I don't think so. Labour is still busy "re-organising" itself after last election's defeat ... and to get Ed Miliband "fixed" as a party leader.
(Recently, Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, put it this way "A year of debate, campaigning and relationship-building – and no CLP meetings – will allow Labour to renew itself.")
0 Replies
izzythepush
1
Reply
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 11:58 am
@Setanta,
There's not a lot further down the polls for the Lib Dems to fall, so theoretically they will try to make some gain from it. They've got to be careful though, they're in coalition so they don't want to upset the Tories. a spat between the coalition partners can only benefit Labour and they know that.
They may try to wheel Vince Cable out a bit more. Vince Cable is the Business Secretary, the decision to allow the BSkyB takeover was originally his. Then he was recorded boasting to an undercover journalist working for The Telegraph, that he would not allow Murdoch to increase his stake in BSkyB.
The Telegraph shot themselves in the foot over this, they are opposed to the takeover. Originally they printed Cable's many other indiscretions that they had secretly recorded, but they left the bit about BSkyB quiet. A whistleblower at The Telegraph alerted the BBC.
As a result of the furore the decision was taken away from Cable and given to Jeremy **** the ****. (BBC nomenclature applies.)
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 12:11 pm
Ain't politics a treat ? ! ? ! ?
You can't beat if for free entetainment, and it's better to laugh than to cry.
0 Replies
Izzie
2
Reply
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 12:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
OK, must one more question. Do you think the Lib Ds hope to profit by this, and do you think that expectation is realistic?
Hey HIM - quite honestly, IMO, the LibDems will try and profit off the back of any party. They didn't have enough votes for anything and when we had the election - they weighed up the odds of how they could reasonably get some power. At one point, there was a deal going down with Labour - before ya could swing a cat around, they were hopping into bed with Dear 'Ole David.
I was very disappointed in how weasley Clegg became - I did believe in some of his "promises" and he showed his true colours as being lily-livered and yella as his tie denotes, quite quickly. Mind you - I do understand that from a political stand point the Lib Dems did what that had to JUST to get some power behind the party. I do also think that they shot themselves in the foot with Labour. All eyes were on Clegg in the "will he, won't he" on election day - I have to say tho, that I think that will be his only day in the "glory fields". Since then, he will be on a loss with Labour.
I'm not sure how widely reported it was - but there was an incident where the mic was left on after a questioning session
This just about sums Clegg up!
As for Ed Miliband - yeuch - he makes me crawl too. I'm not a Labour supporter but if I were, I would have preferred his brother to be the leader. Ed is just... a little too sleazy. Then again, is there a politician that isn't? I think not.
The Lib Dems won't pull out of anything - they'll take there small percentage of power and follow in the heels of Mr Cameron - tho of course I would be shot for saying this... reminds me a little of Mr Reagan and our Maggie. Rather like a Sandy Shaw song, back in the day - without the Euro-Vision Oh dear. I will no doubt have upset some folk now
Boy Izzy - unfortunately I was unable to watch PM's QT as I was a little pre-occupied on a date with a gentleman in scrubs and a rather heavy sleeping potion - however, I shall be watching Question Time tonight to get a catchup on the latest going's on.
MzO - Clegg will always look down or away when the heat is on the Tories - it's meant to be a coalition - but yes, he has a remarkable talent for distancing himself from any of the furore around him. I recognise his "llaalallalllaing" as he tries not make eye contact.
I do not think they are honourable men. As I see them in the HOC standing up and sitting down and the talk of "right honourable gentleman", I often wonder what the rest of the world must think of this.
As most know I'm a Royalist (God Save The Queen and all that) - and probably more Tory than anything having being brought up in a blessed conservative world with folk who were hard workers for everything they gained in life - but I wouldn't know who to vote for anymore - I've little trust in the system nor the false promises they make to look after our country.
I feel sickened at the wars we are fighting - and as our soldiers are being pulled out and made redundant - we then sign up the reservists... however, I digress...
You say Our Maggie, I say The Thatch. You say Ed Milliband Yeuch, I say I voted for him to be party leader. He was my first choice. Nuff said.
Ill try not to be too partisan in my postings. However, when you say you don't really know how you'll vote in the next election, that's exactly how I felt when Blair invaded Iraq.
