the side show that is Brexit. Labour is letting the country down and it is already damaging us, even without them being elected.
I’m not too sold on the idea that only a moderate can provide a credible alternative government. A lot of them could barely lead decent leadership campaigns within the Labour Party.
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
You are correct in interpreting my view, ta. It is a world view made obsolete by the GFC. Knee-jerk privatisation, outsourcing, free market whatever the social cost is simply not a viable platform to win. It is still the platform of many on the Labour right. It is in steep decline in the Conservative Party.
Economically May is left of Blair, let alone Corbyn. May is certainly more socially conservative than Blair was though and in some respects so is Corbyn too.
Indeed. Long may the Miliband 2015 manifesto continue to be implemented.
If Labour did actually go back to the 'moderates' I'd have to either give up on politics or give up on my nationalist based opposition to Plaid Cymru...
The Greens don't stand in my area so I wouldn't have anyone to vote for.
I continue to back Leaving on time at this price, which is still generous.
I presume some punters are still concerned at the passage of the EU withdrawal bill in the Lords, which will all kick off in the next few weeks, and whether the Commons will vote through the Withdrawal deal post October.
Does the transition agreement affect the decision? The payout criteria is whether the treaties stop applying: does the transition agreement pass that test? Or will they go "the transition agreement means the treaties still apply" and refuse to pay out?
Missing the point: it was not the Tories who were responsible for the misuse of intelligence which led to the decision to go to war. Those responsible were the Labour government.
Leanne Wood is the sort of stupid person who just assumes that bad stuff can only be done by Tories.
It's now almost impossible for anyone aged under 50 to believe, but at the time of Blair's dodgy dossier, no-one except cranks thought that a British PM would mislead parliament and the country over such a grave matter, on matters of fact. We were naive of course; we should have realised how deeply New Labour had corrupted the body politic.
I didn't really believe it, not on what we were told, but when a British PM stands up in Parliament and tells the House that the raw intelligence passing his desk every day really left no room for doubt I wrongly gave the lying bastard the benefit of the doubt.
You weren't the only one. However, you can maybe empathise why certain people in Labour do not see a "moderate" leading the party as a panacea.
Being a moderate does not mean being a liar. Blair was a liar but you cannot paint everyone in the centre of the party with his brush. The UK needs a credible alternative government. It would, amongst other things, force the current government to up its game and focus on the many real issues we face instead of obsessing with the side show that is Brexit. Labour is letting the country down and it is already damaging us, even without them being elected.
I’m not too sold on the idea that only a moderate can provide a credible alternative government. A lot of them could barely lead decent leadership campaigns within the Labour Party.
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
You are correct in interpreting my view, ta. It is a world view made obsolete by the GFC. Knee-jerk privatisation, outsourcing, free market whatever the social cost is simply not a viable platform to win. It is still the platform of many on the Labour right. It is in steep decline in the Conservative Party.
Economically May is left of Blair, let alone Corbyn. May is certainly more socially conservative than Blair was though and in some respects so is Corbyn too.
Fiscally lax, socially conservative. I am not going to enjoy the next decade...
Note, I am a relative moderate. I don’t want to stop Brexit, I don’t agree with the idea of a second referendum. The pool of the persuadable is small and shrinking. But somehow Leave are going to need to build at least a sullen acquiescence. They haven’t started yet and have gone backwards in the last 18 months.
Leaver loons don't "need" to do anything except watch it unfold. They got what they wanted (give or take some fishing fuckers and the 6 counties).
I continue to back Leaving on time at this price, which is still generous.
I presume some punters are still concerned at the passage of the EU withdrawal bill in the Lords, which will all kick off in the next few weeks, and whether the Commons will vote through the Withdrawal deal post October.
Does the transition agreement affect the decision? The payout criteria is whether the treaties stop applying: does the transition agreement pass that test? Or will they go "the transition agreement means the treaties still apply" and refuse to pay out?
No. The transition is part of the withdrawal agreement.
