General gimmick?
"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick".
That is how the Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling accidentally reacted to the news that the former head of the British army, Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, might be appointed a junior defence minister. Unfortunately for Mr Grayling, the gimmick - if it is one - was a Tory and not a Labour one.
Mr Grayling clearly misheard my colleague Emily Maitlis's question. Here's a transcript of the exchange:
Emily Maitlis: General Dannatt being lined up to be a junior defence minister in a future Tory government. Can you tell us more about this?
Chris Grayling: I admire the work of General Dannatt and other senior generals who've done so much in Afghanistan and done so much to lead. I hope that this isn't a political gimmick. We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR. General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government. But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The question followed the news that Gen Dannatt is to be elevated to the House of Lords where he will advise the Tories on defence matters. Some Tories suggest that he is being lined up to be a junior defence minister in a future Tory government with specific responsibility for operations in Afghanistan. However, sources close to David Cameron are playing down that possibility.
What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick" was originally planned to be the major new announcement in David Cameron's speech tomorrow.
Update 15:30: A sheepish Chris Grayling has just returned to clear up what he called the "misunderstanding" about his earlier comments.
He said he had misheard the question and had thought General Dannatt had taken up a government appointment.
He goes on to say it is "great news" that the general is joining the Conservatives and that he'd wished he had known before "as I'd have liked to have given him a more enthusiastic welcome".
Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
CLANG !!!!
Please post video of this brick being dropped !!!
Well done Cadet Maitlis !! Not quite in the BoJo vs Paxo league, but great stuff all the same...
Complain about this comment
Ha ha - yet another 'Tory opening mouth before putting brain in gear' scenario.
It's all about David Cameron and PR which was, lest we forget, his actual job before he joined the Westminster Village.
Complain about this comment
"Man mishears question" - stop the press.
Complain about this comment
No Nick, he said he hoped it wouldn't be, yet by the time of your last sentence it has become one and dismissed to boot. Poor story.
Complain about this comment
that's quite amusing, Nick, thank you
Complain about this comment
what a shock a top military officer with tory tendencies - you'll be telling me there are freemasons in the army next
Complain about this comment
Uh oh, I was right about the previous thread. Now, is this a bit of devilment, or what?
Is General Dannatt being promoted to the house of Lords? is this in the gift of the leader of the opposition? is it a leading question?
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.
So Brown has elevated Gen Dannatt to the peerage?
Unusual for him to contemplate enobling anyone who he does not see as being able to keep him in post.
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.
What refreshing honesty from Mr Grayling.
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.
Ah another bite of the cherry eh Nick. I am sure Chris Grayling's quote as detailed on your own blog was:
"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick."
Therefore he did not dismiss this as a gimmick, he hoped it was not one. A fine distinction that may not be understood in Mandelson towers where allusion (and illusion for that matter) is all that matters.
I am fairly disappointed that you have not taken my advice from the last post you made Nick. Does it not bother you that you are being used by Labour?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As you rightly say, Nick, clearly Grayling mis-heard the question. Even then he didn't say it WAS a gimmick he said he hoped it wasn't a gimmick. So even when he clearly thought it was a Labour appointment, he was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
so what's the story? This is the story from you Nick
"What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick""
Except Nick, you know he didn't dimiss it as a gimmick at all, as is clear from reading what he said.
I assume you'll now re-write that last sentence as "what Mr Grayling hoped wasn't a gimmick" That would be accurate and fair and I'm sure you strive for that in your blog.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Oh, nicky, nicky, nick, nick, what is this all about? Is a poorly phrased question now the trigger for a NEWS blog? Is this now just about innuendo and/or half truths? Well it is political, so I've probably answered my own question, which is what most politicians do anyway.
Is this a waste of space?
Complain about this comment
Good grief Nick, Grayling even says
"General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government"
You cannot, surely, be that desperate for anti-Conservative content that you miss-represent an answer from a miss-heard question in order to score points?
Shame on you.
Complain about this comment
"What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick" was originally planned to be the major new announcement in David Cameron's speech tomorrow."
I look forward to this political gimmick if that's the term the BBC will be pushing. Sir Richard was a fine officer and General and will be a good addition to the Government in any role. I just hope he is allowed to keep the reins of the Tower of London as he may need it to as a place to store dishonest Ministers or the First Lord of the Treasury...
Complain about this comment
Oh Nick, you really are a stirrer. Grayling didn't dismiss government working with army generals as a gimmick, indeed he says that ideally that's exactly what should be happening: Generals and Government working hand in hand.
Clearly, even though he thinks this a good idea, he suspects, even expects that anything this cynical and PR craving government would do would be for political reasons rather than for any particular good of the country. Given the history of the last decade, you have to admit he has a point!
Complain about this comment
#3:
I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories? Either it's a good idea or it's not. The fact that Grayling pours scorn on it shows that either he things it's not a good idea or (far more likely) he is so deeply embedded in Punch & Judy politics that he automatically is against anything done by the other side, whether he agrees with it or not.
Mind you, you could say "politician spouts meaningless drivel just in the hope of scoring cheap political points against the other side - stop the press" with equally justifiable sarcasm.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Grayling clearly misheard my colleague Emily Maitlis's question."
Unfortunately, not a difficult thing to do...
Bit of a non story Nick, posted no doubt to appease the NuLabour supporters!
Complain about this comment
AN ABSOLUTE CLASSIC !!!
Maybe Chris Grayling's brain was discombobulated by Emily's pulchritude and being a man could not multi-task and he stepped straight into the huge elephant trap...
One wonders whether they would actually be doing better if they weren't being deprived of their daily fix of Champers ?
Complain about this comment
"6. At 2:12pm on 07 Oct 2009, jollygregchance wrote:
what a shock a top military officer with tory tendencies"
Hardly surprising. Most high achieving succesful people vote Tory.
Complain about this comment
Bring those TV debates on. Let us also have ministers debating with their shadows in other parties.
Nick, did Boris have too much champagne before being interviewed by Paxman?
The Tories have already lost the plot!
Well done Nick. You are showing professionalism at it's best!
Complain about this comment
Champagne can wreak a terrible vengeance the morning after the night before.
Complain about this comment
The fact that Grayling mishears a question is far less sigificant then whether Sir Richard is a suitable person to take up a Government post.
Having Gen Dannatt as a Minister at the MoD, makes more sense than having a postman as a Home Secretary.
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.
Has the anouncement been gazetted or is it all supposition?
Bluster and wind?
Complain about this comment
"How to ruin your boss's Press Release before it is delivered.."
Take gun. Point at foot. Shoot.
