Honesty: The new battleground
Honesty is the new battleground in British politics. Hence Peter Mandelson's demand that the shadow chancellor withdraw what the first secretary has dubbed a "deliberate untruth" in his interview with me yesterday.
George Osborne boasted that that he was being honest about public spending whilst accusing ministers of "lying" (yes, he unlike his leader, used the "L" word). He went on to accuse the prime minister of blocking access to a detailed breakdown of government spending.
So, what are the facts?
In pre-election meetings with the cabinet secretary in January and February, the Tories asked for access to the spending numbers broken down in over 12,000 headings. The answer - which was "No" - came many weeks later in April fuelling the Tories' belief that the prime minister had taken the final decision.
The Cabinet Office insist, however, that it was Sir Gus O'Donnell alone who decided and that, until yesterday, ministers weren't even aware of the request.
So, you might assume, George Osborne is on a sticky wicket. However, long before this row, the Tories committed publicly that they would publish these data if they get into government. Thus, publication, they can argue, is ultimately a matter for ministers.
All this raises the question: why would the government want to stop the data being published?
Whitehall sources tell me that all the information in the COINS database is already in the public domain although they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it.
It is there, they point out, because the government annually publishes to Parliament all the data by which it centrally controls public expenditure so that Parliament can vote on it and through its select committees hold the most senior civil servants to account for it.
It is, they add, published in the manner requested by and agreed with by Parliament, including the breakdown of departmental budgets into the main departmental spending programmes.
They point to the list of existing government publications - Spending Reviews, Budget/PBR, Supply Estimates, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, Supplementary Budgeting Information - which contain the relevant information.
To which the Tories reply - why doesn't the government agree to publish it in a simple, digestible form allowing the public to engage in programme-by-programme scrutiny of what their tax pounds pay for?
There is, of course, an underlying tale here which has nothing whatsoever to do with public spending.
Remember "Yachtgate"? It was triggered when George Osborne was not terribly discreet about a private chat he had with Peter Mandelson before he had any clue that he would be returning to government.
Mandelson did not appreciate that breach of confidentiality. Ministers believe that Osborne has similarly abused the private chats he's had with the governor of the Bank of England and, now, the cabinet secretary.
Update, 12:13PM: Downing Street says the PM had no knowledge of the request from the shadow chancellor George Osborne to see government spending data.
The spokesman said it was a matter for senior civil servants and it would be "completely inappropriate" for the PM to become involved. He said there were normal conventions surrounding information made available to the opposition and the PM believed these should be followed.
But the shadow chancellor says he has written evidence to back up his story that the Tories repeatedly asked for financial information including the COINS database. He also claims that he was told informally that ministers and, in particular, the prime minister would block the request.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Go on, Nick, let us have the Government's angle on all this.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
YachtGate?
Would that be the one where aluminium magnate Oleg Someone is a close friend of the European Minister for Trade. They obviously had no discussions at all on tariffs for aluminium foil imports to the EU.
In a completely unrelated development, twice in 3 years said Minister for Trade lowered the tariffs for aluminium imports into the EU.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Even if Osborne did lie who cares he absolutely learned it from the masters.
What a nerve Mandelson given that a large proportion of the population
KNOW you and the Labour Party have all been lying since 1997
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Oh, might as well mention it while we are talking about honesty. Would this be the same Mandelson who had to resign twice? The first time for lying about his mortgage application. The second for "assisting" his friend with a passport application then lying about that too.
Complain about this comment
You're at it again. "Whitehall sources"? Ministers and/or Spin Doctors you mean. Also, why the repeat of the "boasted" description from your interview? No independent observer would see Osborne's answers as boasting, rather there is a lot of anger at the scorched earth policy being practiced by Brown, which we will be paying for for decades.
Whilst you are right in your assertion that truth and honesty will be an important issue on which this Government will be judged at the ballot box, you cloud it with reference to Yachtgate. Let us not forget that that was a beautifully orchestrated campaign by Mandelbum to smear Osborne and which you followed slavishly.
The rather more important issue over and above Osborne's naiivety was the underlying unanswered question about Mandelbum and Deripaska and those EU aluminium tariffs. Any answers?
Call an election
Complain about this comment
So labour are hiding where the publics money is spent and yet its the oppositions fault...
Complain about this comment
Mandy OOOPS,sorry LORD MANDLESON of somewhere.I cant remember,accusing George Osbourne of an untruth,makes me believe George is telling the truth.Keep trying Lord Mandleson,the more you dig the deeper the hole.
Complain about this comment
I assume you no longer read the blogs as you got many requests for further details on why the government will not publish these. Your follow up report is biased. Mandelson is a slick politician. He is someone I wouldn't want to shake hands with as I'd be worried he'd take the arm!!
It all boils down to mismangement of the economy. The government can spin most things but Joe Public see how bad the economy is. Even if, a big if, the recovery improves we still have debt levels to pay off and high unemployment. Save during the booms. Well there are no booms and busts anymore.
An election now please.
Complain about this comment
The central argument is a government that will not face up to the enormous debt burden it has wrought on every one of us and is prepared to lie and withold data and oppostion parties that would ike to present an orderly cae for reducin debt.
How many independent bodies need to warn the UK that this debt needs to be repaid bfore the government gets the fact that only Gordon brown thinks more debt is a good idea.
Yesterday the OECD warned that steps need to be taken to repay the debt but government ministers happily trot out the standard lines of tory smear and innuendo.
This won't end badly, it will end catastrophically. But end it will.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
The Cabinet Office insist, however, that it was Sir Gus O'Donnell alone who decided and that, until yesterday, ministers weren't even aware of the request.
Do you or anyone else actually believe that something as important as this wouldn't even be discussed by ministers.
flap oink flap oink
and Lord Mandelson should be the last person on earth to be attacking anyone over untruth's his record speaks for its self on that matter.
Complain about this comment
Will there be enough "honest" members to form an argument
Complain about this comment
Why don't you get oto the real story Nick,
This is a convenient smoke screen to turn attention away from the fact that away from Parliament, Peter Mandelson "let slip" that the Governement are postponing this autumn's spending review until after the next election.
In other words, they can't produce a spending plan which will be financially sound and consistent with their public utterances, and so they have decided to abdicate their responsibility to manage the countries finances.
The reason is apparently that uncertainty about the future economy makes planning difficult at this time. Doh!!
Perhaps someone should tell PM that all autumn reviews are based on predictions in an uncertain environment.
Complain about this comment
Sir Gus O'Donnell reports directly to Brown - are we really supposed to believe he makes important decisions on such matters without referring them to his boss? It may be the Cabinet Secretary who tells Osborne he cannot have access to the COINS database, but the decision is surely a political one. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary is not allowed to comment directly on this matter, but we can certain that if Brown instructed him to allow Osborne access to the database, it would happen.
Complain about this comment
From what I understand of Yachtgate from Nick's article, Osborne relayed information about his trip to the yacht to other friends, presumably on the same "private chat" premise that Mandelson claimed (i.e. not explicitly stated but implied).
I find it difficult to believe that the request for information was a "private chat". It was in relation to information requested as the opposition. Perhaps the finer details should not be for public consumption, but there is surely little harm in there being knowledge that the Conservatives asked for information and refused.
If the information is in the public domain, what sense is there in saying "you can't have it all in one database"? Was the fact the information was in the public domain made known to Osborne, or should he have known? Surely these are more important in understanding the "wronged" party (if there is any) in this affair.
The Prime Minister often calls for policy details from the Conservatives. If he'd genuinely like to hear them rather than using them as a now tiresome retort, release the information in the form they want. If they don't come up with anything, you've got a stick to beat them with. I imagine the problem for our Prime Minister is if they come up with sensible sounding policy where he has not he will have hung himself.
Re: Mervyn King (I was about to type Eddie George!), can anyone point me in the direction of the "betrayal" of a private chat by Osborne?
Looking forward to PMQs today....
Complain about this comment
In regards to criticism of Nick, I do find it a classic tory voting trait, demonstrated by most right wing newspapers.
If someone is giving an opinion, that goes against your belief on the subject, you have it in your head that they are biased.
I think Nick makes a very valid point. And I think Lord Mandelson brought up a very valid point.
A tory tactic of fighting an election on innuendo, and name calling is getting rather tedious.
Not that I agree with labour policy 100%, but at least I know what it is.
This cloak and dagger attempt to get into government, by merely suggesting what you "might" do, is pathetic.
Most people realise that although there will be cuts on both side, by definition of the party, the bigger cuts will always be Tory.
On the basis that they have already stated that they will get rid of inheritance tax, and cut top rate tax substancially.
Meaning they will have a smaller budget. Obviously
Complain about this comment
At what point in 1997 did G.Brown have access to the COINS database?
Was it before or after Labour won the election and if it was before how many months before the election was access granted?
Complain about this comment
"So labour are hiding where the publics money is spent and yet its the oppositions fault"
where public money spent, as you put it, is already in the public domain. It's released by parliament, as a matter of law.
The tories "wanting" the official list is just more PR, and innuendo. As in truth, like all parties, they have all the numbers.
More than likely using it as an excuse to not releasing any policy of note.
Mandelson is bang on. One party is talking policy. The other is releasing innuendo and slur.
It's "this is what we are going to do" vs. "no they are not, they are liars".
If you notice that the tory party dropped 6 points in the last opinion polls, and Labour gained 2, the public are obviously as bored of it as I am
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick: You say the Tories "boast" but Lord M "demand"s. You might want to be a bit more unbiased.
There seems to be no dispute that Osborne asked for this information, and his access was blocked. Whether Gus O'D consulted Brown or just realised that Brown would be very displeased if Osborne got the data is rather beside the point.
Complain about this comment
Look - the Civil Servant made the decision here not Gordon. I can't believe there are Tories on this blog pointing fingers at Labour for transparency. Both parties have questionable practices around information and trust. This a practical decision made into a political one by 'Boy George'....I would not trust the Tories anymore than I trust Labour.
We are moving into the 'battle lines' phase of the Election...no doubt. But let's not get to passionate about 'playing fair' - or we'll be moaning like children for the next year, which will be distracting and dull!
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget that that was a beautifully orchestrated campaign by Mandelbum to smear Osborne and which you followed slavishly."
The rather more important issue over and above Osborne's naiivety was the underlying unanswered question about Mandelbum and Deripaska and those EU aluminium tariffs. Any answers?"
I think you need to get a job as a tory PR spin merchant to be honest. Are you trying to incinuate that Osoborne was whiter than white, and was tricked to go to that meeting!?
When you come across as that tory, and that biased, you have no argument in criticising the tone of the blog.
You dislike it, as you don't agree with it. It's nothing to do with impartiality
Complain about this comment
The question is, if this information is so 'freely available', why was Osborne denied it at all? Has no one seen that scene in A Few Good Men; Tom Cruise asks Jack Nicholson for a copy of transfer orders, as he believes that something foul is up, knowing that he could get them from, as Demi Moore later says "...any department at the Pentagon." The reason for asking for them? "You wanted to see [his] reaction."
Maybe Osborne wanted to see 'his' reaction?
Complain about this comment
I've been relying on this site lately - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ - but even that doesn't give half the details or explanations we want does it?
It's about time people were reminded that it's not the government's money, it's our money.
Complain about this comment
@ Mike_Naylor
I don't believe someone who is so awful at spelling should actually be permitted so many comments.
W
Complain about this comment
"Mandelson did not appreciate that breach of confidentiality...."
Then that simply goes to show how dense the man really is. Did he really expect that him 'dissing' his future government colleagues in full earshot of a member of the shadow cabinet and a political opponent was NOT going to get out!?!?!
You've got to hand it to Mandelson though....his sense of irony is second to everyone.
Complain about this comment
Whats all this about honesty being the new battleground? We are so used to them lying, and frankly more comfortable with that, than them pretending to be truthful. Radical reform is what we need, then maybe honesty can make a tentative shy appearance after it has been acheived. We seemed to have very quickly slipped back into the old tittletattle politics that got us in this current mess. Ah well, soon be time for summer hols old boy.
Complain about this comment
In truth, the COINs database, is already fully available to the opposition. And to any member of public.
The tories are arguing that they werent allowed access to it in a specific format.
Party politics to me. More PR. More innuendo. Just using it as an excuse to further their obvious election tactic chuck some mud and hope that it sticks.
It appears Brown has set his own PR/Spin attack dog on Osborne in response.
Many vs. Cameron, in a used car salesman, PR, sales pitch? I think it could go either way.
I think its a valid point by Mandy though. This red top innuendo campaign of the tories, is slowly getting annoying.
Labour release huge amounts of policy in the week. The only tory response is to call them liars, and talk about not being allowed to use the COINs database, to the worlds media.
The problem with spin is that you have to stand by every word you give, as there will be someone trying to trip you up and embarrass you.
Osborne has maybe made this mistake. Openly stating that The Prime Minister was responsible for what is basically civil service work.
Unaware that the decision was actually made by someone else.
Of course, the order may well have come from top, but that matters little. As Osborne said it was Brown.
Hell have to retract the statement, and correct himself showing the UK that the tories are maybe throwing about a lot of inaccurate statements.
1-0 Mandy
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gordon Brown says there will be rises in public expenditure including a "0% rise".
I think we have seen all we need to about honesty from Gordon today.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am not at all sure that honesty will get a professional politician very far in pragmatic politics.
Essentially, most voters do not want to hear the unvarnished truth.
Especially if it has to involve admitting colossal strategic mistakes made by said politicians, over the past few decades.
In such cases, 'fessing up' could be professional suicide.
Far better for the professional politician to peddle aspirations of a golden tomorrow, which is always just over the horizon.
Complain about this comment
"Hell have to retract the statement, and correct himself showing the UK that the tories are maybe throwing about a lot of inaccurate statements."
Well, before we start accusing people of inaccurate statements, let's be sure of more accurate spelling. Are you asking Beelzebub to retract a statement here?
"When you come across as that tory, and that biased, you have no argument in criticising the tone of the blog."
Oh, you mean that they should come across like you? Verbose, ill-written excuses for Mandy, Brown and Co? Blatant Labour flag waving with the pathetic, and barely noticeable disclaimer, "Not that I agree with labour policy 100%"?
Complain about this comment
#3 - wheresMyVote
Would that be the one where aluminium magnate Oleg Someone is a close friend of the European Minister for Trade.
Not the same Oleg who is now going cap in hand to this Lord Soandso whose name is similar to the old European Trade Commissioner for a bail out of LDV. Surely not.
I hear the BOE is issuing nine bob notes especially.
Complain about this comment
"Probably the fact that the civil servants involved had little faith that this information would not end up in The Daily Telegraph 2 days later."
Yes. Because, for most of the 50 odd million in this country, that would be a terrible thing.
Complain about this comment
18. At 11:49am on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
In regards to criticism of Nick, I do find it a classic tory voting trait, demonstrated by most right wing newspapers.
If someone is giving an opinion, that goes against your belief on the subject, you have it in your head that they are biased.
I think Nick makes a very valid point. And I think Lord Mandelson brought up a very valid point.
A tory tactic of fighting an election on innuendo, and name calling is getting rather tedious.
Not that I agree with labour policy 100%, but at least I know what it is.
This cloak and dagger attempt to get into government, by merely suggesting what you "might" do, is pathetic.
Most people realise that although there will be cuts on both side, by definition of the party, the bigger cuts will always be Tory.
On the basis that they have already stated that they will get rid of inheritance tax, and cut top rate tax substancially.
Meaning they will have a smaller budget. Obviously
---------------
Lets deal with these paragraphs one by one.
1. Classic Tory voting trait? Eh? Do even you understand what you are trying to imply here?
2. Bias, dear sir, is favouring one side over another and has nothing to do with disagreeing with a point of principle. Nick in general does a decent job of sticking to the centre dividing line, but his previous two posts have amounted to personal attacks on the shadow chancellor.
3. Precisely which point? Mandelson demanded a comment be withdrawn, he is not making a point at all. Nick is reporting upon it, implying that Osbourne is at fault.
4. Yes, the vacuous posh boys, priveleged young men, do nothing party members are definately guildy of name calling. And lets not mention a certain n10 official who was fired for trumping up sleaze campaigns.
5. What? Investment vs Cuts? Spend more money we dont't have? Please oh please enlighten us as to what Labour policy is beyond this.
6. Too moronic to even respond to.
7. Apparently Gordon Brown doesn't.
8. No they haven't and no they haven't.
9. Deary me, do try and familiarise yourself with at least the most basic of economic knowledge. Until you do so, there is no point in my trying to educate you.
Complain about this comment
18:Mike Naylor
[MN]In regards to criticism of Nick, I do find it a classic tory voting trait, demonstrated by most right wing newspapers.
[27feet]: That would be a gross generalisation.
[MN]If someone is giving an opinion, that goes against your belief on the subject, you have it in your head that they are biased.
[27feet]: Again, gross generalisation. If I were to critique Nick's blog I would say that at times it can appear to avoid certain issues in favour of one-side or the other. However, commentary on factual data is by its nature opinion pieces and as such cannot avoid bias.
[MN]: I think Nick makes a very valid point. And I think Lord Mandelson brought up a very valid point.
[27feet]: I would argue it was more posturing and scoring a headline by Mandelson (who is more than capable of handling the media), but it is a point worth raising in response to Osborne's statement. Perhaps comparing the 2 side by side would be more appropriate?
[MB]: A tory tactic of fighting an election on innuendo, and name calling is getting rather tedious.
[27feet]: As yet there is no election. The most recent use of innuendo and name-calling at an election was the "Tory Toffs" used by the Labour party. You could argue that the (reported) logic of "Let's not have an old etonian as speaker" would be equally so.
[MN]: Not that I agree with labour policy 100%, but at least I know what it is.
[27feet]: I would debate that. There is no spending review to assist us, the populus, an extraordinary liberal interpretations required to meet the no spending cuts "policy" by both the PM and Ed Balls. There are more but I hope you see my point. The fact the conservatives have little policy is currently down to (they claim) a lack of information and the fact they are in opposition. They wish to create policy for the future election, but at present there is little or no benefit to them in producing the same and they would rather concentrate on questionning the policies that ARE being put into place by the government.