That’s a bloody good effort from the PM (and dare I say it, the foreign secretary). Such a co-ordinated international diplomatic response was exactly what was needed.
That’s a bloody good effort from the PM (and dare I say it, the foreign secretary). Such a co-ordinated international diplomatic response was exactly what was needed.
It is indeed. There was criticism from some that the initial U.K. response was too weak but now it just looks measured and has no doubt helped to persuade others that this is not simply a bilateral issue.
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
Good morning Russia. Today your Overthrow the Oligarchs fund stands at an amazing
* dramatic pause *
Nineteen point seven billion pounds. That is your money, just waiting to come home.....
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
Careful what you wish for. A second referendum on May’s negotiated deal or WTO no deal would get passed with a 70%+ majority. And close down EU membership for a generation in the process.
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
Careful what you wish for. A second referendum on May’s negotiated deal or WTO no deal would get passed with a 70%+ majority. And close down EU membership for a generation in the process.
Dominic Cummings is threatening to campaign for a referendum on the ECHR (as well as conducting a witch hunt against Jolyon Maugham).
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
It really isn't, William. The simple fact is that we lost, and if we had a second one the odds are we would lose by a bigger margin. The hectoring of Osborne wasn't enough to save us first time around, and since then Juncker's ever more overt Fascism and ineffectualness (which is saying something - remember he was forced to resign as PM of Luxembourg after it was found the security services were spying on his political opponents?) means the EU is becoming ever more indefensible.
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
Careful what you wish for. A second referendum on May’s negotiated deal or WTO no deal would get passed with a 70%+ majority. And close down EU membership for a generation in the process.
Dominic Cummings is threatening to campaign for a referendum on the ECHR (as well as conducting a witch hunt against Jolyon Maugham).
So? What relevance does that have to the issue I raised - which you sidestepped? The idea of another massive mandate for Leaving (after the 2017 general election) worries you does it?
That’s a bloody good effort from the PM (and dare I say it, the foreign secretary). Such a co-ordinated international diplomatic response was exactly what was needed.
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
Good morning Russia. Today your Overthrow the Oligarchs fund stands at an amazing
* dramatic pause *
Nineteen point seven billion pounds. That is your money, just waiting to come home.....
Instead the Tories will just keep on taking the bungs.
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
It really isn't, William. The simple fact is that we lost, and if we had a second one the odds are we would lose by a bigger margin. The hectoring of Osborne wasn't enough to save us first time around, and since then Juncker's ever more overt Fascism and ineffectualness (which is saying something - remember he was forced to resign as PM of Luxembourg after it was found the security services were spying on his political opponents?) means the EU is becoming ever more indefensible.
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
Good morning Russia. Today your Overthrow the Oligarchs fund stands at an amazing
* dramatic pause *
Nineteen point seven billion pounds. That is your money, just waiting to come home.....
Yes, who is the current Lenin in Zurich who wants to overthrow the new aristocracy and Tsar? To take power on behalf of the people while seizing control of the means of production?
Aftrr all, what possible harm could come from that?
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
It really isn't, William. The simple fact is that we lost, and if we had a second one the odds are we would lose by a bigger margin. The hectoring of Osborne wasn't enough to save us first time around, and since then Juncker's ever more overt Fascism and ineffectualness (which is saying something - remember he was forced to resign as PM of Luxembourg after it was found the security services were spying on his political opponents?) means the EU is becoming ever more indefensible.
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
Boris Johnson could have been caught on camera taking roubles from Vladimir Putin in return for abolishing democracy after Brexit and Leavers would still want to press ahead. This story won’t stop Brexit.
It might, however, make Leavers’ already difficult job of persuading the sceptical that bit harder. But Leavers seem quite clueless about how they are going to get Brexit to stick.
AM
Out of interest are your views widely shared among your real-world acquaintances ?
I'm curious because in my little part of the world people rarely mention politics and even less so with any fervency.
Certainly they might not like politician X or policy Y but they accept them and get on with their own lives.
