Clegg's only blemish

Richard of York

Complete and utter tribalism gone mad...what are you smoking. No wonder no-one would be seen dead reading the spectator on a train, you would get laughed off at the next stop.
You lose all credibility when you write things like this. Every media outlet is saying Clegg was terrible....except the speccie........laughing stock thats what this rag is now.

Noa

On the basis of siad illegality,no doubt fresh in his mind following yesterday's disdainful comments from the ex head of MI5, perhaps we can now hasten to the arrest, arraignment and trial of the chief conspirators; Messrs Blair, Brown and Straw.

Ed P

If Dick of Dork doesn't like it, it's probably just fine. Apart from your predictable and tedious NuLab point of view, DofD, why not try something of interest: where's Gordon?
Any fule kno the war was illegal, but it's good to hear it from (near to) the top.

Stephen

A very good review of an interesting PMQs - then again, JF certainly watched them. Other people get their comments sent to them at 11:00.

Augustus

This man Clegg has no finesse. No refinement of performance whatsoever.

Chuck Unsworth

@ RoY

Every media outlet? At 1:27pm? Name them you clown.

strapworld

Dickie of Yorkie, Normally I try to understand what you write. However on this when you say 'every media outlet' would you itemise 'every' please. Just for the sake of honesty and my knowledge.

Personally I thought Clegg did well. He was helped by Straw in his normal use of twenty words when three would have sufficed. I do think he is an over promoted kleeneze door to door salesman!

But I await your clarification with baited breath.

Richard o' York

Strapworld - The Mirror, New Statesman, Viz, Labour Luvvies Weekly etc etc

Roger Davies

D of D is typical of his tribe; "all fur coat and no knickers" when substance should be on display. So no worries mate as Labour are destined to occupy the extreme left forever.

Sir Compton Valence

Richard of York Grew Bolder In Vain. I think you might be reading the wrong blog my dear fellow. Why don't find a corner of the world wide web where people won't throw rocks at you for your imbecilic assertions? Perhaps on the other hand you enjoy being the centre of attention, enjoy even making a spectacle of yourself.

As to Clegg v Straw, I'm afraid Clegg was the clear winner. Poor old Jack was ponderous and seemed almost to croak during his droning.

Walsingham's Ghost

"But it is a different matter to do so when standing in for the Prime Minister and speaking from the Treasury bench in the House of Commons."

Unless of course, as DPM he has had sight of documents previously denied to him.

Clegg may be many things, but a bufoon he is not - there may be more to his choice of words than a mere slip of the tongue. 'Man of Straw' certainly look taken-aback by it - I wonder what could be worrying him?...

WG

Billy Blofeld

Enterprising Labour MP???!

.... that would mean opening up the Iraq can of worms and the spectre of a Tony Blair trial.

I doubt anyone in Labour would be so stupid to make this an issue.... however, I hope that they are.....

Richard of York

Sorry did I beat some speccies to the first post oh dear......
BBC, On-line blogs, too many to name.
Laura Ompha Lumpa Kunnesburg, A Neil, Guardian political blog about 30 twitter feeds and I did watch it unlike some who post on here....etc etc.
Still you can try and continue your blinkered tribal drivel...but the public will decide.

yank

Quite generous of the Tories, I'd say, to let the man have his say. It's a coalition, and one must remain mindful of this. There are always going to be disagreements, which should be sunlighted, not buried.

An old saying here... you can't split rotten oak.

charles hercock

Nick needs to be concise and keep his wishy washy liberal prejudices to himself

Occasional Ostrich

A-ah, a few years' at the coalface will make a good Tory out of young Clegg.

Chuck Unsworth

@ RoY

And that constitutes 'every' media outlet? My, what limited vision you have. For arse, read elbow.

Alex

I thought Nick Clegg did well. He does not have the most penetrating of voices but he handled dear old Jack Straw well. (Time for Jack to retire I think.) With practice he will get better but he dealt with the anti-Lib Dem jibes quite well.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man...but of course the war was illegal and could not be justified! Nobody in their right mind thought the Iraqis had WMDs... and as for the 45 minutes (well it goes to show how poor the teaching of maths has been in this country). If Russians or Chinese had been seen wandering around Baghdad - then maybe!