[MN]: This cloak and dagger attempt to get into government, by merely suggesting what you "might" do, is pathetic.
[27feet]: See above. There is no election forthcoming at present. Give away (potentially) vote winning policy now or wait til an election? I know what I'd rather do in their position.
[MN]: Most people realise that although there will be cuts on both side, by definition of the party, the bigger cuts will always be Tory.
[27feet]: If I chose credit card "x" over credit card "y" I would have a higher limit and could choose to spend more. However, it's likely that credit card "x" will come with rather weightier interest that's going to take its toll and I may not be able to meet the payments. In that event, I'd rather have the smaller amount to spend knowing I can manage the payments.
[MN]:On the basis that they have already stated that they will get rid of inheritance tax, and cut top rate tax substancially.
[MN:]Meaning they will have a smaller budget. Obviously
[27feet]: There have been mootings of various changes, but (as you referred to earlier) no set policy as yet. Re: the tax, my employers (who I also know socially) pay higher rate tax. None of them used tax avoidance schemes prior to the recent raise - they felt it was "fair enough". They now have put in plans and will be paying less tax than they were under the lower rates. Swings and roundabouts.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
32
Gordon Brown says there will be rises in public expenditure including a "0% rise".
I think we have seen all we need to about honesty from Gordon today.
========================================
I enjoyed that comment from Gordy, not much more you can say about it.
Presumably, Gordy also believes that the economy increased by -2.4% in the first quarter of this year.
Complain about this comment
they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it.
If by 'you' you mean 'me', that's an unappealing prospect.
If, however, you mean 'the almost limitless analytical resources of BBC, widely acknowledged to be the mightiest information processing organisation known in history', then it seems like there might be some homework to be done to inform the voter.
Complain about this comment
Why took so many weeks to say "no".
Even if it is true that PM did not know till now, now he know. Just say 'yes' since the data is already available in different forms, or is it?
All seem very slimy ...
Complain about this comment
#34 Mike_Naylor
"The question is, if this information is so 'freely available', why was Osborne denied it at all? "
Probably the fact that the civil servants involved had little faith that this information would not end up in The Daily Telegraph 2 days later.
Nice rant Mike - But why should Osborne need to leak it to the Telegraph, as you infer, if the information is already available, online, in the public domain.
Complain about this comment
""There is a very unattractive pattern of behaviour that is starting to emerge with George Osborne, of innuendo in pursuit of a smear," Lord Mandelson said."
So Lord Mandelson, does this ring any bells for you?
Pots calling kettles black springs to mind!
Complain about this comment
What a tory joker OSborne is and he needs to retract his statement...Im sick of the tories same old cheap rate, cheap skate and out of date tactics of name alling and smoke and mirrors when it comes to cuts. David Cameron you are now looking weaker and weaker in the face of you lack of substance...how cheap are you ...you refuse to invest when WE the people need it shame on YOU
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor,
Why shouldn't it appear in the Telegraph - if there is nothing to hide why would Herr Brown (or whoever gave the order), care where it appeared.
And how can you praise the govt record on announcing policy! It seems that every policy that is announced is unaffordable and if it's slightly controversial then it won't happen until after the election.
Does Brown really think we are stupid? Why does he refuse to mention cuts when even a 10-year old would know that the debt has to be reduced at some point. Going on and on about how spending is being brought forward just means there'll be an even bigger hole to fill post-election.
How can his cabinet colleagues sit there and listen to the man without realising their absolute ineptitude in not getting rid of him when they had the chance.
Bringing spending forward, abandoning a spending review, putting off sorting Royal Mail out, putting off putting taxes up, putting off public spending cuts - all in an effort to save his bacon. You know what - I'm going to vote Labour because whoever comes to power in 12 months time is going to have an abolsoute s-storm to deal with.
Complain about this comment
"Whitehall sources tell me that all the information in the COINS database is already in the public domain although they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it."
So the government are being difficult because they can. Not a surprise.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the rise of the Surveillance State under this government, we were told "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
So then why are the government hiding the details of the public finances?
The fact is, based on this government's penchant for spin, sleaze, and lies, things are probably far worse than anyone is letting on.
And Mandelson getting all uppity about "deliberate untruths" is a bit like Cristiano Ronaldo getting uppity about other players diving to win free kicks.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Complain about this comment
ED BALLS TOLD A BLATANT LIE YESTERDAY!
Talking Balls
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3725688/talking-balls.thtml
(still...I suppose he's only following his boss' example)
Complain about this comment
Prefacing the following statement with an apology to the likes of Saga and a few others, this does not apply to you.
Has anyone else noticed a gap in literacy and clarity of argument between the nulabs on this board and all of the rest?
Complain about this comment
Osbourne is a politician so if he told me rain was wet I would need to check it.
However on the honesty stakes he is on to a winner up against Lord Mandelsnake after his aluminium antics with Oleg.
Complain about this comment
Of course Mr Brown isnt going to cut spending - not if he increases taxes heavily - experience shows this is something he is remarkedly good at, unfortunately he may not be able to keep to the income tax promises of the past though. As we wont see the detail till after the next election, we, the golden geese, will all be well plucked before we next have a chance to hiss....
Complain about this comment
Yes, I remember "Yachtgate" Nick. On your blogs it was all about Osborne, nothing about Mandelson, a Cabinet Minister enjoying hospitality from a wealthy businessman and friend.
The friendship with Oleg Deripaska, the aluminium oligarch, raised questions of a possible conflict of interest because he (Mandelson)signed off rule changes that benefited the Russians company while he was European Trade Commissioner.
Given that and the inconsistencies about the declared length of their friendship one would have thought the focus of your blogs of that period would have shown a greater interest in Mr Mandelson.
Water under the bridge and all that, but you can see how any of your reporting on Mandelson and Osborne may be viewed with suspicion.
Complain about this comment
'inuendo in pursuit of smear' That was I call rich coming from the dodgy lord .
If the feud between GO and the acting PM is going to start again , are you going to ask more searching questions about PM relationship with rich russians?
Complain about this comment
This is like the puzzle where you're asked to choose between two paths. One leads to a nasty end, the other to an escape route. There are two guards. One tells nothing but lies, the other nothing but the truth. The puzzle is that you are allowed to ask only one question of both of them so what would be the question?
The problem here is that the 'guards' seem to be unable to distinguish between what is the 'truth' and what isn't.
Complain about this comment
"And I think Lord Mandelson brought up a very valid point."
An unelected, twice-disgraced (mortgage and passport irregularities, covering up said irregularities) peer has no place making any points in our government.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
Obviously there is little point in installing a polygraph in Parliament. We could have a "truth detector" but it would need to be checked every night by the cleaners just to make sure it is still working....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Of course Mandelson won't be playing this up because it might deflect from next year's budget deficit of 17% of GDP, or 245 billon pounds, 10400 pounds per worker in the private sector. It should not distract from the underlying structural budget deficit of 100 billion, or 4000 pounds per worker in the private sector (OECD estimate, I can provide the weblink)
Of course Brown knew nothing about the conservatives request because he's far from a control freak and O'Donnell is certainly not partisan because he worked with Brown at the Treasury and had good grounds to rule no further inquiry into smeargate was necessary as it is very logic for Balls to have sent up to 20 emails a day to McBride.
Of course Mandelson should be beleived, since he was only economic with truth about his mortgages, while his old aide Wagg Prosser is beyond doubt depite now being consultant to Deripaska and his old aide Draper is only an online genius rather than a smearer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#23 "Look - the Civil Servant made the decision here not Gordon."
How naive are you?
Complain about this comment
So its official straight from the hourses mouth at PMQs, Capital spending is being brough forward (ie in later years will FALL!) and OVERALL spending in 2013-14 will have a 0% increase.
As Brown knows whats happening in 2013-14 can he speak to Peter who stated the reasion that the spending review was being put off till after the election was because in the current climet it is impossible for do forcasts for 2011-14 the period of the review.
Its about time Labour got their excuses story correct and they all sing from the same song sheet! Mandalson says you cant do forcasts for 2013-14 yet Brown gives a definative answer (one of the few he has ever given in PMQ's) about spending the very same year.
Complain about this comment
The 0% rise thing announced by Gordon Brown in PMQs today + the charge that The Conservatives were the party of unemployment made Brown look totally pathetic today. The man is out of ideas and out of time!
Complain about this comment
59.
If you were the other guard...
Complain about this comment
You know something's up when New Labour are talking up truth and honesty. Ever since New Labour came in to power in 1997, they have constantly claimed that under New Labour there would be a new era of politics. Don't really need to follow up that with anything more.
Then, to top it all off, we have Peter Mandelson heading this new era of truth and honesty. If that doesn't prove that the government live in a different world to the majority of the people in this country then I don't know what does.
Just another example of New Labour hiding behind closed doors and pretending that everything is fine. I mean, after all these years of New Labour (including Mandelson & Brown) who are the public more likely to believe in this situation? I'm not claiming George Osbourn is the greatest politician but compared to Mandelson & Brown, he's almost worthy of a halo.
Gordon Brown & New Labour have kept promising the same things since they came to power. What is the main lesson here?
With Gordon Brown as Chancellor having promised to never repeat boom and bust, we seem to have encountered a boom and bust. Will they admit it?
Most likely not, because even though New Labour have been in power since 1997, everything that has gone wrong in this country is someone else's fault. If that doesn't demonstrate a completely inept and incapable government I don't know what does. Yet, they still think of themselves as the right people to lead us through the hard times......
It was they who took us from good times to hard times, now they think they're the only ones who can save us.
I know there's been a mention of needing thick skin when you're in government but the skin must be so thick it's blinding them from the truth.
Just remember, "There is no spoon" (From The Matrix movie). What more of a truth do you need?
Now let's have the new era of politics New Labour have been promising since 1997 and have constantly and consistently failed to deliver to the best of their abilities. I almost think random animals chosen from a zoo could do just as well as New Labour. It's time to remove that thick skin and start taking note of the people. We want an election.
How can we trust Peter Mandelson & Gordon Brown when we've seen what they've been like for the last 12 years?
It's at this point I wonder if leopards like them can really change their spots. Mandelson is a slick operator, for that I admire him in a small way, but bringing him back in to government and effectively putting him in charge of giving New Labour a make-over isn't going to cut it.
All I see is a government effectively running about like headless chickens, they have no idea what to do so they're doing lots of pointless things in the hopes that people will suddenly change their minds and realise that the party who has spoent the last 12 years ruining their lives are whiter than white and purer than pure. I could never see Mandelson or Brown that way. Could you?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
During PMQs I,
Laughed At Brown's Obviously Untrue Remarks.
As he,
Brazenly Rattled On With Nonsense.
On and on he continued,
Uttering ludicrous statements.
Refusing to tell the truth
Lying And Blustering Over Unsubstantiated Rubbish.
Complain about this comment
Who is this Sir Gus O'Donnell who is tell our elected representatives that they can't see the books?
The real stink is that we have a civil SERVANT obstructing the main opposition 1 year before the election.
He should be sacked for obstructing the process of democracy.
Is Gus a member of ZaNuLabour?
As for milly molly Mandy your puppet master I now assume that if he says something the opposite has to be true.
Complain about this comment
Re Nick's update
So that's it then - you believe Brown or Osborne. For me its no contest. Osborne all the way. Brown seems incapable of telling the truth. 0% growth indeed.
As it is Brown was truly appalling in PMQs. Did he answer one question directly? NO. To much to ask for.
Perhaps our new speaker should insist on answers to direct questions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Am I alone in thinking that neither Brown or anyone associated with him, including some of the media are capable of giving a balanced view of the current situation my Country is in.
No, thought not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
" Whitehall sources tell me that all the information in the COINS database is already in the public domain although they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it."
Try Googling it then you might find out what is necessary to gain Public access (doesn't mean that Tories couldn't spend the money to acquire the software)
The question is that if it is available why not provide it a manageable format.
Complain about this comment
Power, absolute power and Peter Mandelson, but i cant remember anyone voting for him to represent our views in government
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson, given that Brown did not use Mandelson's setup during PMQs and that there wasn't a backbench question to facilitate the scoring of a supposedly open goal either, it just may be the case that the decision wasn't taken (in isolation) by O'Donnel and that Osborne was not really lying).
Therefore, time to move on to ask some not so pressing questions about next year's budget deficit of 245 billion or about that structural budget deficit of 100 billion pounds per annum.
Complain about this comment
62
Mediocre is the word for both this government and the lead articles for this blog.
Mediocre in the extreme.
Complain about this comment
#70 Minnsy - If you want to know the details of Yachtgate I suggest you look at post 3.
It is about an un-named (but recently ennobled) EU Trade Commissioner, who was very good friends with a Russian aluminium magnate, and the reduction in EU import tariffs for alumunium during the tenure if that Commissioner.
However, our noble Lord insists that they never discussed these tariffs.
Make of that what you will but I would suggest that Mandy isn't the first person to be questioning the honesty of others.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that so many people have been switched off by the dis-honesty of so many of our politicians, that they no longer care. This means that the likes of Mandelson (the word honesty has a difficult time staying in a sentence with that name), Balls, Hain, Smith and the Archduke of Inconsistency, Brown, will be able to manipulate the media(Hi Nick!)and come election day the plan will work.
We need to get this out on the streets and let the common man/woman understand the significance and importance to their future way of life and well-being. All politicians have a duty to honesty - but they are so removed from the concept that they cannot behave in any way other than corrupt. This makes them (and us) far worse than any other country of corruption because our parliament was always held up as the example. Not now. The politicians all need replacing and afterwards some serious criminal procedings should take place that allow us to claim back the parliament that we were once proud of and that we should be proud of for tomorrow.
Honesty? Yeah right.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just heard Duff state on PMQ's that NuLabour are the party of the many and not the few.
How refreshingly new!
What next? Things can only get better.
Or better still - We will all become stakeholders of UK PLC. Unfortunately we are already, we have all become debtors in NuLabours UK PLC
Complain about this comment
# 47. At 12:43pm on 01 Jul 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
What a tory joker OSborne is and he needs to retract his statement...Im sick of the tories same old cheap rate, cheap skate and out of date tactics of name alling and smoke and mirrors when it comes to cuts. David Cameron you are now looking weaker and weaker in the face of you lack of substance...how cheap are you ...you refuse to invest when WE the people need it shame on YOU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a deliciously incomprehensible rant! Surely Brown is the joker, with is 0% rise.
But let's be serious, because of Brown and Labour, the country is in a perilous position - borrowing 20 billion per calendar month is UNSUSTAINABLE!!!!
There have to be CUTS and tax rises whichever party is in what passes for government these days - they should come before the next election, but we know Brown is committed to bankrupting the country in his hideous quest to be re-elected.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Your headline: Honesty - the new battleground
should read: Mud slinging much preferred by MPs to honesty
And these idiots think the public should respect them?
Complain about this comment
Nick
if no one is blocking then why can the silly little people in the electorate have the figures are you all protecting us from ourselves?
Are we just to simple so have to be protected from the nasty news?
Complain about this comment
Mandelson on the High Ground? I am off to the window looking for Flying Pigs
Complain about this comment
There is a problem for the Tories with outlining their spending plans / cuts. If they base their figures on the government predictions for growth which they and most commentators think are highly ambitious then they won't be able to deliver on them, if however they use more modest (albeit accurate) figures they will only support Brown's accusations that they are a cutting party.
By focussing on not having the information they are justifying not having to commit at this stage.
Complain about this comment
Lets deal with these paragraphs one by one.
1. Classic Tory voting trait? Eh? Do even you understand what you are trying to imply here?
2. Bias, dear sir, is favouring one side over another and has nothing to do with disagreeing with a point of principle. Nick in general does a decent job of sticking to the centre dividing line, but his previous two posts have amounted to personal attacks on the shadow chancellor.
3. Precisely which point? Mandelson demanded a comment be withdrawn, he is not making a point at all. Nick is reporting upon it, implying that Osbourne is at fault.
4. Yes, the vacuous posh boys, priveleged young men, do nothing party members are definately guildy of name calling. And lets not mention a certain n10 official who was fired for trumping up sleaze campaigns.
5. What? Investment vs Cuts? Spend more money we dont't have? Please oh please enlighten us as to what Labour policy is beyond this.
6. Too moronic to even respond to.
7. Apparently Gordon Brown doesn't.
8. No they haven't and no they haven't.
9. Deary me, do try and familiarise yourself with at least the most basic of economic knowledge. Until you do so, there is no point in my trying to educate you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will do the same sir:
1: I was stating that, in regards to tory message boards, newspapers the general tone is, we are right. Anyone disagreeing with this is either:
A: Socialist
B: Insane
C: Unemployed
D: Biased
E: Marxist
2: Nick as a political commentator is entitled to make any opinion he wants on any politician. Nick correctly pointed out that the shadow chancellor had maybe made a slight error in his comments, and Mandelson had rightly jumped on them.
Again, as above. Do you consider attacks on the PM, in blogs, newspapers and columns, to be politically biased? Of course not.
Its biased in the basis that it goes against your own opinions.
3: Did you actually read the article. Mandleson made many points.
1: Osborne made a false statement.
2: Making wholly inaccurate statements is wrong, and should be retracted
3: The tory party are releasing far too many of these inuendos to the media, rather than discussing policy.
Nick is a political correspondent, and it is his job to report both sides of the political spectrum.
Like most tory newspapers, you seem to want a censorship of any news stories that arent attacking the present incumbents.
4: Agreed.
5: Its very simple. The tory party have made promises involving tax cuts, that the Labour Party havent. Including axing inheritance tax, cutting corporate tax, and cutting top end income tax.
To explain, this will mean that their government will receive less funding every year.
The labour argument is that the only way they can afford this it to make more cuts than the current government plan to.
6: Too moronic to even respond to. Meaning you dont have a charge to the obvious point that the shadow cabinet are possibly trying to get into power by highlighting government failings, while keeping their own plans rather more secretive. As in, getting in because they cant be any worse rule.
7: As above in point 5. The argument is the fact that Tory cuts would be much more substancial. And why Cameron is in panic mode over it, trying to stem the tide.
