The Politics Thread

[thebish]

I have just heard the most staggering piece of political interview outrageousness I have ever heard... (and I've heard a few)

faced with the statement by the Greater Manchester Police that over the next 3 yrs they will lay off 1/4 of their staff - and that this will mean the loss of 1,400 "front line officers"..

the govt spokesman (I didn't catch his name) actually had the barefaced gall to say:

"I have read the report and the bottom line is that the GMP will now be spending a greater proportion of their budget on front-line policing, and that has to be a good thing - MORE money for front-line policing!"

I was rendered speechless and have only just recovered!

[Worthy4England]

I was at a dinner in Cardiff on Thursday evening at which the keynote speaker was Sir David Lewis, who said, and I quote: "Gordon Brown was by far and away the worst Prime Minister and the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in all of modern history". He then got stuck into Vince Cable regarding the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies.

did he justify his claim or was it just a throwaway opinion?

if he did - then how on earth does he measure such a thing as "worst" chancellor in all of modern history - what kind of parameters was he using? I'd be at a loss to suggest a very reliable way of judging one chancellor against another in such a way as to give a reliable ranking given that they all served in different economic times. Even if you're just picking labour chancellors - what paramaters would lead to Brown being judged a worse chancellor than Denis Healey or Roy Jenkins (for instance)?

and if you allow Tory ones - (which, I'm guessing Sir David lewis would not) - then - John Major???? Norman Lamont??)

Sort of where I was coming from.

Still unsure of his credentials if any.

So to reposnd to Brucie's I'd rather take this blokes opinion over some bloke that posts on the internet, I'd rather stick with mine than take the opinion of some bloke who was posted about on the internet and whose credentials are unclear to me.

[Lord Kangana]

Just for balance, Gordon Brown oversaw the longest sustained period of growth of any chancellor in over a century. Partly because he was handed the best conditions of any incoming chancellor by Ken Clarke. Interestingly he pretty much followed Clarke's blueprint for the lifetime of the first term. So if the guy is criticising Brown, he's lumping a whole load of other people in with him.

Mind, its interesting that whilst he was lauded as Superman for quantitative easing, he actually forgot to place any caveat on the massive bail out. Just a "promise" to pay it back when they could. So actually, what should be emblazoned on his gravestone is "oops, I forgot to ask the banks to return the favour". Which is why there is so much anger with both him and the banks. And why we're still in a mess with sluggish growth and high unemployment, at a time when bankers are filling their swimming pools with Kristal.

[William the White]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

[thebish]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

If Bruce values Sir David Lewis's judgement, then he might find this harder to swallow....

“I dealt a lot with Alistair Darling and with David Miliband and I have to say I admired both of them, they were good ministers.

[Bruce Rioja]

I was at a dinner in Cardiff on Thursday evening at which the keynote speaker was Sir David Lewis, who said, and I quote: "Gordon Brown was by far and away the worst Prime Minister and the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in all of modern history". He then got stuck into Vince Cable regarding the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies.

did he justify his claim or was it just a throwaway opinion?

if he did - then how on earth does he measure such a thing as "worst" chancellor in all of modern history - what kind of parameters was he using? I'd be at a loss to suggest a very reliable way of judging one chancellor against another in such a way as to give a reliable ranking given that they all served in different economic times. Even if you're just picking labour chancellors - what paramaters would lead to Brown being judged a worse chancellor than Denis Healey or Roy Jenkins (for instance)?

and if you allow Tory ones - (which, I'm guessing Sir David lewis would not) - then - John Major???? Norman Lamont??)

Sort of where I was coming from.

Still unsure of his credentials if any.

So to reposnd to Brucie's I'd rather take this blokes opinion over some bloke that posts on the internet, I'd rather stick with mine than take the opinion of some bloke who was posted about on the internet and whose credentials are unclear to me.

Fair enough. See - I haven't offered any opinion of my own.

And Bish - No idea, I'm just saying what he said. I suggest you write to him and ask if it troubles you.

By the way - isn't the role of Lord Mayor of London supposedly a-political?

[thebish]

I was at a dinner in Cardiff on Thursday evening at which the keynote speaker was Sir David Lewis, who said, and I quote: "Gordon Brown was by far and away the worst Prime Minister and the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in all of modern history". He then got stuck into Vince Cable regarding the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies.

did he justify his claim or was it just a throwaway opinion?

if he did - then how on earth does he measure such a thing as "worst" chancellor in all of modern history - what kind of parameters was he using? I'd be at a loss to suggest a very reliable way of judging one chancellor against another in such a way as to give a reliable ranking given that they all served in different economic times. Even if you're just picking labour chancellors - what paramaters would lead to Brown being judged a worse chancellor than Denis Healey or Roy Jenkins (for instance)?

and if you allow Tory ones - (which, I'm guessing Sir David lewis would not) - then - John Major???? Norman Lamont??)

Sort of where I was coming from.

Still unsure of his credentials if any.

So to reposnd to Brucie's I'd rather take this blokes opinion over some bloke that posts on the internet, I'd rather stick with mine than take the opinion of some bloke who was posted about on the internet and whose credentials are unclear to me.

Fair enough. See - I haven't offered any opinion of my own.

