yes, that one. He is not a fit person to lead a major political party - or a whelk stall. He said, about the Iraq war, "Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, but..." and that although he was a key adviser to Gordon Brown in 2003 when the decision was made he thinks the decision was wrong. Oliver Kamm rightly says that the Saddam Hussein regime (whether the man was "horrible" or not is irrelevant) was a major genocidal catastrophe of the 20th century, and I know that too many members of the Labour Party do not understand that. Hence Balls' facing both ways at once. If any Labour Party member is tempted to vote for him this should help them to decide not to. Miliband Major has kept quiet on the issue, because he was an MP in 2003 and voted for the war, as I did. Miliband Minor has said he was against it. Miliband Major should stand up and say that he is proud of his decision in 2003. He should be proud. But he has showed pusillanimity in not doing so.
And at the same time we have key figures in government, like Liam Fox, going to Afghanistan and saying they are not interested in nation building, just in bomb and run. This is as bad as the likes of Douglas Hurd in the 1990s propping up the Slobodan Milosevic regime and then milking Serbia for money.
Bastards. Traitors to the values of international solidarity, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Bastards.
10 comments:
Spot on, Jane - as usual.
Unlike you, I voted against taking military action against Iraq -but like you, I am proud of the decision I took and am always happy to defend it.Or to raise it.
What is really loathsome and despicable is individuals using that conflict for personal gain in an attempt to garner a few cheap votes in the leadership contest.
Ed Balls was not an MP at the time - true. But he has been one since 2005 - and taking a Cabinet salary for most of that time.
If he was so conflicted and desperately unhappy about the Iraq situation, what would have stopped him refusing a Cabinet - or indeed, any Ministerial post and saying that this was because he disagreed fundamentally with the Government on a central point of Government Foreign and Defence policy?
Same holds true for Ed Milliband.
And yes! Now is the time for David Milliband to defend his voting decision loudly and with pride. If he is temporising here then how, in any way, is he fit to take the unpopular decisions that will be required both as Leader and , possibly, Prime Minister?
I'm not from John McDonnell's wing of the Party but I absolutely agree with his anger about the blatant opportunism of these people.
John had to endure being called a wrong-headed idiot for his very vocal stance - and he didn't have the salve of a fat Cabinet salary to compensate.
Above all, I hate, despise and detest what this gross posturing says about the way Balls regards the Labour Party members whom he is expecting to vote for him.
He thinks they are silly, credulous fools who will be taken in and cast a vote just because someone tickles their underside in a speech.
People who join the Labour Party are, by and large, sentient beings, Ed. Not sheep led to the slaughter or over a cliff by whichever collie dog is acting the Shep in Blue Peter role at the moment.And you make a lousy John Noakes.
You'll find they don't want you - and they won't want to be told who to vote for by newspaper columnists either.
Got it?
Over and out.
Jane, tell that to the british soldiers who are over there! they will have a good laugh at your naivity...I have no objections to the principles that you have outlined but you cannot win the war in Afghanistan. Ask the Russians! Bring our soldiers home. Right now, talking of spending money on reconstruction is like pissing in the wind! Anyway, we need the money here Jane: to provide the universal healthcare etc..that Labour has failed to deliver. Charity begins at home!
Especially a whelk stall.
I am extremely partial to whelks and it is vital to get the right purveyor at the helm.
Don't think, actually - that Jane was proposing a fail safe 'Win the War in Afghanistan' ten point plan. Although if she was, we are all ears.
She was stating, i assume, that people who are prepared to use a serious conflict - no matter whether you agree with it or not - just as a bargaining chip for personal political gain - is not fit to be Labour leader.
And so say all of us.
Old Blink and Foam was on Newsnight tonight - demonstrating exactly why he is so unsuitable as a leadership choice.
Hat was excellent in the debate today.
Can someone start an online petition - elect our Hat'?
Nominations close on 9th June.
This is taken verbatim from the Times City Diary – page 48 in the Wed 26 May edition.
“A Labour website has offered readers the chance to post questions for Ed Balls about his leadership bid for the Labour Party. I am not sure that all of them will be answered. The fourth question posed: “Have you no shame?” The eighth: “Where do you stand on morals and ethics, from your history you have none.” And from “Yvette Cooper”, or possibly not: “What time will you be home for your tea?”
He will be free for tea at any time - because there will be no professional demands.
In terms of the Labour leadership as Ant and Dec might say on 'I'm a Celebrity' when addressing the potential nominees for eviction 'It isn't you'.
So that's all right then Yvette - jam butties at leisure!
Or since being a non-starter in the leadership means that the obligatory cloth cap can be safely jettisoned - 'petit fours and cucumber sandwiches - sans crusts' - on call!
Am I alone in finding the Lib Dem spokesperson , Olly Grender - who is now a fixuree on Newsnight - interminably irritiating? From her frizzy hair, through the double chin to the hockey mistress calves, it is all unbearable.
Enough to make one beg for the return of Lembit Opik.
Anonymous 13:37
Misogyny is a long word isn't it. No doubt you think the Fink, who shares the sofa with her, is a perfect specimen of human design with drop dead gorgeous looks, or even the new Labour chap come to think of it? No thought not, funny you didn't mention the looks of the two chaps. I spot a misogynist and I claim my £5.
Sorry last poster - I spot a Lib Dem.
Peter Hyman is quite nauseating, actually. I thought that went without saying. It is nepotism of the grossest degree that he could, literally, waltz out of Downing Street into a Deputy Headship when many good teachers spend about twenty years attempting to ascend that particular ladder.
Daniel Finkelstein - ex SDP person and aider and abetter of both the loathsome Polly Toynbee and David Owen - is an affront to the eyes - both on tv and in his numerous poorly written articles. Again - I though that any sentient being would agree with this - and that, therefore, it went without saying.
But Grender is a new affront. I fail to see the point of Grender.
She has not been employed by the Lib Dems since a brief and unsuccessful tenure in 1995 so WHY are we being forced to have her daily intrusions into our living rooms via the goggle box?
What is her qualification to sit, chins wobbling, and calves rippling, night after night on Newsnight, burbling garbage?
I can see the point of Shirley Williams as a Lib Dem pundit - even Charles Kennedy's ex aide,Daisy Sampson. Or why not have the excellent Jenny Tongue or even Susan Kramer? Not spoilt for choice.
Any would be infinitely preferable to the gruesome Grender.
Not misogyny - just a highly honed critical sense and a low irritation threshold. So let's have your fiver back, matey.
Post a Comment