Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Emrys
Emrys's Journal
Emrys's Journal
July 9, 2016
Political comedian Mark Steel again, on incendiary form.
(Note: The headline is the shorter one that appeared on the print version of the article published in the i newspaper.)
Oh, you meant well? That's OK, then
Never mind that a 2.5-million-word report says Blair was responsibleLike Tony Blair, we were all duped by the intelligence on Saddam Hussein – except for the millions that went on marches, and Nelson Mandela, and France, and the Pope, and the chief weapons inspector, and Robin Cook
The most important thing is Tony Blair insists he made his decision “in good faith”. So it hardly matters that a two-and-a-half-million-word official report finds him responsible for incalculable global carnage, because he says he meant well. It’s just like if you drive the wrong way up the motorway and cause 40 deaths in a pile-up, you haven’t done anything wrong if you thought you were going the right way.
When asked whether he regrets going to war, Blair repeated that he’s not sorry for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But that wasn’t the question. It’s similar to Oscar Pistorius answering a question about whether he regrets his decision to shoot by saying “I don’t regret getting rid of that bathroom door, I’d been meaning to get it replaced for months”. In any case, even the man filmed in 2003 smashing Saddam’s statue with a hammer said in an interview: “If I met Tony Blair I would spit in his face.”
Yet there were still MPs who voted for the war, who yesterday claimed the people of Iraq were grateful for Blair’s actions. Maybe they’re right, and spitting in your face is one of those customs that means different things in different countries – when you come back from Iraq drenched in gob it means they adore you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-iraq-war-chilcot-report-tony-blair-right-important-matter-doing-up-tie-a7125521.html
The most important thing is Tony Blair insists he made his decision “in good faith”. So it hardly matters that a two-and-a-half-million-word official report finds him responsible for incalculable global carnage, because he says he meant well. It’s just like if you drive the wrong way up the motorway and cause 40 deaths in a pile-up, you haven’t done anything wrong if you thought you were going the right way.
When asked whether he regrets going to war, Blair repeated that he’s not sorry for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But that wasn’t the question. It’s similar to Oscar Pistorius answering a question about whether he regrets his decision to shoot by saying “I don’t regret getting rid of that bathroom door, I’d been meaning to get it replaced for months”. In any case, even the man filmed in 2003 smashing Saddam’s statue with a hammer said in an interview: “If I met Tony Blair I would spit in his face.”
Yet there were still MPs who voted for the war, who yesterday claimed the people of Iraq were grateful for Blair’s actions. Maybe they’re right, and spitting in your face is one of those customs that means different things in different countries – when you come back from Iraq drenched in gob it means they adore you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-iraq-war-chilcot-report-tony-blair-right-important-matter-doing-up-tie-a7125521.html
Political comedian Mark Steel again, on incendiary form.
(Note: The headline is the shorter one that appeared on the print version of the article published in the i newspaper.)
July 7, 2016
So (with info from the rest of the article) those credentials for his bid to head the Local Country for Local Peasants Scourge of the Elites Party ...
* Multimillionaire - CHECK
* Faux populism - CHECK
* Married (now separated from) a furrin woman - CHECK
* Issued with harassment notice by police in 2005 - CHECK
Eddie Hitler lookalike Nuttall, the leading contender, when he's not shrieking about foreigners (not a racist, no sir - cheered to rafters for saying he was "sick of Scotland" on Question Time a year or so ago) is hilariously sensitive:
Leadsom's name keeps coming up in UKIP circles - she's effectively the UKIP not-so-stealth candidate for Tory leader, and can now also boast of an endorsement from ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin.
Meanwhile, UKIP Chair Steve Crowther is also stepping down.
This leaves the field wide open for a late challenge from a previously unknown outsider.
Bristol-based millionaire Arron Banks could be next UKIP leader
The outspoken multi-millionaire who spent £5.6m of his own personal fortune on the leave campaign in the referendum is the bookies' third joint favourite at 10/1 behind Paul Nuttall at 15/8 and Steven Woolfe at 5/2.
...
He has a controlling interest in a diamond mine in Kimberley, South Africa and mining rights in Lesotho.
...
Even if he decides to run, Mr Banks said he will still support Andrea Leadsom to win the Tory leadership contest to become the next prime minister.
...
