Yesterday a rather tardy "response" arrived to something I posted three weeks ago about Lib Dem play acting and fibbing here. It appears at first to be a complete non-sequitor but here goes:
Charles Glover says:
I'd like to refer you to (b) and (c) above and also your promise below to make corrections:
"I rarely delete comments and will generally carry corrections and observations prominently on request. This time, and every time, it's personal." - Chris Paul (on the left bar of your blog).
Chris, you have repeatedly made an erroneous assertion the John Leech paid for leaflets using taxpayers money which were delivered outside of his constituency.
This is categorically untrue, and therefore you have no evidence to support it. The leaflets you have received (and for clarity for other readers you do not live in Manchester Withington Constituency) were not paid for by the tax payer, but instead paid for from other funds.I would therefore respectfully request you both to withdraw such comments, and prominently display that withdrawal.
This is in fact referring to these comments:
Anonymous said...
Should be called gloves off, and that should be Mcr Labour. The Lib dems are lying and fibbing and cheating all over Manchester. Despise the electorate too.
19 May, 2007 22:25
Chris Paul said...
Yes, one member at a branch where we had nominally lost a seat, or they had held depending on how you look at it; asked whether they (the Lib Dems) are allowed to lie, cheat and steal. On the lying there really is little to be done. And on the cheating and stealing there seems little hope of the Electoral Commission ever doing anything about overspending and the rest of it.
I suppose we need (a) some longer range campaigning about Lib Dem dishonesty; and
(b) to campaign for a rule under which repetition of statements proved false (e.g. Christie hoax, bin hoax) is an offence and leaflets get pulped and both candidates and agents personally fined for an electoral offence at the highest permitted level (i.e. £5000 for each offence, each); and (c) where a reasonable person believes a party is using tax payers money to campaign (vide Leech's parliamentary report) or going outside their area there are robust fines and other penalties e.g. candidates getting disqualified, MPs having to pay back tax money AND pay all other contesting parties the same amount to produce extra print.
Statement (a) is not contested by Cllr Charles Glover who must now be hoping to drop his previous nicknames, albeit affectionately awarded, like "Failed of Failsworth" (where local people kicked the lazy blighter out as he said he was two tired and also spent much of his time in Rotterdam instead of in Oldham), and "Lazy Glover" (ditto) and "Carpetbagger" (as he is one).
Perhaps after this request he will simply become known as "Gobby of Gorton", "Gorton Gobby" or "Gobby Glover", though he is still of course a lazy failure, failing as I recall to make his very first meeting of Full Council. Because he was tired then as well I understand.
Statement (b) is included in the list of those Cllr Glover disputes though he doesn't say why. In the latest 32-ward campaign the Lib Dems did continue to distribute leaflets saying the bin collections would change to weekly when they are not being changed and the Lib Dems know it. And of course John Leech MP has been battered from all sides for his despicable hoax perpetrated on seriously ill and dying hospital patients. Obviously being as these are Lib Dems there are countless other examples of lies, distortions and exaggerations. This sort of campaigning clearly should be stopped. There should be serious fines and penalties and candidates and agents should be disqualified from office or agency in the worst cases. No apology Gobby. You can stick that where the sun don't shine.
Statement (c) is perhaps the most interesting. This could and should be tackled under the existing rules, guidance and protocols and not under the general shift I'm asking for in (a) and (b) where Lib Dems are punished for lying. But my statement (c) has several parts. (C.i) That Manchester Lib Dems use tax payers money to create campaigning print; (C.ii) That this Lib Dem MP is going outside his constituency area, including with the print specified in Ci; and (C.iii) That there should be serious penalties for this behaviour.
As far as I can gather from Gobby Glover's rant he is not contesting that the print is campaigning print. If he were to assert this he'd be in difficulties with both the 2006 example - which had a couple of juicy pictures of himself - or the 2007 one which appeared to have pictures of most of the local government candidates, and pictures of specific Lib Dem campaigning material.
Wherever this is distributed it is against the rules to campaign and to feature party political material in this form of print.
Gobby Glover is also not contesting that the material was distributed outside the boundaries of Mr Leech's constituency. How could he do so? We all know it was, when it was, and exactly where too. This is specifically in areas that are represented by the most excellent Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Mr Leech also has a record of breaking the rules by touting for casework in Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency and in Gorton constituency. Perhaps some examples will be provided in the comments.
Gobby Glover is also not contesting, as far as I can see, the proposal that there should be proper penalties for this sort of cheating behaviour. Even though he is not contesting my comments that put his man in the wrong on this.
The thing that Gobby Glover is contesting on behalf of McLeech is that tax payers money has been used to pay for campaigning material. Though most reasonable people would agree that both his 2006 and 2007 efforts have been serious campaigning tools featuring candidates. No serious people would pretend that this material hasn't been distributed outside McLeech's constituency. Because that's bang to rights.
The only thing that Gobby Glover seems to be contesting is that stuff illicitly distributed outside the constituency has been paid for by tax payers. He insists that other funds have been used to pay for that small portion of the material.
On this there is a tiny but arguable ray of light for Mr Gobby. That is that the 2007 leaflet had a weaselly statement on it saying it was mostly paid for by taxpayers - already breaking the rules remember as it is highly politicized - but also from other sources. That those other sources are most likely Councillor allowances paid to an absentee councillor (Cllr McLeech) are probably by the by. I mean let's not split hairs here.
However relying on that statement means I am honour bound to rely on the one on the 2006 leaflet which had the same problems i.e. political and out of area but had a different statement on how it was funded. That said it was funded by the tax paper full stop.
So that's a big nought out of ten for Mr Gobby and his friend Mr McLeech. While I'm happy to give your request and your own statement prominence I'm clearly not going to be apologising for my remarks which, relying on your own lack of rebuttal for most and your own P&P for the issue of tax payer funding, are 100% correct.
There are two other assertions I've made on this blog and elsewhere which you may wish to coment on Mr Gobby - or perhaps the organ grinder himself this time - these are (D) That Lib Dems appear to have substantially overspent on the 2005 General Election in Manchester Withington Constituency and (E) That McLeech has taken PAID ADVERTS in Lib Dem campaigning material to subsidise it.
Finally, the real apologies we need are:
1. John Leech should explain and apologise and face the music for overspending in 2005;
2. John Leech should explain and apologise for cheating with campaigning literature paid for by the public purse in 2006 and 2007; and finally
3. John Leech should apologise for his heartless hoax over the Christie Hospital and for all other fibs and hoaxes perpetrated by Manchester Lib Dems
Posts