JohnPage

Nothing to say about Sheffield Forgemasters, which was highlighted on The Daily Politics as a probable political runner?

Chuck Unsworth

Just checked your stated 'sources', Richard. You're talking complete crap - as usual. Put up the URLs and then we can all see whether you're lying or not. By no stretch of anyone's imagination - except yours - do these 'sources' constitute 'every' media outlet.

Sometimes it's best to hold back before posting - but maybe you wouldn't understand that.

strapworld

Dickie of Yorkie, you did say EVERY media outlet. You have named some left wing ones. Could you give me details of EVERY which I believe to mean EVERY?

By the way read Jerry Hayes "Labour expected a car crash at PMQs. They got one; Jack Straw, who made John Prescott look like Cicero".

Teepee

A few dominoes might fall here now the war has been declared illegal. The current debate on who might actually pay for Trident being a case in point. What will the outcome of the NIMB (not in my budget) debate be, I wonder? A tricky one for Clegg unless the outcome is to defer it. Now that would be an interesting exchange between Clegg and Straw...

Ahmed Khan

@Yank – I never thought I would ever agree with you but I do on your above comment!

Are you sure that this is your opinion and nobody forced you to write it, only it seems to be abit too intelligent for someone who thinks America won the Vietnam war!

davidk

Cleggover should be seen (if we really must) and not heard.

An out of his depth interloper on the government benches. I cant wait to see him warming the opposition benches for the remainder of his career.

davidk

The people of Sheffield must decide whether, on the basis of this answer on Forgemasters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10715219
Mr Clegg is a weasel or Prime Ministerial material.

Ahmed Khan

@Richard of York – you are absolutely right about one thing and that is that no speccie reader would be seen reading the magazine dead on a train.

In your demented communist head you seem to be assuming that specie readers travel on a train with all those tobacco and urine smelling Labour Muppets .

Speccie readers travel in their air conditioned 4x4’s or private jets. The only time we come into contact with the likes of you is when we come out of theater’s and trip over your kind sleeping on the pavements.

TrevorsDen

benedict brogan said Cleggs performance 'turned into a success' also 'He had no difficulty with Jack Straw, who shouted and behaved as if he was still in Government'
Yawn, poor RoY; stuck in his rut.

Chuck Unsworth

@ davidk

Since when did the people of Sheffield elect the British Prime Minister? Is this some sort of ancient right? Where's it laid down in the Statutes?

At best they elect an MP. Whether that'll be Clegg may not be determined for some years yet.

Richard of York

@davidk

you are quite right Clegg will have a few problems when he has to face his public in Sheffield.

Simon Stephenson

Noa : 1.28pm

"On the basis of siad illegality,no doubt fresh in his mind following yesterday's disdainful comments from the ex head of MI5, perhaps we can now hasten to the arrest, arraignment and trial of the chief conspirators; Messrs Blair, Brown and Straw."

and, presumably, make arrangements for appropriate action to be taken against the other 409 MPs who supported the Government's motion for war on 18th March, 2003, despite, apparently, not having taken the trouble to confirm its legality.

Paddy

I thought Clegg was wonderful.

I think the Libs are better than the Tories at getting the message across:

That Labour ruined the country - and must not be given a 'sniff' of power ever again.

We must keep on saying this over and over - say it to our children and grandchildren and to anyone who will listen lest we ever forget.

Hysteria

Yank - love it ! sadly, the sarcasm will be missed and you will be taken literally. ....

TGF UKIP

All this little episode does is a) it again highlights the consequences of Dave's abysmal failure to win an election against Britain's worst ever government and b) it brings home ongoing problems this government is going to have for quite some while as a result of Dave going all wobbly on Afghanistan.

The Army must be spitting mad over this clown with his focus group obsession over deadlines. The Taliban and Islamists must be laughing their cocks off at us for being daft enough to make this specimen our political leader.