It's just been reported on Channel 4 news, (well actually it's not, because I always watch it an hour late) that James Murdoch may be recalled to clarify some of the answers he gave to the committee, because some senior NOTW executives have contradicted what he said.
heh heh! now you know I don't talk politics What on earth possessed me to start a few days ago - who knows
but dear HIM, I don't like to disillusion you but... I am no more Tory than I am Labour - my upbringing was certainly Tory but I grew up and away from my parents political views a while back - even they have done a reverse spin since the invasion of Iraq - unfortunately, I'm not quite grown up enough to make a decision on who to believe in or have the courage of my convictions to tackle the political preachers who come to my door. I once put a trust in an MP to fight for my child's sped and disability rights in the House of Commons - he didn't do a good enough job despite his speech, and easily walked away from his responsibilities to my family.
I wish I believed in something - but... if I were pushed to make a choice now - hmmm... mebbe Labour tho it would be the first time I voted that way and I may just have to throw up if I did that ... I just don't know who the lesser of the evils are. I don't like Miliband E... Miliband D... hmmmm.
Vince Cable distanced himself from Clegg when the coalition formed - he has strong thoughts about the Tories (one could say there is a slight repulsion) - I think they may try and garner his approval to make the LibDems look a little stronger - but they are a bitter disappointment. They had to make the choice of the lesser of the two evils - and I'm not sure they got it right.
I was just funnin' ya . . . i was raised by my grandparents, life-long conservative Democrats (now an endangered species), and my grandfather was active in the party. What it means is that liberals consider me a dangerous conservative and conservatives consider me a dangerous lefty . . . the little dogs consider me a source of good eats, and politics by damned.
In their statement, former NoW editor Colin Myler and ex-NI legal manager Tom Crone said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.
"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."
In a statement issued by News International's parent firm News Corporation, Mr Murdoch said: "I stand by my testimony to the select committee."
It's just been reported on Channel 4 news, (well actually it's not, because I always watch it an hour late) that James Murdoch may be recalled to clarify some of the answers he gave to the committee, because some senior NOTW executives have contradicted what he said.
Why is there no Question Time tonight! Thursday right, it is Thursday? Man, I'll have to go read up on stuff now!
MurdochJ said he would be able to clarify a lot of things at the committee, I wonder how far he will be able to backtrack or whether he read the 300 pages of emails and notes yet in THE file.
News Corp's James Murdoch on Thursday denied a statement from former employees of a British newspaper at the centre of a phone-hacking scandal that has rocked his father's media empire he had given "mistaken" evidence to British lawmakers this week.
Murdoch, chairman of News Corp's UK newspaper arm News International, said on Tuesday he had not been aware of an email that contained transcripts of hacked voicemails when he agreed to a large out-of-court settlement with a victim of the hacking.
[...]
The chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which quizzed James Murdoch and his father Rupert about the phone-hacking scandal, said he would seek clarification about the latest allegation.
[...]
0 Replies
izzythepush
1
Reply
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:00 pm
@Izzie,
You're right it is Thursday and QT is not on. Last week it had that ghastly John Gaunt on, they probably don't want to put a load more dodgy hacks on.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:20 pm
A cartoon in today's (Thursday) Times (via lockerz)
During Wednesday’s debate in the House of Commons on the phone hacking scandal, several Conservative members of Parliament expressed concern that the issue was a distraction from far more important issues — among them, a famine in Somalia.
Peter Lilley, for instance, said: “I welcome the recall of Parliament. I am only sorry that we are not being recalled to discuss the problems of the eurozone, the slowdown in the world economy in the face of higher energy prices, and the famine in east Africa.”
On Thursday, that idea was expressed clearly, and controversially, on the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London, in the form of an editorial cartoon with the headline “Priorities.” The cartoon showed a starving Somali child holding his distended stomach and saying, “I’ve had a bellyful of phone-hacking.”
Katharine Viner, an editor at The Guardian, posted a snapshot of the cartoon online and asked: “What do people think of this cartoon in the Times?