Brexit is alive like no other political topic. I’m not joking when I say I’m a moderate.
I was travelling on a train from Birmingham to London last week (second class because I’m a man of the people). Behind me an old man fell into conversation with his neighbour. The old boy, who turned out to be in his 90s, told his neighbour that he had felt the same sense of dread about the referendum vote that he had felt on the outbreak of World War Two. A Scottish friend of his had burst into tears on the news.
In work meetings it is a routine topic of conversation (one I avoid because it arouses too many passions in others). In London you see personal ads where writers specify no Leave voters.
This is as live and raw as it was when the vote came out. The mood in London is not far off a city under occupation.
Yet you seem to be the only person talking this way.
Other PB Remain voters aren't.
I don't see any BBC or Guardian articles referring to London being in the mood of a city under occupation.
Read the comments section after some Daily Mail articles. Lots of reference to London being "under occupation" can be found there.
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
It really isn't, William. The simple fact is that we lost, and if we had a second one the odds are we would lose by a bigger margin. The hectoring of Osborne wasn't enough to save us first time around, and since then Juncker's ever more overt Fascism and ineffectualness (which is saying something - remember he was forced to resign as PM of Luxembourg after it was found the security services were spying on his political opponents?) means the EU is becoming ever more indefensible.
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
Sounds about right, and a bit depressing.
Sounds a bit paranoid and self-pitying to me.
We all have out own delusions. You think yourself exempt ?
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
It really isn't, William. The simple fact is that we lost, and if we had a second one the odds are we would lose by a bigger margin. The hectoring of Osborne wasn't enough to save us first time around, and since then Juncker's ever more overt Fascism and ineffectualness (which is saying something - remember he was forced to resign as PM of Luxembourg after it was found the security services were spying on his political opponents?) means the EU is becoming ever more indefensible.
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
Sounds about right, and a bit depressing.
Sounds a bit paranoid and self-pitying to me.
May I nominate that for the second-most unselfaware post of the year, behind Skawkbox's comment that another poster was Comical Ali?
Another item in yesterdays news was the £2m ‘fine’ on Southern Heath NHS Trust. Which set my wife and I wondering. Who the fines when a quasi (and underfunded) Government body is penalised? As far as I can see the money comes out of money which has been allocated, directly or indirectly for patient care. There will, of course, be some reputational damage to the Cheif Exec and perhaps Boaerd members, but is a fina fine really appropriate in such cases. Surely any such financial penalty should fall on those ultimately responsible; top management.
An interesting thread on Iraq versus Afghanistan. That's why I could never follow Blair's reasoning (for Bush, it was unfinished business from his Dad). It made no sense to divert from Afghanistan where the real terror heartland lay.
When Al-Qaeda used a suicide bomber to kill the Northern Alliance leader, Masood, I remember thinking this spelled trouble. He was a Sunni but could have united the anti-Taliban factions (that's why he was assassinated). A few days later we had 9/11.
Buggering about in Iraq was futile. Saddam was a pragmatist, a nasty, dictatorial pragmatist but there's always plenty of them around in the world. Charlie was right - it was a pity he was an alky.
I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
Good morning Russia. Today your Overthrow the Oligarchs fund stands at an amazing
* dramatic pause *
Nineteen point seven billion pounds. That is your money, just waiting to come home.....
2 obvious problems with this are that Russia would seize all BPs assets in retaliation and the reputation of London as a safe haven for people’s cash would be undermined. But it is tempting.
I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!
The funny thing is that after three inquiries there is still no evidence that Blair and Campbell actually lied (although Butler apparently thought he should resign). Every enquiry says that they believed what they said.
Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.
And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!
As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
If you say so. Perhaps you're right, but given you've been saying either us not leaving at all or rejoining is inevitable practically from the start, you seem to think most things indicate that inevitability.
The boy who cried wolf was right in the end, though, I suppose.
Interesting bet from PP - Donald Trump's meeting with the Rocket Man not to go ahead (evens).
Trump has form for this...
