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

1984ReturnsForReal_2

michaels wrote: »

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)?

Who on HYS?

nickmason

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

Rochdale - I have some sympathy with your efforts to defend the government through moderate argument and realism rather than rabid hyperbole - I try and do the same with the opposition/conservatives.

But this was beneath you. Bringing spouses into play as McBride's tried to do is totally unacceptable. Your comment has strayed into that territory.

nickmason

Soubrette wrote: »

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

touche!
I'm "man" enough to know when I've been trumped. Can I claim the ignorance defence? I didn't realise the hypocrisy until you pointed it out...

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

I agree with all of this. I find league tables deeply tedious, but you know that when MPs start to defend their actions as being necessarily antidemocratic, they've been there too long.

Rochdale_Pioneers

nickmason wrote: »

Rochdale - I have some sympathy with your efforts to defend the government through moderate argument and realism rather than rabid hyperbole - I try and do the same with the opposition/conservatives.

But this was beneath you. Bringing spouses into play as McBride's tried to do is totally unacceptable. Your comment has strayed into that territory.

1. I am not a party hack in in any way - see posts passim
2. I have not defended McBride or his comments in any way. The opposite if you read what I have posted.
3. My comments about Sarah Brown are fair comment. Nor did I bring her "into play" - she was mentioned by Badger. Am I not allowed to think she must have been mad to marry Brown? Or that Edwina Curry was bonkers having an affair with Major? Or that the Hamiltons deserve each other? There is a large difference between a deliberate smear and an honest opinion. And in the case of spouses if you read the Daily Mail they appear to be fair game - didn't they run a nasty and vindictive campaign against Cherie Blair? Come to think of it didn't most Tories cheer it on?

With the greatest of respect, its pointing that out that I was doing last evening - the gross hypocrisy of the Conservative party to get on its high horse and act like it doesn't know what a smear campaign is and would never do one. Thats not to defend what McBride and Draper did - you can't defend the reprehensible nor have I tried to. But am I not allowed to point out that the Tory party does its own smear campaigns very well?

nickmason

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

1. I am not a party hack in in any way - see posts passim
2. I have not defended McBride or his comments in any way. The opposite if you read what I have posted.
3. My comments about Sarah Brown are fair comment. Nor did I bring her "into play" - she was mentioned by Badger. Am I not allowed to think she must have been mad to marry Brown? Or that Edwina Curry was bonkers having an affair with Major? Or that the Hamiltons deserve each other? There is a large difference between a deliberate smear and an honest opinion. And in the case of spouses if you read the Daily Mail they appear to be fair game - didn't they run a nasty and vindictive campaign against Cherie Blair? Come to think of it didn't most Tories cheer it on?

With the greatest of respect, its pointing that out that I was doing last evening - the gross hypocrisy of the Conservative party to get on its high horse and act like it doesn't know what a smear campaign is and would never do one. Thats not to defend what McBride and Draper did - you can't defend the reprehensible nor have I tried to. But am I not allowed to point out that the Tory party does its own smear campaigns very well?

Sorry Rochdale, was drunk last night and misread your post. mea culpa.

mardatha

Well. Speaking of him & not his party generally, he (brown) makes me dead ashamed to be Scots for the first time ever in my life, and I'm OLD. And he reinforces my life-long opinion of his church. Arrogant, smug, conceited, stupid sod. I wish he'd come to my door canvassing, I really really do...

Jennifer_Jane

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?

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.

Rochdale - do you know this for sure? Wouldn't it be more likely to be someone in the Civil Service rather than a Cameron person - after all, he does still have the Winterton's and others (Ann Widdecombe didn't want the exposure of MP's expenses, which surprised me), so the expenses scandal will affect his party too. Why would he open a can of worms?

I should imagine that everyone in Westminster has a good idea of who leaked about the expenses but is keeping it close to insiders because either the revelation of the source would be embarrassing, or because it suits Labour to 'blame' Cameron. Which do you think?

Jen
x

macaque_2

From the outset New Labour have been a party of destruction. They gained power with a depressingly negative sleaze campaign. People might recall a labour poodle by the name of Martin Bell (and so called independant) in his white suit. The hyprocrisy was thick enough to cut with a knife. Why hasn't Martin declared his intention to stand against the current home secretary? He can't stand against Peter Mandelson of course because Peter bypassed the electoral process (an increasingly common habit of the current government) in his latest appointment.

Over the past decade New Labour have wreaked destruction on religion, pensions, democracy, industry, personal savings, British Institutions and traditions. New Labour's only positive policy was to create a massive debt bubble and swamp the country with non English speaking immigrants. No more boom and bust was Gordon's proud boast. Perhaps he meant 'boom and toast'.

Some people have been taken aback by the antics that have emerged from No 10 over the past few days. The reality is that GB is a nasty piece of work and always has been. His attitude has led to unprecedented levels of distrust between the rulers and the ruled. This is why we now have more surveillance cameras than any country in the world, prison without trial, curtailment of free speech, highly centralised control, attacks on legal protestors, missuse of terrorism laws etc.

whathavewedone

I have to say I don't buy this idea that it's a tory mole that's leaking information about mps' expenses.

As Jennifer says, tory mps are being exposed along with the labour ones so what makes you think it's in Cameron's interests Rochdale?

I think it's much more likely to be a civil servant out to make himself a few quid.

So Rochdale unless whoever it is stops exposing the truth about mps expenses we can expect more gossip along the lines that George Osborn's wife has a mental illness and David Cameron caught an embarrassing illness which caused hsi son's disability (this last bit of information was posted by someone responding to Derek Draper's "apology" on LabourList today). I wonder if this was one of the pieces of gossip that he considered to be "brilliant".

Please stop comparing the exposure of MPs expenses with this debacle. It's clearly in the public interest to have this information at their disposal before the general election.

Rochdale_Pioneers

whathavewedone wrote: »

I have to say I don't buy this idea that it's a tory mole that's leaking information about mps' expenses.

As Jennifer says, tory mps are being exposed along with the labour ones so what makes you think it's in Cameron's interests Rochdale?

I think it's much more likely to be a civil servant out to make himself a few quid.

1. I don't think that Pickles et al have been leaked by the same source as the Labour ones have. The barrage of minutiae being released about Smith vs deafening silence on most others suggests info is being taken selectively and deliberately.
2. The leaks are smears. Aside from the £10 on the !!!!!! films no MPs have broken any rules - its all suggestion and innuendo. The purpose of the leaks is to damage their careers.
3. I'm sure it is a civil servant on the take - I never for one second suggest he/she was in the employ of the Tory party. Just a partisan one doing his side a big favour.