Posts
Con-Watch: GOO NOT Being Left Out of the Loop
Curiouser and curiouser. Some Con spokeswoman (sorry I didn't catch the caption) explains live from Birmingham that George Osborne had been trying in vain to catch the Prime Minister's eye or get connected to his phone for a collegial conflab. Speaking a good deal of keeping party politics out she jeered at the insignificance of the Lib Dems ...
Meanwhile Live from Westminister Lib Dem Nick Clegg announced that he and Gordon Brown had spoken yesterday. And that Vince Cable would be meeting Gordy between 1 and 2 pm. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
TORY WOMAN SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUE 13:17: Pleased to hear that GOO was in fact on his way to London to meet with his darling ... the genetically partisan Tory spokeswoman was incapable of spitting out an "all for one" briefing without pretending Osborne was being frozen out, not to mention slagging off the Lib Dems. Even as a novice and a card-carrying stock shorting enthusiast GOO must be involved.
This is to shore up Cameron's position rather than the utterly ridiculous suggestion from Everyone Hates Chris that this is "cover" for Labour.
Quite the opposite.
8 comments:
Which goes to show Chris that Gordon Brown is not the right man to lead in this crisis and puts his own ego before what is right for the country.
David Cameron hit the nail right on the head today and said to work togeather for the good of the nation.
Now that is a real leader.
And it has just been announced that Osbourne has left the Tory Conference to head for London to meet with Alastair Darling.*
That's what you get for premature blogging, Chris.
I do suspect, however, that this is not an attempt at collegiate politics but at giving the Labour Party political cover. Brown and Darlingare not keeping people outide the lopp but deliberately dragging them inside so that when it tightens .....
* I was only half-listening to the radio when the news came through and at first I thought it had said that "George Osbourne had left the Conservative Party to meet with his darling."
Very good. I'm glad to hear it both. The person who briefed incorrectly was the Tory woman who claimed poor GOO was being ignored. A blogger faced with such mendacity has a choice of reporting the story - with a question mark - and giving the Tory the benefit of the doubt. Or to have a default of ignoring all the rubbish they spout.
Cover for Labour? I don't think so EHC. This is some coat tails for a team of novices - diametrically opposed to mediating or restricting capitalism in the normal run of things - to pretend otherwise.
The 'cover for Labour' theme is not my own. I've heard that very same theory espoused today by Kevin Maguire. Irwin Seltzer (GB's favourite Murdochite) and cheekily not denied by Yvette Cooper.
I promise that none of them are part of the ECH franchise!
Simon Hoggart has a brilliant theory about the use of a question mark after a statement, giving the writer a convenient get-out if the story turns out to be bollocks.
He says that you should simply reply with the answer 'No'!
He calls it the 'Daily Express' tactic. Eg Is the UK being overrun by immigrants? No.
Was Princess Di killed by the Mafia? No.
Is Paul Dacre a moron? You see, it doesn't always work, so be careful.
Not your own? You should credit it then. Preferably in advance.
Cameron and Osborne are THROWING themselves at Brown and Darling. Is it their strategy then, according to yourself and others who you no doubt believe to be utterly brilliant too, to provide Labour with cover?
Or are they trying to get some of the credit for any positives, while trying to leave B/D with any down side.
The question mark thing is another matter isn't it?
Should newspapers use punctuation in headlines? NO!
Was the Tory briefing wrong? YES!
It was my own gut reaction as soon as the announcement came on and before I heard anybody else comment. A bit later I heard others voice the same thoughts - without having the decency to credit it to me. Labour-leaning, plagiarist bastards.
There is your alternate theory. Brown has got Darling to invite Osbourne in order to shore up Cameron. Mmmm. Must go and draw a graph of that to see it makes sense.
Nope. It's bollocks.
In the USA, the Republicans and Democrats were desperate not to be seen to be the only ones voting for the rescue package and were looking for political cover from each other.
So I think you were nearer in thinking that Brown wants to reap any postives and distribute negatives.
However, you went for Option B - the 'shoring-up' line.
Is Chris Paul the most dangerous man in Britain?
Has Britain gone bonkers?
(Hoggart rules apply)
Goodness me EHC! You're losing it. Cameron has this very day delivered a speech suggesting his people were all available to help GB and sent out a fork tongued spoker to spin the yarn that they were being kept out. It's not fair!!
He was/is gagging for it. And according to K Maguire's blog KM is today saying EXACTLY what I'm saying i.e. that Cam/GOO are cosying up to save themselves from further slippage in the polls.
Not the contrary words you are putting into his mouth.
Brown has been persistently asking Cam for cross party support on XY and Z this past 15 months. until now he hasn't been getting it. Instead we have had contrary whipping and voting.
I wasn't putting words into Cameron's mouth and I don't doubt that he and Osbourne will be grateful for every bit of political cover that they are being offered.
It seems to many observers that, counterintuitively, the fact that the UK economy might go down the toilet might be the one thing that can save Labour.
This meeting is one that has been offered by Brown and Darling. If they wanted to they could pass any Bill they wanted through the Commons in less than an hour. They don't need the votes of the Tories and yet they have arranged these cross-party meetings.
How can an initiative taken by the Labour government be about 'shoring up Cameron'. Like I say, that may be why the Tories have accepted but it can't be why it was offered. After all, your original premise was that they were being frozen out.
Post a Comment