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Complain about this comment
10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax
-------------
(from previous thread)
The reason, my dear chap, you should be "punished" in your pay is because everyone else in the country who is not in the public sector has been "punished".
Why do you think just because you are a teacher and paid for from the public purse that you should be exempt? I don't get my salary artificially inflated by the government to make up for the salary we were asked to forego.
Inheritance tax is a disgusting concept, don't let your envy get the better of you. Anything subject to inheritance tax has already been taxed at least once (income tax, then in all likelyhood stamp duty or VAT as well). Why should it be taxed again just because you have the bad manners to kick the oxygen habit?
Complain about this comment
C555 @ 18
aAs you rightly say, Nick, clearly Grayling misheard the question. Even then he didn't say it WAS a gimmick he said he hoped it wasn't a gimmick. So even when he clearly thought it was a Labour appointment, he was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for now
mmm a bit weak Andy, don't you think?
best to move on perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Whoops. Does Cameron not brief the rest of his cabinet?
Complain about this comment
Folks at the BBC, I really think you should start contractual negotiations to get Claudia Winklepicker to be on the General Election political team, as she will be 'resting' from the "It Takes Two" show, in the hope of getting similar gaffes out of tired politicians out on the campaign trail.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
26#
Well, if thats a classic.... you need to get out more.
Theres a funny smell round here recently of p*** and vinegar that'll attract the dogwhistlers if we're unlucky....
Complain about this comment
Desperately seeking something to convince Bradshaw that you haven't changed sides, this must seem like Manna from Heaven. Eh Nick!
Complain about this comment
Sounds like a good plan.
At least there will be someone in the mix of armchair political soldier Ministers and faceless civil servants who seem to make all the decisions complimented by a soldier who actually knows what he's talking about.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
And he can't even blame it on the champagne!
(Joking aside, I feel that this is a bit of a non-story and would add my voice to others in requesting that the responses to topics be kept open either for 24 hours or until 500 replies or made. Curtailing the opprtunity of free speech and the right to reply to comments posted is so New-Labourish.)
Complain about this comment
Goldcaesar
exactly what is your point here? Is it party political? Is it socio-political? Is it simply a desire to be provocative without being consistent? Is it an attempt at humour?
With regard to this particular "story", it seems much play is being made of the response to a poorly phrased question. I haven't seen it on TV, nor have I heard it broadcast, and I have no idea of the context in which it was asked, i.e. in a studio as part of a planned interview, or on the fly, on the floor of the conference, with perhaps a bit of background noise and other interference? I don't know.
However, point 1, I don't believe the General Dannett should be denied a place in the House of Lords just because he was a soldier, any more than Mandelson should be denied just because he's a stranger to the truth.
Point 2, if he were appointed to the HoL, should he denied the possibility of a post associated with a political party just because of his previous role? The wrong answer might invalidate Mandelsons position.
Complain about this comment
I confidently predict that after uttering a statement which includes the words 'political' and 'gimmick' adjacent to each other Chris Grayling will now 'go to ground' for the rest of the conference.
I believe Michael Crick may refer to this as 'Doing An Oliver Letwin'...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"24. At 2:26pm on 07 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
#3:
I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories?"
I think YOU are missing the point. Grayling said he HOPED IT WASN'T A GIMMICK. He didn't say it WAS, he said he hoped it WASN'T. He clearly thought it was a good idea but obviously mistakely thinking it was a Labour idea he seemed to be worried it might be the RIGHT thing for the WRONG reason.
He said he hoped it WASN'T a gimmick he didn't say it WAS a gimmick.
Hoped it WASN'T. Didn't say WAS.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it would be better to refer to this as an 'own-goal' rather than the more emotive 'friendly fire' - or should that be 'Blue On Blue' ??
Complain about this comment
General Sir Richard Dannett is a highly respected figure who should rightly advise any givernment on the military and its requirements.
It would certainly have been a gimmick if he had been appointed by a Labour government which would have been highly unlikely after the number of spats he's had with Gordon Brown.
I understand Grayling's language regarding this point and his concern and expectancy that this could be yet another dirty trick by the present government to try to undermine their Party Conference. A slight misunderstanding of what the interviewer said is understandable.
Afghanistan is a touchy subject for any future government and the slow progress in the US on a new strategy leaves the whole of NATO in limbo.
This was not David Camerion's war as it was not Obama's but as ever Blair and Bush rushed into wars but were unable to win them.
Complain about this comment
"mmm a bit weak Andy, don't you think?
best to move on perhaps? - Sagamix"
I think it a proper analysis of what happened. It would, of course, be to much to ask for an analysis from you.
What I suggest you do is cut and paste one sentence from this message and then type a trite, meaningless comment afterwards.
I'll even do it for you
"Best not think about the unvieled plans of the Tories, eh, that would be scary"
Complain about this comment
Surely this is a non story, he said he liked the idea of ministers and generals working together and he hoped it wasnt just a gimmick. I fail to see how this is a story. A minister havin skeptism of his partys actions is surely a good thing if it means they come under closer scrutiny to make sure that it isnt a gimmick.
Complain about this comment
31. At 2:32pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
gold ... "I never had U down as one these fools who embarass themselves by bandying around words like 'socialst', communist' 'nazi' and 'fascist' whilst clearly having no idea what these very specific political terms refer to"
how odd ... I did
-------
i'm still waiting for either an apology or at least an explanation as to why a prediction that gen dannatts apparant move to the tories would attract accusations that he previously undermined the govt for political gain amounts to 'socialist bile'
Perhaps its me who doesn't understand very basic political terms, perhaps 'socialist bile' really means 'stating the inevitable'.
Complain about this comment
Whatever next? Ashcroft, Laidlaw and co paying taxes? Will they be non doms? or tax exiles? or government? Ah. Tory Britain?
Complain about this comment
"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick".
Note the words..."I hope..."
"Chris Grayling: I admire the work of General Dannatt and other senior generals who've done so much in Afghanistan and done so much to lead."
Execellent.
"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick."
Fair enough
"We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR."
Very true!
"General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government."
Well said.
"But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this."
Indeed, we all are and we all should be.
So, Nick...not much of a story really. Was it your assistant that wrote it?
Complain about this comment
Since the previous blog has been closed (before I even had a chance to see it), in response to
#22 on previous blog:The Army seems to want to expand the mission beyond whatever resources are given and then complain that it needs more resources to do the expanded mission.
The Army (and the other armed services) do exactly what the idiot politicians tell them to do.
Full marks to Gen. D and others for standing up for the lads.
Speaking as ex-TA, that is.
Complain about this comment
Ah ! Just imagine the 'Thick Of It' style panic to damp down this little local difficulty before it really starts to take hold in the press...
