Posts
So Weak: GOO-ey Nonsense Given Bum's Rush by MSM
Iain is not responding very well to his treat. He follows an extraordinary piece of pig-ignorant spin from Sir gGOO - threatened with reshuffle by Conservative Home readers - and indeed from the source Bloomberg in this really rather ridiculous misrepresentation.
We expect better of Britain's leading political blogger Iain. As Ann Widdy might say: "Buck Up!" Why on earth has Iain repeated this cock and bull?
The Chancellor DID NOT say "Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour government" now did he? That's Bloomberg substituting a complex unpacking of the word "We" now isn't it?
And as for the non sequitor argument that follows? That this quote means it's power for power's sake: "All governments and parties go through difficult patches," Darling said. "This is a time when we should remember why we stand for government, the purpose of being in government."
No reasonable person with half a brain could think it means what Iain says he thinks it means. Now, we know GOO is a perverse man who will twist words and figures well beyond reason as soon as blink. But Iain Dale? Surely not.
REAL WORLD ASSESSMENT: It is gratifying that BBC News 24 and even the Tory-backing Sky News are NOT carrying this piece of GOO-ey nonsense.
6 comments:
Chris, I haven't noticed you condemning Tony Lloyd MP for putting out his taxpayer-funded Parliamentary newsletter right before an election period. One rule for Leech and another for your Labour MPs, clearly...
Mmmm. That's off topic Iain.
How about the ludicrous Bloomberg/Osborne/Dale nonsense? How about Osborne's £50 a week fib I raised last year?
I'll be back to the question of parliamentary reports in a moment.
Tony hasn't stuck this report you refer to through my door. I've not seen a copy.
But if it mixes party politics and portcullises ... If it features candidates and party political material in your face big bold and dodgy on the cover... If it says it is part-funded rather than fully funded by the tax payer ...
If it - in short - breaks the rules or the spirit of the rules then I will take it up with him.
I very much doubt it will break any rules however.
I'd like to see the rules change so that such reports come out at a specific time of year e.g. start, during or finish of the long recess but at the moment that isn't the case. I have blogged about that and with various other suggestions for improving the rules. You may have seen it?
Meanwhile it's actually a good thing to see Mr Lloyd putting out a proper parliamentary report as he doesn't always do so. An unlike John Leech he is actually an excellent constituency MP who gets things done rather than unsuccessfully chasing headlines and dubious PR.
Leech is on his THIRD SUCCESSIVE YEAR of transgressions to the letter and spirit of the rules.
This year he put out a different "parliamentary report" in five of his seven wards - mixing Lib Dem regalia and candidates featured with the old Portcullis - but in two wards for some strange reason he did not do so.
On the five that do appear to break the rules and which have, I think, been referred to the authorities he claims they are part funded by taxpayers. This just won't wash. It was hardly distinguishable from his normal propaganda.
I really don't know why you would stick up for him anyway. He's taken all your Tory votes in Man Wit and it seems rather pathetic that you lot aren't trying harder to get them back.
I've also noticed that quite complex four colour process jobs with big areas of solids and all the hallmarks of a medium to large press are now being tagged as printed on the riso in the back room of Leech's office.
Surely not another way to fiddle his and his party's election expenses?? To obscure the actual printers who are doing work for him?
Hazel Blears commonly puts out her 'Parliamentary Report' around election time too. So does Andrew Miller in Ellesmere Port and Neston. In fact, everywhere I've lived or campaigned the MPs seem to do the same. Pot calling the kettle black?
No Steve
I have no objection - under current rules - for this kind of timing. They're all at it. I would rather the timing was regulated as I've said before. But it isn't.
The objection is to using tax payers money to fund direct campaigning material as Leech did in 2007 - featuring his Chorlton candidate and Lib Dem material on the cover in an almost identikit of campaign leaflets - and as he has done this year with these strange hybrid party/parliamentary leaflets.
In 2006 it was pretty crooked too, particularly distributing it outside his constituency and indeed touting for casework in several constituencies.
Perhaps as Leech's mate you can shed some light on the printing issue? Has Leech got a Heidelberg Press and tucked in the back room at his office? Or is he obscuring the producer of his leaflets?
Or they get the Council like in Tameside to send out after an election is called a newspaper called Tameside Citizen which just happens to have Liebour CLLR's all over it saying how wonderfull the services are.
if that's not purder i don't know what is.
One rule for Liebour a rule for everyone else
Post a Comment