I thought if there was going to ever be such a meeting we woukd find out the day before it happened . Announced in advanced gives do much time for one or the other to flounce out, or some external factor to get them to pull out.
I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!
The funny thing is that after three inquiries there is still no evidence that Blair and Campbell actually lied (although Butler apparently thought he should resign). Every enquiry says that they believed what they said.
Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.
And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!
As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
Its a nice story and some bad karma is the least they deserve but taking some student's thesis off the internet and passing it off as an intelligence assessment wasn't someone telling the truth. It was a lie, plain and simple.
If I was being generous I would say that Blair concluded that our strategic interest in being America's closest pal overrode everything else and meant we simply had to go along with it. But the truth? They wouldn't know what that was if they were hit over the head with it.
I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!
The funny thing is that after three inquiries there is still no evidence that Blair and Campbell actually lied (although Butler apparently thought he should resign). Every enquiry says that they believed what they said.
Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.
And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!
As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
It is that deceit, and related deceits like my own party over tuition fees that has destroyed centrism for the present era. Centrism is based on credibility of balancing interests. All part of the rise of the populist left and right.
Boris Johnson could have been caught on camera taking roubles from Vladimir Putin in return for abolishing democracy after Brexit and Leavers would still want to press ahead. This story won’t stop Brexit.
It might, however, make Leavers’ already difficult job of persuading the sceptical that bit harder. But Leavers seem quite clueless about how they are going to get Brexit to stick.
AM
Out of interest are your views widely shared among your real-world acquaintances ?
I'm curious because in my little part of the world people rarely mention politics and even less so with any fervency.
Certainly they might not like politician X or policy Y but they accept them and get on with their own lives.
Brexit is alive like no other political topic. I’m not joking when I say I’m a moderate.
I was travelling on a train from Birmingham to London last week (second class because I’m a man of the people). Behind me an old man fell into conversation with his neighbour. The old boy, who turned out to be in his 90s, told his neighbour that he had felt the same sense of dread about the referendum vote that he had felt on the outbreak of World War Two. A Scottish friend of his had burst into tears on the news.
In work meetings it is a routine topic of conversation (one I avoid because it arouses too many passions in others). In London you see personal ads where writers specify no Leave voters.
This is as live and raw as it was when the vote came out. The mood in London is not far off a city under occupation.
Yet you seem to be the only person talking this way.
Other PB Remain voters aren't.
I don't see any BBC or Guardian articles referring to London being in the mood of a city under occupation.
Read the comments section after some Daily Mail articles. Lots of reference to London being "under occupation" can be found there.
I don't read the Mail let alone the reader comments.
But I'll have a guess that those about London being 'under occupation' are referring to something rather different to what AM is claiming.
Comments
Also re dixie’s point, he’s underlining (I think, anyway) how many of the moderates have a similar world view to Blair. After New Labour, and how it turned out not everyone may want to see that world view in power again. The fact that populists are doing so well these days might just indicate that.
Trump has form for this...
Brexit or not, none of those boroughs were ever going to be very fruitful for the Lib Dems eight years into Tory/Tory-led government. It was the unpopularity of the late Blair period that led to Labour losing those councils.
Incidentally I think it's almost certain the Lib Dems will gain Richmond and Kingston councils in May.
I've noticed a bit of a sigh of relief of late in business / city circles that May appears to have steered us away from a Mogg Brexit and that a transition period followed by a softish final deal now seems the most likely end-result. Not to say that that can't change, but coupled with the terrible few weeks Corbyn has had it might be enough for the Tories to scrape home in Westminster & Wandsworth.
Actually I miss Nottingham - monoethnic country living is not really my thing. But it's best to try to like wherever you're living. It's peaceful and pretty, anyway.
He perhaps had an old-fashioned belief in the essential honourableness of men who went into public service and was too gentlemanly to say what seemed evident to those who listened to or read the evidence.
Not the first judge to shy away from troubling conclusions (cf: Lord Denning and his Birmingham 6 judgment).