Complain about this comment
Well.Well. The Bullingdon Kid is going to find a place in one of the most undemocratic instititions in the western world for someone schooled in such a democratic organisation as the British Army.I suppose it takes a political novice to recognise one.
Complain about this comment
The problem with civvies running a war,
Is they ain't got a clue - it's such a bore,
But put an ex-General in a government post,
We end up with forces of which we can boast
Complain about this comment
Is this CRAP what I pay my licence fee for??????? - puerile rubbish.
This country has gone to worse than the dogs - we have corrupt Govt and if this is removed I will name the names - some booted out twice for just that - ex PM building up an £11 million portfolio of properties and u STILL get Liebour idiots talkng about toffs - check where MOST of thwe Cabinet went to school - clue - it was not State schools.
Mr Robinson - I expect REAL items to debate here, otherwise look for a new job now, because in 2010 u will certainly need one, as the Govt will have changed to TORY.
Complain about this comment
This is the man they want as 'Home Secretary', the 'toughest job in politics' ?
Well, I suppose he is at least 'expendable'..
Complain about this comment
'What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick"'
He didn't dismiss anything as a gimmick, as I'm sure you will know Nick.
I'm left wondering whether the BBC complaints commission covers blogs. The pro-Labour spin on this blog has become outrageous.
Complain about this comment
#39 Saga
C'mon you can do better than that, you know you can. I'll keep leaving you little trails, and then you can pick up on them. Eventually you'll be able to have a whole coherent thought all of your own, and who knows where that might lead? Enlightenment, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, clearly has political aspirations we should have seen this coming. No real public servant makes the amount of noise he did without some kind of backdoor deal being done with the political opposition. Why is it good for an Army man to become a defence minister, I am guessing RAF and Navy will fair badly and the long-term strategic interests they pursue for the UK will falter as a result of this kind of appointment, all to allow Cameron to get a quick Sun headline and appear to have the nations military issues in his mind.
Why is military pay not to be frozen like the majority of public servants? More cynical Sun newspaper love-up. We all thought the Blair years saw an unhealthy obsession with Murdoch’s media empire, are we to perceive this as another step forward in the relentless march of a foreign media billionaire helping to shape UK policy.
Complain about this comment
#58 Bravesouter....
Admiral West, Baroness Scotland, Mandleson stones people glass throw houses rearrange if you have the intellect.
Complain about this comment
Nick -- haven't you got better things to write about than trying to upstage the Conservative Party conference. Always remember that things could actually change @ No 10 next year and life may not be quite so cozy for the BBC political arm.
Complain about this comment
Chris Grayling now involved in some frantic back-pedalling on screen.
"Really good news.."
Complain about this comment
Goldcaesar
exactly what is your point here? Is it party political? Is it socio-political? Is it simply a desire to be provocative without being consistent? Is it an attempt at humour?
-----------
My point is that you decribed an apolitical comment made by myself as 'socialist bile'. which i was inititially confused and then intrigued by.
The fact that you've chosen to completely ignore my question as to what made my comment 'socialist bile' and presumably myself a 'socialist' only serves to underline the impression that you freely use stock terms or phrases you've picked up as insults, whilst lacking the most basic comprehension of what they actually mean.
Complain about this comment
Chris Grayling with press minders 'like a kid whose kicked a football through neighbour's window being marched round with parents..'
Classic !!
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.
Chris Grayling "I wish I could have given him a better welcome.."
Er, yeeess.. as Paxman might say. Can't wait to see him asked about his plans for 'Instant Punishment'.
Complain about this comment
#64 Sagamix
I earn 10000, pay tax on it and save 1000, after TAX. I pay more tax on the income I earn on my previously taxed income, and this goes on each year until I die, adding to my litle pot, and paying taxes as I go, however inequitable that may be. And then, when I die, I need to pay even more tax.
Now what part of that seems to you to be entirely fair? Huh?
Complain about this comment
64
Yes, absolutely.
The big difference, if you can be bothered to think it through.
VAT is paid because of an event chosen by the spender. You know before you buy something that you will pay a certain amount of VAT, if this is acceptable, you go ahead and buy it. You pay tax on what you choose to buy, if you would like to look at it that way. Inheritance tax is grave robbery.
Hell, I'm actually a big fan of VAT. You choose how to spend your money, and when you do, you pay your tax at that point. Much better than this taking my money before I ever see it malarky. Ramp VAT up to 50%, I wouldn't complain, that'd get to your philosophy of wealth redistribution quite nicely I'd say.
Complain about this comment
62#
It does, but your complaint gets dealt with in that same, smarmy Terry Woganesque Sunday afternoon "Points Of View" way. Yeah, your complaint will be answered, but nothing will change.
Complain about this comment
Try again #58
Talking about undemocratic how about
Admiral West, Baroness Scot, Mandelson
house stones glass should throw not people in re arrange!!!!!
Complain about this comment
67. At 3:03pm on 07 Oct 2009, Me-thinks wrote:
Nick -- haven't you got better things to write about than trying to upstage the Conservative Party conference. Always remember that things could actually change @ No 10 next year and life may not be quite so cozy for the BBC political arm.
------
Congratulations on getting that published. I have had two posts pointing out this non-story (57 in the previous blog @ 1:38 and 43 in this blog @ 2:39) blocked with no explanation from the mods.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#48:
It's true he didn't say it was a gimmick, but if you listen to the tone of the interview on the video clip I think it's pretty clear he was doing his best to imply that he thought it was a gimmick. The bit where he says "I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this" is what really gives it away.
Complain about this comment
#64 You are labouring (pun intended) under the supposition that the government should tax every single money transaction in the country.
Once you put that supposition aside then you have to decide whether wealth should 'cascade down the generations' or if the government should appropriate it.
A further, significant point, is that the IHT has to be paid BEFORE the estate can be liquidated - so the executors of the estate have to find the money first. (This is why many people deliberately set aside funds or arange life insurance into trusts - so that the exepcted IHT can be paid without such inconvenience).
Complain about this comment
65
Ah good, more smearing.
When in doubt... Discredit, mislead, do whatever you can malign someone who's views you don't agree with.
Where did you learn a trick like that?
Complain about this comment
65#
Well, at least you're appropriately named.
Senior Military pay comes under the same pay review board as senior civil servants. So, it will be covered. The rest of the military will also be covered by it, except the junior ranks. Those that are covered by it and are deployed to Afghan are to have their allowances reviewed to compensate.
Seems like its been thought out to me. Maybe you should read the small print rather than being full of bile.
Complain about this comment
Great news about the appointment , perhaps now we will get some honest answers from Brown et al .