Osborne has already refused to guarantee that the NHS and Comprehensive Schools would be protected from major cuts.
Something Labour have already done.
Thats the crux of the matter.
8. Yes they have. Maybe read up on policy, before you go on the offensive.
Inheritance tax, corporate tax, and top rate income tax will all be cut under a tory government. Its one of the only policies they have actually revealed.
9. Having no answer but deary me highlights your entire stance.
You have no real idea what Tory policy is.
I can assure you, the entire argument is based around the fact that Labour would have a much bigger budget to work with than any tory government.
On the basis that they havent promised their corporate friends tax cuts if they get in.
Complain about this comment
Honesty in politics...It'll never catch on!!
Needless to say most of us are crying out for honesty from our politicians, whatever their reasons may be for consistently lying to us.
Needless to say Labour are the biggest liars, they wont even stick to manifesto promises so what's the point in them having a manifesto? I've reached the point now where I can only feel pity for their voters.
Complain about this comment
Are you suggesting Mr Robinson that it's the civil service who refused to hand over the data ? Surely not, where does the venerable Sir Gus' loyalties lie, with the taxpayer or with the government ? If it is the latter, then he must tender his resignation or be sacked for misconduct when we have a change of government. Brown coined a new expression at PMQs today " a zero percent rise ? " This from the man who considers himself a financial heavyweight. Heavyweight he is , but the weight is all around his waist, and the financial expertise he gained as a BBC Scotland sports correspondent seems to be letting him down. It is indeed sad for this country that it's prime minister and it's cabinet ministers who are expected , as politicians , to be sparing with the truth , resort to telling blatant and unashamed lies in an attempt to mislead the British people.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
47. At 12:43pm on 01 Jul 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
What a tory joker OSborne is and he needs to retract his statement...Im sick of the tories same old cheap rate, cheap skate and out of date tactics of name alling and smoke and mirrors when it comes to cuts. David Cameron you are now looking weaker and weaker in the face of you lack of substance...how cheap are you ...you refuse to invest when WE the people need it shame on YOU
======================================================================
david, if you want anyone to take your rants seriously perhaps you could type them so they don't come across as a written version of tourettes.
No offence meant to anyone who really has tourettes, obviously.
Complain about this comment
"I would debate that. There is no spending review to assist us, the populus, an extraordinary liberal interpretations required to meet the no spending cuts "policy" by both the PM and Ed Balls. There are more but I hope you see my point. The fact the conservatives have little policy is currently down to (they claim) a lack of information and the fact they are in opposition. They wish to create policy for the future election, but at present there is little or no benefit to them in producing the same and they would rather concentrate on questionning the policies that ARE being put into place by the government."
I think the fact that I can go online and get 99% of the COINS information suggests that this is probably the posturing that you so despise.
Tory policy, on their policy, has been making excuses on why they won't release any.
The answer more than likely being:
A: it's not hugely different from New-Labour
B: there are unpopular (in terms of labour voters they will need to take to overturn the majority) corporate and taxation policies in it.
C: They feel that they don't have to, to win an election. And bringing policy into it may actually dent their chances.
Complain about this comment
80. At 1:32pm on 01 Jul 2009, mikepko wrote:
62
Mediocre is the word for both this government and the lead articles for this blog.
Mediocre in the extreme.
================================================================
Sorry Mike, but isn't 'Mediocre in the extreme' a bit of an oxymoron?
Complain about this comment
68
Give that man a cigar!
Complain about this comment
Great spin from Osborne (if it was his idea):
- Creates the impression that the election is a foregone conclusion
- Implies that the Tories are actively planning for future of the economy
- Implies that the government has something to hide
- Blames the affair on Brown
- Gives them a cheap answer when the Govt. challenges the details of their policies
Comments like this show how it works:
9. At 11:39am on 01 Jul 2009, imdx80 wrote:
So labour are hiding where the publics money is spent and yet its the oppositions fault...
Mandleson's response is trying to send a message to the circles that Osborne moves in that he is indiscreet.
Complain about this comment
Labour and Mandy seem to be going to great lengths to dress up and hide the data requested, the simple solution is to hand over the data George wants, as Labour tell us it's in the public domain already. This childish and petty Labour government just don't get it do they? As a hard working tax payer I think I might like access to this data to see where our cash is being wasted, sorry spent. Or is that the real problem for Mandy and his cronies, if this data was presented in a format the oiks who pay for this nation to tick could understand the Labour party would be found out even sooner and unable to remain in office for even less time than the end of this present term?
Complain about this comment
"So its official straight from the hourses mouth at PMQs, Capital spending is being brough forward (ie in later years will FALL!) and OVERALL spending in 2013-14 will have a 0% increase."
The entire issue is the fact that the Tory party have not released any spending/cuts information either.
I assure you, a 0% spend pledge is 100% more than we know on Tory spending.
Can I remind you that a Tory minister has already revealed the notorious 10% number, by accident. And that is the only reason the debate exists.
People who actually believe they have no policy because of not being allowed to access COINS (even though you can just collate it online) are in la lad land.
Proof that PR and spin actually does work I guess.
A tory minister has already, mistakenly, revealed their spending plans in truth. Months ago.
The entire debate is the faux pas that one of Cameron's men has accidentally revealed spending cuts, and he's trying to imply that Labour will be just as bad.
As Gordon stated though, and what is quite obvious - tory spending is based on how the economy is now. And not in 12 months time.
"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Wherever there is Mandelson there is trouble and dishonour. The sooner he is out of British politics the better. The moral compass of this government will never point true north with that low life meddling!
Complain about this comment
"During PMQs I,
Laughed At Brown's Obviously Untrue Remarks.
As he,
Brazenly Rattled On With Nonsense.
On and on he continued,
Uttering ludicrous statements.
Refusing to tell the truth
Lying And Blustering Over Unsubstantiated Rubbish"
A slightly partisan Tory view isn't it? If you visit most forums, including the BBCs own, the common consensus is that Gordon dealt with Cameron easily. Very tame. And that the general public are maybe a bit sick of his constant wingeing.
MAybe look at a quote of the PM questions page.
"Think gordon has batted away Cameron for the last time on spending cuts. Cameron has made the whole debate tired, and Brown seems more assured every time he gets question.
Probably because of all the practice he has had.
Change the record gord!"
Complain about this comment
"Who is this Sir Gus O'Donnell who is tell our elected representatives that they can't see the books?
The real stink is that we have a civil SERVANT obstructing the main opposition 1 year before the election.
He should be sacked for obstructing the process of democracy."
Taking into account recent leaks of civil service documents to the press, for political points scoring, I'm assuming they refused access for that sort of reason.
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public".
They should be more cautious with information like this.
Complain about this comment
Phew, the moderators have been busy - about 1: or 6 I'd say.
Is this, or PMQ's what people want?
There seem to be three or four personal loathings looking for a battlefield on which to settle their differences. Spending/ honesty are possibly the two most electorate-relevant topics but Brown the Frown, Cameron the Chirpy Chappy, Lord Mandy the Dandy and Ossie the Ostrich live in the world next door, the one that is falling down around their ill-functioing ears, leaving us to wonder what lamposts are for.
Complain about this comment
A point on Yahtgate:
Rather strange, partisan opinion on events.
Mandleson wasn't even in the government when he met the guy. He had nothing stopping him being there at the time.
Osborne was the shadow chancellor, and was alledgedly trying to solicit donations at the meeting.
That was the only controversy.
So ironic that he's trying to accuse people of dishonesty
Complain about this comment
I dont see why any one should be getting a rise this year, considering the state the country is in, even it it is only 0%
Complain about this comment
100. At 1:53pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
As Gordon stated though, and what is quite obvious - tory spending is based on how the economy is now. And not in 12 months time.
=====================================================================
Unlike New Labours spending plan that is based on the economy off where the fairies live.
Complain about this comment
For at least the last twelve months it was always going to be about who would have the stomach to carry through the unpopular measures needed to get this country back on track.
Even the Guardian correspondent pointed out on the Daily Politics that the sooner Brown or Mandelson (not quite sure who's in charge anymore} admitted to the massive spending cuts needed the sooner all parties could do their sums and tell us how and where they would cut services.
Brown tells us he has saved 500000 jobs by not cutting. These in the main are public sector jobs while the private sector has and is being dessimated by his inaction.
The present situation is intolerable and insults the peoples intelligence.
Brown's 0% increase just has to be the last straw.
The people deserve honesty so they can at least try to plan for what lies ahead.
Complain about this comment
On a related note Nick, Could you post a time recently when Brown or Mandelson actually spoke the truth?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The only person involved in this discussion whose honesty is not in doubt is Sir Gus Donnell and questions re his integrity are a disgrace. His job is to interpret the rules and act accordingly, not to make them. Commentators must be aware that he is not allowed to answer back. I would take his word over that of any politician any day. Those who have suggested that he is biased becuae he worked for Brown at the Treasury should be aware that he has spent more than half of his 30 year civil service career under tory governments and was John Major's press secretary.
Complain about this comment
So there we have it. Honesty is apparently a *new* concept to the electorate. Mandy's indignation at "deliberate untruths" revolts me.
.
This guy announces an unprecedented delay to the spending review - thereby stopping us from seeing how Labour have done their sums with regard to spending plans - and now its another day in la la land, Labour expects us to have forgotten all that and now the nasty Tories are telling porkies.
.
Nick I know you risk losing your status and sources if you actually start calling Labour for what they are, but do you really have to wrap yourself in their colours. Can you at least stay...neutral?
Complain about this comment
Nick
There is equally an underlying tale here which has everything to do with the honesty of this government.
Gordon Brown's responses to the email smear campaign, the cabinet reshuffle and tackling the rising levels of national debt have been decidedly less then candid.
"I am sorry about what happened. I take full reponsibility...that's why
the person who was responsible went immediately."
If only?
Complain about this comment
"The 0% rise thing announced by Gordon Brown in PMQs today + the charge that The Conservatives were the party of unemployment made Brown look totally pathetic today. The man is out of ideas and out of time!"
Depends whether your a tory voter or not.
I thought Gordon batted away Cameron with ease, on all fronts. Cameron looked like a beaten man on the subject near the end.
Maybe needs to change the record
Complain about this comment
"An unelected, twice-disgraced (mortgage and passport irregularities, covering up said irregularities) peer has no place making any points in our government.
Call an election"
Really revealing where your partisan allegiances lie. And it makes most of your points null and void.
Methinks the tory party don't like it when the mud starts flying in their own direction.
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor
If you would bother to research Tory policies, you would indeed knwo what they are. But why bother when you can keep repeating the line your leader has indoctrinated into you.
Again, NO THE TORIES DO NOT WANT TO REDUCE THE TAX THRESHOLD OR ABOLISH INHERITANCE TAX (I notice in your subsequent post you amended the second part, so thank you for acknowledging that lie). You do not have the faintest clue what you are talking about, if you can not be bothered to find out the facts do us all a favour and don't polute this space with your nonsense.
If you can easily access 99% of the COINS data, please be so good as to accumulate this and show it to us. Or are you once again just mindlessly bleating back the line fed to you by you handlers?
Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. Dare I say the "t" word?
Complain about this comment
106. At 2:01pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
A point on Yahtgate:
Rather strange, partisan opinion on events.
Mandleson wasn't even in the government when he met the guy. He had nothing stopping him being there at the time.
Osborne was the shadow chancellor, and was alledgedly trying to solicit donations at the meeting.
That was the only controversy.
So ironic that he's trying to accuse people of dishonesty
==================================================
A 'further' point on Yahtgate:
Perhaps you could clarify for the rest of us Mike, as Mandy wasn't in government, what exactly was his job at the time?
I assume you won't answer as you decided to leave that little detail out of your original post - convienient that - not giving the full picture. I wonder where you learnt that?
Complain about this comment
104
"Taking into account recent leaks of civil service documents to the press, for political points scoring, I'm assuming they refused access for that sort of reason.
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public".
They should be more cautious with information like this. "
-------------
Do you even listen to yourself? YOu just got through telling us that the information is freely available anyway, and in your next sentence tell us that Osbourne can not be trusted to not make the information freely available.
Scooby Doo is less confused than you are.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown and Ed Balls have been found out as liars.
There, I said it, there is no other subtext. They have been found out to be lying to the public and anyone else that will give them a platform.
There is nothing honourable about lying, these are supposed to be honourable gentlemen.
Postponing the Spending Review is simply because in there will be their lies exposed by their own document. Spending cuts in their name.
They are interested in one thing and one thing only.
Clinging onto power at all costs. Including it would seem a massive debt that our grandchildren will be paying off.
As for Mandelson, what is giving misleading information on a mortgage application form.
That's a lie and fraud. Once a liar, always a liar so it's a bit rich bitching about 'untruths' isn't it?
Complain about this comment
I must confess I do find these exchanges riveting, total fixation on the trivial dressed up as intellectual debate, whilst displaying the prejudices of the authors in plain view;
In reality you can condense all these down to three simple prejudices dependant on how you view the following statements.
The Slick city boys caught one hell of a cold, so they were bailed out by the government to avoid total melt down of all parts of the economy. Having rescued the privileged Tory voters (bankers) they spent more trying to avoid the total wipe out of the real economy (you know the people who make things that people buy - not Imagineering).
Opposing this action means endorsing the Tories plan to do nothing and we would have had a total 20 year wipe-out, particularly in the professions and services which make up their core vote (maybe this would have been a good idea - may have woke some people out of their comfortable condescending existence).
What ever you say about Brown he had the b*lls to do this and will ultimately be commended for it.
So on to the new reality - the county is skint - but not bankrupt - we still continue to exist even if we have metaphorically maxed out our credit cards. The only alternative was complete economic collapse a la Germany in the thirties.
We need to cut our costs in the future we need to pay ourselves what the world thinks we are worth (unions and bankers in a unique collaboration opposing that one) so austerity is round the corner no matter who is in power.
Think we can say the next 5 - 10 years will be tough.
So what are we arguing about -?
Would the Tories have been any better - short answer NO Germany in the thirties
Did Gordon Brown cause this No
Could Britain have been better prepared - Yes - How over reliance on financial services whilst overseeing the wholesale destruction of the rest of the economy left us with no resilience to this type of correction
Did Gordon Brown cause that - partially - Brown never veered from the Thatcher services Briton ideal and accepted the advice of the Tory Bankers on regulation.
So the choice this election is either a party that would have taken Germany in the thirties in preference to a maxed out credit card and who are so lacking in policy or charisma that they have to attack the nationality of the opponent.
One positive outcome of a future Tory victory - Scotland will become independant instantly
Complain about this comment
108. At 2:03pm on 01 Jul 2009, sweetAnybody wrote:
100. At 1:53pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
As Gordon stated though, and what is quite obvious - tory spending is based on how the economy is now. And not in 12 months time.
------------
Didn't you just get through telling us how ignorant you are about Tory policies? How is it that you know their spending plans?
Complain about this comment
70. Minnsy
Thanks for the rebuttal Minnsy, which I see has been removed.
The only thing I got wrong was that Mandelson was EU Trade Commissioner when he and G.O. met up on the yacht and dined on Corfu.
I know the reports at the time were about donations, but I stand by the rest. In fact if you want to check more facts about an entangled web, Google 'Roland Rudd'.
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor,
Why shouldn't it appear in the Telegraph - if there is nothing to hide why would Herr Brown (or whoever gave the order), care where it appeared.
And how can you praise the govt record on announcing policy! It seems that every policy that is announced is unaffordable and if it's slightly controversial then it won't happen until after the election.
Does Brown really think we are stupid? Why does he refuse to mention cuts when even a 10-year old would know that the debt has to be reduced at some point. Going on and on about how spending is being brought forward just means there'll be an even bigger hole to fill post-election.
How can his cabinet colleagues sit there and listen to the man without realising their absolute ineptitude in not getting rid of him when they had the chance.
Bringing spending forward, abandoning a spending review, putting off sorting Royal Mail out, putting off putting taxes up, putting off public spending cuts - all in an effort to save his bacon. You know what - I'm going to vote Labour because whoever comes to power in 12 months time is going to have an abolsoute s-storm to deal with.
In response,
Firstly the tone of your article (partisan) tells me that we wont be able to debate politically.
The information is already in the public domain, so there is no public interest. Only political interest. Civil Servants are quite right to withhold the condensed numbers, if they feel that they are only being obtained to leak.
If Mr. Osborne wants to send it to the Telegraph, then I suggest he collates the information himself, from the internet, where it is freely available.
In truth, he only asked, so someone could tell him no so he could tell the media.
You have countered solid Labour policy (stacks of it this week) with unaffordable. Basically just repeating Mr. Camerons PR/Policy.
dont believe them. They are telling untruths! Honest!
Browns only comment on cuts is that spending will remain, or increase in the next 3 years. As stated in PM questions.
The entire issue is that the Tory Party only have to make these drastic 10% cuts, as they have already promised the money to corporate business, in regards to cutting corporation tax, and top end income tax.
The entire debate, is this 10% has been inadvertadely revealed. And Cameron is trying to back track by saying it would be matched by Labour.
Which is complete tosh. On the basis that they dont intend to cut any corporate tax, so have no spending black hole to fill.
The entire tone of your message is not someone who actually involves themselves in policy.
Its I hate the Labour Party and listen to everything Cameron spews out to the media.
Complain about this comment
From now on...
As far as this Government is concerned...
BLACK is BLUE
UP is DOWN
INCREASES are DECREASES
LIES are TRUTHS
CUTS are INVESTMENTS
NEW LABOUR is OLD LABOUR
Complain about this comment
117. At 2:08pm on 01 Jul 2009, greatHayemaker wrote:
Mike Naylor
Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. Dare I say the "t" word?
==============================================
I noticed that too gh. Every few days a new poster appears who talks as if Gordon himself pulled their baby from a burning building. Then a day later they're gone, to be replaced with a new name, identical party line.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I feel today's entry is much better balanced.
Just one concern. Your use ofthe word 'boasts' seems somewhat emotional. It leads an impartial reader to think you do not like the person involved, which then leads to whether or not you are being properly impartial.