Mr Banks first made headlines when he donated £1million to UKIP in 2014 in an attempt to start a "peasant's revolt" against the European Union. He had previously donated to the Conservatives.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-based-millionaire-arron-banks-could-be-next-ukip-leader/story-29479241-detail/story.html
...
He has a controlling interest in a diamond mine in Kimberley, South Africa and mining rights in Lesotho.
...
Even if he decides to run, Mr Banks said he will still support Andrea Leadsom to win the Tory leadership contest to become the next prime minister.
...
Mr Banks first made headlines when he donated £1million to UKIP in 2014 in an attempt to start a "peasant's revolt" against the European Union. He had previously donated to the Conservatives.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-based-millionaire-arron-banks-could-be-next-ukip-leader/story-29479241-detail/story.html
So (with info from the rest of the article) those credentials for his bid to head the Local Country for Local Peasants Scourge of the Elites Party ...
* Multimillionaire - CHECK
* Faux populism - CHECK
* Married (now separated from) a furrin woman - CHECK
* Issued with harassment notice by police in 2005 - CHECK
Eddie Hitler lookalike Nuttall, the leading contender, when he's not shrieking about foreigners (not a racist, no sir - cheered to rafters for saying he was "sick of Scotland" on Question Time a year or so ago) is hilariously sensitive:
UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall brands BBC Question Time reaction 'appalling'
...
Political reporter Liam Murphy pulled a variety of tweets onto our liveblog, including one that hit out at the scouse credentials of both Mr Nuttall and Ms McVey.
@LivEchonews they're not proper Scouse ones a orrible Tory wool the other is a bad Bootle UKIP meff
— Jill (@LipglossJill) January 22, 2015
The Collins English dictionary defines meff as i) a tramp, ii) a stupid or worthless person
...
Political reporter Liam Murphy pulled a variety of tweets onto our liveblog, including one that hit out at the scouse credentials of both Mr Nuttall and Ms McVey.
@LivEchonews they're not proper Scouse ones a orrible Tory wool the other is a bad Bootle UKIP meff
— Jill (@LipglossJill) January 22, 2015
The Collins English dictionary defines meff as i) a tramp, ii) a stupid or worthless person
Leadsom's name keeps coming up in UKIP circles - she's effectively the UKIP not-so-stealth candidate for Tory leader, and can now also boast of an endorsement from ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin.
Meanwhile, UKIP Chair Steve Crowther is also stepping down.
This leaves the field wide open for a late challenge from a previously unknown outsider.
July 6, 2016
Guardian liveblog coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq
X-posted on GD
Chilcot report live: Blair sent troops to Iraq before peaceful options had been exhausted
Looks like the Chilcot Report isn't the whitewash that had been rumoured in advance.
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003, the Chilcot inquiry has found.
In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever”– disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgements of the intelligence services.
In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.
In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMD . He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.
But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
Read the full story here:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds
Iraq war inquiry says the then prime minister disregarded warnings of the risks as he built case for military action
In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever”– disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgements of the intelligence services.
In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.
In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMD . He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.
But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
Read the full story here:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds
Iraq war inquiry says the then prime minister disregarded warnings of the risks as he built case for military action
Guardian liveblog coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq
X-posted on GD
July 6, 2016
Guardian liveblog coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq
Chilcot report live: Blair sent troops to Iraq before peaceful options had been exhausted
Looks like the Chilcot Report isn't the whitewash that had been rumoured in advance.
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003, the Chilcot inquiry has found.
In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever”– disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgements of the intelligence services.
In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.
In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.
But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
Read the full story here:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds
Iraq war inquiry says the then prime minister disregarded warnings of the risks as he built case for military action
In his forensic account of the way Blair and his ministers built the case for military action, Chilcot finds the then Labour prime minister – who had promised US president George W Bush, “I will be with you, whatever”– disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgements of the intelligence services.
In particular, Chilcot identifies two separate, key occasions in the buildup to the conflict, against the background of mass protests on the streets of London by the Stop the War coalition, when Blair appears to have overplayed the threat from Iraq and underplayed the risks of invasion.
In the House of Commons on 24 September 2002, Mr Blair presented Iraq’s past, current and future capabilities as evidence of the severity of the potential threat from Iraq’s WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. He said that, at some point in the future, that threat would become a reality,” Chilcot says.
