The Politics Thread

[thebish]

if you seriously think that the whole tax credit cuts programme was a leak to make the actuality seem better - then you've lost the plot! the tories were committed to it - they are only not doing it cos they were stopped from doing it - and they got a very timely OBR recalculation windfall so they could save face!

also - if you you don't think Corbyn was involved in house of Lords strategy meetings with labour peers and cross-bench peers - you've got a little hole in your understanding of how politicians get things done!

But you're overegging the pudding a little. It was a hugely unpopular policy that was in itself a contradiction of pre-election promises.

Osborne was primarily motivated (IMO) in his charge for leadership and branding himself on the left of the party. Labour opposing it obviously makes a difference. But it is a huge stretch to suggest merely doing so makes them the key driver or indeed effective opposition.

aye.. and making a difference by your opposition is the job of the opposition. I don't know what else you expect the opposition to have achieved in a few weeks of opposition other than to have made a difference to the government's worst excesses by their opposition whilst acting as the opposition.

[Athers]

Listening to the statement it was classic Osborne capitalising on his luck of the OBR forecast improvement, smoothing past his U-turns* as if they were minor course corrections on a bigger journey, which I suppose they are to him, at a macro level. I also liked the 'commitment to comedy' gag at the opposition front bench.

[*The £12bn welfare cuts still happening though - Universal Credit?]

Managed a few minutes of MaoDonnell droning on the usual Balls stuff about target-missing before I just got bored, I missed the Mao moment live unfortunately. The thing is that while I can probably be accused of turning off because of an uncharismatic individual, he's not going to have a realistic centre-left alternative to managing the country now (forgiveable) or in 4 years (not), so what's the point

[bobo the clown]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

[BWFC_Insane]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

Agreed re the first part.

Livingstone...I saw QT and that is absolutely not what he was saying. He said that the Iraq war motivated the London attacks as the terrorists themselves have said. He was arguing that indiscriminately bombing Syria may lead to other "revenge attacks". His point was very clear. People are trying to twist that into him absolving terrorists, which isn't anything close to what he was saying.

[bobo the clown]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

Agreed re the first part.

Livingstone...I saw QT and that is absolutely not what he was saying. He said that the Iraq war motivated the London attacks as the terrorists themselves have said. He was arguing that indiscriminately bombing Syria may lead to other "revenge attacks". His point was very clear. People are trying to twist that into him absolving terrorists, which isn't anything close to what he was saying.

Except what e actually said was ... "Go and look what they put on their website. They did those killings because of our invasion of Iraq. They gave their lives, they said what they believed, they took Londoners' lives in protest against our invasion of Iraq. And we were lied to by Tony Blair about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Conservative minister Matt Hancock said Mr Livingstone was letting IS and other violent militant groups "off the hook". Kate Andrews, from the Adam Smith Institute, said he was "accepting their excuses".

I tend to the remarks by Hancock & Andrews.

[Worthy4England]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

Agreed re the first part.

Livingstone...I saw QT and that is absolutely not what he was saying. He said that the Iraq war motivated the London attacks as the terrorists themselves have said. He was arguing that indiscriminately bombing Syria may lead to other "revenge attacks". His point was very clear. People are trying to twist that into him absolving terrorists, which isn't anything close to what he was saying.

Except what e actually said was ... "Go and look what they put on their website. They did those killings because of our invasion of Iraq. They gave their lives, they said what they believed, they took Londoners' lives in protest against our invasion of Iraq. And we were lied to by Tony Blair about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Conservative minister Matt Hancock said Mr Livingstone was letting IS and other violent militant groups "off the hook". Kate Andrews, from the Adam Smith Institute, said he was "accepting their excuses".

I tend to the remarks by Hancock & Andrews.

Does anyone really believe that the attacks by Al Qaeda and ISIS have zero to do with the West's foreign policy? I mean really? They couldn't be that stupid could they?

That's letting no bugger off the hook as I supported our war in Iraq and would almost certainly be supportive of intervention in Syria. I don't think it will solve the problem though - it'll only stem it a while.

[Athers]

An interesting thought experiment to wonder what would have happened to the region had there never been Western or Soviet/Russian intervention, or alternatively none since 1950.

Probably chaos?

[thebish]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

Agreed re the first part.

Livingstone...I saw QT and that is absolutely not what he was saying. He said that the Iraq war motivated the London attacks as the terrorists themselves have said. He was arguing that indiscriminately bombing Syria may lead to other "revenge attacks". His point was very clear. People are trying to twist that into him absolving terrorists, which isn't anything close to what he was saying.

Except what e actually said was ... "Go and look what they put on their website. They did those killings because of our invasion of Iraq. They gave their lives, they said what they believed, they took Londoners' lives in protest against our invasion of Iraq. And we were lied to by Tony Blair about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Conservative minister Matt Hancock said Mr Livingstone was letting IS and other violent militant groups "off the hook". Kate Andrews, from the Adam Smith Institute, said he was "accepting their excuses".