This all seems to have started with a plan by the prime minister to label the tories as 10% cutters, which then backfired on him,and the lord president is now trying to close it down so that the dirt sticks to everyone.
I am unemployed currently. I don't think gordon brown deserves all the blame. I think the media and financial sectors deserve their fair share too. However, I find it incredible that he has chosen to try to label the tories as the 'partyof unemployment'. At the moment david cameron comes across as someone who is prepared to understand the issues affecting me today, whereas gordon brown seems out of touch with reality. I wish we could have an election soon so that the country can move on. It feels like we are stuck in the rut with the prime minister and this is incredibly frustrating.
Complain about this comment
#111, 106, 104, 103, etc. etc.
Jings! Are you getting paid by the word?
Bottom line is this. When the Crashmeister talks abouit increasing spending, what he means is increasing debt. And that means committing my children and their children to paying off billions of pounds more in debt and interest for years to come.
And why is he quite prepared to do that, do you think?
Because they don't get a vote, that's why.
Probably the most cynically dishonest individual ever to hold high office in this country's history.
Complain about this comment
Are governments allowed to have secrets ?
Are standing rules to be observed ?
Talk about gullible - admit it if it says Tory policy you'll sign up to it.
So so sad to know numpties like you own a computer.
Ever think our forefathers created rules for a reason - duh
Complain about this comment
116. At 2:06pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"An unelected, twice-disgraced (mortgage and passport irregularities, covering up said irregularities) peer has no place making any points in our government.
Call an election"
Really revealing where your partisan allegiances lie. And it makes most of your points null and void.
Methinks the tory party don't like it when the mud starts flying in their own direction.
---------------------
How is it partisan to point out that Mandelson is:
a) Unelected (ie. never voted in, in case you need help). We, the public, did not chose him for a position of authority.
b) Twice disgraced - He is, google his name and you will come accross two scandals.
The mud you are referring to, methinks, is sticking firmly to your own ally.
Complain about this comment
#106 Mike_Naylor
Please see posts 3 and 81 on YachtGate. I repeat from 81
"It is about an un-named (but recently ennobled) EU Trade Commissioner, who was very good friends with a Russian aluminium magnate, and the reduction in EU import tariffs for alumunium during the tenure if that Commissioner.
However, our noble Lord insists that they never discussed these tariffs.
Make of that what you will but I would suggest that Mandy isn't the first person to be questioning the honesty of others."
Just because you are choosing to ignore the facts doesn't make them go away.
Complain about this comment
So the choice this election is either a party that would have taken Germany in the thirties in preference to a maxed out credit card and who are so lacking in policy or charisma that they have to attack the nationality of the opponent.
------------
This one goes up on the board at work. Hilarious.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thegreathayemaker
I suggest you stick to boxing. Unless you plan to do more research on the subject.
I can assure you friend, the tories have freely admitted that they plan to address inheritance tax on the first day in office. It really is common knowledge that they plan to ditch it completely.
If you did some more research you would also know that they are completely against the current levels of corporate tax, and top band income tax, and again, Osborne has already stated that he plans to address both if they gain power.
As for COINS data. It is constitutionally released, monthly. Its an act of parliament for this information to be in the public domain.
The only argument is that Labour have a database, with it all collated. The actual information can just be googled.
Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. Dare I say the "t" word?
You take offence as I am not a tory voter, bleating random slogans like call and election and liar.
If youd care to actually debate, in regards to policy, and not what you heard Cameron say on the news, Id be delighted to converse more.
The crux to the entire debate is levels of taxation. The fact that the tory party would cut a lot of high end, corporate tax, and how they plan to fill this black hole.
Complain about this comment
# 115. At 2:05pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
For about the four hundredth time on this blog. Who is pulling your strings Mike? You are evidently a fully paid up Labour Party blogger, or you would not be able to sustain this level of posting!
But I am afraid you are trying to defend the completely indefensible. Brown's 0% rise gaff was a classic of its type - and this from the man who used to be Chancellor!
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor,
Lost count of the number of times you have had the unbelievable hypocrisy and timerity to call other posters partisan as you doggedly spew out every piece of offal from the Nulab book of hymns.
Its I hate the Tory Party and listen to everything Gordy spews out to the media.
First remove the plank from thine own eye.
Complain about this comment
If honesty is the new battle ground how does Nick react to Gordon Browns statement at PMQ's that there would be a 0% RISE in spending.
I got a GCE in Mathematics in school (I suspect this may be more than Brown acheived) and i know that 0% represents neither an increase or a decrease in absolute terms, and when you take into account inflation it becomes a clear decrease.
Complain about this comment
" Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. "
As in, Gordon Brown is a liar. He personally banned us from the COIN data. He tells untruths blah blah blah
Complain about this comment
100 Mike_Naylor
"... not being allowed to access COINS (even though you can just collate it online) are in la lad land."
Followed by your comments in 104 :
"I'm assuming they refused access for that sort of reason.
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public".
They should be more cautious with information like this. "
=======================
You can't have it both ways ! You can't say that "anyone can collate it online", and then say that he planned to "reveal it to the public" !!!
As for "They should be more cautious with information like this. " - you've already said its available to anyone on line!!!
You seem confused about this and are contradicting yourself - but this is the eniviable consequence of the New Labour Spin machine.
Complain about this comment
For me the most distinctive and telling comment of the day came from Brown at the dispatch box today when he told us there would be a rise in spending in 2010/11.
"I'm not falsifying figures", he said, "there will be a rise in spending",
"A rise of 0%........"
I wonder what it's like in Brown's World?
Complain about this comment
"He also claims that he was told informally that ministers and, in particular, the prime minister would block the request. "
Told informaly. Meaning, he has no evidence.
I'm guessing the informal source was his Spin Doctor
Complain about this comment
Interesting to note that it appears all postings, my own included, relating to Mr Robinson's reference to "young and privileged" have been removed. Nice bit of censorship by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Mike_Naylor is a real human being, judging from the number and repetitiveness of his or her posts - I suspect it is Labour's new secret weapon - a spam blogging machine. The posts under that name are so divorced from reality, that must be the only explanation.
Complain about this comment
Greymaker,
Do try to be less condescending in your responses - all this "no point in trying to educate you.." (39) as though you are the Great Oracle of the Blog (GOB). 27 feet shows how to respond in 40 without being condescending.
Complain about this comment
"Do you even listen to yourself? YOu just got through telling us that the information is freely available anyway, and in your next sentence tell us that Osbourne can not be trusted to not make the information freely available."
Hayemaker
I'm going to stop responding unless you start adressing policy points with something more substancial than "Eh" "Are you sane? "Can you listen to yourself" blah blah blah.
As stated, COIN data is consitutionally in the public domain, via it's various departments. All departments need to disclose spending and budget.
The question is, with the recent history of civil service figures just being leaked to various newspapers - the civil service are well within their rights to question the motives?
As in, unless you actually believe the tory party have been twiddling their thumbs for the last 2 years, waiting for these numbers, it's quite obvious that they have already planned their budget and spending.
Where did 10% come from
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
18. At 11:49am on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
...If someone is giving an opinion, that goes against your belief on the
Not that I agree with labour policy 100%, but at least I know what it is...
===
Absolutely agree Mike.
We know what Labour's policy is on ID Cards - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on the Gurkhas - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on education - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy on defence capital spending is - U turn!
We know what Labour's policy on the economy, namely, the Comprehensive Spending Review, is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on the Iraq War enquiry being held in private is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on MPs' expenses review is - U Turn!
Have I missed any policies, Mike?
Complain about this comment
"Lost count of the number of times you have had the unbelievable hypocrisy and timerity to call other posters partisan as you doggedly spew out every piece of offal from the Nulab book of hymns.
Its I hate the Tory Party and listen to everything Gordy spews out to the media.
First remove the plank from thine own eye."
Yes, you are quite obviously an "undecided voter"........
Complain about this comment
18 Mike Naylor
Oops, almost forgot:
We know what Labour's policy is on privatising Royal Mail - U Turn!
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor (and others)..
A few basic economic facts.. it is obvious to all that the projected deficit increases over the next few years will need to be reigned back somehow - so that's either increased taxes or lower government spending. (Note the use spending, which is not the same as investment, Brown et al should consult a dictionary as he clearly can't tell the difference.) As the IFS has pointed out, some elements of public spending will go up whatever any government does (unemployment benefit, interest on the debt accumulated in Brown's spending spree for example). It is therefore certain that whoever is in power will cut spending on the stuff everyone says they want - NHS, schools. The sums do not add up any other way.
The dishonesty at the heart of Brown, Balls etc is that they think the public is too stupid to figure this out and if they keep denying the facts, eventually people will believe them.
In fact, given the appalling productivity record of the huge public spending splurge we have seen (Governments own figures) I have no idea why so many people seem to think the government is better placed to spend our money than we are, so actually this need not be as frightening and painful as some believe.
In any case, lean times for the publice sector are inevitable, as is Brown not being in Downing Street this time next year
Complain about this comment
"If honesty is the new battle ground how does Nick react to Gordon Browns statement at PMQ's that there would be a 0% RISE in spending.
I got a GCE in Mathematics in school (I suspect this may be more than Brown acheived) and i know that 0% represents neither an increase or a decrease in absolute terms, and when you take into account inflation it becomes a clear decrease."
Inflation is not 10% though.........the entire point
Complain about this comment
I have no interest in what an unelected peer with a grudge against another member of Parliament has to say. If everything Mandelson had done or said came under scrutiny and all his indisgretions revealed we would be here for ever. Therefore, no one from the public elected him therefore he has no right to speak for the Government. Can the Prime Minister not speak for himself anymore.
In fact I do not know about others, I am not interested in this quarrel at all. What I am interested in, is getting a full and transparent run down of our debt figures in order that the public can judge for themselves what state our economy is in. I personally do not care how it is obtained. I was very diappointed in Clegg today, for this time only, he should have supported the Conservatives in their battle to have proper figures released. It is the public which are important here not peoples political career, because it is the public that will suffer when our economy is broken.
The assertion that we should not know what King at the BOE is saying on the economy, when he is the best placed person to tell us, is frankly to my mind ridiculous. What is this the Secret service.
For me personally Brown does not have an argument to make because the simple truth is that good Government cuts back spending in the good times for the economy and then has the ability to increase spending in the bad. All through the most growth we have seen in our economy probably, ever, (apart from the first couple of years when Brown followed Conservative spending plans) we have spent building up a deficit year on year that was unsustainable even before the recession began. Therefore the cuts must begin now before any more damage is done, even 2010 is too late im my opinion. Anyone who does not believe this should read all the data coming through on our economy and decide for themselves.
When we finally get at the real truth and the figures are revealed on the economy I believe there will be such shock that the public will wonder why the media did not inform them properly. I thought we had learnt from the expenses debacle that nothing should be hidden and we need open Government, apparently we have not.
There is a warning in this for Labour because if they get elected on untruths and our services are devastated by cuts because of our debt levels, there will be unrest throughout this Country.
Complain about this comment
The Prime Minister , Mr Mandelson, objects to George Osborne using what he calls a "deliberate untruth".
Oh, the irony, from the party of Alistair Campbell, Damian McBride, and Derek Draper!
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public"."
Why would he need to bother? You yourself said that you could go online and find 99% of it? And, more to the point if it is so easy to find that anyone can find it on-line why wasn't it released to Osbourne in the format he requested?
The Civil Service are supposed to be politically neutral, are we to assume that if Gordon Brown had asked for the information he would also have been declined?
Complain about this comment
I went to the Coins database and it seemed I needed software and a server
things maybe a party may have but not me so am not sure what "freely" available means
Complain about this comment
134. At 2:29pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Thegreathayemaker
I suggest you stick to boxing. Unless you plan to do more research on the subject.
I can assure you friend, the tories have freely admitted that they plan to address inheritance tax on the first day in office. It really is common knowledge that they plan to ditch it completely.
-------------------
No it isn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you can not make black into white.
The Tories, when they get into office, will raise the threshold on inheritance tax, since so many people are losing their family homes to it. This is a policy that GB himself was in favour of until recently.
They do not, and never have, planned to abolish it completely. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are merely grossly ignorant instead of outright lying, but you should do a modicum of research before making any kind of claim.
Complain about this comment
But I am afraid you are trying to defend the completely indefensible. Brown's 0% rise gaff was a classic of its type - and this from the man who used to be Chancellor!
Trying to slander someone that doesnt agree with the right wing party line is sadly typical.
And why you bleat on about Nick being biased.
It is allowable for a voter to not agree with David Cameron. As it is Mr. Brown.
As for your last point, the only gaff is voters not actually getting the point.
The Tory Party have already basically committed to 10% cuts in that fiscal year, across the board.
Gordon has committed to 0% spending rise, meaning he will basically spend the same, but with inflation, less.
Inflation for that fiscal year is predicted at 2-3% from now. Meaning cuts would be something like that.
Hes basically stated that his cuts would be 3%, to Camerons 10%, without actually admitting making any cuts.
So Cameron has inadvertently admitted 10% cuts. Gordon has said that there will be no cuts (there wont technically), but actual cuts will amount to about 1/3 of Camerons.
Maybe Cameron should actually hire someone who can make these gaffs
Others would see it as a PR man being schooled by a Big Beast
Complain about this comment
"I'm not falsifying figures", he said, "there will be a rise in spending",
"A rise of 0%........"
I wonder what it's like in Brown's World?"
The falsifying being falisying quotes. He said there will be a rise in spending until 2011.
The 0% referred to after 2011. Where he has always stated there will be no cut in spending.
Complain about this comment
"Ministers believe that Osborne has similarly abused the private chats he's had with the governor of the Bank of England and, now, the cabinet secretary."
All this secret squirrel stuff makes me sick. We are in the deepest recession for a very long time. Government and politics in general is utterly discredited. Unless there is a national security dimension that all and any information that can be used to hold government to account must be available to those that need it. It's public information and it should be accessible to public representatives.
If Sir Gus has been hung out to dry by the PM and other ministers then he should come clean and grant the same level of access to opposition parties as government. If he is the one denying us accountable government then he should fall on his sword and the inforation should still be released.
It should be full access too, not the equivalent of the redacted expenses. Gordon saying that the usual practices should be observed is irrelevant if that means massaged accounts once a year. You can't run a company nonth by month with only access to last year's audited accounts. You need monthy management accounts. If government is to be accountable in a people's democracy then it has no greater right to information that the opposition.
Let's get the information to the opposition parties and then we can have a proper debate. The sort of debate this country in these circumstances deserves.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to note that it appears all postings, my own included, relating to Mr Robinson's reference to "young and privileged" have been removed. Nice bit of censorship by the BBC.
Bearing in mind the issue is cuts in the NHS, comprehensive schools, and has direct impact on unemployment in those sectors, I think Nicks comments on Osbornes background is very valid in regards to Labour voters.
Bearing in mind, seemingly, his first actions in office will be to cut corporate tax, abolish inheritance tax, and relax top end income tax, it seems obvious that he has a lot of answer, in terms of his commitment to helping the working classes.
Its only biased to voters who see this sort of information as an uncomfortable truth. And in reality, you are the one wanting censorship.
Cameron and Osbornes commitment to the NHS, and schools is a topic high on the agenda for most voters.
Complain about this comment
"greatHayemaker wrote:
Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. Dare I say the "t" word?"
It is always a bit suspicious when a new blogger appears who is clearly trying to sell the official New Labour line, however Mike has actually made some well argued points and his posters are much better then the standard offering from Labour plants (e.g. no mention of how New Labour's policies have turned his business around or how Conservative cuts threaten his job as a teacher!)
Although, some of his posts have managed to attack others for appearing partisan without seeming to realise the same applies to his postings.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely agree Mike.
We know what Labour's policy is on ID Cards - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on the Gurkhas - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on education - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy on defence capital spending is - U turn!
We know what Labour's policy on the economy, namely, the Comprehensive Spending Review, is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on the Iraq War enquiry being held in private is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on MPs' expenses review is - U Turn!
Have I missed any policies, Mike?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only possible to U-Turn once you have made a policy public.
The tory alternative is to not reveal any.
Complain about this comment
146. At 2:44pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"This one goes up on the board at work. Hilarious.".
Is your actual issue policy, or the fact that the Labour Party are in power?
Like most Daily Mail readers, most of your points are ruined by the fact that you'd probably accept a 50% tax hike to see some blue blood in power again
---------------
I have not picked up a copy of the Daily Mail in about 20 years.
Like most The Sun readers, you do not know the difference between politics and celebrity news.
Complain about this comment
"Have I missed any policies, Mike?"
The other alternative being to reveal your major policies once you have gained power.
"Day 2 of our government will be designated to sorting out this country"
Complain about this comment
146. At 2:44pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"This one goes up on the board at work. Hilarious.".
Is your actual issue policy, or the fact that the Labour Party are in power?
Like most Daily Mail readers, most of your points are ruined by the fact that you'd probably accept a 50% tax hike to see some blue blood in power again
=======================================================================
Like most Guardian readers, most of your points are ruined by a completely unfounded believe that our government are doing a good job.
Do you see what I did there?
As soon as someone starts generalizing people based on reading a newspaper that they may or may not read, the rest of their posts become completely irrelevent.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
Thegreathayemaker
I suggest you stick to boxing. Unless you plan to do more research on the subject.
I can assure you friend, the tories have freely admitted that they plan to address inheritance tax on the first day in office. It really is common knowledge that they plan to ditch it completely."
The officially Tory party line is to increase the threshold, but I am sure that they meant to say removed it completely. After all they are the Tory party and they only care about the rich and they sell poor people into slavery and eat the dead or something. Sorry I drifted off into sarcasm there it tends to happen when posters purposely misrepresent things to strength their arguments.
Complain about this comment
"potkettle wrote:
I got a GCE in Mathematics in school (I suspect this may be more than Brown acheived) and i know that 0% represents neither an increase or a decrease in absolute terms, and when you take into account inflation it becomes a clear decrease."
Perhaps Gordon expects deflation, then he could sell it as "an increase in real terms"
Complain about this comment
149
May interest you to know the last time I voted Tory was when Willy Hague was leader.
I will also admit that I once voted for Labour in the intervening time.