Complain about this comment
#64 "hear this "taxed again" thing a lot as an argument for why IHT is particularly "disgusting""
Unusual for you saga to actually be putting an argument with substance. and the point about VAT being paid out of post tax income is a reasonable one but let's be honest VAT is, after all, a tax on luxuries and so theoretically optional. You can't, though, bandy figures about when they are set up by you to prove your point. The 'tax on tax' point on IHT is a valid one.
If (say) Mr Muggins was daft enough to already own a house worth £325,000 so that he's used up his nil-rate band and if he then (I dunno) invented some amazing life saving device for a private firm so pleased with him that they gave him a £1m bonus and he then got run down on the way home by a post-office van (to show how unlucky he was, given that they're usually on strike) then first HMRC would take £400,000 off him in income tax and then of the remaining £600,000, another £240,000 would go in IHT. His poor orphaned, disabled children (their mother having already died) would have just £360,000 left of the £1m. which may seem a lot, but there are four of them. Mr Muggins has suffered a tax rate of 64% (rising to 70% next year). The point being that realising that this might happen might lead Mr Muggins to move abroad, leaving us with whatever % we like of nothing at all.
Complain about this comment
35#
Plain and simple.
Jealousy. Someone else has got it, they havent.
End of.
Complain about this comment
Hey! the snob mob have come up with a behind the bike shed idea.
"Lets ask a generals view about afghan"
Cameron has dug out his old light brigade set, volley, thunder, shudder.
Complain about this comment
U @ 63
eventually you'll be able to have a whole coherent thought all of your own, and who knows where that might lead? Enlightenment, perhaps?
you, babe, are making quite a serious Transposition error
... it's "Float like a Butterfly and Sting like a Bee"
Complain about this comment
Well, it's fair to assume that a man in Mr Grayling's position is aware where General Dannatt's political sympathies lie. So if he thought General Dannatt was joining a Labour government, of course he would wonder if it was a political gimmick.
What's the problem?
Complain about this comment
"come on Andy, I was last seen on the "Gamble" thread making a compelling (and thoroughly reasoned) case for you to pay more tax!
hardly a banal contribution, I wouldn't have thought" - sagamix
Hmm, must have missed that. Lots of your posts say there ought to be higher taxes but I'd hardly say that amounts to 'making a case'.
If you're a barrister, shouting "he's guilty, he's guilty, he's guilty" over and over again would certainly amount to you saying that you thought someone was guilty but I wouldn't go so far as saying that was 'making a case'.
Complain about this comment
73#
Wasnt Gelert the dog who got killed by his master Prince Llewelyn, who thought he'd bitten his kid while his back was turned? Turned out the dog didnt do it and the chump had killed his dog for nothing?
Hmmmm. Seems an appropriate handle....
Complain about this comment
#64:
I'll go for your option 2 and the RM fallacy theory.
Not only that, but in my book it doesn't get much fairer than taxing dead people. They can hardly claim they need the money to live on, can they?
If I were looking a repairing the gaping hole in the public finances, whacking up inheritance tax to ridiculously high levels for large estates (say above £1M) would be somewhere near the top of my list. Funny we didn't hear that from the Tories. But I'm sure the vast personal fortune of Dave and Samantha's parents couldn't be at all connected to that, could it?
Complain about this comment
Referring to atrisse on post #12;
"Just, why are your blogs closed down after about half a day or when they reach approx 60 posts? Just that it isn't always possible to respond the moment your comments appear."
I wouldn't normally deliberately go completely off-topic like this; but that above matter is beginning to infuriate me, also. So, in the absence of being able to offer any sort of opinion without going through the insanely convoluted "complaints" page on the Beeb website, I'm raising this here, as atrisse is also.
In recent weeks blogs have been closed pretty quickly; but today, it seems the previous blog - "Cameron talks to Gen. Dannett" - was closed within two hours (as far as I can tell) of it's initial publication.
Guys; there is NO POINT whatsoever in doing this. If you're not going to leave these blogs open for at least a day, don't bother posting them in the first place. It's a waste of your time, and my licence fee.
As a licence-fee payer, I'd like to request that whichever incompetent idiot closed the last blog, be sacked. I normally stick up for the BBC, against the various right-wing loonies who scream "bias" every time you publish something which doesn't fit their pre-conceptions - but quite frankly, anybody stupid enough to have taken that particular decision (to close the blog before most people had even noticed it was there) should not be drawing their wages from my licence fee.
On the same note - find out whichever of your illiterate mods on the HYS pages is incapable of understand the part of the rules which says "If a post doesn't break any of the rules, it will always be published" and get rid of him/her, too.
Thanks. Don't publish this if you don't want to. Just make sure you damn well listen to what you're being told.
Complain about this comment
24. At 2:26pm on 07 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
#3:
I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories? Either it's a good idea or it's not. The fact that Grayling pours scorn on it shows that either he things it's not a good idea or (far more likely) he is so deeply embedded in Punch & Judy politics that he automatically is against anything done by the other side, whether he agrees with it or not.
===
I think you are missing the point. Did you actually read Grayling's statement before spouting off? Which bit of "General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government." do you not understand?
Complain about this comment
Goldcaesar,
it seems I can't answer you because my riposte gor rejecetd. I made a reeasonably argued case, but the mods didn't like it. I suppose its because I retracted the solcialist epithet, replacing it with the f word from opposite end of the political spectrum. Mosely, Hitler, Muss and Franco would have been rpoiud to be in your company. There's freedom of speech for you
--------
So being someone who likes to see words used in their correct context and with their correct meaning makes me a word fascist.
genius.
And in your world that apparently puts me in the same league as
'Mosely, Hitler, Mussoli and Franco'.
Seems like you probably need some lessons in basic political history as well as 'a political vocabularly' for beginners...
Complain about this comment
@ 74 and 75 - U and great haye
you've both put a considerable distance between yourselves and The Point
I'm illustrating to you why the number of taxes is less important than the TOTAL tax ... and hence why the "taxed again" argument is soft head RM Fallacy
pls refer my Q:
are you (1) or are you (2)
??
Complain about this comment
80
He is suspicious of the government's motives with jolly good reason.
You might notice that he is suspicious of this government's motives only. Presumably he is not suspicious of the motives of his own party. In fact, he even praises it as a good move when he thinks it is Labour doing the hiring! I mean for pity's sake, how much more even and fair can he have been?
Complain about this comment
typical tory mp in this day and age, they drop clangers faster than gordon changes direction.
voters can only hope the idiots are removed in the next election.
