What input was that?
Anyone who gets a chance to be advised by someone who’s been at the centre of national and international politics for well over half a century, and doesn’t pay awfully close attention, is a fucking idiot.
As for Cameron, a chilled-out leader who would rather keep things running smoothly than make change for it’s own sake is a good thing.
It was done over a breakfast of Frosties. 
“Under a cloak of secrecy, the Cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, held talks to work out how she might express her concerns in a suitably coded way.
The result was a remark overheard after a Sunday service in Crathie Kirk, the small church that the Royals attend when staying at Balmoral. ‘I hope people will think very carefully about the future,’ the Queen was reported to have said — to the delight of the No camp.
The carefully chosen words were no accident. Her supposedly off-the-cuff remark was a deliberate last-minute intervention — and it left no one in any doubt about which side she was on.”
Not a very good cloak of secrecy.
But they are making changes, and things aren’t running smoothly. Well, their things might be running smoothly, other’s aren’t.
That’s incredibly thin.
As an exertion of power, it’s hardly in the “off with his head” class. A remark that could mean anything and is no more than anyone would say about any vote. No politician engaged in the referendum campaign changed their view or their arguments; no legislation was amended or office-holders changed as a result - merely a supposition that the spin the different sides put on it influenced the voters: which is highly debatable, and on which, AFAIK, no-one has done any research. And if it did, what of it? All she did was hope the voters would think, not tell them what to think. That’s about as far as the non-involvement principle would allow.
It’s not what she said, it was how what she said was amplified by the media.
I see Frazer Nelson - arch Tory Editor of The Spectator - is this morning kicking Cameron while he’s down. Are they starting to shift across to Osbourn this early in the cycle … I do think some Tories are seeing Corbyn more clearly than is New Labour - elsewhere some very on point comments also from Steve Hilton on Corbyn. I wonder if the elephant is still Cameron sleaze on Non Dom:
A new song about Jeremy Corbyn - and New Labour…
Cameron is in a strange position having ruled himself out of leading the Tories into the next election. This not only puts Cameron in a strange position but also the tory media *and *Cameron’s potential successors. I think they are all playing it by ear this parliamentary cycle. No-one knows the playbook when a PM announces he is standing down so far ahead of time.
…if the Queen has no power it should make no difference whether Corbyn sings her special song or not. Yet it’s worth votes, and votes are power.
People tend to want this both ways “ooh no the Queen has no power”, followed by a defense of her status and importance.
Turns out the excitement about Jazza being a “threat to national security” might be a little overblown given Trident is not even going to be debated at the Labour Conference.
Tories looking slightly like the excitable sweaty schoolgirl at a midnight dorm feast.
Poor old Cameron has done it again. Same as when he announced beforehand ruling out joining the Libbies for a second time, he’s laid out his Grand Vision for Syria ( not that the rest of the world gives a fuck what Britain thinks ) by saying Assad Minimus has a limited part to play in a transition and will then be dumped.
He should take lessons from Malcolm Turnbull: the knife goes in after the fact, when the victim is looking the other way, not signalled with a red flag aforehand.
In other news: in anticipation of the Prime Minister visiting Shropshire Lord Emsworth has place armed guards around the Empress of Blandings’ sty.
The Daily Telegraph continues to froth: “Corbyn and comrades reveal plot to hammer middle-class with tax raids”.
Or to adjust that for reality: “Corbyn and [del]comrades[/del] the Shadow Chancellor reveal [del]plot[/del] policy idea to [del]hammer[/del] focus on [del]middle-class[/del] top 15% with [del]tax raids[/del] return to previous tax rate”.
That I doubt. The critics perceive that it is, but they’re really only preaching to the converted. I don’t believe for a moment it’ll actually persuade one wavering voter.
It’s patently shrill and irrational. The Barclay brothers (owners of the Telegraph) and looking more and more like Kochs*.
*not a typo
Come Back, Conrad ! All is forgiven.