Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...about fucking time
what say you children of Fallujah?
Wowsers. Conservative bloggers in 'evil' shocker.
anyway, if this is how the Nick & Dave show is going to run then we could be in for some drama over the next 4 years - either that or Dave is never leaving the country again
How much did that man's edumacation cost?
Asked about his remarks, No 10 said Mr Cameron had been referring to the "current relationship between the UK and the US".
during PMQs or DPMQs as it was yesterday, does Clegg have an obligation to give answers on behalf of the government or on behalf of himself? If the former, then knowing that the Conservatives generally backed the invasion he's been a bit of a wally. Right?
But since the party opinion has altered on the topic since the matter was decided, I don’t think it has much bearing. Most Tories now would say that the war was a bad idea, even if it was just a slimy, lizard person attempt to court public opinion.
I think Clegg was just looking for a bit of in party credibility after being dragged around town by Cameron with his trousers around his ankles
The Conservatives don't much like Vince's Graduate Tax scheme..
(who was being a ballbag with his line of questioning about it this morning) claimed that David Willets (currently Minister of State for Universities and Science) and others were pretty much "on the same sheet" as Cable on this one, but that, yes, opinion is divided if you go looking for it. If it's not Cable or Willets wonder who it is that's calling the shots on this one?
we're getting to see some conflicts in the coalition. hope it gets nasty to be honest!
As much as I dislike the Conservative agenda, and even less the Lib Dems backing them into power, economically speaking an infighting coalition would be the single worst thing to happen at the moment
'Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, said: "A public statement by a government minister in parliament as to the legal situation would be a statement that an international court would be interested in, in forming a view as to whether or not the war was lawful." '
but yeah, I doubt it will come to that
Except Clegg was the one who brought it up in an attempt to continue the 'everything's Labour's fault' theme the Coalition is clinging to.
"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."
Hmmm: Howard's not even an MP any more, so that'll blow over.
Interesting: George Galloway made the point about crime levels in relation to economic prosperity on This Week last thursday.
including George Osborne (who then did a funny little 'aha!' point at Jack Straw). So presumably they all agreed with him.
I saw the look on his face. This is what it said to me: "You FUCKING moron oh shit this is going to be on TV better act like I agree with the twat..."
It's here, at about 17m50s.
Osborne does a little mouth-along with Clegg then looks a bit smug and then possibly uncomfortable.
He's a complex man.
He really was born to stand behind a bigger boy watching him kick the shit out of a Year 4 isn't he
Cameron's stunt double stuttered through a shameless attempt to grab the spotlight, whilst the man himself was displaying a shocking ignorance of history when talking Britain down.
The cracks between Conservative and LibDem policy is widening, and neither can continue to renege so frequently on manifesto promises. Blair-style deceptions may have short term gain, but if you're asking a nation to make sacrifices, you have to acquire their trust first.
will be plugged with Tory-brand polyfilla. Clegg and Co. are just hangers on, and should be jolly well happy with what they’re given.
Clegg is the uncool kid at the cool party, the one sent to the off license when they run out of beer and nibbles
who in their right minds thinks that the leader of a political party would have the slightest idea about whether a war was illegal or not.
(also sorry to be pedantic, but surely it was an armed conflict, not a war (according to the definitions of those who deal with the regulation and details and legal aspects of such things))
Surely the leader of a political party is very well placed to know whether a war was illegal or not - having as they do, access to the finest legal minds in the country. All the more so if, like Tony Blair, they happen to have a legal background themselves.
What is the difference between an 'armed conflict' and a war, anyway?
a 'state of war' means that a whole new raft of legislative powers come into play, giving the leaders dramatically redefined powers