Complain about this comment
#80 DoM2
It's true he didn't say it was a gimmick, but if you listen to the tone of the interview on the video clip I think it's pretty clear he was doing his best to imply that he thought it was a gimmick. The bit where he says "I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this" is what really gives it away.
----------------------------------------------
The experience of Brown's 'Government of all the talents' shows that Grayling is right to be doubtful if the motives of this government. How many of Brown's initial independent appointments are still around? Answer, hardly any and most have not been replaced showing that it was essentially a PR exercise.
Complain about this comment
# 87. derekbarker wrote:
"Hey! the snob mob..."
I guess resorting to cheap insults on what is in many ways a discriminatory basis is to be expected from you.
Where rational argument fails you, go for the "politics of envy" approach.
Cheap and sleazy, but probably to be expected given the lack of substance in your previous rants.
Complain about this comment
Fubar, #91 - I take your point, but that isn't quite the story, and I will not relate the full story here. Suffice to say the pooch had actually saved the boy's life. I use this handle as it reminds me never to jump to conclusions as to what the real story, and the real villain, is - rather like that old Guardian advert with the punk mowing down the old granny...
It doesn't always work though... But for a 'non-story' this is getting rather close to the century mark, so there must be something in it..
Complain about this comment
Thought that moral is what the journos were always after?
If it is true that Dannatt is going to be made a junior defence minster then it is good news. At present, we have a house of commons, that are being made up of professional grauates with no real life experience beyond the Westminster Village. This is part of the current problem with the House of Commons as well as the deadening hand of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Deary me,
You people complain about Nick being one sided, and yet you can’t accept that Grayling made a bit of a mess on this.
He thought it was a Labour move. And rightly called it a gimmick. He found out to his horror that it was a tory move and called it a “brilliant appointment”.
Hilarious.
I questioned his account from the first moment I read it. Doing interviews with The Sun, and The Telegraph. Releasing confidential personal conversations to the media.
It was like Kerry Katona or Jordan. Not a soldier.
He had to be on the tory Payroll I thought, and I’ve been proved right. He is. Using the deaths of soldiers for political point scoring, for his boss Cameron
Complain about this comment
58. At 2:52pm on 07 Oct 2009, braveSouter wrote:
Well.Well. The Bullingdon Kid is going to find a place in one of the most undemocratic instititions in the western world for someone schooled in such a democratic organisation as the British Army.I suppose it takes a political novice to recognise one.
===
Exactly. Just the same as it was when political novice Gordon Brown appointed TV personality and workplace bully S'Ralan Sugar as a business adviser and ennobled him.
Complain about this comment
No66-77ExiledScot.
I am finding it difficult to understand what you mean. Probably due, as you suggest, to my lack of intellect. Could you explain in more detail?
Complain about this comment
I at least expected Dannett to be given a Tory seat, but on the face of it as another Toff perhaps he will be more comfortable with a peerage. The first question that springs to mind is that if all decisions are taken by the MOD why do we continue to keep this top brass? maybe its time to get rid as they don't seem to add much value or even manage the military budgets effectively. After all remembering back to General Haig in the first world war where the quote was "Lions being lead by donkeys" has anything changed?
Complain about this comment
"Ah good, more smearing.
When in doubt... Discredit, mislead, do whatever you can malign someone who's views you don't agree with.
Where did you learn a trick like that?
"
Hayemaker
Your such a one sided tory, you are impossible to take seriously.
You think printing quotes from grayling, and his opinion on what this actually is is "smearing".
It makes your constant comments on Nick's impartiality, well it shows people what your motives are
The impartiality bit is you. You just get offended when anyone tries to be partial
Complain about this comment
"Nick -- haven't you got better things to write about than trying to upstage the Conservative Party conference. Always remember that things could actually change @ No 10 next year and life may not be quite so cozy for the BBC political arm.
------
Congratulations on getting that published. I have had two posts pointing out this non-story (57 in the previous blog @ 1:38 and 43 in this blog @ 2:39) blocked with no explanation from the mods.
"
And yet, you all thought it was fine for Andrew Marr to discuss Painkillers during the Labour one?
The only impartiality, is the ignorance of the right.
They simply don't want to read articles that potentially discredit Cameron and the tories.
It's why the Daily Mail is so popular
Complain about this comment
The shadow home secretary, always the last too know.
Gimmick, that's a bit soft! who can trust this mob when they cant even organise a conference right.
Champagne fubar, are sucking lemons yet! LoL.
Complain about this comment
93. At 3:30pm on 07 Oct 2009, Khrystalar wrote:
-----------
Good post Khrystalar. The Mods seem to be particularly trigger-happy today.
Complain about this comment
• “Oh Nick, you really are a stirrer. Grayling didn't dismiss government working with army generals as a gimmick, indeed he says that ideally that's exactly what should be happening: Generals and Government working hand in hand.
Clearly, even though he thinks this a good idea, he suspects, even expects that anything this cynical and PR craving government would do would be for political reasons rather than for any particular good of the country. Given the history of the last decade, you have to admit he has a point!
“
Errr
“I admire the work of General Dannatt and other senior generals who've done so much in Afghanistan and done so much to lead. I hope that this isn't a political gimmick. We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR. General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government. But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this.”
He’s categorically stating that he suspects the appointment is a gimmick.
How biased and ignorant are you people.
It makes your words on Brown hard to take seriously, if you can’t even accept the frankly obvious.
The guy said he suspects appointments like this are potentially gimmicks.
Complain about this comment
101. At 3:42pm on 07 Oct 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:
It doesn't always work though... But for a 'non-story' this is getting rather close to the century mark, so there must be something in it..
----
Now that Mr Naylor has come on stream we will soon get up to 200.
Complain about this comment
Even Sky are impressed...
http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:2d325e2b-37ac-457f-929f-aa60db75ceb1
Complain about this comment
1: Dannat has been on every media outlet available this week, leaking info on Brown, criticising Brown etc etc. During a tory conference. Anyone who didn't suspect that he wasn't actually working for the tories already, need's their heads checked.
The guy's been working for them for weeks. He admits that he's met Cameron numerous times, about potentially taking a role with them.
2: I don't agree with senior military figures, leaking info on discussions with the prime minister, to score political points, for people he is working for.
People dying, is not a subject for electioneering. If he's neutral fine. He's not
3: Cameron hired Bob Geldoff as his advisor on famine. A pop singer. Of course it's a gimmick
Complain about this comment
#100 Reaper
That's grim/ ask the reaper man where his envy flows?.
Good day to you, while down on the farm they were shoveling?.
Complain about this comment
"I think you are missing the point. Did you actually read Grayling's statement before spouting off? Which bit of "General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government." do you not understand?"