And Bish - No idea, I'm just saying what he said. I suggest you write to him and ask if it troubles you.

that's what I was asking you - what he said - I asked you if he offered any rationale for this ranking. I'm presuming that's a "no" then...
is there a reason you shared his opinion with us?

[Hoboh]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

Slander??

[Zulus Thousand of em]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

Slander??

Libel (possibly), I think you'll find.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

If Bruce values Sir David Lewis's judgement, then he might find this harder to swallow....

“I dealt a lot with Alistair Darling and with David Miliband and I have to say I admired both of them, they were good ministers.

Maybe not - I wouldn't single those two out for criticism either...

I met DM and was impressed personally too.

[Hoboh]

This was an absurd statement, not an argument, just an expression of prejudice. But at least we now know the real identity of hoboh...

Slander??

Libel (possibly), I think you'll find.

If I try both it may improve my chance by 100% of getting a result

[Bruce Rioja]

that's what I was asking you - what he said - I asked you if he offered any rationale for this ranking. I'm presuming that's a "no" then...
is there a reason you shared his opinion with us?

It is indeed a no - absolutely uncalled for, and I have to say it brought many a murmur of discontent - but when he said it, I thought 'I'm going to post that comment on T-W' just to see the reaction.

[thebish]

that's what I was asking you - what he said - I asked you if he offered any rationale for this ranking. I'm presuming that's a "no" then...
is there a reason you shared his opinion with us?

It is indeed a no - absolutely uncalled for, and I have to say it brought many a murmur of discontent - but when he said it, I thought 'I'm going to post that comment on T-W' just to see the reaction.

I could probably come up with a rationale for describing Bown as the worst prime-minister - I don't personally think he is, but I could see how it might be argued - I could imagine a set of parameters that would lead to that conclusion..

but - I can't do the same with him as "worst" Chancellor - especially considering the plentiful "competition" for that particular title...

[Prufrock]

Campaign that seems to have government support to sort out internet libel law. The whole libel thing is balls anyway, but here is an article at least of interest to the forum owners, and probably a few readers too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/polit ... um=twitter

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Campaign that seems to have government support to sort out internet libel law. The whole libel thing is balls anyway, but here is an article at least of interest to the forum owners, and probably a few readers too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/polit ... um=twitter

My advice to this forum and to those run and own it has always been that we are not responsible for defamatory statements posted by our members under the 'publication rule'. I think the Sheffield Wednesday case makes it pretty clear that it's individual posters themselves who have to worry about liability for their words.

If we were asked to remove something and didn't, THEN we might be liable as publishers, but we'd always just do that promptly (with or without a court order!), as we don't really have any crusading to do.

[Worthy4England]

Campaign that seems to have government support to sort out internet libel law. The whole libel thing is balls anyway, but here is an article at least of interest to the forum owners, and probably a few readers too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/polit ... um=twitter

My advice to this forum and to those run and own it has always been that we are not responsible for defamatory statements posted by our members under the 'publication rule'. I think the Sheffield Wednesday case makes it pretty clear that it's individual posters themselves who have to worry about liability for their words.

If we were asked to remove something and didn't, THEN we might be liable as publishers, but we'd always just do that promptly (with or without a court order!), as we don't really have any crusading to do.

Yeah but Pru's recently ex-student. Crusading is important!

[William the White]

Just to say... the Cable Squirm is hilarious and nauseous at the same time... Honest Vince turns one way that makes him a liar, then the other that also makes him a liar and now proposes to abstain on the very policy he is responsible for forcing through the House of Commons, without resigning from that responsibility.

He hasn't yet thought seriously of going the way that would make him, very belatedly, and almost certainly temporarily, an honest man... Voting against what he ceremoniously and very publicly promised to vote against...

[a1]

its not that different than saying we'll have a "referendum" on something , voting them in coz they promised one. then referendum time nears , they realize the vote wont go their way , so they bend something into not having one, fix it up the way they want. and they dont quit.

i think gordon and them did it with that lisbon treaty thingy (it was probably tony). and none of them jacked in. and many others have done the similar things previously.

if it was tony - labour got voted in at least one time more after that.

vince the pince probably knows that none of them moaning hippies vote anyroad.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Just to say... the Cable Squirm is hilarious and nauseous at the same time... Honest Vince turns one way that makes him a liar, then the other that also makes him a liar and now proposes to abstain on the very policy he is responsible for forcing through the House of Commons, without resigning from that responsibility.

He hasn't yet thought seriously of going the way that would make him, very belatedly, and almost certainly temporarily, an honest man... Voting against what he ceremoniously and very publicly promised to vote against...

Politicians eh?

[William the White]

its not that different than saying we'll have a "referendum" on something , voting them in coz they promised one. then referendum time nears , they realize the vote wont go their way , so they bend something into not having one, fix it up the way they want. and they dont quit.

i think gordon and them did it with that lisbon treaty thingy (it was probably tony). and none of them jacked in. and many others have done the similar things previously.

if it was tony - labour got voted in at least one time more after that.

vince the pince probably knows that none of them moaning hippies vote anyroad.

It's so massively different it's previously unknown. It has never happened before that a minister steering legislation through parliament should openly consider not voting for it!

The Lisbon referendum was just routine duplicity, you get half a dozen of those for a quid.