Richard of York

Oh dear the cr*p is about to hit the ventilation system!
Sheffield Forgemaster's is about to blow up in Cleggie's face. Damning evidence with letters now being read out in the house adjournment debate.
Serious questions being asked and the govt on the rack, Tory donor and his sister (tory MP) involved in skulldugery. False statements made in the house by Clegg and Cameron without retraction, Legal advisers warning of serious implications of Clegg stating the War was illegal from the despatch box in a capacity of deputy PM.
Forced to retrack on detention centre statement.....its all going pear shaped for Cleggy.
Does he really think his chances of being re-elected are getting better.
Cameron will not be pleased when he gets home. Then of course the long summer break when journo's get leaks and research stories while the MP's are away on a beach sun-bathing......it's getting interesting now.

Noa Zrk

Simon Stephenson July 21st, 2010 5:59pm

Umm. It's a cute question Simon.

I named those who knew or should have known, what was really going on and manufactured the dossier and other evidence. But do you really object to the sight of massed tumbrils proceeding in convoy to New Tyburn?

Should stupidity, complicity, cowardice and political ambition now be accepted as defences to their institutional amorality?

Major Plonquer 1

RoY. Just curious, old boy, but if the speccie is so terrible and so frowned upon by grown ups I'm just wondering why on earth you spend so much of your time reading it?

Simon Stephenson

Noa Zrk : 12.17am

I'm of the view that populations are responsible for the quality of the decisions made by the people they elect to be their leaders. The decision to invade Iraq, in both the USA and the UK, was driven by popularity far more than it was by moral judgement or strategic importance. It was made because it was thought that it would please the populations of the two countries more than would a decision not to invade. Governments always feel the need to please populations, but we run into danger when populations become increasingly composed of individuals who believe that the be-all and end-all of their political voice is to press for policy that suits them, personally, irrespective of the impact this policy may have on other people.

It really isn't any good looking back now, after the event, and saying that the government at the time should have made a decision that would have displeased far more people than it would have pleased. This isn't how society is structured. Governments act to please their populations, and if populations want selfish, tunnel-visioned immediacy then I'm afraid that this is what they will get.

Here are two well-written articles with which I basically agree:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/16/iraq-inquiry-chilcot-afghanistan

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7036/

David Bouvier

I have no interest in any journalistic comment on Sheffield Forgemasters that does not start with the CEO and 50% shareholder being required to explain:

The CEO says he had debt and equity offers to fund the project but would rather pay less. What entitles him to a state soft loan instead of the normal tough commercial deals the rest of us have to work with...

As ~50% shareholder why does the CEO believe he should be personally enriched by the government soft loan? How many millions would it have been worth to him compared to the commercial alternatives?

Would he be willing to personally guarantee the loan, or similarly agree to repay the personal enrichment the loan would give him?

Why me and my businesses be taxed so that he can be personally enriched?

Why won't anyone in the media or politics actually look at facts instead of treating the deal some kind of political totem?

Simon Stephenson

Sorry about the underlining in my post of 8.58. An HTML typo, I'm afraid. Please ignore it.

Richard of York

@David Buffet

The CEO has said and his letter is available online that he never refused to dilute his shareholding and he did and has guaranteed the loans. This a typical Tory smoke screen. The truth lies in the Facts Tory (Largest Tory donor) and CEO of rival casting Co uses influence to prevent rival from getting support for vital investment for national interest.
Coalition minor party with stated opposition to nuclear policy insist on no state aid or subsidy to nuclear industry.
Meeting of two directions of travel result in govt policy not in the interest of the nation but in the interest of the parties.
In short sleaze writ large.

ieatdolphins

It is typical of the gissajob attitude of Sheffield that they seriously expect their ‘man’ in the cabinet to use his position to try and swing things for them and regard him as a traitor for quite rightly taking no interest. Forgemasters can go to the usual channels for their loans. There is a boom in global steelmaking at the moment, and has been for at least a decade. Sheffield, despite its century of specialization in steel, is not part of it. It could be a market leader in specialty steels, cashing in on say, the Chinese automaking boom. Instead it’s bleating for handouts. As so often with the northern industrial collapse, lack of initiative is the real problem.

Noa

Simon Stephenson July 22nd, 2010 8:58am

So the House of Commons was merely implementing the collective will of the people who wanted war rather than not?

This portrays a supine and reactive view of our politicians, who actually took active and premeditated steps to go to war and sought to influence the Public's view to support their doing so.

A defence at trial of 'it wasn't me Guv, my public wanted it" should operate no more for Blair, Brown and Straw than it would for a burglar.
Those in the House who accepted the case presented presumably did so in good faith. However common sense should have lead many more of them to a less supportive conclusion and lemming like behaviour in voting for war.