... ... ... [more at link above]
David Cameron on the ropes? Then explain the following. Even after by far the most difficult month in No 10, the prime minister remains the Conservative party's – and the coalition's – strongest electoral asset. This week's Guardian/ICM opinion poll underscored this. Even in the midst of the phone-hacking storm, Cameron's approval ratings among the general public are 10 points ahead of those for Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband. Among his own supporters, Cameron's position remains even more commanding – with 85% approval among Tory voters compared with Clegg's 57% and Miliband's 58% among theirs.
That explains, paradoxically, why the hacking furore is nevertheless so politically important. If Labour were to manage to knock Cameron off his perch over his handling of News International and his involvement with Andy Coulson, they would not merely rock the government on its heels. More important, they would tarnish the coalition's single most voter-friendly asset in what Labour naturally hope is a lasting manner.
Voters tend to stay turned off when they turn sour on a once-admired leader – as happened to Gordon Brown. But that's why Labour has stuck so remorselessly to its Get Cameron theme at every opportunity. Petty and unattractive it may sometimes be, but it makes a lot of crude political sense all the same.
Seen from Westminster as the summer recess starts, though, Labour's efforts have to be judged a failure. Miliband has indisputably had a good crisis, in the course of which he has silenced the mutterings about his leadership and won himself space to enjoy a much better autumn conference season than seemed possible a month ago. But his success should not be exaggerated. Whether he can leverage it into more solid approval still remains to be seen. Meanwhile Cameron has not just survived Miliband's attacks. He has also reasserted his grip on his own party, not least by a marathon performance on Wednesday in the Commons and in a private meeting with his backbenchers. Like it or not, these things matter.
Cameron's resilience in the polls matters too. In spite of a torrid fortnight marked by notable misjudgments and great potential dangers, Cameron is still polling well ahead of his party, while Miliband, for all his efforts, polls well behind his. Don't lose sight of these things. Clearly the summer recess provides an important relief from the Westminster excitements of the past week. It allows Cameron to choose his own agenda more carefully, though Monday's growth figures for what officials optimistically call the royal wedding quarter may be sluggish. Common sense nevertheless suggests that Cameron has survived the worst that Labour can throw at him for the moment.
Yet this may be to underestimate the more subtle unwinding and longer-term costs to the prime minister of the hacking crisis. In the first place, the unanswered questions still have considerable potency. It is all very well asserting the voters want to move on and claiming the doubters are at risk of morphing into conspiracy theorists. Some of that may be true. But an unwelcome answer to the questions still has the power to destroy. Even Watergate took more than two years to unravel. A bit of patience could be in order.
During Wednesday’s debate in the House of Commons on the phone hacking scandal, several Conservative members of Parliament expressed concern that the issue was a distraction from far more important issues — among them, a famine in Somalia.
Peter Lilley, for instance, said: “I welcome the recall of Parliament. I am only sorry that we are not being recalled to discuss the problems of the eurozone, the slowdown in the world economy in the face of higher energy prices, and the famine in east Africa.”
On Thursday, that idea was expressed clearly, and controversially, on the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London, in the form of an editorial cartoon with the headline “Priorities.” The cartoon showed a starving Somali child holding his distended stomach and saying, “I’ve had a bellyful of phone-hacking.”
Katharine Viner, an editor at The Guardian, posted a snapshot of the cartoon online and asked: “What do people think of this cartoon in the Times?
... ... ... [more at link above]
and so little thoughts to Libya and Afghanistan ...
yep, priorities - heart breakers!
cynical as I am... I am sure the suit fits some of the politicians who will be a little pleased with the diversions of war even if they are being left with egg on their faces...
as for the cartoon and the prose being used to outline the priroties and again using it to promote the voice of rivals attempting to damage to the Murdoch empire . . .
well, the media sinks to all depths of lows to justify their means to an end
(they can also assist with the highs too, like Sarah's law)
I guess - for me, any "perspective" regarding what's going on in the rest of the world is OK in my book - I care not for how that perception is played out in this instance - and I'm would hazard a guess tho would not speak for Millie Dowler's parents, but would imagine their wish for the rest of the world to also not only consider their pain and the phone hacking that led to it, and would probably wish for an end to the pain of all those little children and families in Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan... and the world over. I am pretty sure they would not be wishing anyone to lose perspective over the bigger picture.
Oh dear. I will no doubt have upset some folk now 