However, I have my eyes open, and would not vote in the current administration if I had a gun to my head.
Complain about this comment
106. Mike_Naylor
"If someone is giving an opinion, that goes against your belief on the subject, you have it in your head that they are biased."
Can be applied to both sides I'm afraid.
"A tory tactic of fighting an election on innuendo, and name calling is getting rather tedious.
Crewe & Nantwich by-election, slurs, Damien McBride...
Ditto first point.
"Not that I agree with labour policy 100%"
Out of curiosity and boredom, which points don't you agree with?
"Mandelson is bang on. One party is talking policy. The other is releasing innuendo and slur."
"It's "this is what we are going to do" vs. "no they are not, they are liars".
At least try some originality - this is straight from the manual.
"If you notice that the tory party dropped 6 points in the last opinion polls, and Labour gained 2, the public are obviously as bored of it as I am"
ComRes poll: topline figures of CON 36%(-3), LAB 25%(+3), LDEM 19%(+1).
Due to change in methodology. Most I saw it down recently was 4.
"Labour release huge amounts of policy in the week."
Exactly. Much of it recycled. Some will not have the funds available. Look back over the years at their record of announcements and their actual delivery.
Yachtgate:
Agree, Osborne was nailed by a superior political operator and a p*ssed off (ex)mate, but I'm sure you're familiar with the name Roland Rudd and his close circle of friends and business connections.
"The Dailly Mail, Sky News can bash Brown, Mandelson all day, and you'll be chipping in on the message boards. Free speech. Great!"
Ditto the first point. Although the press are by and large deserting Labour.
"I assure you, a 0% spend pledge is 100% more than we know on Tory spending."
Didn't Brown say 0% increase?
"Maybe needs to change the record"
If there's ever been a stuck record at PMQs it's GB. Listen to the last 4 or 5 PMQs.
=
There's Tory spin and then there's Mike_Naylor and Labour spin. Both equally boring but by sheer weight of posts you take the biscuit. You're not Ed Balls by any chance?
Complain about this comment
152. At 2:48pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"If honesty is the new battle ground how does Nick react to Gordon Browns statement at PMQ's that there would be a 0% RISE in spending.
I got a GCE in Mathematics in school (I suspect this may be more than Brown acheived) and i know that 0% represents neither an increase or a decrease in absolute terms, and when you take into account inflation it becomes a clear decrease."
Inflation is not 10% though.........the entire point
--------------
It is entirely possible that it will be.
Back to your ignorance on economics again. Oh dear.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"StrictlyPickled wrote:
You seem confused about this and are contradicting yourself - but this is the eniviable consequence of the New Labour Spin machine."
I remember the good old days when Gordon tried to portray Dave as a novice but had clearly forgot that the Labour party had tried to pin "Black Wednesday" onto him!
Complain about this comment
#161 "I think Nicks comments on Osbornes background is very valid in regards to Labour voters."
This is not a Labour blog, and Nick has a duty to be balanced and impartial. A duty he has never failed to avoid upholding.
Complain about this comment
No it isn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you can not make black into white.
The Tories, when they get into office, will raise the threshold on inheritance tax, since so many people are losing their family homes to it. This is a policy that GB himself was in favour of until recently.
They do not, and never have, planned to abolish it completely. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are merely grossly ignorant instead of outright lying, but you should do a modicum of research before making any kind of claim.
Really Haymaker. You criticise others for being blind to the truth, and churning out spin. I really suggest you look at your own words.
Even tory newspapers will tell you that they are planning to abolish it completely as one of their first moves into office. Its no secret.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6499466.ece
They are not raising the threshold. They are tripling it to £1 million pounds at the minute. It could go higher by the time they get in.
This is not to help Joe Bloggs, save money when his granny leaves him her gold watch.
By raising it to £1 million, its an obvious tax break for the incredibely rich.
How many people do you know who have inherited a million quid?
By raising it that high, they have as good as abolished it for the upper middle classes.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
First remove the plank from thine own eye."
Yes, you are quite obviously an "undecided voter"........"
Is that Mr Kettle? I have a message from Mr Pot.
I think most people on this blog have only made one firm decision on how to vote - Anyone but Labour.
Even Labour voters are turning against the government.
Complain about this comment
So with the urgent needs for honesty in U.K. Politics, we have now heard during todays PMQ's that Public Expenditure will RISE by 0% in 2013/2014.
Therefore by contrast, we only now need to hear from the Conservatives that in their knowledge we will in fact see a REDUCTION in real terms of Zero Per-Cent in this SAME Period and thereby you will have an arguement of an excuse for choice.
I have already said that both Labour and the Conservatives are no better than a Punch and Judy Show, and viewing the results of today PMQ's NEITHER did not disapoint my finding.
Complain about this comment
To Mike Naylor - please don't leave this board. You have totally reinvigorated it and have made it the great "sport" that it was not so long ago.
I think the comments about bias and political affiliation that have been written by several posters are quite true but they also need to remember to look in the mirror.
I would welcome the figures being published because then nobody can hold back from stating and costing their policies. That we can debate the difficult decisions ahead and understand the reasoning behind different philosophies and make a polling decision based upon reasoned argument rather than tribal loyalty.
I know it will never happen because politics isnt like that as it is far easier to be cynical and negative than to put forward something positive and argue for something. So I will go back to the airy fairy dreamland of my mind and get back to work.
Complain about this comment
Mark Naylor
Your comments read like satire, they would be hilarious if it wasn't for the tragic fact that you appear to be deadly serious.
I can just see the sketch, with a the group of village idiots sitting down to discuss why they will vote labour to gales of laughter from the audience.
Sadly, it seems somewhere there is a village missing their's.
Once again. Osbourne will not cut income tax, not even the ill thought out 50% tax rate initially(discredited as nonsense that will actually cost revenue by all fiscal experts). He will not abolish inheritance tax. You are just wrong on these points. There is no other way to say it, perhaps if you hear it often enough it might actually get through.
Or then again....
And I do wonder if you would have thought that Tony Blair's background should disqualify him from having an opinion on these matters. I suspect that you would not.
Complain about this comment
Hayemaker:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7021357.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/mar/19/conservativeparty.politics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531727/Osbornes-first-tax-cut-will-be-stamp-duty-on-shares.html
http://www.contracteye.co.uk/tories_corporation_tax_budget.shtml
Please read. Come back to me and try to argue that the majority of Osborne's tax cuts are planned to help the middle/upper classes.
Tax cuts on shares? Corporation tax cuts? Inheritance tax cuts?
The entire spending debate is how he plans to fund this. Of course tory spending cuts will be bigger.
Complain about this comment
@ Mike_Draper 152
Inflation doesnt need to be at 10% to make a 0% rise a decrease.
Anything above zero does that.
I suspect you are a product of the Labour fully comp edukation system
Complain about this comment
# 158. At 2:55pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Trying to slander someone that doesnt agree with the right wing party line is sadly typical."
- I don't recall trying to slander anyone - I merely question the rate at which you can post and the manner. It all suggests to me that you are a full time, fully paid up, Labour blogger.
"And why you bleat on about Nick being biased."
- I don't and I haven't!
"It is allowable for a voter to not agree with David Cameron. As it is Mr. Brown."
- no idea what point you are trying to make there - voters are free to disagree with whomsoever they like, as are bloggers. Where have I stated otherwise?
"As for your last point, the only gaff is voters not actually getting the point.
The Tory Party have already basically committed to 10% cuts in that fiscal year, across the board."
- actually they have committed to the current Government's own plans which necessitate a 10% cut across the board if health and overseas aid are ring fenced. So a Brown Government would have to do the same based on their own published figures (as verified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies). Brown is just lying if he says otherwise.
But we all know the public finances are so shot to pieces, there will ultimately have to spending cuts of at least 20% across the board, combined with tax increases, simply to balance the budget. Labour and Brown have sold our futures down the river in a scorched earth policy, in the vain hope of being re-elected. I almost hope Brown does get re-elected, since he would then have to deal with the consequences of his own fiscal incontinence and irresponsibility!
Complain about this comment
Inflation will not be 10%
It is entirely possible that it will be.
Back to your ignorance on economics again. Oh dear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most fiscal groups say 2-3%
Hayemaker believes it will be 3x as much.
Complain about this comment
101. At 1:54pm on 01 Jul 2009, jonathan_cook wrote:
Nick,
You bemoan the comments on your blog - but given the parlous state of this government is it any wonder that people come on here to let off steam?
It's a shame that they let off steam instead of presenting a sensible argument or comment, which would be far more effective. These illiterate rants are making NR's blogs harder and harder to follow. Not long ago this was the place to come for a reasoned debate, but that seems to be changing.
Complain about this comment
106. At 2:01pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Mandleson wasn't even in the government when he met the guy.
He was an EU Commissioner at the time. Which makes him just as much part of our government as any Cabinet Minister. Except unelected, and unaccountable.
Come to think of it, not much has changed.
---------------------------------------
158. At 2:55pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Gordon has committed to 0% spending rise, meaning he will basically spend the same, but with inflation, less.
You are Comical Ali and I claim my £5.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
Bearing in mind, seemingly, his first actions in office will be to cut corporate tax, abolish inheritance tax, and relax top end income tax, it seems obvious that he has a lot of answer, in terms of his commitment to helping the working classes."
I personally feel that cutting corporation tax in a recession is a good idea as it lowers the cost of doing business and could help prevent companies from going bust (resulting in job losses)
The Tories have talked about increasing the Inheritance Tax threshold which is not the same as abolishing it (unless of course you have proof of this in which case I am sure the media would love to see that proof perhaps you should take it to the Guardian?)
As far as I am aware the Tory party have made no moves to lower the rate of top end income tax (although they may not rise it by as much as the Labour party of promised)
"Its only biased to voters who see this sort of information as an uncomfortable truth. And in reality, you are the one wanting censorship.
Cameron and Osbornes commitment to the NHS, and schools is a topic high on the agenda for most voters."
I think the uncomfortable truth for voters is that whoever gets in cuts will have to be made, people will find it hard to trust Gordon Brown if he won't admit that.
The country has a debt mountain and a shrinking economy and we have been borrowing more then we earn even in good years. Which means we either have to cut spending or earn more money - unless Gordon Brown has gone to magical land of Narnia and found a money tree we need to cut spending.
Treat the voters like adults and admit it otherwise Gordon will appear out of touch with reality
Complain about this comment
Repost due to Stalinist moderation...
Nick,
If honesty is the new battleground, can you perhaps enlighten us as to why you couldn't be bothered to do a bit of investigative journalism into Mandelson and Deripaska, and the subsequent "unconnected" reductions in EU aluminium tariffs?
Complain about this comment
104. At 1:59pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Who is this Sir Gus O'Donnell who is tell our elected representatives that they can't see the books?
The real stink is that we have a civil SERVANT obstructing the main opposition 1 year before the election.
He should be sacked for obstructing the process of democracy."
Taking into account recent leaks of civil service documents to the press, for political points scoring, I'm assuming they refused access for that sort of reason.
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public".
They should be more cautious with information like this.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You seem to be a desperate Labour appologist or
You clearly do not understand the process of our democracy.
The opposition is entitled to have the information held by the civil service for the formation of policy a year before a general election.
You cannot formulate policy without the official information.
We know, you know that what is happening would be more at home in IRAN but some of us value our democracy more than narrow party interest.
Complain about this comment
Mike_Draper
I commend you for your persistance in defending your sweatheart but you are begining to look very silly now trying to maintain that a 0% rise is a rise at all.
You can throw theoretical 10% cuts into the arguement all you like but the fact is a 0% rise is not a rise in anyones book but Gordon Browns.
That fact alone makes the son of manse a liar
Complain about this comment
#163 "It's only possible to U-Turn once you have made a policy public.
The tory alternative is to not reveal any."
The Tory party are in opposition and do not have to provide any policies until an election is called.
So we're agreed we all want an election now, so let's have one.
Complain about this comment
For the third time....this is not offensive it is my considered opinion of the worth of this blog post and the organisation producing it. If you don't like it, fine, stop forcing me to fund your organisation and I'll stop complaining about it.
"In days gone by, when we had honourable politicians, and a media that weren't bullied and sycophantic, any government that refused to lay out its spending plans in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in history would have to call a general election on the spot.
It says a lot about New Labour, the BBC and Nick Robinson that we are continuing to tumble down the hill into mediocrity and bankruptcy.
It also says a lot about Robinson's credentials that he doesn't even care about how partial his postings are. Perhaps he knows his job is finished when the Tories are elected."
Complain about this comment
There are alot of suggestions that Nick Robinson is some kind of under-cover Scrip Writer for the NU-Labour Party [ In his spare time?].
Or, is the Labour Party stealing some of the Old Shows from the once Hey-Day of BBC Broadcasting, for: we have,
[1]. Zero Rate of growth in Public Expenditure in 2013/2014, which IS:
" Much to do about Nothing ". And,:
[2]. Should we abandoned any future spending on renewing Trident, which
once again is: "The Navy Lark".
So what next: Perhap, Brown as Muffin the Mule, Mandy as Postman Pat and Balls as Tonto.
As for David Cameron he will be: Heres Harry Worth.
Keep going Nick your nearly there with your Blankety Blank.
Complain about this comment
The big question on honesty relates to the prime minister and spending plans. Much more important than this side-show put up by Mandelson. You just repeat the garbage from 'government sources' making you look like their mouthpiece yet again. In the meantime, you miss the real honesty debate altogether. Amazing!
Complain about this comment
117 Greathay
"If you can easily access 99% of the COINS data, please be so good as to accumulate this and show it to us. Or are you once again just mindlessly bleating back the line fed to you by you handlers?"
Calm down, calm down, even George Vac admits the data is there but he wants it collating and summarising for him, so he can understand it. Bless.
"Always suspicious when a new blogger appears and immediately starts recycling all of the official spin. Dare I say the "t" word?"
Well, there's plenty on here getting paid by the word - no other explanation for the repetitive tripe - call an election, nulab ruined my life etc
Complain about this comment
Im beginning to believe it is better with the devil you know. Nothing of substance in regard to shaping this country ever comes out of David Camerons mouth. His ideas always sound like wheezes and his public schoolboy style point scoring is now tiresome. No vision is ever presented of what it would be like to live under a new Tory government and the only policy he seems to have is a negative lets blame Labour.
Complain about this comment
181
Do we really have to go through this yet again?
1. Points out the raise in the inheritance tax threshold. You said inheritance tax would be abolished. YOU WERE WRONG. And stamp duty has always been completely wrong. Generally, on tax, you pay when you receive money. Stamp duty is a tax on the purchaser. With property prices so high, it is a major impediment to people actually being able to buy their own property.
2. How do you think that cutting corporation tax helps the well off? It helps to encourage business to come to the UK, which is to the benefit of everyone. How do you not get this?
3. Stamp duty on shares is accepted as a major hindrance to investment in small enterprise. Removing stamp duty would encourage small business.
Complain about this comment
John Naylor,
I realise that it is Labour strategy to distract the electorate from the dire state of the public finances (500,000 million extra borrowing per day, and rising) and focus instead the minot matter of raising the threshold for inheritance tax.
Yet your arguments are so ridiculous that I will resist the temptation to ignore them.
Current Conservative policy (of which, on this particular matter I mildly disagree with, by the way) is to raise the threshold, not to abolish it. If you had read the articles you so proudly linked to you would have realised this yourself.
I said that I mildly disagreed with the policy. Whereas the ethical justifiction for reducing inheritance tax on the middle-class seems quite clear to me, it doesn't seem quite the right policy in this time of Labour's economic crisis.
To pay for Labour's borrowing spree nearly everything must be cut, and nearly every tax must be raised.
Complain about this comment
155. At 2:51pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"The Civil Service are supposed to be politically neutral, are we to assume that if Gordon Brown had asked for the information he would also have been declined?"
Gordon Brown, like him or loathe him, is part of the Government, not part of the oppostion.
The issue is what access the Civil Service gives opposition members to its internal record-keeping systems. That decision was allegedly made by Sir Gus O'Donnell, who if I remember correctly was John Major's press secretary in the early 90's. Gus is the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service and has been since 1st August 2005.
As is sadly usual, this round of MPs sparring is really total nonsense on both sides of the table. Huge amounts of the information can be found from various sources, so lack of access to the 'official' COINS database is not really any reason for anyone to not be able to draw up reasonably detailed proposals in respect of Government spending plans.
Equally Mandy's demands are theatrical.
You may just have thought that MPs - being keen to show a disillusioned public that they are worth the money they are paid out of the public purse, and also worth going to the Polling Station to vote for - might just have more productive things to do.
Like, George go and do your research and put some flesh on the Tories spending proposals and Mandy, stop being a prima donna.
Complain about this comment
"176. At 3:20pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Really Haymaker. You criticise others for being blind to the truth, and churning out spin. I really suggest you look at your own words.
Even tory newspapers will tell you that they are planning to abolish it completely as one of their first moves into office. Its no secret."
Congratulations, you managed to provide two links neither of which actually backed up your argument!
"They are not raising the threshold. They are tripling it to 1 million pounds at the minute. It could go higher by the time they get in."
The first two statements contradict each other, they ARE raising the threshold from £300,000 to 1 million.
"This is not to help Joe Bloggs, save money when his granny leaves him her gold watch.
By raising it to 1 million, its an obvious tax break for the incredibely rich."
If Joe's gran just leaves him her gold watch then no it won't help Joe. However, if his gran has lived in a country cottage in the South of England for the last 70 years then he probably would be better off.
"How many people do you know who have inherited a million quid?"
Personally I know of none, HOWEVER I know of several people who live in houses which are now worth nearly a million (only because house price inflation over the last few years has been so high) if the house owners were to die then there families would benefit from Tory plans.
Complain about this comment
#158, Mike_Naylor wrote:
..."As for your last point, the only gaff is voters not actually getting the point.
The Tory Party have already basically committed to 10% cuts in that fiscal year, across the board."...
What I heard was the Shadow Sec for Health saying that the Tories planned to ring-fence Health and International Development. Given the expected, effective 7 percent reduction in real money available for spending departments, that would mean that other departments could have to bear around 10% cuts. It just seems logical that if real-terms spending is constrained (as independent external analysts also agree), some areas will take bigger hits than others.