I tend to the remarks by Hancock & Andrews.

so - your putting "he understood" (the actions of the bombers) in quotation marks as if he said he "understood" the actions of the bombers (where "understood" could easily be taken to mean "kinda sympathised with") was a bit (lot) misleading - in that he didn't say that at all??

[bobo the clown]

Yes.

[thebish]

Yes.

in that case - badly done Bobo - if you have to make up quotes to diss someone - then it weakens the force of your argument (in my opinion)...

[bobo the clown]

Yes.

in that case - badly done Bobo - if you have to make up quotes to diss someone - then it weakens the force of your argument (in my opinion)...

I feel like Helen in the Archers now.

[thebish]

Yes.

in that case - badly done Bobo - if you have to make up quotes to diss someone - then it weakens the force of your argument (in my opinion)...

I feel like Helen in the Archers now.

so you should! let me take care of everything... don't worry your little head about it all...

[thebish]

Does anyone really believe that the attacks by Al Qaeda and ISIS have zero to do with the West's foreign policy? I mean really? They couldn't be that stupid could they?

Baroness Manningham-Buller - former head of MI5 - certainly agreed with you and Ken in that assessment...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

[BWFC_Insane]

There's little point winning a victory yet losing the credit because of silly antics.

I do think there was some room for self-satisfaction there. The previous defeat on Tax Credits made what was an overly zealous and ill-thought through change be abandoned. Osborne's tax-credit plan was not well developed. There IS need to alter something which has become massive and bloated and out of kilter with what was initially intended, but his sledgehammer approach was poor.

Opposition from various groups, not least some unimpressed Tories, but led by new-new Labour helped defeat it. I am amazed that it was cut out in total, not least because I DO think there's a need for reform. But that was a chance for a bit of dancing in the aisles by Corbyn & Co. Then the Mao Little-Red-book trick lost the momentum. Osborne did not have his feet held to the flames and he's got away with claiming he'd changed his mind.

They have to stop the antics of the 6th form common-room.

Then Livingstone helps deflect genuine discussion about Syria by chucking in that "he understood" the actions of the 7/7 bombers. Again, momentum lost because they can't help but chuck in a theory-bomb.

Agreed re the first part.

Livingstone...I saw QT and that is absolutely not what he was saying. He said that the Iraq war motivated the London attacks as the terrorists themselves have said. He was arguing that indiscriminately bombing Syria may lead to other "revenge attacks". His point was very clear. People are trying to twist that into him absolving terrorists, which isn't anything close to what he was saying.

Except what e actually said was ... "Go and look what they put on their website. They did those killings because of our invasion of Iraq. They gave their lives, they said what they believed, they took Londoners' lives in protest against our invasion of Iraq. And we were lied to by Tony Blair about Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction."

Conservative minister Matt Hancock said Mr Livingstone was letting IS and other violent militant groups "off the hook". Kate Andrews, from the Adam Smith Institute, said he was "accepting their excuses".

I tend to the remarks by Hancock & Andrews.

Exactly. What he said was that our invasion of Iraq motivated the London attacks. He said nothing about excusing them.

So my original description stands.

[Lord Kangana]

Does anyone really believe that the attacks by Al Qaeda and ISIS have zero to do with the West's foreign policy? I mean really? They couldn't be that stupid could they?

Are you suggesting we aren't bombing and exploiting them enough?

[bobo the clown]

I read that as that he "understood" what they did. I take "understanding" as saying they weren't fully to blame .... giving them an excuse. I don't believe they had an excuse. I believe they had a choice. The choice they made was to kill. I don't excuse that, nor anyone who thinks it.

[Lord Kangana]

So under all circumstances the choice to kill is something that you are opposed to?

[Worthy4England]

Does anyone really believe that the attacks by Al Qaeda and ISIS have zero to do with the West's foreign policy? I mean really? They couldn't be that stupid could they?

Are you suggesting we aren't bombing and exploiting them enough?

Exploiting ISIS? I'm lost already - how do you think we're exploiting ISIS (or previously Al Qaeda)?

[thebish]

I read that as that he "understood" what they did. I take "understanding" as saying they weren't fully to blame .... giving them an excuse. I don't believe they had an excuse. I believe they had a choice. The choice they made was to kill. I don't excuse that, nor anyone who thinks it.

it's a common way of thinking - but still seems muddle-headed to me. To understand a little of why someone might do something is NOT the same as excusing them for doing it AT ALL - people retain responsibility for the choices they make. I think it's a good idea to try to understand why it is that people do things - I think it is helpful when we try to devise ways to stop them doing those things.

[thebish]

Grant Shapps has resigned as international development minister following all the hoo-hah about bullying, sexual abuse and intimidation within the hierarchy of the Young Tories - and Shapps' alleged failure to do owt about it...