Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

I totally agree Bicks.

[snowychap]

Woolas had a slender lead in the original election, and this certainly influenced the verdict.

Having had a brief look at the legislation that would depend upon whether they viewed that Woolas's liability, &c. fell under s.106 (2)(a) or s.106 (2)(, I think.

[Gringo]

Well the only winner in all this is the electorate. Let's have a bit more please.

[blandy]

Here's one for the military bods to get their teeth into. Light blue touchpaper and retire.

Does Britain really need the military?

Our armed forces were made to fight in conventional wars and cannot meet the real threats to modern Britain. So why must we pay £45bn for something that's so obsolete?... then a load of blather

There are huge numbers of invalid comparisons, false assumptions, sweeping innaccuracies and such like in what the man wrote. As an article saying "I think such and such" it's fine, just some ill informed opinion - But in terms of a case for not having a military it's laughably pathetic in any kind of rationale.

It's slightly off topic, so I'll not go on, but

I did not mean reduce defence, or trim defence. I meant cut it altogether doesn't tally with I accept the need to fight to protect my home, hearth and nation and...to uphold some concept of global civilisation against an all-consuming tyrant we don't need the military, but we need the military seems to be the gist of that. Genius!

There's some better stuff in there about how politicians pre-decide the outcome of reviews and how the defence of the nation is less the subject of reviews than "how can we save money" - all irrelevant to his main point, though. There's also some good argument about Nuclear deterrent

Then there's the gibberish - Britain would have some notice and time to re-arm, as we did with remarkable speed when last so confronted in 1940 - Would we? How does he know? and secondly, he may have missed that weapons are slightly more complex than they were 70 years ago - sure, we could knock up some Spitfires, but I fear these may no longer be quite so capable as was the case 70 years ago, of shooting down enemy planes - what with them being all supersonic and that, and with missiles and defensive aids and such like. In other words assuming we could actually still ramp up manufacturing, it takes lonmger to build a Typhoon than a Hurricane. And the same applies for most all the other kit.

Here's a scenario - there are Nuclear power generators quite near the coast of the UK. There are people and even nations in the world who might conceivably have malicious intent and wish to cause mayhem - tell you what, let's not have any defences against sea-borne action against such targets. If you say, well, OK, maybe we might need some troops to protect such sites, and maybe a few coastal patrols, and maybe some aircraft to keep an eye over the seas, there, then you're suddenly in the "when I said get rid, I really meant don't get rid"...

What about such things as Sierra Leone where it was the UK Military that changed things massively for the better.

What about disaster relief efforts where Helicopters, Ships, Planes and man-power play a part?

Once you get rid of the military, you get rid of the capability to support the military, you get rid of the bases, the industry, the knowledge, the training and all the rest. You ain't going to get it back, in 30 years when you need it because something you didn't think of, happens.

Go back 40 years, look at the major world events that have happened, the events that affected the UK, and tell me how many of them were predicted 30 years before they occurred. None.

Falklands, Iraq, Berlin Wall, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Al-Quaida...the list goes on.

If he'd argued that the military had been used when it shouldn't or not used when it should, fine. But "get rid of it" - there's no case made.

[PauloBarnesi]

Here's one for the military bods to get their teeth into. Light blue touchpaper and retire.

I am sure Simon wants it all spent on the National Trust and the Churches

[PauloBarnesi]

Ian, nothing surprises me with this shady government and their outdated Victorian vision for the country. The sooner we have them on the opposition benches the better.

Firstly has any party got vision?

and tbh whilst the Victorian era was dreadful, I don’t think the dismissal of the Victorian vision really tallies with the ambition of some of the people of the era.

[snowychap]

The conclusion of the judgement (available here):

207. For the reasons which we have given we are sure that the Respondent made statements of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of the Petitioner which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true and did not believe were true. Those statements were as follows:

(i) The statement in the Examiner that the Respondent had attempted to woo the vote, that is, that he had attempted to seek the electoral support, of Muslims who advocated violence, in particular to the Respondent.

(ii) The statement in the Labour Rose that the Petitioner had refused to condemn extremists who advocated violence against the Respondent.

(iii) The statement in the election address that the Petitioner had reneged on his promise to live in the constituency.

208. The Respondent is therefore guilty of an illegal practice. That illegal practice was committed by him. We shall so report to the Speaker as required by sections 144 and 158 of the RPA 1983. Section 144 requires the court to determine whether the election of the Respondent as a Member of Parliament is void. We have determined that his election is void pursuant to section 159 of the RPA 1983 because the Respondent is personally guilty of an illegal practice.