That's not "10% across the board".
Brown invented a "Tory plan to increase unemployment" during PMQs. The government figures show increased spending on social protection (including enemployment benefits) over the near future. Everybody recognises that more jobs are being lost in the private sector and that's likely to continue even when the recession gradually recedes. Brown and Blair created 1.8 MIL jobs in the public sector since 1997 vs 1.1MIL added in the private sector. We can't carry on creating public jobs for the next five years, so jobs growth must depend on private companies.
But Brown totally created a fictitious "Tory policy" that would encourage unemployment. The man's a fool. He may be a clever fool, but he seems to believe that the electorate are just dumb.
Like all the big sounds bites about shovelling GBP250MIL into a scheme to help people at risk if losing their homes. Result, so far? More than 11,000 repossessions in the first quarter. But the great scheme has helped 6 - SIX - families.
Like telling parliament he's going to add GBP2.1BIL to deliver 110,000 affordable homes. Meanwhile, the official documents on HMG website talks about GBP1.5BIL and 20,000 homes... So where do the other 90,000 homes come from? And nobody seems to know where the money's coming from anyway.
Personally, I'm no fan of Osborne. I hope he has some back-up for his claim that ministers blocked access to what should anyway be publicly available figures. Otherwise he should come to the House and issue a grovelling apology. Maybe Mandelson could lend him a script he previously used?
Complain about this comment
#20 Mike Nayor wrote:
"Mandelson is bang on. One party is talking policy"
In that case, can we have the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review before the next election please? Labour have an army of civil servants, paid for by the tax-payer, to cook the books. Even Chancellor Darling seems in favour of publication, but may be overruled by his political masters.
Complain about this comment
So which Chanecellor was it, while boasting of the tax cuts he wanted to make, said the following?
The proportion of GDP going into Government spending in the United Kingdom is now 8 per cent lower than the average in the rest of the European Union.
I have set a target of 40 per cent or below for the share of national income that goes on public spending. Making progress towards this target means tough decisions on public spending every year.
Despite all the difficulties, we have been able to reduce public spending plans over the next 3 years by a further 7 billion Pounds in this Budget. Public spending next year will be over 24 billion Pounds lower than was projected when I became Chancellor - a reduction of 7 per cent.
Hmm, tax cuts paid for by cuts in public spending. Couldn't be the last tory chancellor could it?
Complain about this comment
There appear to be a few intransigent people here. If the data is in the public why deny access to it. A 0% rise is a faux pas.
I find the partisan rantings off putting. No party can be 100% right all the time, but to parrot rhetoric and not listen to reason does your case no favours.
There will have to be reductions in Government spending; the country can not afford to increase National Debt unendingly. Save more and spend less is the only way. Just like losing weight...eatless move more.
Complain about this comment
Interesting! Has Mouthy Mike been curtailed?
I could have sworn there was a deluge of comments from him on this site!
Those of you who assumed that comments about the young and priveleged Mr Osborne had been removed are dozing on the wrong blog.
Complain about this comment
A '0% rise in spending'? Will this correspond to a 0% rise in taxation?
Complain about this comment
"Sutara wrote:
155. At 2:51pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"The Civil Service are supposed to be politically neutral, are we to assume that if Gordon Brown had asked for the information he would also have been declined?"
Gordon Brown, like him or loathe him, is part of the Government, not part of the oppostion.
The issue is what access the Civil Service gives opposition members to its internal record-keeping systems."
I understand that Gordon Brown is part of the government and not the opposition. However, if we expect the opposition to be able to compete on an equal level with the government they should both have access to the same information.
It is in the public's interest that all parties have access to this financial information as when it comes to an election the information can be used to determine if promises being made by a party are workable or not.
Complain about this comment
I don't get why you lot are all hung up on cuts it's the tax that worries me,this is the first time I have seen it quantified
"A tax package to raise £70bn ($115bn, 82bn), probably the minimum required to stabilise Britains public finances, might put four points on the rate of income tax, take VAT to 20 per cent, freeze personal allowances and tax thresholds, add five points to corporation tax and collect a bit of extra revenue from the usual suspects such as alcohol, petrol and cigarettes."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e8d6b4c6-659d-11de-8e34-00144feabdc0.html
In addition Brown got the expenditure wrong three times in PMQ's which must be a record!
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/
Complain about this comment
Well done Mike Naylor
Complain about this comment
Just why is it that everyone gets so carried away with what both Labour and the Conservatives say that they WILL be doing after the next General Election.
For, it has NEVER been the Case that they mean what they SAY, that ends up in what they WILL DO.
It is always what they ACTUALLY END UP DOING WHEN IN GOVERNMENT that really counts, and given fact that Britain will be far poorer by the time any next General Election comes around, it is still therefore too early to guess how far we ALL will have to tighten up our belts in the future.
As for ANY current Political promises, they are ALL Pie in the Sky.
Complain about this comment
"yes, spending will rise; it'll rise by zero percent." says brown.
I'm not sure if that's classed as a simple lie or an oxymoron.
To start with, a "zero percent rise" is not a rise, and if that's a monetary percentage "rise" then it represents a real-term fall once inflation's taken into account.
With comments like brown made at PMQs on this front, I'd like to think that the BBC will finally get the message that Brown is living in la-la land and that the electorate are sick of this idiot racking up trillions of pounds of our money in debt purely as a last-ditch bid to help keep his own personal deluded world-view intact.
Brown's clearly on another planet. Can we please let him stay there on his own jibbering his weird oxymorons to himself, and let someone else have a go instead?
Complain about this comment
Roll on big cuts in public spending. This has steadily grown into a monster that no government can control. Why the big fuss about cuts, I, along with a great many people I know don't use about 90% of the so called 'vital services' provided by my government so on that basis if they were a company they would have lost a lot of customers and would have to cut back.
If only as much fuss was made about jobs being lost in the private sector, you know, the ones that generally EARN this country a living, rather than the grossly bloated public sector, I would have a bit of respect for the correspondents here.
Complain about this comment
'Remember "Yachtgate"?'
Yes Nick it was another time youn concentrated on the George Osborne bit of the story but ignored the more important Peter Mandelson angle.
Complain about this comment
Looks like labour are still spending...
Welcome to the latest troll Mike_Naylor. At least they aren't breaking the bank this time, his trollish powers would seem to barely merit minimum wage.
Complain about this comment
"Minnsy wrote:
Hmm, tax cuts paid for by cuts in public spending. Couldn't be the last tory chancellor could it?"
While I understand (and partially agree with) your point I do want to point out that just because a Government spends a lot of money doesn't mean that the money is well spent.
Cuts in public spending are not always bad things and unfortunately sometimes they are required (and with the state of the economy at the moment it seems that now is one of those times)
Complain about this comment
Mike_Naylor
Mike the figure for cuts under Labour is 7% across the board on all services. This is arrived at by a decrease in spending of 0.3% then you must factor in inflation, servicing our debt, benefit payments as they rise, etc which gives you 7% cuts in real terms. If you then ring fence the NHS and foreign aid it becomes 10% cuts across all services if you then protect education as well it becomes 13% across all the remaining services. These are the cuts in real terms.
However this will not be anywhere near enough or quick enough in my opinion.
It is not up to opposition to rely on outdated figures that are open to the public. These will in no way be accurate, as we seen in the past. They must be given the most up to date knowledge of what is happening with our debt as other opposition parties have always been supplied with.
Complain about this comment
Nick
I see that Gordo told you in an interview that he"always tells the truth."
Hmm. Afraid I'm not convinced.
What do you think?
Complain about this comment
#177 Mark_WE
I think most people on this blog have only made one firm decision on how to vote - Anyone but Labour.
Even Labour voters are turning against the government.
//--------------------------------------------
Spot on Mark.
I would vote for anyone but NuLabour even The Monster Raving Loony Party, if it meant getting rid of the dishonest shower we currently have at the helm.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Gordon is now telling us he "always tells the truth". He seems more and more like a character from Alice in Wonderland, someone who answers the opposite to the truth whenever they are asked a question.
I only wish the country could wake up from this nightmare as Alice did!
Complain about this comment
112. At 2:04pm on 01 Jul 2009, Minnsy wrote:
The only person involved in this discussion whose honesty is not in doubt is Sir Gus Donnell and questions re his integrity are a disgrace. His job is to interpret the rules and act accordingly, not to make them. Commentators must be aware that he is not allowed to answer back. I would take his word over that of any politician any day. Those who have suggested that he is biased becuae he worked for Brown at the Treasury should be aware that he has spent more than half of his 30 year civil service career under tory governments and was John Major's press secretary.
*
OK, so that's me told then! Only problem is that when it comes down to Civil (Public) Servants I happen to have 'considerable' experience of being told 'porkies' by them on behalf of The Ministry of Defence et al.
Oh! and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the defence of the nation,
more to do with protecting a bunch of criminals, and protecting the jobs & incomes of those holding High Public Office.
Those desk jockeys do not know the meaning of 'public service', and in fact, rather than assist in that noble occupation, hinder it and obstruct it to the extent that we all pick up the tab, and our families pay the price of their arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, negligence and complacancy.
*
Honesty in politics! Remember: "Ours is a classless society."
"Back to basics."
"A return to Victorian values."
Complain about this comment
How many of the preceeding posters work?
It has taken me half an hour to wade through 200+ posts most of which are ya boo sucks slanging matches.
Or perhaps some of you are on the Party payrolls ?
And please stop picking on folk for spelling etc. We all make such mistakes and my builders fingers can hit two keys at once anytime, sometime the right letter prints sometimes the wrong one and sometimes both. So long as it doesnt alter the sense it dont really matter does it?
Complain about this comment
#177 Mark_WE
Hell Mark, I would even vote for a pigs head on a stick before I would vote for the Numpty at No. 10.
Complain about this comment
I dont comment on here but I do read the continual banter and questioning of the BBC correspondent's impartiality.Up until now I have always felt that it was just about balanced.However with the news breaking that Mr Robinson has been granted an audience with the great Broon, primarily to be told that Gordy always tells the truth!! I also have lost faith in this correspondent.I can imagine the panic in Labour HQ after the latest mauling at PMQ and Mandy asking for a "soft" reporter to clarify the "untruths" told or faux pas commited.Thus good old Nick was wheeled in for yet more heartfelt spin from the old manse.
I would hope that our esteemed speaker will also recall the PM to the box tomorrow to clarify to the house those errors he made today as is required under parliamentary rules.
Complain about this comment
215 Mark_WE
I agree entirely and this may well be one of those times. I wanted to point out that even in the good times, cutting public services is an instinct for the tories.
212 Breakfast-maker
Your post illustrates exactly the problem public services have to deal with. There are indeed many public services that people don't use regularly, or ever, from which they still benefit, though I doubt this is anywhere near 90%. Everyone I know was born (look into the costs of private maternity clinics) and had childhood illnesses,vaccinations etc; they all went to school (about £5.000 per year for 13 years you owed the taxpayer before you even started working; many had a university education (I believe about £10 - 15,000 per year is the going rate for overseas students); almost everyone travels on roads and so on.
In terms of those you actually don't use, you could argue that unless Britain is attacked, the armed services are a waste of time. Or you could argue that you are benefiting every day from their existence because they prevent Britain being attacked. Unless you are a victim of crime, you may feel you are not benefiting from the police, but their existence means you are far less likely to be a victim of crime (this applies to the courts, the prison service etc).
Other services are used infrequently but can save your life. I hope you are never seriously ill, your house never burns down etc. But if so, I think you would find hospitals and the fire service quite handy.
Finally, there are many services which only benefit the most vulnerable in society (e.g. children's social services). The vast majority of us may not use them, but it is the moral duty of every government to provide them.
I accept there is waste in the public sector and that this should be tackled. As I indicated above, I think the current climate dictates that there have be some cuts, but to suggest that most public services are not used or useful is both wrong and unhelpful.
Complain about this comment
104. At 1:59pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Who is this Sir Gus O'Donnell who is tell our elected representatives that they can't see the books?
The real stink is that we have a civil SERVANT obstructing the main opposition 1 year before the election.
He should be sacked for obstructing the process of democracy."
Taking into account recent leaks of civil service documents to the press, for political points scoring, I'm assuming they refused access for that sort of reason.
Osborne freely admitted that he planned to "reveal it to the public".
They should be more cautious with information like this.
===
Is it this Gus O'Donnell, who seems very fond of spending OUR money?
"The UK's top civil servant has published details of his business expenses, showing he spent over £19,000 on an official car over three months.
The cost of using the "secure" vehicle was the largest single expense incurred by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell between April and June."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8127724.stm
Complain about this comment
Nick -- as many have said -- given his past track record -- bit rich to use Mandelson and honesty in the same post. Equally when are we going to discuss Gordon Brown's honesty with his decision to "flip" homes.
Complain about this comment
Re 193, might I further suggest:
Pooh-Bah - Lord High Everything Else (G & S - Dramatis Personae, The Mikado)played by PM, who later says 'I can't help it, I was born sneering' & 'Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimmilitude to any otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative'.
Or perhaps he could be cast in Yeomen of the Guard (together with GB et al) to sing 'Tell a tale of cock and bull, of convincing detail full'.
I'm still trying to think of a role for Mike Naylor. Something out of Kafka, I suspect.
Complain about this comment
So what is the current state of the U.K. under NU-Labour.
[1]. Class sizes are rising.
[2]. Unemployment is rising.
[3]. The divide between North and South is widening.
[4]. Old Age Pensions are the LOWEST in Europe.
[5]. Britain HAS the most CCTV Cameras in Europe.
[6]. We are the MOST watched over Society in Europe.
[7]. We are awashed with Illegal Immigrants.
[8]. We pay Tax on everything.
[9]. We are likely to fall into and have a Second bounce Recession.
[10]. We have a gallery of SELF-SERVE Career Politicians who rip-off their Expenses claims, etc and claim further that it is "All within the Rules".
Or, in other Words. Business as usual.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
this party member said this the other party member said that, its not politics its upper class school boys flexing their mouths.
your average joe in the street that went to a comprehensive school is not interested in who has the bigger mouth they want a government that works for him no matter what party just good honest government.
the days of party politics is over and we have to suffer its death throes, sadly we all will suffer due to the latest crop of MP's being so inept and party whipped. get rid of the lot and elect people who really want to bring stability to this once great nation we inhabit.
Complain about this comment
Having read so many posts slagging off Nick Ribinson as a labour mouthpiece I Wikied him.
All those who accuse him of such bias should perhaps do the same, I think you will be surprised.
Complain about this comment
"I have always told the truth"
Gordon Brown to you Nick, it's being reported. I didn't see the broadcast, so how did you challenge him on this?
Or did he complete this assertion with:-
"unless I have seen there's an advantage in telling a lie"
in which case I don't suppose you needed to challenge him, since it so evidently a correct description of how things have been.
Complain about this comment
"100. At 1:53pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"So its official straight from the hourses mouth at PMQs, Capital spending is being brough forward (ie in later years will FALL!) and OVERALL spending in 2013-14 will have a 0% increase."
The entire issue is the fact that the Tory party have not released any spending/cuts information either.
I assure you, a 0% spend pledge is 100% more than we know on Tory spending."
Mike,
The "Tory" 10% figure is taken from Darlings Budget Red Book, WHICH states Overall spending is X, Spending on Interest is I, Predicted Speding on unimployment is U.
Yes X is increasing BUT They Labour is ALSO predicting I and U are increasing.
Over all Departmental Spending = X - (I + U)
Which is falling 7%.
If spread accross all departments thats a 7% accross the board.
If the NHS is rinfenced then there is a 10% fall in all other departments Budgets.
Hence the 10% figure. All this is in the Labours Aprils Budget Red Book.
All we want is Labour to admit these figures that can be checked witrh a calculator from the tables in the red book and are publicaly available.
They do not take into account the massive rise in borrowing above the level predicted in the budget and the massive fall in Tax revs!
So the 10% cut looks like an understatement.
Of course a 10% could be funded by a 5% rise in Tax revinue and a 5% cut?
But Gordan denies either will happen.
Complain about this comment
Oh isn't politics a game !! If you can't come up with your own policies, blame the opposition of lying about their own policies. When will ALL MPs realise the public are not stupid and can see through these games.
Maybe I am reading too much between the lines, but I am hoping Osborne is actually being lined up for a mighty fall at the moment. His indiscretion about private chats with people reminds me of 'telling tales behind the (public) school bike shed' tactics. I honestly believe the Tory party without this incompetent shadow chancellor could be a good government. God Help us all if he ever gets his hand on the public purse.
Complain about this comment
Comment 218 : Roll on 2010
"I would vote for anyone but NuLabour even The Monster Raving Loony Party
As indeed 566 people decided to do in the recent Cambridgeshire County Council elections in the ward of St Ives (which I thought was in Huntingdonshire), where the Loonies' Lord Toby Jug was much preferred to either of the two Labour candidates, who received 362 and 343 votes respectively.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_crier/displayarticle.asp?id=423260
Complain about this comment
Re: 230 delminister.
I argee with you it IS about time that we finally throw out the Babies with the Bath-Water, all 645 of them.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile back at the NuLabour funny farm:
Ministers under pressure to drop third key element of standards bill.
By the time Duffs attempt at cleaning up politics hits the statute books it will be watered down that much it will mean back to business as usual for our ever soooooo honest MPs.
Duff could not arrange the proverbial brewery do.
Complain about this comment
17. At 11:48am on 01 Jul 2009, 27feet wrote:
If the information is in the public domain, what sense is there in saying "you can't have it all in one database"? Was the fact the information was in the public domain made known to Osborne, or should he have known? Surely these are more important in understanding the "wronged" party (if there is any) in this affair.
=========================================================================
Well if Mr Osborne is to be chancellor why can he not have his staff find the information he wants
but there again his other engagements my get in the way of him been able compiling the information he wants
Complain about this comment
200. At 4:04pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"176. At 3:20pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Really Haymaker. You criticise others for being blind to the truth, and churning out spin. I really suggest you look at your own words.