Yellow belly
Even for a tory voter, that's pretty desperate, and one sided.
Your taking one line of a 10 line sentence. He spent the rest of it basically stating that he "suspected" these sort of moves were political gimmicks.
Are you actually telling me, that you don't think that the guy stated that the hiring of this guy could potentially be a political gimmick?
Complain about this comment
92
"If I were looking a repairing the gaping hole in the public finances, whacking up inheritance tax to ridiculously high levels for large estates (say above £1M) would be somewhere near the top of my list. Funny we didn't hear that from the Tories"
But thats EXACTLY what Osborne DID say
YOU just didnt listen!
God, allwe get from you lot is Lies, Smears and Sneers. You've got NOTHING else to contribute!
Complain about this comment
87. At 3:22pm on 07 Oct 2009, derekbarker wrote:
Hey! the snob mob have come up with a behind the bike shed idea.
"Lets ask a generals view about afghan"
===
In that case Derek, more ideas should come from behind the bike shed.
I would rather ask General Sir Richard Dannatt about Afghanistan that Bob Ainsworth.
Complain about this comment
101#
Theres only something in it because the dogwhistle sneer and smear brigade are out in force... one of them micturates up a tree and the rest of them follow the pack, barking, yelping and sniffing each others tails and making more damn noise and contributing NOTHING.
Complain about this comment
"
He is suspicious of the government's motives with jolly good reason.
You might notice that he is suspicious of this government's motives only. Presumably he is not suspicious of the motives of his own party. In fact, he even praises it as a good move when he thinks it is Labour doing the hiring! I mean for pity's sake, how much more even and fair can he have been?"
Hayemaker,
Your so one sided, I should really take your points with a pinch of salt.
I'll spell it out to you
1: He was told Army man was being lined up as a junior minister.
2: He replied that the Army man is a fine public servant, but he hopes that this isn't political gimmick. And he's suspicious of motives when appointments like this are made. And how "Brown" users it for PR
3: Grayling is informed that the leader doing the hiring is his boss
4: "great news" that the general is joining the Conservatives and that he'd wished he had known before "as I'd have liked to have given him a more enthusiastic welcome
Complain about this comment
Politician Chris Grayling's initial instinct ... I hope that this isn't a political gimmick ... is precisely the right one.
Because time-after-time, non-political people, but experts in their fields are bought into Government and usually get nowhere.
For example, Dr. Ros Altmann is one of the countries leading experts on pensions and was an advisor to Tony Blair on this subject.
But her suggestions for pension reform were rejected by the Labour Government and today in the Times, she is pretty scathing about the Tories latest pension proposals, so they won't be inviting her into Government either.
I suppose these politicians bring in people as PR, to give impression that they are open-minded about policies.
The track-record would suggest otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#34. At 2:33pm on 07 Oct 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:
"Take gun. Point at foot. Shoot.
Open mouth. Insert foot."
Not sure who you are directing those comments to LBG, they seem to apply to both politician and messenger(s), sorry but it is so very obvious that the question was miss-heard anyone trying to capitalise out of this is either very short of anything else to comment on or is trying to score a political point. It's would be nice to hear the full interview - or at least from a point in advance of the question and to a point were the subject moved onto other issues - did, after Chris Grayling making it quite clear that he thought the question was about a future Brown government, Emily Maitlis attempt to clarify that she was talking about a future Cameron government and offer a chance for Chris Grayling to correct himself or did she just move on, and if she did, the question has to be asked why she did so...?
Complain about this comment
"The experience of Brown's 'Government of all the talents' shows that Grayling is right to be doubtful if the motives of this government. How many of Brown's initial independent appointments are still around? Answer, hardly any and most have not been replaced showing that it was essentially a PR exercise.
"
Cameron hired Bob Geldof as a famine advisor, some other famous hippy as a green advisor, and the ex army chief as a defence advisor.
I don't think Cameron has the high ground on PR appointments
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor at endless posts
Are you a person or an office of interns using one log on?
And the appointment of Allan sugar wasn't?
Complain about this comment
'derekbarker wrote:
Hey! the snob mob have come up with a behind the bike shed idea.
"Lets ask a generals view about afghan"'
I know it is crazy isn't it - asking a General's view on a war! Everybody knows that he should have gone to a taxi driver they know everything! What do Generals know about war? And they havn't just gone for any general but the former head of the Army - really what would he know about the needs of the army?
However, I do agree with Grayling - I hope this isn't a gimmick, a good government needs people around who know what they are talking about.
Complain about this comment
I thought Grayling was particularly generous considering he thought it was a Labour appointment
Complain about this comment
106#
Because the top brass are PART OF the MOD, you chump!
Complain about this comment
HELLO! Has everybody forgotten where the continued obsession with standards of public service has come from? It’s because the last Conservative govt. made it a priority to run everything down to a point that not much left was worth counting. It was the complete failure of the Conservatives to deliver more for less in the 1980’s and early 90’s.
Anybody who argues they have somehow received less for more under the current government does not use public services and has rose-tinted spectacles, or was not born until late in that period. The waits at A&E, the need to wait extended periods for any medical treatment, the massive class sizes and shoddy schools, the unemployed shifted on to incapacity benefit to massage the figures, where budget constraints meant if you where the last one into a public sector organisation front or back office you lived in fear of losing your job regardless of your worth. It was frontline staff before and it will be again if the smiling Conservative public sector assassins get in. We have only in the last few years reached a point where the standards of public services in this country are not totally embarrassing when compared to our neighbours.
Budget deficits exist around the world, many countries with relatively large overall deficits as % of GDP have coped for generations without substantially compromising their public services, deficits will recede, and yes some pain will be felt but it does seem to be the many not the few who are feeling this pain under Conservative policies so far. They criticise govt. handling of the recession citing jobless figures, but lay out plans to add substantially more to the figure. Give me something to vote FOR! (as you may have guessed I am not a Millionaire asset rich person nearing death and neither are any of my relatives, those with money enough buy insurances against inheritance taxes anyway).
Complain about this comment
Pure joy; the BBC and newlabour apologists flailing around for a reason to dislike the tories.
The tories are already disliked - this is not a new call. The tories have taken an executive decision to say - have it your way. Either vote for an administration that is spending its way to oblivion and refuses to support the armed forces or vote for an admionsitration that has openly declared war on public sector waste.
If you're not prepared to support a war on public sector waste the tories don't want to be the government. Can't you see? They have kicked the ball fitrmly into the back of the newlabour net and said 'justify this profligacy that will ruin us'... 'you won't stop it so we want a proper mandate to get on with the job'
Gordon Brown is supposed to be addicted to dividing lines - the tories just gave him one but he seems strangely muted.