Richard of York

@Noa

So clearly you would love to see Blair and co in the dock for war crimes. This is a little short sighted. The collective responsibility would have the whole cabinet in the dock and the shadow cabinet and all those who voted for the war in the commons.
Half the Labour party actually voted against it 85% of the Tories voted for it.
Note for future use......This war would not have gone ahead without the Tories votes.
So whats it to be .......an Illegal war that the Attourney General ruled was in fact legal or your version of the events that you know less about than any of the people who voted for or against in Parliament.

Simon Stephenson

Noa : 1.18pm

I'm sure you know perfectly well that it wasn't just a case of War vs no War. In the UK, saying "no War" had, as a consequence, saying no to an expectation by the USA that we would actively support what they were planning to do. This wasn't a case of Blair saying "Can we join you?", it was Bush saying "You are with us, aren't you?" The judgement of our government was that the greater interests of the UK lay in supporting the USA, not in refusing them, and they reckoned, in my view quite rightly, that this would have been the overwhelming view of the British people, had they been made aware of the realpolitik of the situation.

There are many arguments to be had about whether or not it was wise to be so tied to the USA that such a decision would inevitably have to be made on the basis that it is an offer we can't refuse, but these are different from the arguments about the actual decision itself. Also quite distinct is the argument that we should have anticipated the catastrophe that subsequently occurred. Maybe we should, but it doesn't change the fact that Blair's assertion that he wasn't going to be the Prime Minister who destroyed the special relationship with the USA is a serious judgement which must be seen against all else in the Iraq War decision-making process in this country.

Too many people start their morality crusade from the point of view that we are essentially a free agent in international affairs. This is a long way from how things actually are.

Noa Zrk

Simon Stephenson/RoY

I rather believe that the decision to say 'no' under extreme pressure and to act in the interests of honesty and justice, is the mark of true greatness in a man and what one is entitled to expect in a Prime Minister.

If there was truly a special relationship it would have been better served by pointing out the adverse and incalculable consequences of war, and that as America's friend we would not be a junior party to such an action.

Such an act would have better stood the test of time than the fast crumbling facade of hokum served up to us, under US pressure, as a justification for war.

So, realpolitik aside, Blair and his cabinet should be answerable at law for the consequences of their actions.

Simon Stephenson

Noa Zrk : 12.28am

Richard of York's position is entirely tribal. If the Conservatives had been in power in 2003, to all intents and purposes the entire Labour Party would have voted against war, and Richard would now vocally be supporting the call for the Conservative leaders to be hanged, drawn and quartered. What Richard deems to be relevant to any argument is predicated by what currently suits the Labour Party - he's an advocate for Labour, not truth.

I, on the other hand, believe that although there are many things for which Labour 1997-2010 can be criticised, objectively not tribally, the Iraq decision really isn't one of them. We're playing into the hands of the Monnetesque socialists by failing to focus on what their 13 years in power has done to our society. Iraq's a tragedy, but it's a tragedy that is down to the enormous economic and military power of the USA, combined with the particular style of intellect that drives the process of determining the way in which this power is deployed. Not Tony Blair.

Noa

Simon

My apologies for addressing your considered position together with that of the resident labour foot soldier. As two previous attempts to post had failed I felt constrained in the scope of my reply.

Nevertheless the subject under consideration is the illegality of the Iraq war and whether its illegality should result in the trial of Bliar and his cabinet.

It should.

That Tory MPs voted in favour is irrelevent when they did so in good faith, on the basis of fabricated evidence.

This is not a party matter.

Should Obama inviegle Cameron into a similar foolish adventure and he schemed to subvert Pariaments authority to do so I would also require him to be fully accountable.

As you rightly identify 13 years of Labour government has inflicted severe damage on the UK. Much of that damage, political, consititutional, social, economic and in foriegn affairs stems ddirectly from our involvement in the Iraq war.

Simon Stephenson

Noa : 12.55pm

No apology required. I was only pointing out my differences from Richard of York, not complaining about being bracketed with him. But thanks for the thought.

On the question of Blair's culpability, we'll have to agree to disagree, I reckon.