Even tory newspapers will tell you that they are planning to abolish it completely as one of their first moves into office. Its no secret."
Congratulations, you managed to provide two links neither of which actually backed up your argument!
"They are not raising the threshold. They are tripling it to 1 million pounds at the minute. It could go higher by the time they get in."
The first two statements contradict each other, they ARE raising the threshold from 300,000 to 1 million.
"This is not to help Joe Bloggs, save money when his granny leaves him her gold watch.
By raising it to 1 million, its an obvious tax break for the incredibely rich."
If Joe's gran just leaves him her gold watch then no it won't help Joe. However, if his gran has lived in a country cottage in the South of England for the last 70 years then he probably would be better off.
"How many people do you know who have inherited a million quid?"
Personally I know of none, HOWEVER I know of several people who live in houses which are now worth nearly a million (only because house price inflation over the last few years has been so high) if the house owners were to die then there families would benefit from Tory plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why shouldn't their families benefit ... precisely what is wrong with that
Complain about this comment
152. At 2:48pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"If honesty is the new battle ground how does Nick react to Gordon Browns statement at PMQ's that there would be a 0% RISE in spending.
I got a GCE in Mathematics in school (I suspect this may be more than Brown acheived) and i know that 0% represents neither an increase or a decrease in absolute terms, and when you take into account inflation it becomes a clear decrease."
Inflation is not 10% though.........the entire point
===
The entire point....how exactly?
If you have a zero % rise in spending, and inflation at even 1% then that represents a 1% cut in real terms spending. Hence no increase. Where does your 10% come from?
Complain about this comment
158. At 2:55pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
But I am afraid you are trying to defend the completely indefensible. Brown's 0% rise gaff was a classic of its type - and this from the man who used to be Chancellor!
Trying to slander someone that doesnt agree with the right wing party line is sadly typical.
And why you bleat on about Nick being biased.
It is allowable for a voter to not agree with David Cameron. As it is Mr. Brown.
As for your last point, the only gaff is voters not actually getting the point.
The Tory Party have already basically committed to 10% cuts in that fiscal year, across the board.
Gordon has committed to 0% spending rise, meaning he will basically spend the same, but with inflation, less.
Inflation for that fiscal year is predicted at 2-3% from now. Meaning cuts would be something like that.
Hes basically stated that his cuts would be 3%, to Camerons 10%, without actually admitting making any cuts.
===
So he's lying then?
Complain about this comment
161. At 3:00pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Interesting to note that it appears all postings, my own included, relating to Mr Robinson's reference to "young and privileged" have been removed. Nice bit of censorship by the BBC.
Bearing in mind the issue is cuts in the NHS, comprehensive schools, and has direct impact on unemployment in those sectors, I think Nicks comments on Osbornes background is very valid in regards to Labour voters.
Bearing in mind, seemingly, his first actions in office will be to cut corporate tax, abolish inheritance tax, and relax top end income tax, it seems obvious that he has a lot of answer, in terms of his commitment to helping the working classes.
Its only biased to voters who see this sort of information as an uncomfortable truth. And in reality, you are the one wanting censorship.
Cameron and Osbornes commitment to the NHS, and schools is a topic high on the agenda for most voters.
===
Mike, how is levying a tax on jobs, which is what Labour are proposing from next April, going to help the working classes?
Complain about this comment
163. At 3:09pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Absolutely agree Mike.
We know what Labour's policy is on ID Cards - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on the Gurkhas - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy is on education - U Turn!
We know what Labour's policy on defence capital spending is - U turn!
We know what Labour's policy on the economy, namely, the Comprehensive Spending Review, is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on the Iraq War enquiry being held in private is - U Turn!
We know what Brown's policy on MPs' expenses review is - U Turn!
Have I missed any policies, Mike?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's only possible to U-Turn once you have made a policy public.
The tory alternative is to not reveal any.
===
Eminently sensible then, seeing as we may be 11 months away from a General Election.
Thanks for agreeing that they are all policy U Turns by the way.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
Do you not find it strange that Mandelson has decided to attack Osborne the day after he himself was ridiculed for inadvertently telling the listeners of the 'Today' programme that the government would not be releasing its spending plans this year?, do you not find that rather odd?.
As a political reporter who has been the victim of McBride and his spin in the past, I would have thought you would have managed to connect the dots.
The fact that Mandelson is accusing someone else of being dishonest is laughable, this is the man who has been forced out of government twice.
Do I remember 'Yachtgate' you ask?, well yes I do, and I remember that Mandelson did not come out of it very well, even if you did your best to ignore his role in the sorry saga.
Has Osborne had a upper class upbringing?, well yes he has, as have many Labour politicans, so what is your point mentioning that fact?.
I think your article has failed in its objective to smear Osborne, instead it has again made many posters wonder about your own political views, and if this license fee paid or blog is the correct place to express them.
Complain about this comment
The Deputy Prime Minister, Gordon Brown ... oh come on, we all know Mandleson is running the country now ... anyway, Gordy Bruin has long since lost the argument on honesty so it's beyond pointless at this stage to try and say, "hey folks, I'm the honest one here." Not a single issue that Brown has touched has stood up under scrutiny. This next election will tell a tale because the people are now seeing MPs as nothing more than squalid and self serving.
Complain about this comment
Hey Nick
I've got a question that will put Brown on the spot next time you get to put some questions to him.
Will you ask him why he never says the word "England" when he is clearly talking about English only issues? He disingenuously says "Britain" and "our country" and "the country" but never, ever says England.
Can you ask him why?
Complain about this comment
221. At 5:38pm on 01 Jul 2009, xTunbridge
And please stop picking on folk for spelling etc. We all make such mistakes and my builders fingers can hit two keys at once anytime, sometime the right letter prints sometimes the wrong one and sometimes both. So long as it doesnt alter the sense it dont really matter does it?
=
Good point x.
There is also a fair chance that a few posters suffer from dyslexia, so cut them some slack folks. There is a difference between drivel and a few spelling mistakes.
Complain about this comment
165. At 3:11pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Have I missed any policies, Mike?"
The other alternative being to reveal your major policies once you have gained power.
"Day 2 of our government will be designated to sorting out this country"
===
Seeing as Labour reneged on two of its 2005 election promises that's a pretty fair summary of NewLabour's approach, fool the elctorate and then show your true colours once in power.
Complain about this comment
#235 ExcellenceFirst
Nice article I enjoyed reading it.
Another real test of public feelings will take place three weeks tomorrow.
On 23 July we will be given an insight into the way people view the way Britain will be rebuilt, albeit only by the voters of Norwich North.
By election triggered by the resignation of Labour MP Ian Gibson
The Tories only need a 5.8% swing to take the seat.
Complain about this comment
Politicians and Honesty is always dangerous territory for the accuser.
eg Mr Cameron, can you assure the public you will be absolutely honest when asked a straight forward question?
I doubt even this question would get a Yes. What it would get is something on the lines of " I will always try to be OR give will give an answer to the best of my knowledge"
Mr Cameron, is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote and paying taxes to the UK exchequer??
We all know you wouldn't get a straight forward "honest" answer, we'd get a Hague type answer, refusing to go on record with a direct lie but at the same time being "dishonest in that you're refusing to reveal the "whole truth"
NOw I'm not saying that Labour politicians are any more "honest" than Tories, what I'm saying is Let he who is without sin etc...
It may also prompt the familiar question to Mr Cameron about his "personal past" ( you know the one that starts "Have you ever...?")that he chooses not to answer for some reason when I think many would give a straight forward NO!
Just to repeat all I'm saying is playing the "dishonesty card" can backfire.
Complain about this comment
Yellowbelly, no point trying to debate with the troll anymore, office hours are 9-5 remember...
Complain about this comment
176. At 3:20pm on 01 Jul 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
...By raising it that high, they have as good as abolished it for the upper middle classes.
===
Not the same as actually abolishing it though, is it?
By the way, your link to the Times article makes absolutely NO mention of IHT, increasing the threshold or abolishing it.
You also say "They are not raising the threshold. They are tripling it to 1 million pounds at the minute. It could go higher by the time they get in."
Two things. Firstly, if you triple something don't you raise it? Or do you have the same economics background as the shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, with his 0% increase?
Secondly, isn't it a bit defeatist of you to admit that the tories are going to be the next government?
Complain about this comment
On another point re honesty..
The old addage we cant talk about spending/budgets because we "haven't seen the books" is about as dishonest as it gets and the oldest "lie" in the books (again used by both parties when in opposition)
Was ther even such a thing as Public Spending Reviews before 1997?
Complain about this comment
#253 Eatonrifle
Good point. Brown invented them in 1998 which makes the criticism of labour's unprecedented move to cancel one (in an earlier post) an interesting claim.
Complain about this comment
All comments on this blog and every other blog:- vain, worthless, trifiling and pointless criticism.
YES!. Just like mine.
Conservatives are great! Labour are great! Lib-Dems are great!
Conservatives are deficient! Labour are inadequate! Lib-Dems are...erm..incompetent!
Where exactly is this country and its people heading? Do 'U' bends rather than 'U' turns come into it?
Complain about this comment
251. At 7:12pm on 01 Jul 2009, I_Despise_Labour wrote:
Yellowbelly, no point trying to debate with the troll anymore, office hours are 9-5 remember
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presume he is in the Labour HQ bar by now
Complain about this comment
tun @ 231
so many posts slagging off Nick Ribinson as a labour mouthpiece
mmm, this is the age old phenomenon of "agrees with me = impartial" and "disagrees with me = biased"
we're all guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree - apart from me, I suppose
Complain about this comment
112. At 2:04pm on 01 Jul 2009, Minnsy wrote:
The only person involved in this discussion whose honesty is not in doubt is Sir Gus Donnell and questions re his integrity are a disgrace....
===
I question his integrity. Spending GBP 19,000 of OUR money on official cars in 3 months in the middle of a recession shows no integrity. Has he not heard of an Oyster Card?
Complain about this comment
251 I_Despise_Labour
Yellowbelly, no point trying to debate with the troll anymore, office hours are 9-5 remember...
Mikes first day at the office hours were 12:00 to 3:30. He must have been hacked of with the stuff they asked him to peddle and walked off the job.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown tells lies.
Lord unelected Mandelson doth protest too much - especially after a career spinning quarter truths.
No matter how much the BBC cast a positive light on Nu Labour economics the electorate will have their say one day - by which time Nick Robinson will have moved to pastures new - left leaning Radio 4 for preference.
Complain about this comment
Nick, that's yet another blog post that appears to have been written to cast Osborne in particular and the Tories in general as the bad guys.
Yesterday you described Osborne as "young and privileged" and asked why (in view of those characteristics) people should trust him. Nearly everyone reading those comments read them in the way you surely intended, which quite frankly was only a milder form of what we saw with "Smeargate" a few weeks ago - in my opinion.
So today, why haven't you made similar comments about Mandelson? Why not raise the...question... of why the voters should trust HIM given his track record of twice resigning in disgrace (and plenty else)?
Sir, I say you are behaving neither honourably and impartially.
And incidentally, I'm not on the Cameron/Osborne bus. I am not a member of the Tory party or in any way associated with them. Indeed, I am far from convinced they are the guys to lead us out of the disaster that Brown's economic policies have inflicted upon us. But I do not think it is any place of a senior employee of a public service broadcaster to display such clear partiality as you appear to be doing.
Complain about this comment
255. At 7:24pm on 01 Jul 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
All comments on this blog and every other blog:- vain, worthless, trifiling and pointless criticism.
YES!. Just like mine.
Conservatives are great! Labour are great! Lib-Dems are great!
Conservatives are deficient! Labour are inadequate! Lib-Dems are...erm..incompetent!
Where exactly is this country and its people heading? Do 'U' bends rather than 'U' turns come into it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah well thats politics for you Reginald... Much the same as the old playground taunts of my dads bigger than yours
Complain about this comment
253. At 7:14pm on 01 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
On another point re honesty..
The old addage we cant talk about spending/budgets because we "haven't seen the books" is about as dishonest as it gets and the oldest "lie" in the books (again used by both parties when in opposition)
Was ther even such a thing as Public Spending Reviews before 1997?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it dishonest ...As in if you really haven't seen the books then how can you make an informed opinion and cost .... It is like someone asking me to cut costs and when i ask for the figures in order to make cuts or not ..replying NO
Complain about this comment
250. At 7:07pm on 01 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
Politicians and Honesty is always dangerous territory for the accuser.
eg Mr Cameron, can you assure the public you will be absolutely honest when asked a straight forward question?
I doubt even this question would get a Yes. What it would get is something on the lines of " I will always try to be OR give will give an answer to the best of my knowledge"
Mr Cameron, is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote and paying taxes to the UK exchequer??
We all know you wouldn't get a straight forward "honest" answer, we'd get a Hague type answer, refusing to go on record with a direct lie but at the same time being "dishonest in that you're refusing to reveal the "whole truth"
NOw I'm not saying that Labour politicians are any more "honest" than Tories, what I'm saying is Let he who is without sin etc...
It may also prompt the familiar question to Mr Cameron about his "personal past" ( you know the one that starts "Have you ever...?")that he chooses not to answer for some reason when I think many would give a straight forward NO!
Just to repeat all I'm saying is playing the "dishonesty card" can backfire.
===
A bit like when Tony Blair refused to confirm whether his children had received the MMR vaccination at the height of the scare about its safety. A simple "Yes" would have saved a lot of anxiety for a lot of worried parents over the issue.
Complain about this comment
TWO MEN, ONE FIGHT. TWO LIARS, ONE WINNER. THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY.
You could end up as rich as Peter Viggers if you sold tickets for the final showdown! Both men seem the type to fight dirty - in fact, it's going to be such a good fight I've even produced some promotional material in the hope of landing a lucrative advertising contract:
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 253
Minnsey 254
I am sorry but this is quite wrong it was John Major who first introduced the spending review in February 1993.
Brown who was in opposition at the time had the following things to say at the time:-
Gordon Brown, the Shadow Chancellor, said last night that the public spending review was a 'panic policy shift' promoted by the 'extreme right' within the Cabinet.
Seems Mr. Brown changed his mind yet again when he came into Government.
Complain about this comment
You can see that promotional material [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] since this site obviously doesn't allow me to post the image I tried to include just then.
In case the html link is also not permitted - http://acidrabbi.blogspot.com/2009/07/big-fight.html
Complain about this comment
264 yELLOW
SAID
"A bit like when Tony Blair refused to confirm whether his children had received the MMR vaccination at the height of the scare about its safety. A simple "Yes" would have saved a lot of anxiety for a lot of worried parents over the"
=============
Actually Yellow No, nothing at all like that.
No one should be expected to answer questions about the personal Health of their children, that would be ridiculous.
On the other hand, lets say for example Pete Docherty was thinking of standing for MP would his "personal Past" be relevant?
Complain about this comment
262. At 7:40pm on 01 Jul 2009, ghostworld wrote:
"Ah well thats politics for you Reginald... Much the same as the old playground taunts of my dads bigger than yours"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice. Well if you want to enter the real world of puerility, other than the spritual that your user-name suggests, then I am all for it.
My 'daddy' is bigger than yours by the way.
Complain about this comment
263 Ghost said
"How is it dishonest ...As in if you really haven't seen the books then how can you make an informed opinion and cost .... It is like someone asking me to cut costs and when i ask for the figures in order to make cuts or not ..replying NO"
Because to suggest HM opposition don't have access to the countries financial figures is complete and utter garbage frankly, how on earth have they managed (successfully as it happens) to disect The Governments own fgures on future spending?? Surely to support your view Osborne would be saying "sorry lads, absolutely no idea if the Chancellors figures are correct or not, I haven't seen the books"
GROW UP!
Complain about this comment
225. At 5:44pm on 01 Jul 2009, yellowbelly1959 wrote:
Is it this Gus O'Donnell, who seems very fond of spending OUR money?
"The UK's top civil servant has published details of his business expenses, showing he spent over £19,000 on an official car over three months.
The cost of using the "secure" vehicle was the largest single expense incurred by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell between April and June."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8127724.stm
*****
Indeed it would. The very same individual who is privy to the nations secrets, which of course may just include such things as abuses of power, misuse of 'public office' and what about knowledge of other equally nefarious activities such as obstructing & perverting the course of justice. All in a days work, Sir Gus?
We are of course, talking here about a member of a small group of people involved in misleading and by-passing parliament, and of sneaking laws through parliament by one devious means or another without scrutiny by parliament in what they dare to refer to as a 'parliamentary democracy' and 'the mother of all parliaments'. Indeed a parliament that has, rarely if ever, held the executive to account. But what the heck!
While we are all reeling in shock from a global financial disaster, topped off by abuses of expenses by our so-called representatives, our 'servants' like Sir Gus continue to spend our cash as though there were no tomorrows. And if some members of the Cabinet, past & present had their way, perhaps there would not be any, only death & destruction - something they are very familiar with, when it's happening to others, because they can't be bothered to do the job they are being paid to do.
Ah! but of course, we are the ones who pay the price for their extravagance. What's the betting he's on a very nice little earner, complete with perks & pension etc.
Complain about this comment
Well well quell surprise!
Government suffers shock defeat on expenses reform bill
Back to the proverbial pub do.
Complain about this comment
"Whitehall sources tell me that all the information in the COINS database is already in the public domain although they concede that you may have to spend time online collating it."
If this is genuinely true, then there is no reason why the database itself couldn't also be released into the public domain. Furthermore, based on that statement then the government would have wanted to release it to the opposition in order to defuse the argument the Tories are using before it came along. There would appear to be only 2 obvious reasons why the government would not release the database. The first reason would be that they have something to hide; the second would be out of malice. In either case do you want a government with either something to hide, or a malicious streak, running the country. I don't.
I recall the mantra of the government over ID cards is that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. The same should be true for this database.
Complain about this comment
Susan 266
Not saying you're wrong or that previous Governments didn't review public spending, clearly every Government would do that, but the rather more long term look ahead known as the CSR was I believe, as seems to be supported by the link below, introduced by Brown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7024473.stm
Now I wouldn't stake lives on it but you could enlighyen me with a link of your own?