With the opposition party opposing him on Iraq and many of his backbenchers too Blair may not have risked it without clear parliamentary backing and in the US Bush would have found it harder to get the US public behind him without the support of at least 1 major ally like the UK (Canada, France and Germany having all refused to support the Iraq War).
Even had Blair managed to get backing for the War through Parliament there would have been a chance Clarke could have got a hung parliament in 2005 much as Corbyn did in 2017 with Iraq being a key dividing line as Brexit was, certainly much of the LD vote in 2005 was anti Iraq War and may have voted for a Clarke led Tories against Blair's New Labour in a way they would not have considered doing for a Howard or IDS led Tory Party.
It is still the platform of many on the Labour right.
It is in steep decline in the Conservative Party.
Bit to familiar to me, but interesting see even the managers getting a sympathetic hearing. In Leics we have had no elective inpatient surgery for 3 months. No wonder Mr Hunt quietly dumped the targets for the year.
Surgery position sounds horrific - waiting lists will just go through the roof.
But the point is that those middle class wards in Haringey etc happily voted LibDem only a decade ago and in which Remain voters apparently 'feel like their under occupation'.
They are also the sort of places which should be most appalled about Corbyn's current problems.
If AM is right these elections should be a free hit for the LibDems in the Remain boroughs of London.
Its the equivalent of 2013 and 2014 were for UKIP in eastern England.
The Greens don't stand in my area so I wouldn't have anyone to vote for.
https://twitter.com/steveparks/status/978364530211336193
Also an interesting point on why Steve Bannon was interested in the UK:
https://twitter.com/steveparks/status/978351505064579072
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5907872/remain-campaigners-accused-of-illegally-overspending-during-eu-referendum/
I still think that we need to do something substantial about the amount of Russian money swirling around in London. Much of it is the proceeds of crime and has been looted from the Russian people by henchmen of Putin. We may need some sort of trust for the proceeds for a day when gangsters no longer rule there. This is complicated and it is right not to rush it.
* dramatic pause *
Nineteen point seven billion pounds. That is your money, just waiting to come home.....
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/24/on-the-referendum-24c-the-whistleblowers-and-channel-4-observer-accusations/
We can argue about the funding, the lies, the corruption, the incompetence all we like. But that would only be valid if Remain had acted with integrity and ability, which they didn't. They were Bancroft to Farage's Warner, unwittingly or otherwise doing his dirty work.
The real tragedy of course is that what the EU could have become - a free trade block with common security arrangements - has now been irretrievably lost and the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr to create a third pole in a new Cold War will undoubtedly win out. And that's the real consequence of Brexit.
Have any more pesky spies been thrown out of their embassies today?
Aftrr all, what possible harm could come from that?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/trumps-legal-threats-backfire/556505/
You think yourself exempt ?
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/978512057481007104
There will, of course, be some reputational damage to the Cheif Exec and perhaps Boaerd members, but is a fina fine really appropriate in such cases.
Surely any such financial penalty should fall on those ultimately responsible; top management.
https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/978512057481007104?s=21
When Al-Qaeda used a suicide bomber to kill the Northern Alliance leader, Masood, I remember thinking this spelled trouble. He was a Sunni but could have united the anti-Taliban factions (that's why he was assassinated). A few days later we had 9/11.
Buggering about in Iraq was futile. Saddam was a pragmatist, a nasty, dictatorial pragmatist but there's always plenty of them around in the world. Charlie was right - it was a pity he was an alky.
I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!
If he'd been an EU Leaver, I'd have voted Remain.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/978524092499447808
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/978388298078007297
Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.
And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!
As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
The boy who cried wolf was right in the end, though, I suppose.
Selmayr case: the European Commission lies to Parliament
If I was being generous I would say that Blair concluded that our strategic interest in being America's closest pal overrode everything else and meant we simply had to go along with it. But the truth? They wouldn't know what that was if they were hit over the head with it.
But I'll have a guess that those about London being 'under occupation' are referring to something rather different to what AM is claiming.