Can we please have a post on why the tories handed Gorodn Brown a dividing line and all of a sudden Gordon has gone weak as a kitten?
The choice is clear, General Sir Richard or no, either you are prepared to vote for an end to this newlabour dystopia where we live a life we can't afford or you vote for an end to the entire experience. Equalities agendas included.
Call an election and let the people decide.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe some of the posts here that try to explain this one away. It's certainly not a non-story. This is a luxury, top of the range, 5-star gaffe. I'll bet Grayling's very popular in Manchester just now.
Complain about this comment
"He thought it was a Labour move. And rightly called it a gimmick." Mike_Naylor
It would, I guess be a waste of time to point out that his actual words were "I hope that this isn't a political gimmick" and not "This is a political gimmick"
It would, I guess, be a waste of expectation that you might be able to tell the difference.
Complain about this comment
96
Saga,
To move to what you mistakenly think the point is.
Do you recognise that being taxed twice would equal a greater tax burden than each of the individual taxes?
Now do you receognise that 50% + whatever inheritance tax is (not that fussed, I will certainly never inherit anything, and if I leave any inheritance to my kids it will be through an untimely death) is a whopping great big amount of TOTAL tax.
Complain about this comment
111 Mike Naylor
You really are showing your ignorance with this stance.
"He’s categorically stating that he suspects the appointment is a gimmick.
How biased and ignorant are you people."
He actually said that he hoped it wasn't a gimmick, that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
So, turning it round, how biased and ignorant are YOU?
Complain about this comment
#26 - Word of the day toilet paper?
Complain about this comment
'Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about.'
Imagine it! No need for Hansard anymore. Maybe just a sheet of A4 with a few notes on it once every blue moon!
Complain about this comment
119 - Micturating ? Moi ? How very dare you !
Complain about this comment
58. At 2:52pm on 07 Oct 2009, braveSouter wrote:
Well.Well. The Bullingdon Kid is going to find a place in one of the most undemocratic instititions in the western world for someone schooled in such a democratic organisation as the British Army.I suppose it takes a political novice to recognise one.
===========================
Calling the tories undemocratic is a touch hypocritical (not a word you labour supporters seem to have in your dictionaries), considering the numbers parachuted in Gordon who now wants to close the door. Surely you must accept that he is the least democratic 'leader' ever to climbed the greasy pole in the UK.
Complain about this comment
If Gordan Brown had his way,Gen Dannatt would be
imprisoned in the Tower.
However Dannatt hasn't the skills of a youth wanting a new mobile.
Choose the phone you want,two v.expensive,and one slightly cheaper! and
its odds-on you get what you wanted.
Complain about this comment
103. At 3:43pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Deary me,
You people complain about Nick being one sided, and yet you can’t accept that Grayling made a bit of a mess on this.
He thought it was a Labour move. And rightly called it a gimmick. He found out to his horror that it was a tory move and called it a “brilliant appointment”.
=---------------
No no.
He called it a good appointment (when he thought it was a labour move). Then said he hoped it wasn't a gimmik.
But don't let the facts ruin your infantile approach to blogging.
Complain about this comment
139#
Ah, Derek... using your spinspamspun login as well!
You're on a roll today..... just keep rolling, to exit stage right!
Complain about this comment
"Theres only something in it because the dogwhistle sneer and smear brigade are out in force... one of them micturates up a tree and the rest of them follow the pack, barking, yelping and sniffing each others tails and making more damn noise and contributing NOTHING"
Sadly tories are smearing themselves.
Complain about this comment
14. At 3:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
...3: Cameron hired Bob Geldoff as his advisor on famine. A pop singer. Of course it's a gimmick...
===
S'Ralan Sugar - gimmick.
Arlene Phillips - gimmick.
Fiona Phillips - gimmick.
Complain about this comment
And Dannat will rightly be accused of political favouring rather than just being a general.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Cameron's special advisor on Famine, and Cameron's special advisor on defence can share an office?
I realise that these are very important 9-5 government jobs, but Bob Geldoff is heading off on a world pop music tour soon, with his reformed Boomtown Rats.
Should be plenty of space for these 2 political giants to share and share alike
Complain about this comment
129#
(as you may have guessed I am not a Millionaire asset rich person nearing death and neither are any of my relatives, those with money enough buy insurances against inheritance taxes anyway).
More's the damn pity... what the heck has this got to do with the blog subject??? NOTHING!!!!
Complain about this comment
64. At 2:58pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
hear this "taxed again" thing a lot as an argument for why IHT is particularly "disgusting"
it's another "Reactionary Mush" fallacy
every time you buy something VATable out of taxed income you're being taxed again, are you not?
any case, it's the total tax you're paying which is relevant - allow me to demonstrate with a simple Q
we have the choice between 2 scenarios:
(1) we pay ONE tax and it costs us £5,000
(2) we pay TWO taxes and together they cost us £4,500
which do we go for?
if (1) we agree with you that the "taxed again" point is valid
if (2) we agree with me that it's RM Fallacy
answers on a postcard
====================
Saga, here's my postcard - your example makes no sense whatsoever.
But as long as you can sit there thinking you've won an argument with it, then good for you.
Complain about this comment
16. At 3:56pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"I think you are missing the point. Did you actually read Grayling's statement before spouting off? Which bit of "General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government." do you not understand?"
Yellow belly
Even for a tory voter, that's pretty desperate, and one sided.
Your taking one line of a 10 line sentence. He spent the rest of it basically stating that he "suspected" these sort of moves were political gimmicks.
===
Not Tory, ABL, like 75% of the population.
Please show the quote where he says he "suspects" it is a gimmick then.
Complain about this comment
"Pure joy; the BBC and newlabour apologists flailing around for a reason to dislike the tories.
The tories are already disliked - this is not a new call. The tories have taken an executive decision to say - have it your way. Either vote for an administration that is spending its way to oblivion and refuses to support the armed forces or vote for an admionsitration that has openly declared war on public sector waste.
If you're not prepared to support a war on public sector waste the tories don't want to be the government. Can't you see? They have kicked the ball fitrmly into the back of the newlabour net and said 'justify this profligacy that will ruin us'... 'you won't stop it so we want a proper mandate to get on with the job'
Gordon Brown is supposed to be addicted to dividing lines - the tories just gave him one but he seems strangely muted.
Can we please have a post on why the tories handed Gorodn Brown a dividing line and all of a sudden Gordon has gone weak as a kitten?
The choice is clear, General Sir Richard or no, either you are prepared to vote for an end to this newlabour dystopia where we live a life we can't afford or you vote for an end to the entire experience. Equalities agendas included.
