Labour being accused of demoting the Blairites and leaning further to left with it's new appointments.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Twigg and Byrne have been obviously on the way out for a while now though, and it's more to do with their performance than their loyalty. Jim Murphy was a bit more of a surprise.
Dan Hodges can bleat all he want about some mendacious purge of the Blairites, but Twigg and Byrne were ineffective and stamped into the ground by IDS and Gove. Murphy got punished for the Syria business, but Hunt and a few others have been added to restore balance of those replaced.
Best thing for me today was Burnham keeping the health brief and Jeremy Hunt sneaking out the apology on a day like this like the smarmy little coward he is, aftera ghastly attempt ata smear campaign.
Best thing for me today was Burnham keeping the health brief and Jeremy Hunt sneaking out the apology on a day like this like the smarmy little coward he is, aftera ghastly attempt ata smear campaign.
Didn't even see it myself! He's obviously been saving it up.
I can't even really take Dan Hodges seriously these days, seems to just be a parody of himself. Still wishes it was the good ol' days of everything being defined as Gordon v Tony. A lot of the 2010 intake are coming through now and I don't think they really give a shit about these labels.
He seems the only one prepared to push this narrative, but he's about to jump ship to Lord Ashcroft from the Telegraph so thats all you need to know anout his loyalty to Labour.
You're not supposed to be loyal to political parties, you're supposed to vote for the best one at the time. Loyalty to Labour a massive problem in our society, when people vote for them out of some misplaced sense of duty, especially those who live in poor areas.
The reshuffle was remarkably boring, really. The top Tories are really too wedded to their departments for there to be any real movement.
The reshuffle was remarkably boring, really. The top Tories are really too wedded to their departments for there to be any real movement.
You are some dickhead Al. At least i know I'm a partisan, often hypocritical twat. I never hide that.
You, however, have some nerve accusing anyone of the above.
All you ever pontificate about is the left, the guardian or labour, while constantly playing the victim. Must be the scouse in you.
You, however, have some nerve accusing anyone of the above.
All you ever pontificate about is the left, the guardian or labour, while constantly playing the victim. Must be the scouse in you.
I vote for the best candidate, hence I voted Lib Dem at the last election, because the MP was the best on offer.
A lot of people don't. It's as simple as that.
Says a lot about the Lib Dems.
The decline of the political parties as mass-membership institutions has been terrible for democracy in this country.
Political parties function much better when they have an active membership who drive the direction of the debate. Ticking one box or another every five years is no way to influence the country.
That's all well and good if you happen to dwell in the narrow centre ground of politics, you can have a decision to make then. Plenty of people are more ideologically drawn to the right or left though and want their vote to count towards the result. The problem isn't loyalty, it's lack of choice.
It's just been announced that Diane Abbott has been sacked from her role in the shadow cabinet.
IMF revises UK growth figures upwards more than any other major economy.
2013: 0.9-1.4%
2014: 1.9%
This is going to make it easier for the coalition to promote a narrative of sticking with the incumbent.
2013: 0.9-1.4%
2014: 1.9%
This is going to make it easier for the coalition to promote a narrative of sticking with the incumbent.
They didn't in the Labour party - the careerists in the parliamentary party just ignored the debate, whether party rank and file or unions.
Abbott gone as well as the three Blairite cabinet ministers. What a week.
Miliband is bloody ruthless when he needs be.
Miliband is bloody ruthless when he needs be.
This Privy council announcement has opened a can of worms. Miller more or less saying to the press unless they do what the say, they'll go ahead and legislate the original plan.
Though the press barons simply won't accept a fully independent regulator, so share of blame there.
Though the press barons simply won't accept a fully independent regulator, so share of blame there.
Today's PMQs was one of those where the back benchers put the better questions to Cameron.
Even Skinner turned up with a genuine rather than the usual Punch and Judy approach, one of those ones where the Commons was silent respectful throughout.
Even Skinner turned up with a genuine rather than the usual Punch and Judy approach, one of those ones where the Commons was silent respectful throughout.
Liam Fox proposed an investigation into the Guardian today for revealing the governments unlawful surveillance of Britons, including thousands of 'domestic terror threats' (many of whom are members of political groups with no criminal records). No party is willing to condemn the overreach of the intelligence agencies.
Not only that, but the opposition sat quietly, without a single objection as the Prime Minister approved Fox's suggestion. Investigative journalism is being treated as a crime, while the abuse of the public without any democratic procedure is being protected with force. Almost unanimously.
Not only that, but the opposition sat quietly, without a single objection as the Prime Minister approved Fox's suggestion. Investigative journalism is being treated as a crime, while the abuse of the public without any democratic procedure is being protected with force. Almost unanimously.
