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

Graham_Devon

whathavewedone wrote: »

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

PMSL. Sorry, but thats class.

mewbie_2

I guess Gordon has failed his smear test.

Jennifer_Jane

Has anybody said 'sorry' yet? Not 'regret' or 'apologise' but the humble, straightforward, 'sorry.

And just to remember that smear campaigns are nothing new to Labour - David Kelly RIP.

Jen
x

Soubrette

nickmason wrote: »

Grr....
I have their official guide in front of me - "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly". First sentence of the "Your tactics" chapter. It also briefs - rather appropriately - on how to use leaks. For the record, I have never - officially or unofficially - been given any guidance on dark arts by the Conservative Party; yet it is in the manual for LDs.

I hope that's a publically available document and not something you've leaked

And as for Rochdale's defeatism - no, there really are a lot of us in politics who know about this stuff, and can imagine doing it, but won't. Apart from the simple moral obligation to do the right thing in politics, there's also the fact that by not doing so we would encourage the rubbishing of the democratic process.

Don't tar all politicians with that brush.

The trouble is that it is hard not to - partly because honest, hardworking politicians are non news and partly because it seems a many and varied number of politicians make the news for a variety of unedifying reasons.

I suggested voting libdem to Rochdale because I knew he wouldn't be able to countenance it Perhaps being a little bit wicked and shameless

I personally would like to see much more data available on the MPs. What did they vote for and against/How often did they turn up/How many surgeries they hold per year etc etc who they employ and what they pay them, what expenses they claim etc. I'd like to see a league table for each of these things so I can see how my MP compares to others.

I would then like to use that information to decide if I'm going to vote for them again. If I were standing against a sitting MP then I could put forward how I would be different.

I'd also like to see the manifesto as a contract between voter and party - if you get in and you don't fulfil a manifesto pledge then you can be sued :cool:

Sou

Soubrette

mewbie wrote: »

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.

I totally agree with your comment about the similarities between the last tory govt and this labour one - stinking and corrupt. Perhaps that's the problem and it would be better if we could somehow go back to each party only having a few terms in power.

At least John Major managed to win an election on his own account - Gordon Brown doesn't look as if he'll even manage that.

Sou

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

So in your book spreading rumors about Cameron's health - disgusting though that is - are worse than smearing a board of directors hoping that they'll go to jail and not expose your lies about Iraqi arms export permits?

I am not defending for one second the abhorrent behaviour of this pillock, and I understand completely why you are enjoying it - thats politics. But with respect there are smears and there are smears. These ones would be the lowest of the low had your blue friends not set the bar even lower already.

The wonderful thing about this is the ability to play holier than thou. Cameron can demand a public apology and be seen to have a point. Will he call off his own smear machine illegally leaking MPs expenses details? Yes - the proposed smear against Cameron was false and the smears against Smith et al have some basis in fact. But how convenient that the Tory mole - like the last one caught in the Home Office - only leaks material damaging to Labour and not the material damaging to the Tories. That stuff has come out anyway - Pickles, the Wntertons etc, Hague - but lets not pretend that the Tories have no interest in smear campaigns to destroy careers.

Well, I say lets not pretend but Mr Devon will.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

So in your book spreading rumors about Cameron's health - disgusting though that is - are worse than smearing a board of directors hoping that they'll go to jail and not expose your lies about Iraqi arms export permits?

Churchill was bad........

A._Badger

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The wonderful thing about this is the ability to play holier than thou. Cameron can demand a public apology and be seen to have a point. Will he call off his own smear machine illegally leaking MPs expenses details? Yes - the proposed smear against Cameron was false and the smears against Smith et al have some basis in fact. But how convenient that the Tory mole - like the last one caught in the Home Office - only leaks material damaging to Labour and not the material damaging to the Tories. That stuff has come out anyway - Pickles, the Wntertons etc, Hague - but lets not pretend that the Tories have no interest in smear campaigns to destroy careers.

Well, I say lets not pretend but Mr Devon will.

What 'Tory mole'? Can you name her or him?

So far, all we have are allegations, most of them emanating from Labour MPs.

And Rochdale, of course.

Even if it were true, suggesting that revelations about the near-embezzlement of public funds stand comparison with the gutter-lever tripe about people's wives, being giggled over by Draper and McBride is hopelessly desperate stuff.

benood

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Churchill was bad........

Matrix Churchill - supplied military equipment to Saddam with the support of the government - later denied. More like Dr Kelly - ie governmental spin rather than McBrides party political smears IMO.

Rochdale_Pioneers

A._Badger wrote: »

What 'Tory mole'? Can you name her or him?

So far, all we have are allegations, most of them emanating from Labour MPs.

And Rochdale, of course.

Even if it were true, suggesting that revelations about the near-embezzlement of public funds stand comparison with the gutter-lever tripe about people's wives, being giggled over by Draper and McBride is hopelessly desperate stuff.

Well we found out who the Home Office mole was - I'm sure this one will get outed eventually too. And you're missing the point - its not about degrees of what smear is worse - its rebutting the notion that the Tories do not and never have run smear campaigns. And I said above, if you want to get into a widdling contest Alan Clark's "I was economical with the actualite" trumps whatever cretinous ideas may have been dreamed up - but not acted upon - by McBride. As incidentally does the smear campaign then run by the Cabinet against Lord Justice Scott when he came to publish his report on their attempt to frame the directors of Matrix Churchill.

So with the greatest of respect, all the frothing about how this is the worst smear possible is patent drool. Its reprehensible yes, but lets not conveniently forget the history of smears with our blue glasses on.