209. If the only breach of section 106 of the RPA 1983 had been that stated in paragraph 207(iii) above we would have questioned (in response to the question posed by Mr. Millar and noted in paragraph 47 above) whether it was necessary and proportionate to penalise such speech by declaring the election void and disqualifying the Respondent from standing for election to Parliament for three years. However, there were in addition the breaches stated in paragraph 207(i) and

(ii) above which we consider of such seriousness that such concerns do not arise. We are satisfied that the statutory penalties for the illegal practices committed by the Respondent are both necessary and proportionate. No submission to the contrary was made.

[PauloBarnesi]

Lets stop worrying about this country. Lets worry about the problems across the pond

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has released a new video in the wake of the Republicans' success in the US mid-term elections. The BBC's Paul Adams, in Washington, has been taking a closer look.

It is one minute and nine seconds of pure advertising genius - a dazzling calling card from the woman who, most now agree, wants to be president.

The imagery, flags, fighter pilots, Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, may be pure political bromide. Frankly speaking, the words are nothing much to write home about either.

"We're going to get back to the time-tested truths that made this country great," she says.

These, Sarah Palin seems to be saying, are my people. My coalition. Not just the honest, hard-working, flag-waving Americans seen throughout, but the candidates just elected to office on a wave of Tea Party fervour - and all those pictured celebrating on election night.

'Tea Party diversity'

The true brilliance, apart from the sheer speed with which the piece was put together, lies in an apparent rainbow coalition of candidates favoured by Ms Palin - Latinos, Marco Rubio in Florida and Susana Martinez in New Mexico; African Americans, Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina and an Indian American, Nikki Hayley in South Carolina.

It's a collection of faces clearly designed to puncture the Tea Party's images as solidly white.

There's even time, along the way, for a populist jab at Washington politics.

A Congressional committee door is closed, with a sign blocking the way, saying "public keep out".

And, of course, there's a shameless reference to the most famous three words ever uttered by the man who once made everyone feel good, Ronald Reagan.

"This is our morning in America," says Ms Palin.

Sarah Palin's public appearances are ruthlessly controlled, consisting mainly of set-piece speeches and slickly-produced commercials.

If she ever launches a formal bid for the presidency, she will probably, at some point, have to engage more seriously with what she loves to call the "lamestream media".

With a lumberjack chopping down a tree and hands united in a circle, this exhilarating post-election postcard comes to a thrilling end.

Ms Palin herself, in front of a giant American flag.

And, of course, a grizzly bear.

and people think Gideon is dim

[snowychap]

Lets stop worrying about this country. Lets worry about the problems across the pond

Was that 'rock' music I heard? Oops, that might have some of the bible-belters frowning, surely?

[peterms]

Here's one for the military bods to get their teeth into. Light blue touchpaper and retire.

I am sure Simon wants it all spent on the National Trust and the Churches

He might respond that much of what we spend the money on is so quaintly unfit for future purpose, so rooted in the past, that possibly the National Trust might be a more suitable custodian for it.

[PauloBarnesi]

Simon wants the National Trust to be more living; I am not sure the idea of five years old running all over the place with live ammo is quite what he had in mind!

[peterms]

There are huge numbers of invalid comparisons, false assumptions, sweeping innaccuracies and such like in what the man wrote. As an article saying "I think such and such" it's fine, just some ill informed opinion - But in terms of a case for not having a military it's laughably pathetic in any kind of rationale.

I'm not sure how strongly he would defend the proposition that we should have no defence at all. It comes across as a point for effect, like when someone running for office in Finland said they should scrap their forces and replace it with a recorded message saying "We surrender" in Russian.

The main point that I take out of it is that defence spending first bears no strong linkage to what we identify as credible future threats, and second has become unaccountable and out of control to a degree which requires change.

I think the interesting questions around this, which both government and opposition should engage with if we are to have a "strategic review" would include:

What functions do we wish to be able to exercise through armed forces? (Phrasing it as defence against threats would be too limiting).

What capabilities do we require to achieve this?

What equipment and staffing do we need for this?

What should that reasonably cost, and how should it be procured?

And assuming that Jenkins is at least partly correct that what we have isn't what we need, how do we move from where we are to where we should be?

Some open and informed parliamentary discussion of this would be nice, but I expect as usual it will get obscured by flag-waving and hysteria.

[peterms]

... the idea of five years old running all over the place with live ammo ...

That could be a good metaphor for the chiefs of staff and defence procurement.

