Housing crisis. Number 10 apologises over tory slur e-mail

Zagu

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I agree - it is disgusting. If I was the apologist you had in mind you will note that at no point have I defended smear campaigns - I pointed out as you have that they are nothing new.

I agree with Iain Dale on this one.


"The tragedy is that ordinary voters probably think political smears like this are the norm across the political spectrum.

I truly believe that they are not. But when such insidious tactics are exposed, they and their perpetrators need to be dealt with by those who purport to want a ‘different kind of politics’."

Rochdale_Pioneers

Dale and the Tories are desperate to argue that such things are new - they don't want anyone to remember what they used to get up to. Go read Seamus Milne's book about the miners and the smears against them. Scargill was nuts. But he wasn't a crook. Nor were Matrix Churchill. And yet the Cabinet were happy to smear them and see them in jail rather than tell the truth.

Truly I say - smear campaigns didn't exist before Mandelson

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Dale and the Tories are desperate to argue that such things are new - they don't want anyone to remember what they used to get up to. Go read Seamus Milne's book about the miners and the smears against them. Scargill was nuts. But he wasn't a crook. Nor were Matrix Churchill. And yet the Cabinet were happy to smear them and see them in jail rather than tell the truth.

Truly I say - smear campaigns didn't exist before Mandelson

It's the content of the smears rochdale, not that smears didnt exist. This is a whole new level. Even the BBC are saying that these are obscene.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Zagu wrote: »

I agree with Iain Dale on this one.


"The tragedy is that ordinary voters probably think political smears like this are the norm across the political spectrum.

I truly believe that they are not. But when such insidious tactics are exposed, they and their perpetrators need to be dealt with by those who purport to want a ‘different kind of politics’."

I disagree with Iain Dale.

Its widespread in the Labour Party.

Zagu

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Dale and the Tories are desperate to argue that such things are new - they don't want anyone to remember what they used to get up to. Go read Seamus Milne's book about the miners and the smears against them. Scargill was nuts. But he wasn't a crook. Nor were Matrix Churchill. And yet the Cabinet were happy to smear them and see them in jail rather than tell the truth.

Truly I say - smear campaigns didn't exist before Mandelson

Nothing has been near as personal as this attack was, or has come from someone so high ranking, and if you know of one that was comparable, just say so.

An interesting view on it, from a Labour MP.

So, what did I miss?

I HAD planned to end my self-imposed break from blogging tomorrow rather than today, but events, dear boy, events…

First, I think it’s important that Labour people make clear — and are seen to make clear — that this whole McBride/Draper episode (must we call it “Smeargate”? Really?) is as inexcusable to us as it is to the rest of the world. There is absolutely no point in anyone in the party trying to spin such an odious sequence of events, of trying to suggest that it’s less serious that what the media are trying to make out.

To those comrades who might feel tempted to downplay this episode, to dismiss it simply as “two friends exchanging not-very-serious emails”, I would pose a question: how would Labour have reacted if this smear had been aimed at the partners of Labour politicians and had been perpetrated by a senior civil servant in a Conservative administration? Go on, think about that before trying to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup.

And there’s no point in talking up the question of how these emails found their way into Guido’s possession. Do you imagine for even a moment that the electorate could possibly care less about that? It’s insulting to imagine that this can be turned into a “process” story with Derek Draper’s email account, or Derek himself, portrayed as the “victim”.

Of course, McBride had to go — that was obvious to everyone with an ounce of judgment from the second this story broke. How could No. 10 have even tried to recover from this fiasco while the perpetrator was safely ensconced? Which brings me to my next point: I can understand why the Tories might privately have hoped McBride would survive. After all, what could be more damaging to the government and to the Prime Minister himself than to be seen to endorse such behaviour by taking no action against him? The Tories were handed an enormous propaganda gift this weekend; to have protected McBride’s position in No. 10 would have made it the gift that keeps on giving.

So, yes, I can understand why the Tories would have preferred McBride to remain in post. But what on earth was Draper thinking when he told various media outlets yesterday that he didn’t think McBride should have had to resign?

But this isn’t about positioning or spinning or misdirection or whatever. This is about standards of political activity, standards which have fallen far, far below what is remotely acceptable, especially for someone working at the very heart of government.

We screwed up, big time. We have no-one — absolutely no-one at all — to blame for this but ourselves. The damage the Labour Party and the government have sustained this last 24 hours has been entirely self-inflicted.

And the people behind this sordid little mess owe everyone named in these emails a very public apology.

Amazing that even he can see the glaringly obvious, while others have their fingers in their ears.

whathavewedone

I'm sure you're right Rochdale but the thing is, it doesn't make this any more palatable.

It's the seedy nature of the rumours they were seeking to circulate that just makes the government look tawdry as well as corrupt.

I mean trying to discredit David Cameron on the basis that he supposedly has an embarrassing illness. No idea whether this is true or not but I personally could not care less. The man has very recently lost his son - to attempt to smear him over something as trivial as - what - Piles, Herpes caught when he was a student? just makes labour look like something that should be living under a stone.

The government look utterly desperate and if this is the way that labour think they are going to win the next election, well, it's a pretty sad state of affairs really.

FungusFighter

AWw come on guys, it's been a real scream:beer:
Specailly ole Dolly Draper doing the rounds of the media, best being his Talksport disembowelling at the hands of Gorgeous George Galloway, fewking hilarious http://new.talksport.net/mediaplayer/media_player.asp?id=106340&c=&t=&rssPodcast=&podcastid=&mediaType=1

Count the number of times he says "to be honest"and "the truth is" :rotfl:

This little beauty has got me through Easter with the family:T

mewbie_2

Is this smear thing worse than Ross and Brand? Sounds it to me. Therefore a six month suspension for Brown, as he is supposedly in charge of this government. In fact while not just call the election now. The longer Labour go on the worse they are.

They have become everything the Tories were after a long time in government - stinking and corrupt. Time to go Mr. Brown - not that a single one of us wanted you as PM anyway.

A._Badger

FungusFighter wrote: »

AWw come on guys, it's been a real scream:beer:
Specailly ole Dolly Draper doing the rounds of the media, best being his Talksport disembowelling at the hands of Gorgeous George Galloway, fewking hilarious http://new.talksport.net/mediaplayer/media_player.asp?id=106340&c=&t=&rssPodcast=&podcastid=&mediaType=1
Snipped
:T

I don't know about enjoying listening to Draper make a fool of himself. Personally, I'm enjoying watching Rochdale thrash around trying to spin the line that things were just as bad under the Tories.

whathavewedone

Completely agree.

I think it's far worse than the Brand/Ross thing although there are obvious parallels. Adjectives such as adolescent, tawdry, seedy, spiteful, cruel, vindictive and most of all stupid spring to mind in relation to both episodes.

The difference is that the first scandal was all about something which was actually true. The girl in question wasn't married and didn't have kids. The number of people potentially hurt by the revelation would presumably have been limited to her parents and grandparents.

It was obviously a crude attempt to remind the public that the tory party are the party of sleaze.

Given their supposedly "right on" attitudes, being seen to try to bring the party down because the shadow chancellor's wife might be suffering from some sort of mental illness or depression does not reflect well.

This is particularly so when the resignation speech sounds anything but contrite and when Derek Draper says that nobody should have had to resign and describes the emails as "brilliant".