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

1984ReturnsForReal_2

benood wrote: »

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.

Supergun

amcluesent

>...the shadow chancellor's wife might be suffering from some sort of mental illness or depression does not reflect well.<

Dolly Draper claims to have a qualification in psychotherapy, so it's all the more disgusting he chortles over a smear such as this.

Rochdale_Pioneers

amcluesent wrote: »

>...the shadow chancellor's wife might be suffering from some sort of mental illness or depression does not reflect well.<

Dolly Draper claims to have a qualification in psychotherapy, so it's all the more disgusting he chortles over a smear such as this.

Didn't Osborne suggest that Brown was autistic?

I'm sure that there is some innocent explanation for such a comment, and all the furore at the time was utterly misplaced - apparently Tories don't make personal smears so it can't have been one.

A._Badger

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

Straw man time. No one, as far as I am aware, has suggested that the Conservatives haven't indulged in spin.

What is incontrovertible, however (to anyone who hasn't pawned his conscience to a tribe) is that 'New' Labour was born out of media manipulation, thrived due to it and, as far as one is able to predict the future, seems shortly to die from it.

Sorry to go all 'judgemental' on you but post-Blair, Labour has become a creature of spin (remember 'a good day to bury bad news'?). Brown seized Blair's throne, promising an end to it. It appears either he was lying or is unable to control of his own dogs.

Your loyalty may blind you not the utter contempt in which Labour has come be held due to its history of cynical media manipulation but plenty of others can see it and we are sick of it.

Simply regurgitating the mantra 'but they did it first!' is no argument at all.

A._Badger

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Didn't Osborne suggest that Brown was autistic?

I'm sure that there is some innocent explanation for such a comment, and all the furore at the time was utterly misplaced - apparently Tories don't make personal smears so it can't have been one.

I think you'll find the genesis of that characterisation of Brown originated from his own 'colleagues':

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/gordon+brown+fit+for+office/509052

Rather more to the point, Osborne didn't suggest Brown's wife was mentally ill.

tomstickland

It started in America.

Anyway, this whole thing has been deeeeelicious.
Oh look, Guardian CIF: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/12/labour-conservatives

Labourlost article:
http://www.labourlist.org/apologies_and_regrets#comments

Rochdale_Pioneers

A._Badger wrote: »

Sorry to go all 'judgemental' on you but post-Blair, Labour has become a creature of spin (remember 'a good day to bury bad news'?). Brown seized Blair's throne, promising an end to it. It appears either he was lying or is unable to control of his own dogs.

Absolutely - play with fire and get burned. Draper was never a popular figure to the rank and file and his return was a sign of desperation - didn't I say that earlier? Employ attack dogs and one day they'll bite someone they shouldn't have. Brown had a pack of them as Chancellor savaging anyone he disliked - this got worse during the summer of short knives when smears went out against anyone vaguely a threat.

None of this is news. That Brown's advisors run smear campaigns is not news. Nor would it be if it were any of the party leaders or senior people - that sadly is how top level politics works and to pretend otherwise and sniffily claim the moral high ground is the really funny bit. Cameron can ask for an apology and is probably entitled to it. Will he also apologise to Liam Fox over his team's slurs on Fox during the 2005 leadership contest?

The frustrating thing for those of us who try to be honest (many may question my views but I try to be consistant as others have pointed out) is that if Labour want to bash the Tories there are plenty of stones to throw that aren't made up. Why destroy yourself getting caught with lies - its exactly how the Tories were in the end smearing Scott and anyone who dared suggest they'd done anything wrong. But as in all things political history goes unlearned and all things go round in cycles.

Rochdale_Pioneers

A._Badger wrote: »

I think you'll find the genesis of that characterisation of Brown originated from his own 'colleagues':

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/gordon+brown+fit+for+office/509052

Rather more to the point, Osborne didn't suggest Brown's wife was mentally ill.

You don't think? Why did she marry a man with as much charisma as this keyboard then? Must be slightly nuts as frankly they all are. We complain when politicians come across as sane and boring - we want the truly frootloop ones.

tomstickland

Thatcher made her.

michaels

Why do party hacks now police the blogosphere (I know I have quoted Rochdale just because he is being so blatant this evening but there are others on this site and even worse on HYS)?
Is it what they are paid to do and they will happily jump ship to a new paymaster after the next election?
Do they believe that the end justifies the means and that given that their party is self-evidently the best option then any lengths should be taken to defend that party however heinous its actions?
Or is there even an element of doublethink in that they actually beleive the falsehoods and misdirections they circulate?

Taken from Wikipedia:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.[1] ”
Moreover, doublethink's self-deception allows the Party to maintain huge goals and realistic expectations: If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes. Thus, each Party member could be a credulous pawn, but would never lack relevant information. The Party is both fanatical and well-informed, thus unlikely either to "ossify" or "grow soft" and collapse. Doublethink would avoid a "killing the messenger" attitude that could disturb the Command structure. Thus, doublethink is the key tool of self-discipline for the Party, complementing the state-imposed discipline of propaganda, and the police state. Together, these tools hid the government's evil not just from the people, but from the government itself, but without the confusion and misinformation associated with primitive totalitarian regimes.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.