Complain about this comment
#266 Susan-Croft
Excellent comment Susan.
Complain about this comment
272. At 8:31pm on 01 Jul 2009, Roll_On_2010 wrote:
Well well quell surprise!
Government suffers shock defeat on expenses reform bill
Back to the proverbial pub do.
***
Ah! Yes, and it's all because of the fact that there are enough laws on the books at present to deal with fraud, and, they don't wish to undermine parliamentary privilege. But didn't we know that all along!
Complain about this comment
268. At 8:19pm on 01 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
264 yELLOW
SAID
"A bit like when Tony Blair refused to confirm whether his children had received the MMR vaccination at the height of the scare about its safety. A simple "Yes" would have saved a lot of anxiety for a lot of worried parents over the"
=============
Actually Yellow No, nothing at all like that.
No one should be expected to answer questions about the personal Health of their children, that would be ridiculous.
On the other hand, lets say for example Pete Docherty was thinking of standing for MP would his "personal Past" be relevant?
===
He didn't need to disclose anything about their health. Merely state that the MMR vaccination was safe and that was why his children had been given it (if indeed that was the case). What would be wrong in doing that, for the benefit of wider public health?
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 270
You misunderstand the Government can produce whatever figures they like for public consumption, these under Labour are very rarely correct. The correct figures will only be known to the Treasury and usually the Chancellor. The forecast that has been produced of 10% cuts are the figures given by the Government for the public. There are figures for on book and off book with this Government there always has been. It is the correct figures that opposition are both entitled and should demand to see especially if they are only a year away from an important election. It is this fear of the real figures I believe which is preventing the Government having a spending review. It is also a fact that if the Conservatives could produce the Governments real figures it would prove beyond doubt that they are right to call for cuts now.
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft 266
Can you provide a reference? According to both the Treasury website and the House of Commons Library, the first comprehensive spending review began in 1997 and was pulished in 1998. See: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-059.pdf
The background paper describes the public expenditure survey (something which was quite different in scope) as taking place from the 1960s to 1996.
Complain about this comment
277 Yellow.
No PM or leader of the oppsition would enter into a debate that involved their children. The Labour Government's policy on MMR has always been absolutely unequivical.
Now Yellow, I responded to your unrelated point about Blair and MMR, over to you re "honesty", Lord Ashcroft and the "private past" question.
You always seem to tag your one liners about Labour, are you capable of any other sort of response?
Complain about this comment
Trust, Honor, Responsibility, Respect - Don't hold your breath waiting for any politician to show us any of these. They have all been 'tested, measured and found wanting'.
The net is also (quite rightly) being cast out wider now - e.g. to the Cabinet Secretary (head of the Civil Service) ... a man who has knowingly allowed 20th century management practices (e.g. command and control, target driven cultures set up by Government) to be used to systematically generate wasteful/inefficient practice, consume massive amounts of our money and create massive public debts. e.g. take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/06/targets-era-is-over.html for instance ...
The cabinet secretary also made it clear that he was fully aware and understood the lack of 21st century leadership and management practices in the Civil Service (and the Government), but failed to do anything about it ... so I think we are probably safe to assume that these kind of values will be difficult to find at the top of the Civil Service too!
Perhaps we need a bigger broom to sweep the decks ...
Complain about this comment
Never mind the COINS data base, that will be fairy tale figures anyway, worry more about the National Identity Register.
I had not heard of this until reading about the ID card idea being slowly modified posibly out of existence, and good riddance to it.
But then in a throw away line with no further explanation it was stated that the Govt are continuing with the NIR.
Research show this to be an horrendous Orwellian proposal with over 50 categories of information held on every citizen. Including for example your home address , any other addresses you stay at and all previous addresses !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh and a proposed £1000 fine for not notifying a change of address! Plus all the ID card stuff, photo, fingerprints, NI number, driving licence number, records of passport applications, paasport number etc.
Come on chaps this is not British, surely we are not going to stand for this ?
Complain about this comment
rotwoten @ 275
Excellent comment Susan
no, it was utter garbage - do you fancy her or something?
Complain about this comment
275 Roll on
said
#266 Susan-Croft
Excellent comment Susan.
=============================
excellent as long as you ignore inaccurate.
Still waiting for a "counter link"
Complain about this comment
282
Still researching the NIR . If you refuse to register a future bill will introduce fines but currently you will be denied a passport and or a driving licence.
This is out and out Orwell's nightmare made real.
Complain about this comment
278 Susan
So I "misunderstand" do I Susan?
========
"They point to the list of existing government publications - Spending Reviews, Budget/PBR, Supply Estimates, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, Supplementary
Budgeting Information - which contain the relevant information."
===============
Not to mention the fact that Tories sit on The Treasury Select Committtee, The Public Accounts committee and every departmental committee which receive financial and budgetry reports for their own spemding!!!!!!!!!
So you explain this to yourself on Planet Tory as just a fabrication? A straight forward lie? Spin?
Yes Susan, clearly, compared to you, I "misumderstand"
Complain about this comment
Susan
You know when Cameron recently asked for new people to become potential Tory candidates?
Did you apply? You seem to have all the right attributes.
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 274
I can assure you that what I am telling you is correct. You may also look it up in books if you wish.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nhs-to-be-first-victim-of-majors-state-spending-review-1471549.html
Complain about this comment
#283 sagapud
no, it was utter garbage - do you fancy her or something?
Utter garbage?? - Why you jealous.
#283 sagapud
#284 e10rifles
counter link
Gordon Brown, the Shadow Chancellor, said last night that the public spending review was a 'panic policy shift' promoted by the 'extreme right' within the Cabinet. He said Mr Major had said at the time of the election that he saw 'no reason' why the Tories should not meet their spending promises.
Phew the latter part is a bit rich coming from Duff of all people!
Complain about this comment
Eatonrifle 287
You must not assume because someone tells the truth that they are automatically a Conservative. I am telling you for the last time I am not. My party is the English Democrats.
You must also have patience, writing blogs is not all I have to do, I will always answer.
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft
This is not the same thing at all. This was simply a look at each department to see how much they could privatise - no wonder Brown criticised it. It was also a commitment to do so over the life of the parliament. The CSR has two purposes: to judge how departments contribute to meeting the governments objectives and so set spending limits for the next 3 years. This practice started in 1997. As the Treasury says:
The 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which concluded in July 1998, involved a thorough review of departmental aims and objectives and a zero-based analysis of each spending programme to find the best way of delivering the Governments objectives. It was the first time a spending review on that scale had been attempted in the UK.
Complain about this comment
sagapud
e10rifles
I hope you noted the last paragraph in the link I provided.
JOHN SMITH, in his most important speech since he became Labour leader last summer, will today tell the Labour local government conference that Labour must become the party of the individual citizen and consumer and reject the dogmas of its past. The speech will mark a conscious break with Labour's long tradition of collectivism.
Pity he died the Labour Party also died at the same time We got NuLabour
I often wonder how great the Labour Party would be today if he was still alive. But alas, as I said, today we have NuLabour and if saga gets his way NuLabour MkII.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
288/9
Is that it??
I refer you to Minnsy at 279 for the actual structure of spending reviews from 1961 onwards as opposed to John Majors unscheduled impromtu panic review of 1993.
As for the quote of Brown's highly predictable and equally meaningless rhetoric, I have news for you, That is what oppostion parties do, they respond with negative and mocking rhetoric, they did it then, they did before then and they do it now BECAUSE when in opposition you pretty much say what you want and get away with it and you usually have 20/20 hindsight when pointing out how "you" would have done things so much better.
Complain about this comment
Minnsy 291
I can assure you that John Major is regarded as the first person to introduce the spending review. It is well recorded as such. Otherwise why was it called a spending review when John Major introduced it. All my books record it as such and I was able to find you a link as well. Yet you still refuse to believe it. Sometimes I wonder what the point is.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 283
I want an apology from you, utter garbage thats a bit unkind.
Complain about this comment
#293 sagapud
This is the best that a member of the hard left can offer. Really pathetic.
I hope you use the same gutter technique when you are compiling the next NuLabour manifesto. It will go down a bomb with the electorate.
But alas sagapud It appears that Duff is writing the NuLabour epitaph.
He has not much to write really the next NuLabour manifesto is just a mish mash of previous promises. its amazing what you can do with cut and paste.
Complain about this comment
Nick you never question the total immorality of Gordon Brown running up massive debt that our children will have to pay. It is is disgusting and wrong that he is doing this - and spuriously in the name of 'investment' - the billions spent in so many pointless middle manager public sector jobs at £50k+, gold-plated public sector pensions, disastrous IT projects like the £10 billion NHS IT project. Why are our children made to pay? It is disgraceful that the BBC bias let this go unquestioned. You have betrayed the licence-payer.
Complain about this comment
#293 sagapud
seriously though ... 'cos I'm quite interested ... why did you think that particular Susan post was so good?
For the record:
I had been in the front line of politics for over 40 years and when SC mentioned it, it rang bells, I knew she was right.
I walked away from NuLabour in 2003. IRAQ
The rest of your comment above is beneath contempt. If thats what passes as politics today it looks like I made the correct decision.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 296
I want an apology from you, utter garbage that's a bit unkind
I thought it was rather macho ... not unlike, what's that actor called? ... you know Susan, the one with the little moustache? ... yeah him
anyway, to square this circle, why don't you make your next post just say ...
"Roll On 2010 @ 297 ... excellent post!"
that'll kill me
Complain about this comment
269. At 8:23pm on 01 Jul 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
262. At 7:40pm on 01 Jul 2009, ghostworld wrote:
"Ah well thats politics for you Reginald... Much the same as the old playground taunts of my dads bigger than yours"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice. Well if you want to enter the real world of puerility, other than the spritual that your user-name suggests, then I am all for it.
My 'daddy' is bigger than yours by the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy tiger, i was jsut trying to be light hearted in an otherwise hostile thread
Complain about this comment
270. At 8:26pm on 01 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
263 Ghost said
"How is it dishonest ...As in if you really haven't seen the books then how can you make an informed opinion and cost .... It is like someone asking me to cut costs and when i ask for the figures in order to make cuts or not ..replying NO"
Because to suggest HM opposition don't have access to the countries financial figures is complete and utter garbage frankly, how on earth have they managed (successfully as it happens) to disect The Governments own fgures on future spending?? Surely to support your view Osborne would be saying "sorry lads, absolutely no idea if the Chancellors figures are correct or not, I haven't seen the books"
GROW UP!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But they don't have access to the current governments FULL figures because the current government wont give them will they
GROW UP ???? ...There really is no need to be downright arrogant and rude
Complain about this comment
roll @ 299
The rest of your comment above is beneath contempt
okay, I'm sorry - was only messing about, should be more careful - cold towel and a lie down for yours truly - Iraq, however, I see more as the folly of one man (TB) rather than a Labour Party issue - you don't agree?
Complain about this comment
The Tories attempts to paint themselves as honest and Labour as dishonest is laughable.
Remember Jonathabn Aitken and his "sword of truth and shield of honesty" - incarcerated
Jeffrey Archer lying in court - incarcerated
David Mellor, Cecil Parkinson, Mark Thatcher ...
I'm not pretending that any party is honest. But the Tories! Not likely.
Complain about this comment
301. At 10:28pm on 01 Jul 2009, ghostworld wrote:
"Easy tiger, i was jsut trying to be light hearted in an otherwise hostile thread"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeew!! Thanks. Needed that slap.
Anyhow my hostility is now focused on Ms Croft. Now there's the square root of minus one times infinity.
What nonsense she writes.
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft
I am perfectly happy to be perduaded - if you can persuade the Treasury. After all, they carry out the CSR, they should know when they started doing it.
Complain about this comment
280. At 9:02pm on 01 Jul 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
277 Yellow.
No PM or leader of the oppsition would enter into a debate that involved their children. The Labour Government's policy on MMR has always been absolutely unequivical.
Now Yellow, I responded to your unrelated point about Blair and MMR, over to you re "honesty", Lord Ashcroft and the "private past" question.
You always seem to tag your one liners about Labour, are you capable of any other sort of response?
===
Indeed you did. The Ashcroft question, and particularly William Hague's evasiveness on Newsnight was pitiful, right up there with Michael Howard and the Prisons issue. They should answer the questions directly and honestly, and by not doing so, diminish their credibility.
In answer to the question about Cameron's "private past" I view it in the same way as you view Blair's right to privacy over his children.
Complain about this comment
305. At 10:45pm on 01 Jul 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
301. At 10:28pm on 01 Jul 2009, ghostworld wrote:
"Easy tiger, i was jsut trying to be light hearted in an otherwise hostile thread"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeew!! Thanks. Needed that slap.
Anyhow my hostility is now focused on Ms Croft. Now there's the square root of minus one times infinity.
What nonsense she writes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh but back in the real world she speaks so much sense.
Anyway happy posting for now and the future
I bid you goodnight and farewell
Complain about this comment
My #307
Should have said, I view it in the same way as I view Blair's right to privacy over his children. A simple "yes I did, it was exciting at the time, but now I realise I was foolish" etc, etc and the whole matter would have blown over, not be hanigng over him.
In exactly the same way that Blair should have said "the MMR vaccination is safe, and that is why my children have had it" and the whole issue would have blown over in an instant, and maybe saved some children's lives as well, to boot.
Complain about this comment
305. At 10:45pm on 01 Jul 2009, ReginaldJeeves wrote:
Feeew!! Thanks. Needed that slap.
Anyhow my hostility is now focused on Ms Croft. Now there's the square root of minus one times infinity.
What nonsense she writes.
-------------------------------------
Have you looked at the twaddle you turn out?
Yeh, about right for this leftie-ridden-hell-hole-PC-crudie-immigrant-infested-dump of a country.
Why are you still here in the UK if that's what you think?
Complain about this comment
#304 Laughatthetories
The Tories attempts to paint themselves as honest and Labour as dishonest is laughable.
Remember Jonathabn Aitken and his "sword of truth and shield of honesty" - incarcerated
Jeffrey Archer lying in court - incarcerated
David Mellor, Cecil Parkinson, Mark Thatcher ...
I'm not pretending that any party is honest. But the Tories! Not likely.
-----------------------------
As you rightly say
Jonathabn Aitken - incarcerated
Jeffrey Archer - incarcerated
Ironic really. If they had been in NuLabour they would have got away with it or, dare I say, even given a ride on a NuLabour gravy train.
Complain about this comment
I've been modulated because I have questioned the PMs veracity.
Excuse me guys this is not the House of Commons!
Complain about this comment
ReginaldJeeves 305
I would be interested to know why your hostility is now focused on me. You could use sensible arguments to disagree with me if you wished, although I do not recall you ever doing so.
Just to make statements which have nothing to back them up is not useful.
Complain about this comment
"xTunbridge wrote:
Having read so many posts slagging off Nick Ribinson as a labour mouthpiece I Wikied him.
All those who accuse him of such bias should perhaps do the same, I think you will be surprised."
Oh let me guess... this is a comment that Nick Robinson can't be a Labour supporter because he used to be President of the Young Conservatives?
Perhaps when you are on the wiki you could also check out Shaun Woodward or Quentin Davies(from Tory MP to Labour Minister) or maybe Churchill (who crossed the floor twice).
The Labour party is not the same as it was when Nick was at University and moved from the left to the centre.
Complain about this comment
sagamix wrote:
tun @ 231
so many posts slagging off Nick Ribinson as a labour mouthpiece
mmm, this is the age old phenomenon of "agrees with me = impartial" and "disagrees with me = biased"
Saga, even if you are correct and people do just consider someone as impartial only if they agree with him, doesn't it say something that the majority of people who are defending Nick as being impartial all have views which suggest they follow Labour?
So using your logic that "agrees with me = impartial" what would that suggest?
Complain about this comment
"Eatonrifle wrote:
264 yELLOW
SAID
"A bit like when Tony Blair refused to confirm whether his children had received the MMR vaccination at the height of the scare about its safety. A simple "Yes" would have saved a lot of anxiety for a lot of worried parents over the"
=============
Actually Yellow No, nothing at all like that.
No one should be expected to answer questions about the personal Health of their children, that would be ridiculous."
I would actually disagree. If you have a politician who is telling people to give THEIR children a jab which MAY cause severe side effects because it will save the NHS money don't you think they have a right to know if that politician is willing to put his/her own children at the same risk?
We don't expect ministers to force feed their kids burgers, but we should be able to expect a straight answer to the question "Would you allow your children to face the same risks you are asking MY children to face?"
Complain about this comment
sagamix 300
I do not need to do that, as Roll_On_2010 writes excellent posts anyway, he has you rattled.
Complain about this comment
I am of the opinion that Nick is too soft on Labour and would like to see more aggressive questioning of our political leaders.When they clearly seek tp avoid answering any question and use the BBC as a propoganda tool it is only right that we should challenge them more forcefully.This is public money feeding the BBC and we should have more honesty from our governments.
Complain about this comment
saga
"Iraq was the folly of one man (tb)
We must put that in the next NuLabour manifesto.
Complain about this comment
I think Nick Robinson's blog is just a sounding box for the Labour party to see how the wind's blowing. Journalism it isn't.
George Osbourne boasts... but Gordon Brown tells.
I'd take the expense accounts, allowances etc away from both the politicians and BBC until we get straight talking and real facts.
Complain about this comment
Truth and honesty: The plan is obvious from the Dear Leader, that if you repeat the sound byte Tory cuts V New Labour investment often enough then enough people will swallow the bait, and miss the real analysis and facts. Unfortunately enough people will eventually accept the propaganda and it has mandy's prints all over it. Honesty, was displayed when the Dear Leader was asked if he wanted to change the Chancellor: NO!...yeah right...an honest guy.
Complain about this comment
@ 317
good post, Susan!
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, Honesty eh? George Osborne and Mandoilson have a big spat, Now amazingly, a labour constituent in Osbornes patch suddenly finds life intolerable without complaining about George Osbornes expenses. Now Nick, lets have some honesty, here is the question:
Do you think Lord Mandoilson has anything to do with this sudden complaint?
Oh, and if you don't, you must be the most naiave political commentator in history!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS