Questiontime

[JER]

I don't blame anyone for not wanting to share a platform with the mass murderer Alastair Campbell.

 

A truly ignorant post - your avatar has frequently spoken of his admiration for Thatcher who had no problem bombing a retreating boat in the Falklands war killing 300 people in the process. He would not only share a platform with her - he would probably suck her toes if she asked him to.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

A truly ignorant post - your avatar has frequently spoken of his admiration for Thatcher who had no problem bombing a retreating boat in the Falklands war killing 300 people in the process. He would not only share a platform with her - he would probably suck her toes if she asked him to.

 

Clegg spoke about his admiration for Thatcher?

[sh#t waffle]

You're better than this, SD. Since the election you have spoken frequently about the tribalism of the Labour voters on here. But what could be more tribal than defending every action of a government purely because they've given your own party the merest whiff of power? You know as well as anyone that the Iraq war had zilch to do with last night. I'm also pretty sure that had the Tories gone with a minority government or Labour had managed to cobble together a coalition involving the Lib Dems that you wouldn't have defended them bottling Question Time.

[JER]

Clegg spoke about his admiration for Thatcher?

 

Clegg praises Thatcher, calls for more savage cuts | Liberal Conspiracy

[razor]

Clegg praises Thatcher, calls for more savage cuts | Liberal Conspiracy

 

JER doing the biz again. Good stuff, sir!

[Whelan]

Lets not forget the Tories very own Andy Coulson! Who used to work for a shite rag that was incedibly supportive of the war

[Section_31]

Clegg is a Tory, he always was. Can I just point out I've always disliked him? SD will back me up on that. I have an almost flawless twatdar.

[JER]

This is from the 'mass murderer's' blog

 

Many thanks to the new coalition government for helping to make Question Night even more enjoyable.

 

Their idiotic decision to try to get me kicked off the panel by refusing to field a minister if I was 'the Labour voice' was stupid on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

 

First, this is Queen's Speech week, and for the government not to be properly represented is a straightforward failure of communications management. It is also an insult to the programme, the audience of Gravesend, and to the much trumpted Clamberon notion that they are pursuing a new politics of engagement.

 

Second, it suggested that since becoming the government despite their failure to secure a majority, the Tories have gone all cocky and decided they can start to dictate the terms on which impartial broadcasters go about their business. I may be a bit of a control freak but the idea of saying you can only have x if y is axed was way beyond my understanding of the rules of the game.

 

Third, it suggests they're a bit frit, and unsure about defending the shifting sands of coalition politics.

 

I sensed something was going on through the week, because whenever I tried to ascertain from the programme makers who else was on they were a bit vague. I knew that Piers Morgan was on, but that was it.

 

Then came word that they were hopeful of getting chief secretary David Laws. Good choice I thought, in the week of the cuts announcement and the centrality of the Treasury to the Queen's Speech. But they weren't sure about a Tory, and they thought they might get a Green but really it was not straightforward.

 

Two days later came word that no, it seemed Laws couldn't do it after all. So who? They weren't sure.

 

It was only in the last 24 hours that I finally learned John Redwood, Susan Kramer and Max Hastings were on.

 

And I only learned as the programme started the reason why there was no minister. I thought I must be hallucinating at first. Did David Dimbleby just say the government would only field a minister if I was bounced? I think he did.

 

I thought there and then of pulling out the David Laws framed photo my daughter had suggested I take on to let people know who Mr Laws was, and remind them why I'd spent a few hours researching his views (though I wonder if he even knew of the ludicrous discussions being pursued on his behalf)

 

Instead I waited to the end and later we toasted him, and all the absent friends of the new Con-Dem government who exposed qualities governments in the first flush of youth ought not to be displaying - cowardice, incompetence and boneheadedness.

 

 

Apparently Number 10 are now slagging off the BBC for providing a platform for him to flog his book - which he did not mention once. I really don't care much for this 'new politics'

[mattyq]

You're better than this, SD. Since the election you have spoken frequently about the tribalism of the Labour voters on here. But what could be more tribal than defending every action of a government purely because they've given your own party the merest whiff of power? You know as well as anyone that the Iraq war had zilch to do with last night. I'm also pretty sure that had the Tories gone with a minority government or Labour had managed to cobble together a coalition involving the Lib Dems that you wouldn't have defended them bottling Question Time.

 

Yup, i think SD's gone a little mad since the coalition took over.

Maybe it's the lust for power that has corrupted him.

Maybe it's madness brought about by trying to defend the indefensible

[stringvest]

Apparently Number 10 are now slagging off the BBC for providing a platform for him to flog his book - which he did not mention once. I really don't care much for this 'new politics'

 

Great post JER.

[TheBitch]

Yup, i think SD's gone a little mad since the coalition took over.

Maybe it's the lust for power that has corrupted him.

 

 

 

Stront's in picture form. :whistle:

 

[Strontium]

Pity that's got nothing to do with why they bottled it though, eh?

 

 

I think "bottled" is the wrong word. The objection was that Campbell isn't a member of the opposition.

 

I think it's a fair objection myself: if a member of the government is expected to go on and defend the £6bn of cuts, then you ought to have a member of the opposition go on, if only to state how they would have done things differently.

 

Imagine if Laws had gone on instead of Kramer. Campbell could attack Laws for being a party to the (entirely necessary) budget cutbacks. But Laws has no comeback against Campbell, because Campbell represents nobody and nothing in the way of Labour policy. Campbell can get dig after dig in on the government, but you can't attack him back, because he's nothing to do with the Labour opposition.

 

 

I think the Libs should enjoy their taste of power while they can, because they're going to get wiped out at the next election

 

 

I think you'll find last night's Thirsk & Malton election result interesting:

 

Conservatives: 20,167 (+1%)

Liberal Democrats 8,886 (+4.5%)

Labour: 5,169 (-9.9%)

 

Lib Dems from third to second on a swing of 11.6% from Labour to LD.

 

On this evidence it's not us who are headed for electoral wipeout!

 

Clegg spoke about his admiration for Thatcher?

 

 

As usual, JER is talking crap. Nick Clegg praised the way she handled the unions who were wrecking the economy, and how he hopes that the manner in which she defeated that vested interest can inform the way we defeat another vested interest - the banks - who are currently wrecking the economy.

 

To paint Clegg as a Thatcherite because he praised one aspect of Thatcher's premiership is like calling someone a Nazi because they were impressed with Hitler getting the trains to run on time.

 

===

 

Incidentally, I don't remember the "impartial" BBC ever moaning about the fact that the previous New Labour government flexed their muscle to prevent John McDonnell and Mark Serwotka from appearing on Question Time.

 

Funny, that.

[L19red]

I'm guessing we'll see Campbell as a semi permanant fixture on QT now.

[Elmyn Noos]

I think "bottled" is the wrong word. The objection was that Campbell isn't a member of the opposition.

 

I think it's a fair objection myself: if a member of the government is expected to go on and defend the £6bn of cuts, then you ought to have a member of the opposition go on, if only to state how they would have done things differently.

 

Imagine if Laws had gone on instead of Kramer. Campbell could attack Laws for being a party to the (entirely necessary) budget cutbacks. But Laws has no comeback against Campbell, because Campbell represents nobody and nothing in the way of Labour policy. Campbell can get dig after dig in on the government, but you can't attack him back, because he's nothing to do with the Labour opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find last night's Thirsk & Malton election result interesting:

 

Conservatives: 20,167 (+1%)

Liberal Democrats 8,886 (+4.5%)

Labour: 5,169 (-9.9%)

 

Lib Dems from third to second on a swing of 11.6% from Labour to LD.

 

On this evidence it's not us who are headed for electoral wipeout!

 

 

 

 

As usual, JER is talking crap. Nick Clegg praised the way she handled the unions who were wrecking the economy, and how he hopes that the manner in which she defeated that vested interest can inform the way we defeat another vested interest - the banks - who are currently wrecking the economy.

 

To paint Clegg as a Thatcherite because he praised one aspect of Thatcher's premiership is like calling someone a Nazi because they were impressed with Hitler getting the trains to run on time.

 

===

 

Incidentally, I don't remember the "impartial" BBC ever moaning about the fact that the previous New Labour government flexed their muscle to prevent John McDonnell and Mark Serwotka from appearing on Question Time.

 

Funny, that.

 

Since the sell-out SD, you've turned lameness into a fucking artform. People like me prevented your party from an absolute bumming at the last election. I guarantee you we won't be making the same mistake again.

[Section_31]

The Lib Dems are the Cardassians to the Tories' Dominion. If you don't know what that means then you're gay.

 

Vince Cable three months from now.

 

[YOUTUBE]_qB9_d07Xb4[/YOUTUBE]

[Strontium]

Since the sell-out SD, you've turned lameness into a fucking artform. People like me prevented your party from an absolute bumming at the last election. I guarantee you we won't be making the same mistake again.

 

 

People like you were always going to return to Labour at the first opportunity. I won't be losing any sleep.

[Elmyn Noos]

People like you were always going to return to Labour at the first opportunity. I won't be losing any sleep.

 

just votes.

[hamstrung]

Cleggapologist.