But Chilcot argues instead: “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities in that statement, and in the dossier published the same day, were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
Read the full story here:
Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds
Iraq war inquiry says the then prime minister disregarded warnings of the risks as he built case for military action
Guardian liveblog coverage here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq
July 6, 2016
Given the length and likely complexity of the report and the brief time that will have passed between its release and PMQs, although some will have had sight of it, or sections of it in advance, the real fireworks may not come today. Other than the no doubt sympathetic reports of the reactions of the service families, who have already been given quite a bit of airtime in advance on some of our media over the past few days.
I'd imagine there'll be a lot of droning on about "lessons to be learned" etc., and no doubt from the Tories an eager grasp of the chance to bash Labour - then and now.
But let's cast our minds back a few months:
Does that sound uncomfortably like the run-up to the Iraq War? As somebody who was extremely vocal in my opposition to the Iraq invasion, not least online, I can well remember being accused of all sorts of things - of sympathizing with Saddam, not caring about the people of Iraq who were suffering under his regime etc. by people who were only too quick to spout about "libtards", "towelheads". And then there were people who weren't idiots or racists who genuinely were caught up in the governments' and media's push for war and thought, on the (sometimes very scant) information they'd been given, that "something had to be done", and since nobody seemed to have any better ideas (nobody who was getting serious airtime in comparison to the pro-war propagandists), this was it.
That quote above comes from Cameron's push to join in the Syrian airstrikes just last December. If the scope for worsening the situation by our involvement was enormously less than the Iraq invasion, it's because we were joining an already occurring conflict with armaments which were not going to make a significant difference except to Cameron's standing among those he wanted to impress.
And Cameron, as did Blair's cabinet before him, blatantly stretched the truth:
Well, that's all worked out swimmingly according to plan.
Meanwhile, Labour was bitterly split on the issue, as ever, and who can forget Hilary Benn's nonsensical, jingoistic and opportunistic surprise speech in favour of the UK's involvement in airstrikes being cheered to the rafters? Hilary Benn, who sparked off the latest round in Labour's civil war just a week or so ago - evidently somebody whose judgment can be trusted.
There are lessons to be learned from Chilcot, flawed as the report no doubt will end up being. Unfortunately, they'll be filtered through the media - the same media as a mass which got us into Iraq and facilitated the airstrike campaign - and obscured by party political point-scoring and attempts to protect reputations and careers.
My own bottom line after all the arguments about Iraq is that there was no exit strategy. None. Underpants Gnome territory. And some people got very rich out of it, some died, and too many are still suffering and grieving. That's a pretty basic lesson to learn.
The Guardian's Chilcot Report Live coverage is here. If anybody else knows of any good online resources, please do chip in with them below.
As we patiently await Chilcot, I'll hand around the humbugs
Chilcot: the timetable
All times are BST (GMT+1).
* David Cameron already has the report, which was delivered to him at 11am on Tuesday.
* The report is embargoed until Sir John Chilcot makes his public statement, but some senior politicians, journalists and other involved parties, including the families of some of the 179 British soldiers who died in the conflict, will be able to read it from 8am on Wednesday.
* At 11am, Chilcot makes his statement.
* When he concludes, at around 11.20am, the entire report will be published here.
* PMQs follows at noon in the House of Commons.
* Immediately after that, at around 12.30pm, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will make statements on the report. It’s expected that Corbyn will, as he has pledged, apologise on behalf of the Labour party for the war in Iraq.
* Tony Blair is also expected to give a press conference later today.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq?page=with:block-577c5ca8e4b0445bf0e06f7f#block-577c5ca8e4b0445bf0e06f7f
All times are BST (GMT+1).
* David Cameron already has the report, which was delivered to him at 11am on Tuesday.
* The report is embargoed until Sir John Chilcot makes his public statement, but some senior politicians, journalists and other involved parties, including the families of some of the 179 British soldiers who died in the conflict, will be able to read it from 8am on Wednesday.
* At 11am, Chilcot makes his statement.
* When he concludes, at around 11.20am, the entire report will be published here.
* PMQs follows at noon in the House of Commons.
* Immediately after that, at around 12.30pm, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will make statements on the report. It’s expected that Corbyn will, as he has pledged, apologise on behalf of the Labour party for the war in Iraq.
* Tony Blair is also expected to give a press conference later today.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-live-inquiry-war-iraq?page=with:block-577c5ca8e4b0445bf0e06f7f#block-577c5ca8e4b0445bf0e06f7f
Given the length and likely complexity of the report and the brief time that will have passed between its release and PMQs, although some will have had sight of it, or sections of it in advance, the real fireworks may not come today. Other than the no doubt sympathetic reports of the reactions of the service families, who have already been given quite a bit of airtime in advance on some of our media over the past few days.
I'd imagine there'll be a lot of droning on about "lessons to be learned" etc., and no doubt from the Tories an eager grasp of the chance to bash Labour - then and now.
But let's cast our minds back a few months:
Opening a debate lasting 10 and a half hours, the prime minister admitted his case for airstrikes was complex, but said the question was whether the UK should go after “the terrorists in their heartlands, from where they are plotting to kill British people” or “sit back and wait for them to attack us”.
However, he was apparently unsettled in bitter opening exchanges when he was repeatedly challenged to apologise for remarks at a private meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday in which he urged his colleagues not to vote alongside “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
However, he was apparently unsettled in bitter opening exchanges when he was repeatedly challenged to apologise for remarks at a private meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday in which he urged his colleagues not to vote alongside “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
Does that sound uncomfortably like the run-up to the Iraq War? As somebody who was extremely vocal in my opposition to the Iraq invasion, not least online, I can well remember being accused of all sorts of things - of sympathizing with Saddam, not caring about the people of Iraq who were suffering under his regime etc. by people who were only too quick to spout about "libtards", "towelheads". And then there were people who weren't idiots or racists who genuinely were caught up in the governments' and media's push for war and thought, on the (sometimes very scant) information they'd been given, that "something had to be done", and since nobody seemed to have any better ideas (nobody who was getting serious airtime in comparison to the pro-war propagandists), this was it.
That quote above comes from Cameron's push to join in the Syrian airstrikes just last December. If the scope for worsening the situation by our involvement was enormously less than the Iraq invasion, it's because we were joining an already occurring conflict with armaments which were not going to make a significant difference except to Cameron's standing among those he wanted to impress.
And Cameron, as did Blair's cabinet before him, blatantly stretched the truth:
He tried to dispel scepticism over claims from the joint intelligence committee that 70,000 non-extremist forces existed, ready to take on Isis, but was forced to admit there would be a reliance on the patchwork of Free Syrian Army troops in Syria and that not all were in the right place.
...
The prime minister said there was a political strategy that would bring about a “transitional government in six months, a new constitution and free and fair elections within 18 months”.
...
Cameron warned that Isis was already posing a threat to the UK. It had inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted atrocities on the streets of Britain, he said. “Since November last year, our security services have foiled no fewer than seven different plots against our people, so this threat is very real,” he said. “Daesh has been trying to attack us for the past year, as we know from the seven different plots that our security services have foiled.”
...
The prime minister said there was a political strategy that would bring about a “transitional government in six months, a new constitution and free and fair elections within 18 months”.
...
Cameron warned that Isis was already posing a threat to the UK. It had inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted atrocities on the streets of Britain, he said. “Since November last year, our security services have foiled no fewer than seven different plots against our people, so this threat is very real,” he said. “Daesh has been trying to attack us for the past year, as we know from the seven different plots that our security services have foiled.”
Well, that's all worked out swimmingly according to plan.
Meanwhile, Labour was bitterly split on the issue, as ever, and who can forget Hilary Benn's nonsensical, jingoistic and opportunistic surprise speech in favour of the UK's involvement in airstrikes being cheered to the rafters? Hilary Benn, who sparked off the latest round in Labour's civil war just a week or so ago - evidently somebody whose judgment can be trusted.
There are lessons to be learned from Chilcot, flawed as the report no doubt will end up being. Unfortunately, they'll be filtered through the media - the same media as a mass which got us into Iraq and facilitated the airstrike campaign - and obscured by party political point-scoring and attempts to protect reputations and careers.
My own bottom line after all the arguments about Iraq is that there was no exit strategy. None. Underpants Gnome territory. And some people got very rich out of it, some died, and too many are still suffering and grieving. That's a pretty basic lesson to learn.
The Guardian's Chilcot Report Live coverage is here. If anybody else knows of any good online resources, please do chip in with them below.
July 5, 2016
I figured what the situation needed right now was a dose of Frankie Boyle.
(Note for US readers: Frankie Boyle is a Scottish comedian, but like Mark Steel, a sharp cookie. He can be provocative and graphic, so maybe NSFW if your work is a wee bit sensitive.)
The Tory leadership election is a sort of X Factor for choosing the antichrist
This current divide must be especially sad for the Tories. The idea that Europe, the place where they buy their cheese, the place where they took their first five mistresses on minibreaks, the place where they cried at Hitler’s bunker, this collection of potential second homes, this was the place that tore them apart. And so we have a Conservative leadership election, a sort of X Factor for choosing the antichrist. Already, the cast looks like the episode of Come Dine With Me they show in hell before Top Gear comes on.
Stephen Crabb has come under fire for links to a group that claims it can cure homosexuality, and, having had a quick look at him, he’s definitely cured me: his beaming face is like a grim party game where blindfolded children have to try to place the eyes on to an identikit photograph of a murderer.
The frontrunner, Theresa May, communicates something horrifying, not through her appearance, but rather her unique expression of unwavering, furious disgust. It is the expression some nameless, pitiless archon will wear 50 years from now as it signs a contract to rent out our city centres to pharmaceutical companies so they can crop-spray viruses and harvest antibodies from any survivors. It is the expression Lucifer wore when the other angels attempted an intervention. Surely May, of all people, could make a positive case for migration just by saying: “If you can’t see the potential of a free-moving workforce, simply imagine how great it would be if I fucked off somewhere else.” Bizarrely, it looks like she’ll be involved in a runoff against Andrea Leadsom, who was created by Nazi scientists as a response to Dame Vera Lynn.
Michael Gove needs to get 50 signatures, but at the moment he doesn’t look like he could persuade his mother to sign him off a cross-country run after a leukaemia diagnosis. And then there’s Liam Fox. I seem to remember some sort of opprobrium being attached to him. Whatever it was, no doubt there can’t have been much to it (even though he was forced to resign or something) or it wouldn’t be getting comprehensively buried every news cycle by Jeremy Corbyn not indicating when leaving a roundabout or something.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tory-leadership-election-x-factor-choosing-antichrist-brexit-frankie-boyle
Stephen Crabb has come under fire for links to a group that claims it can cure homosexuality, and, having had a quick look at him, he’s definitely cured me: his beaming face is like a grim party game where blindfolded children have to try to place the eyes on to an identikit photograph of a murderer.
The frontrunner, Theresa May, communicates something horrifying, not through her appearance, but rather her unique expression of unwavering, furious disgust. It is the expression some nameless, pitiless archon will wear 50 years from now as it signs a contract to rent out our city centres to pharmaceutical companies so they can crop-spray viruses and harvest antibodies from any survivors. It is the expression Lucifer wore when the other angels attempted an intervention. Surely May, of all people, could make a positive case for migration just by saying: “If you can’t see the potential of a free-moving workforce, simply imagine how great it would be if I fucked off somewhere else.” Bizarrely, it looks like she’ll be involved in a runoff against Andrea Leadsom, who was created by Nazi scientists as a response to Dame Vera Lynn.
Michael Gove needs to get 50 signatures, but at the moment he doesn’t look like he could persuade his mother to sign him off a cross-country run after a leukaemia diagnosis. And then there’s Liam Fox. I seem to remember some sort of opprobrium being attached to him. Whatever it was, no doubt there can’t have been much to it (even though he was forced to resign or something) or it wouldn’t be getting comprehensively buried every news cycle by Jeremy Corbyn not indicating when leaving a roundabout or something.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tory-leadership-election-x-factor-choosing-antichrist-brexit-frankie-boyle
I figured what the situation needed right now was a dose of Frankie Boyle.
(Note for US readers: Frankie Boyle is a Scottish comedian, but like Mark Steel, a sharp cookie. He can be provocative and graphic, so maybe NSFW if your work is a wee bit sensitive.)
July 5, 2016
In some ways trivial, but an insight into the social world of the anti-elites.
Meanwhile, Tories, it's not a good look when Nigel Farage shows more social empathy than your main first-round leadership contender:
Farage 'disgusted' at May's refusal to promise EU nationals they can stay in UK
From Guardian Brexit Live coverage - all good news all the frikkin time.
Farage, Murdoch, Lebedev and Fox break bread: as told by Lily Allen
He has railed against the “out of touch” media and political elites in the past. On Sunday, however, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, attended a garden party with the media moguls Rupert Murdoch and Evgeny Lebedev, as well as the Tory leadership candidate Liam Fox. And the whole thing was documented on Twitter by Lily Allen.
Farage was pictured by the singer chatting to Murdoch and the host of the party, Lebedev. And a video she later deleted showed the Ukip leader smiling after she gave him a sarcastic hello.
{L-R: Murdoch, Lebedev, Farage. Dig the footwear.}
Later, when contacted by the Guardian, Allen said that both Fox and Farage had made a beeline for Murdoch as the guests were choosing their seats to make sure they were seated near him.
But it was the media boss himself for whom she reserved most of her ammunition, calling him Voldemort. In a video of the media boss “breaking bread” with the former defence secretary, she called them both “wankers”.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jul/03/farage-murdoch-lebedev-and-fox-break-bread-as-told-by-lily-allen
Farage was pictured by the singer chatting to Murdoch and the host of the party, Lebedev. And a video she later deleted showed the Ukip leader smiling after she gave him a sarcastic hello.
{L-R: Murdoch, Lebedev, Farage. Dig the footwear.}
Later, when contacted by the Guardian, Allen said that both Fox and Farage had made a beeline for Murdoch as the guests were choosing their seats to make sure they were seated near him.
But it was the media boss himself for whom she reserved most of her ammunition, calling him Voldemort. In a video of the media boss “breaking bread” with the former defence secretary, she called them both “wankers”.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jul/03/farage-murdoch-lebedev-and-fox-break-bread-as-told-by-lily-allen
In some ways trivial, but an insight into the social world of the anti-elites.
Meanwhile, Tories, it's not a good look when Nigel Farage shows more social empathy than your main first-round leadership contender:
Farage 'disgusted' at May's refusal to promise EU nationals they can stay in UK
From Guardian Brexit Live coverage - all good news all the frikkin time.
July 5, 2016
The winners usually get to write history, but at the moment it looks like some of the losers in the UK's EU referendum are getting to do so, in pursuit of their own agendas.
There'll be other accounts and analyses of the dysfunction in the Remain campaign and how we got to where we are now - whole books, for sure - but this is one of the most comprehensive I've seen so far.
What lessons there are for the current US electoral campaign from events in such a different political context, I'm not sure, but some folks seem keen to draw them anyway, so it may serve as food for thought.
How remain failed: the inside story of a doomed campaign
On Friday 10 June, five men charged with keeping Britain in the European Union gathered in a tiny, windowless office and stared into the abyss.
Just moments before, they had received an email from Andrew Cooper, a former Downing Street strategist and pollster for the official remain campaign, containing the daily “tracker” – the barometer of support among target segments of the electorate. It had dropped into the defeat zone. The cause was not mysterious. “Immigration was snuffing out our opportunity to talk about the economy,” Will Straw, the executive director of Britain Stronger In Europe, recalled.
Earlier that week, the top Tories fronting the leave campaign – Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – had dominated the news with promises to control the nation’s borders. The remain side’s message, that Brexit entailed deadly economic risk, was being drowned out, particularly in areas that traditionally supported Labour. Polls showed that many voters were unaware that a remain vote was the party’s official position, a confusion exacerbated by Jeremy Corbyn’s manifest ambivalence about the entire European project.
The vote was less than two weeks away, and the team of former political enemies needed to jump-start the stalled campaign machine. Straw was a former Labour parliamentary candidate. Stronger In’s head of strategy, Ryan Coetzee, had run the Liberal Democrat 2015 election campaign. They were joined by three Conservatives: Ameet Gill, director of strategy at No 10 Downing Street, Stephen Gilbert, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative party, and Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s communications chief.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign
Just moments before, they had received an email from Andrew Cooper, a former Downing Street strategist and pollster for the official remain campaign, containing the daily “tracker” – the barometer of support among target segments of the electorate. It had dropped into the defeat zone. The cause was not mysterious. “Immigration was snuffing out our opportunity to talk about the economy,” Will Straw, the executive director of Britain Stronger In Europe, recalled.
Earlier that week, the top Tories fronting the leave campaign – Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – had dominated the news with promises to control the nation’s borders. The remain side’s message, that Brexit entailed deadly economic risk, was being drowned out, particularly in areas that traditionally supported Labour. Polls showed that many voters were unaware that a remain vote was the party’s official position, a confusion exacerbated by Jeremy Corbyn’s manifest ambivalence about the entire European project.
The vote was less than two weeks away, and the team of former political enemies needed to jump-start the stalled campaign machine. Straw was a former Labour parliamentary candidate. Stronger In’s head of strategy, Ryan Coetzee, had run the Liberal Democrat 2015 election campaign. They were joined by three Conservatives: Ameet Gill, director of strategy at No 10 Downing Street, Stephen Gilbert, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative party, and Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s communications chief.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign
The winners usually get to write history, but at the moment it looks like some of the losers in the UK's EU referendum are getting to do so, in pursuit of their own agendas.
There'll be other accounts and analyses of the dysfunction in the Remain campaign and how we got to where we are now - whole books, for sure - but this is one of the most comprehensive I've seen so far.
What lessons there are for the current US electoral campaign from events in such a different political context, I'm not sure, but some folks seem keen to draw them anyway, so it may serve as food for thought.
July 4, 2016
Book Review: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy by Robert H. Frank
What role does luck play in economic success? In Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, Robert H. Frank argues that the wealthy tend to underestimate the role that chance plays in acquiring status and money, and explores how this consequently discourages support of taxation. While this short read could draw upon other discussions of luck to bolster its key claims, this is a convincing and engagingly written work, writes Dan McArthur.
Consider the owner and founder of a successful business. Did they make it all on their own, through hard work, dedication and talent, or did luck play a role in their success? Hard work and talent might be needed to identify an untapped market or a revolutionary business model, but our businessperson still required luck of several kinds. They were lucky that another entrepreneur didn’t get there first, or that an established company was unable to muscle in on their business. However, they were also lucky to be born in an affluent society where they could be educated for free in publicly funded schools, and where governments have invested in the roads on which their products are transported and in a police force to prevent their wealth from being stolen.
In Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, Robert H. Frank argues that wealthy people fail to appreciate the central role that luck plays in their success, and are thus unwilling to support taxation to fund public infrastructure that benefits everyone. Frank is an economist at Cornell University and a columnist for the New York Times, and is well known for popularising the idea of the ‘winner-take-all society’.
...
Drawing on behavioural economics and psychology, Frank discusses some of the cognitive biases that lead successful people to fail to appreciate the role of luck in their success. It seems to be harder to delay gratification and self-motivate if you believe that luck, rather than effort, plays an important role in your life. But overlooking the role of luck makes successful people more hostile to paying taxes. For Frank, in the US at least, this unwillingness to support higher taxes is seriously damaging physical and social infrastructure, including the roads, railways and public education on which the entire population depends. This under-investment in public goods is harmful even to the most successful members of a society, because they also benefit from public goods. The analogy he uses is that it is better to drive a $150,000 Porsche on well-maintained roads than a $333,000 Ferrari on a road full of potholes.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-review-success-and-luck-good-fortune-and-the-myth-of-meritocracy-by-robert-h-frank/
Consider the owner and founder of a successful business. Did they make it all on their own, through hard work, dedication and talent, or did luck play a role in their success? Hard work and talent might be needed to identify an untapped market or a revolutionary business model, but our businessperson still required luck of several kinds. They were lucky that another entrepreneur didn’t get there first, or that an established company was unable to muscle in on their business. However, they were also lucky to be born in an affluent society where they could be educated for free in publicly funded schools, and where governments have invested in the roads on which their products are transported and in a police force to prevent their wealth from being stolen.
In Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, Robert H. Frank argues that wealthy people fail to appreciate the central role that luck plays in their success, and are thus unwilling to support taxation to fund public infrastructure that benefits everyone. Frank is an economist at Cornell University and a columnist for the New York Times, and is well known for popularising the idea of the ‘winner-take-all society’.
...
Drawing on behavioural economics and psychology, Frank discusses some of the cognitive biases that lead successful people to fail to appreciate the role of luck in their success. It seems to be harder to delay gratification and self-motivate if you believe that luck, rather than effort, plays an important role in your life. But overlooking the role of luck makes successful people more hostile to paying taxes. For Frank, in the US at least, this unwillingness to support higher taxes is seriously damaging physical and social infrastructure, including the roads, railways and public education on which the entire population depends. This under-investment in public goods is harmful even to the most successful members of a society, because they also benefit from public goods. The analogy he uses is that it is better to drive a $150,000 Porsche on well-maintained roads than a $333,000 Ferrari on a road full of potholes.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-review-success-and-luck-good-fortune-and-the-myth-of-meritocracy-by-robert-h-frank/
July 4, 2016
How much legs this story has, I've no idea, but it's likely to be part of a series of conjectures and rumblings you'll see this week in anticipation of the report's delivery on Wednesday.
I've heard rumors from people who may know what they're talking about that Chilcot will be something of a whitewash of the government's conduct, and will instead focus more on shortcomings in the military, and possibly in the intelligence community. The ICC has already indicated it has no standing to pass judgment on the decision-making that led to the war, but will be interested in any evidence in the report indicating lawbreaking and breaches of human rights by British soldiers etc.
Misleading Parliament in the run-up to war is a different issue. Whether any government - particularly the current one - will have an appetite to set a new precedent for such charges, even if it means skewering Labour in the current climate, I'm doubtful.
By Wednesday, we'll begin to find out. I think it's inevitably going to stir up unpleasant memories and anger among those of us who bitterly opposed the war and were demonized for doing so, and not least the families who lost loved ones during it, not to mention since. And a whole new generation has grown to political awareness in the intervening years, and may hear about some of what went on for the first time.
Will the media capitalize on that to add another dimension to Labour's turmoil at the moment? That's a rhetorical question. It's more whether they'll ask the right questions.
Chilcot report: MPs plan to impeach Tony Blair over Iraq War using ancient law
A number of MPs are seeking to impeach former prime minister Tony Blair using an ancient Parliamentary law.
The move, which has cross-party support, could be launched in the aftermath of the Chilcot Inquiry report because of the Labour leader’s alleged role in misleading Parliament over the Iraq War.
MPs believe Mr Blair, who was in office between 1997 and 2007, should be prosecuted for breaching his constitutional duties and taking the country into a conflict that resulted in the deaths of 179 British troops.
Not used since 1806, when Tory minister Lord Melville was charged for misappropriating official funds, the law is seen in Westminster as an alternative form of punishment if, as believed, Mr Blair will escape serious criticism in the Chilcot Inquiry report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-report-impeach-law-a7115266.html
The move, which has cross-party support, could be launched in the aftermath of the Chilcot Inquiry report because of the Labour leader’s alleged role in misleading Parliament over the Iraq War.
MPs believe Mr Blair, who was in office between 1997 and 2007, should be prosecuted for breaching his constitutional duties and taking the country into a conflict that resulted in the deaths of 179 British troops.
Not used since 1806, when Tory minister Lord Melville was charged for misappropriating official funds, the law is seen in Westminster as an alternative form of punishment if, as believed, Mr Blair will escape serious criticism in the Chilcot Inquiry report.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-report-impeach-law-a7115266.html
How much legs this story has, I've no idea, but it's likely to be part of a series of conjectures and rumblings you'll see this week in anticipation of the report's delivery on Wednesday.
I've heard rumors from people who may know what they're talking about that Chilcot will be something of a whitewash of the government's conduct, and will instead focus more on shortcomings in the military, and possibly in the intelligence community. The ICC has already indicated it has no standing to pass judgment on the decision-making that led to the war, but will be interested in any evidence in the report indicating lawbreaking and breaches of human rights by British soldiers etc.
Misleading Parliament in the run-up to war is a different issue. Whether any government - particularly the current one - will have an appetite to set a new precedent for such charges, even if it means skewering Labour in the current climate, I'm doubtful.
By Wednesday, we'll begin to find out. I think it's inevitably going to stir up unpleasant memories and anger among those of us who bitterly opposed the war and were demonized for doing so, and not least the families who lost loved ones during it, not to mention since. And a whole new generation has grown to political awareness in the intervening years, and may hear about some of what went on for the first time.
Will the media capitalize on that to add another dimension to Labour's turmoil at the moment? That's a rhetorical question. It's more whether they'll ask the right questions.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: Scotland
Member since: Mon Sep 7, 2009, 12:57 AM
Number of posts: 7,227