Investigative journalism? Releasing highly secret documents that could potentially compromise national security?
The Guardian should receive an immense punishment. Maybe a huge fine, although it might be rather pointless given they're basically bankrupt anyway.
They broke the official secrets act. The CPS should come down on them like a tonne of bricks.
That can't be what you actually think? Surely.
It's exactly what I think, and I think a lot of people need to stop defending that newspaper when they're clearly in the wrong.
What really grates me about The Guardian is this endless arrogance they show. They leak secrets and then claim they're doing us all a public service. I get so angry about that paper. So incredibly vengeful.
Does this mean you're going to stop pretending you believe in freedom of speech and information now?
I believe very strongly in freedom of speech but I don't believe in releasing national secrets. It really is quite obvious. If The Guardian actually believed they were in the right, they wouldn't have destroyed the information. But they did.
No, you believe in the Daily Mail's right to freedom of speech, as highlighted by the fact that you do nothing but defend their right to publish even the most disgusting of articles. It's not obvious in the slightest, and they still have the information - despite the governments attempts of bullying it out of them.
With all due respect, you've got to be some kind of idiot not to realise that slagging off Ed Miliband's Dad pales into insignificance when compared to national security.
I mean, you're not really presenting a serious argument here.
My argument is that your position on this issue is clearly wrong due to your blind bias against the guardian. You even bought the governments bullshit line about the guardian agreeing with them hook line and sinker, despite it being so stupid.
I am biased against them because they are patronising and fundamentally wrong about almost everything.
Your argument is beyond the realms of idiocy. What the Mail did and what the Guardian did are two completely different things.
I thought what the NOTW did with regards to Milly Dowler was horrific, as an example, but that's another example of something which isn't significant in the grand scheme of things.
They destroyed the files so they didn't get taken to court straight away and be forced to stop publishing stories.
I think I'm agreeing more and more with those that say the US has a much better idea of what a free press really is than we do. The author of the Patriot Act in the US was concerned by the NSA revelations, ffs, and you've got people over here basically asking for the Guardian to be shut down.
I think I'm agreeing more and more with those that say the US has a much better idea of what a free press really is than we do. The author of the Patriot Act in the US was concerned by the NSA revelations, ffs, and you've got people over here basically asking for the Guardian to be shut down.
Alright then, explain to me how reporting on data mining damages national security, because I'm yet to hear to an actual argument that isn't just a collection of key-words and phrases thrown together which despite sounding clever, are devoid of all meaning and content.
If the head of MI5 says it damages national security, I'm inclined to believe him. He's probably going to know better than me or you.
Wow. I expected something better than that.
Everyone always the truth after all 
It's not that long ago that working for MI5 was an established career path for KGB new entrants.
The entire British secret service was fecked because it depended on old school tie nice but dim inbred public schoolboys.
Firstly, I don't believe The Guardian has done anything that damages national security. The revelations about the scale and scope of the activities of our intelligence agencies are necessary, and should be published by the government without the need for leaks. If the public does not know about these things, it cannot make a judgement on their validity and hence cannot use the democratic process to sway their implementation one way or the other. We don't need to know specific operational details (i.e. don't name names), but we do need to know what is going on in a more broad sense. The balance of privacy, freedom and security is a delicate one, and the public must have their say. Democracy relies on an informed populace.
Secondly, I don't believe any jury would be likely to convict The Guardian on charges relating to the publishing of these documents. Just look at the polls.
Big Brother is watching you, its for your own good, dont fight it or bad shit will happen. Its all a bit Orwellian, I cant believe anyone takes it seriously.
Al Again
Again (no number of these is going to be enough in the context of how strongly you put forth your opinion and then back it up with this)Amazingly poor reasoning.
These revelations show the scope and capabilities of our security efforts. Anyone who knows anything about how you gain an advantage in intelligence also knows that your capabilities should be kept hidden as far as possible.
The thinking goes like this.
Your enemy has a finite resource which they will use to penetrate your security and counter your ability to penetrate theirs. If they can't be sure of exactly what you can do then they will waste at least some of that resource trying to defend or increase the security on areas which you were never able to penetrate. This means that your enemy then has less resource to throw at defending/ attacking your actual capacities.
Anyone who says that these recent revelations haven't harmed our security are wishful thinkers or more likely just too ignorant about how intelligence agencies work to hold a worthwhile opinion.
The debate about whether we should be snooping on the scale we are is a different debate but on the narrow point that intelligence gathering is being harmed and will continue to be harmed by recent events I just don't know how anyone can seriously doubt it as a fact. Idiots who think we spend small fortunes developing these assets without validating the money spent versus information gained, blather on and on but all they really show is how ill informed they are.