[blandy]

I think the interesting questions around this, which both government and opposition should engage with if we are to have a "strategic review" would include:

What functions do we wish to be able to exercise through armed forces? (Phrasing it as defence against threats would be too limiting).

What capabilities do we require to achieve this?

What equipment and staffing do we need for this?

What should that reasonably cost, and how should it be procured?

And assuming that Jenkins is at least partly correct that what we have isn't what we need, how do we move from where we are to where we should be?

Some open and informed parliamentary discussion of this would be nice, but I expect as usual it will get obscured by flag-waving and hysteria.

Abso-blumin' lootely. I totally agree. As well as being long way from what happens, it's a long way from what people like that man in the Guardian call for. If instead of writing articles full of bollex people were to write sensibly about the subject, I think people would be able to make their own judgements based on a better level of information, rather than emotive stuff dressed up as pseudo plain speaking.

As an aside, while it's undeniable that some defence projects over-run, cost more than they should and all the rest of it, it's sadly not limited just to defence - it's pretty common across all kinds of big gov't controlled projects. It's not unique to procurement of defence kit. I feel the argument that "stuff costs too much", or "stuff takes too long" should be a completely seperate one from we need/don't need [a capability] - too often they get mixed up.

[Awol]

Simon Jenkins has a long history of writing totally ill informed crap about defence in general, but that article is so laughably stupid it doesn't even merit the hours it would take to type up a comprehensive rebuttal. Instead, i'll settle for this: 'It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.'

In the spirit of the day I recommend that we cut Simon Jenkins, saving vast amounts of oxygen and trees that are otherwise being wasted. Still, it will no doubt appeal to the sad, mad and deluded residents of CiF, his fellow travellers in some parallel universe.

[avfc89]

Ian, nothing surprises me with this shady government and their outdated Victorian vision for the country. The sooner we have them on the opposition benches the better.

Firstly has any party got vision?

and tbh whilst the Victorian era was dreadful, I don’t think the dismissal of the Victorian vision really tallies with the ambition of some of the people of the era.

You are correct it was dreadful, and it is terrifying when you have people using the economic boom of the Victorian generation as a model for the future; and these people being ignorant of the social hardships of that time; it is totally regressive and immoral.

Does any party have a vision? Questionable, I think we have seen the vision of this Government, and it is a frightening future that awaits us.

[Awol]

Ref. Phil Woolas, it couldn't have happened to a more appropriate individual. He is an utter turd.

[PauloBarnesi]

You are correct it was dreadful, and it is terrifying when you have people using the economic boom of the Victorian generation as a model for the future; and these people being ignorant of the social hardships of that time; it is totally regressive and immoral.

If you put up say Brunel, Booth, Disraeli, Chamberlain, Stephenson, Wilberforce, Dunlop, Crapper (had to get that one in), Nightingale, etc, etc the Victorian era had more positivity in every sense then we see now. As someone said; It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Now we just seem to have the negative...

[blandy]

I keep being told that election statements in the run up to an election mean nothing, but obviously against certain people and probably political parties they do. I wonder how much of this was

a) fuelled from a political rather than a moral standpoint

will now open the floodgates of similar claims

On that, Ian, There's a couple of different subjects, really - it's true that many of the population don't put much stall by what politicians "promise" before elections, and I do think we hope that the various parties don't indulge in "if that lot get in they'll do this that or the other bad thing" - we want them to say what they will do, not what the other lot, from a biased perspective of an opponent , will (not) do.

On the particular thing he's been found guilty of - deliberately lying about an individual opponent, to make him seem unsound of character, that's a totally different issue, more serious, even more worthy of censure, and he deserves to be done for it.

I think the protest would have been fuelled from a moral standpoint, whatever the parties involved. It's libel, basically. Untrue, unsupportable falsehoods about an individual, done solely for personal and political gain by Woollarse. Look not at the victim, but at the perpetrator when you question the reasons behind what's happened, would be my view.

How many emails are being deleted and letters being shredded as we speak?

What about influence (and lies) that are spread from media outlets supporting the various parties?

Aye, I suspect that may be going on. As for the media, the likes of the Murdoch papers and the Mirror in particular, it's a shame they are not bound by rules as tight as the broadcasters are.

The law then has to be not open to interpretation, which it seemingly is here and boy are some lawyers going to get somewhat richer

Not so sure about that - it looks like the process that led to this verdict goes on frequently, but mostly finds people (just) within the rules. This one was clearly different. Bang to rights.

[Awol]

he deserves to be done for it.

Done? I hope he spend two years being fisted by Abu Hamza. Still, thanks to the EU at least he'll still have a vote to go with his stripey tan.