[L19red]

As usual, JER is talking crap. Nick Clegg praised the way she handled the unions who were wrecking the economy, and how he hopes that the manner in which she defeated that vested interest can inform the way we defeat another vested interest - the banks - who are currently wrecking the economy.

 

that is a chilling prospect. Those of us around at the time will remember the vindictive manner she took on the unions. She destroyed communities not just a union in vengance at them having had the temerity to stand up to Ted Heath's government, and I dont use the word destroyed lightly. It was a malicious evil act from a government who betrayed the ideal that they are meant to seek the best for all citizens.

 

Is Nick really planning to sequester the banks? Will MI5 be be recruiting Bob Diamond and John Varley et al to spy for them? Is he going to instruct the police to provoke confrontation then beat the shit out of bank employees? That is the manner that she tackled the unions.

 

I haven't read Nick Cleggs comments SD but if you have accurately summarised them then it is a very disturbing parallel to make. There are many ways you can express your detemination to tackle a problem without suggesting you will ape the tactics of a vicious bully.

Edited May 28, 2010 by L19red

[dennis tooth]

I can forgive someone for being in favour of the war, I can't forgive them for maliciously deceiving people into supporting it. David Cameron wasn't responsible for the Iraq dossier, there is far less blood on his hands.

 

Why is he still supporting it, even intensifying it then?

[JER]

I think "bottled" is the wrong word. The objection was that Campbell isn't a member of the opposition.

 

I think it's a fair objection myself: if a member of the government is expected to go on and defend the £6bn of cuts, then you ought to have a member of the opposition go on, if only to state how they would have done things differently.

 

Imagine if Laws had gone on instead of Kramer. Campbell could attack Laws for being a party to the (entirely necessary) budget cutbacks. But Laws has no comeback against Campbell, because Campbell represents nobody and nothing in the way of Labour policy. Campbell can get dig after dig in on the government, but you can't attack him back, because he's nothing to do with the Labour opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find last night's Thirsk & Malton election result interesting:

 

Conservatives: 20,167 (+1%)

Liberal Democrats 8,886 (+4.5%)

Labour: 5,169 (-9.9%)

 

Lib Dems from third to second on a swing of 11.6% from Labour to LD.

 

On this evidence it's not us who are headed for electoral wipeout!

 

 

 

 

As usual, JER is talking crap. Nick Clegg praised the way she handled the unions who were wrecking the economy, and how he hopes that the manner in which she defeated that vested interest can inform the way we defeat another vested interest - the banks - who are currently wrecking the economy.

 

To paint Clegg as a Thatcherite because he praised one aspect of Thatcher's premiership is like calling someone a Nazi because they were impressed with Hitler getting the trains to run on time.

 

===

 

Incidentally, I don't remember the "impartial" BBC ever moaning about the fact that the previous New Labour government flexed their muscle to prevent John McDonnell and Mark Serwotka from appearing on Question Time.

 

Funny, that.

 

In what way exactly was I talking crap? You made your usual moral high-ground statement about Campbell being a murderer, and I pointed out that Clegg has stated admiration for Pinochet's friend Thatcher. A fact.

 

I guess Clegg has never had to worry about Union's protecting his employment rights, what with his father's millions to bail him out. People like Nick don't apply for jobs - it is their birthright to expect them.

[Strontium]

In what way exactly was I talking crap? You made your usual moral high-ground statement about Campbell being a murderer, and I pointed out that Clegg has stated admiration for Pinochet's friend Thatcher. A fact.

 

 

Admiring one thing that a person has done does not make them an admirer of that person. It's very deceptive of you, and the attempt to tie Pinochet to Clegg is laughable.

 

I guess Clegg has never had to worry about Union's protecting his employment rights, what with his father's millions to bail him out. People like Nick don't apply for jobs - it is their birthright to expect them.

 

 

And a dig at his background too. Pathetic.

 

I don't think anyone is against unions protecting anyone's rights. What people were generally against was the country being held to ransom by a small minority of militant unionists.

 

Liberals are against concentrations of power, and the unions had too much power. Now they don't, and that is to Margaret Thatcher's credit. I don't think it is "wrong" to say that, and anyone who does should probably stop seeing the world in simplistic black and white terms. Sometimes bad people do good things.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Liberals are against concentrations of power

 

Then why jump into bed with a group of people that want to concentrate power into a small group of people? What a genuinely bizarre thing to say.

[Spy Bee]

Dr David Kelly.

 

Alistair Campbell is a dark force. He's fucking evil!

[Spy Bee]

Then why jump into bed with a group of people that want to concentrate power into a small group of people? What a genuinely bizarre thing to say.

 

That's not in their manifesto.