Call an election and let the people decide.
"
Sadly, if the tories make a gaff, it's a news companies duty to report it. Even Rupert Murdoch's SKY news are running it as a headline story.
I think in truth, you'd actually prefer it to be whitewashed. If so, try the Daily Mail
Complain about this comment
"Call an election and let the people decide."
I'm pretty sure Cameron doesn't want an election now. On the week he's upset about 20% of the UK working population.
Complain about this comment
andy @ 85
right, excellent! - yes we can argue (one day) about the merits and demerits of IHT but the point we're on here ... the fallacy I'm out to nail ... is the one where people say it's particularly "disgusting" (GHM) or "robbery" (U) because one has already payed tax in one's lifetime, and so it's getting "taxed again"
and I'm saying that's a false argument because it's the total tax not the number of taxes which is important
and to illustrate ... to YOU now, Andrew
C555 has a choice - he can pay:
(1) one tax and it costs him £5,000, or
(2) two taxes and they together cost him £4,500
which does he choose?
to support the fallacy, he has to choose (1)
and does he?
Complain about this comment
107
Arf.
You don't know what impartiality is. Woudln't know if it jumped up and bit you.
Here's a little titbit for you. I have voted labour twice in my life. To my shame, I allowed myself to be misled by Blair.
Does that somewhat take the all of substance out of your obnoxious little tirade?
It is hilarious reading through your posts. You accuse every single person who disagrees with you of gross bias, and fail to recognise the gaping flaw in your own make up.
Just why do you think people here would be biased? We live in this country. We have only our own best interests at heart. If you are honestly suggesting that people will vote to go make themselves worse off for a preconceived bias, you have a serious mental incapacity.
Complain about this comment
"I know it is crazy isn't it - asking a General's view on a war! Everybody knows that he should have gone to a taxi driver they know everything! What do Generals know about war? And they havn't just gone for any general but the former head of the Army - really what would he know about the needs of the army?
However, I do agree with Grayling - I hope this isn't a gimmick, a good government needs people around who know what they are talking about"
Generals are paid to fight and lead.
Not use their position, to give a political party a helping hand in the polls, for a handsome pay check
Complain about this comment
116. At 3:56pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Yellow belly
Even for a tory voter, that's pretty desperate, and one sided.
===
I think this quote from General Sir Richard Dannatt neatly sums you up:
"Gen Dannatt told BBC Radio 5live: "I think it's really sad that if you've lost the argument you stop talking about the issues and start going for the people. I mean that's not how good governments should be run.
"I think we should just move on and government by smear, politics by smear - we just don't need that."
Complain about this comment
Imagine if a Labour MP had said this, after a Labour appointment.
90% of you would be screaming
"PR, Gimmick, this vile hapless, spineless government arf arf arf".
Your justification is hilarious. Your even blaiming nick for reporting it!
Complain about this comment
This is a complete non-story, Clearly Mr Grayling didn't know about the appointment misheard and said he hoped it wasn't a gimmick. I'm sure we all hope its not a gimmick, clearly with less than a year to go and their previous relationship if this had been a Labour appointment it would have been a gimmick.
OK its a bit embarrassing but not as serious as the cabinet minister ultimately responsible for the BBC accusing them of bias just as an prolonged election run up is starting. That has huge implications.
It is interesting that I remember Norman Tebbit accusing the BBC of bias if both sides take this view then its probably toeing the middle line as well as can be expected. Likewise, contributors to this blog seem to accuse Nick of bias from both points of view.
Complain about this comment
"Can we please have a post on why the tories handed Gorodn Brown a dividing line and all of a sudden Gordon has gone weak as a kitten?"
When a party upsets 20% of the workforce, sometimes the best form of defence is to just stay quiet, and let them sink.
See Labour conference, 1992.
Complain about this comment
Mike naylor, you are so one sided, noone should ever believe a word you say.
The left is so full of inuendo, smear. We really shouldn't expect any more from a labour supporter.
Are you so ignorant and one sdied that you don't see this?
(anyone recognise the style...?)
Complain about this comment
I do love the Tories on this blog. What they are trying to justify is as follows: according to a future member of the Cabinet - it is a gimmick if Labour did it, but if the Tories do it its part of a well thought out plan. Give me strength!
The Tories have yet again demonstrated total incompetence in opposition, and i for one hope that they do not get anywhere near the Government benches, for the sake of this country.
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor
Who are you? How many are you? Do you read anything that the Labour spin manual? Do you read?
Complain about this comment
Grayling has really dropped one this time hasn't he Nick LOL (Not)!
It would be really funny if it wasn't so pathetic! At last you've found a stick to beat the tories, there are no flies on you are there?
Come On! This is a non story just like every other piece of anti-tory propaganda the BBC is spouting at the moment. Lets have a real story e.g. Ed Balls telling us he is going to sack 20000 teachers if Labour win the next election! Haven't heard from you on that one have we?
BTW, nice to see Mike Naylor back on the blog spouting his anti-tory rhetoric (or is it Damien McBride (or Lord Mandelson, or Alastair Campbell etc. etc.))
Complain about this comment
103. At 3:43pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Deary me,
You people complain about Nick being one sided, and yet you can’t accept that Grayling made a bit of a mess on this.
He thought it was a Labour move. And rightly called it a gimmick. He found out to his horror that it was a tory move and called it a “brilliant appointment”.
Hilarious.
=================
He hoped it wasn't a gimmick - he didn't call it a gimmick.
But don't let the truth get in the way will you mike.
Complain about this comment
great haye @ 133
no, you're still missing it
you said IHT is particularly irksome because it means you are being "taxed again"
and I'm demonstrating why that is a Fallacy - pls see my 151 above to Andy
we can talk another time (would like to!) about whether it's a "good" or a "bad" tax but let's get this point cleared up first
Complain about this comment
108. At 3:47pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
And yet, you all thought it was fine for Andrew Marr to discuss Painkillers during the Labour one?
----------
No, I didn't actually.
Complain about this comment
"How biased and ignorant are you people."
He actually said that he hoped it wasn't a gimmick, that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
So, turning it round, how biased and ignorant are YOU?
"
yellow belly
Your defence of the indefensible. Sorry, your not even a worthy debating foe.
I may as well be debating with a Man Utd fan, who is better, Gerrard or Wayne Rooney...........
Your totally ignorant, blinkered, biased reading of a pretty straightfoward statement has gone past the above. It's just rather amusing.
He was told of the appointment. He said "he hoped it wasn't a gimmick" as it seemed that it possibly was. That's basically it.
And really, Cameron has just as much form for gimmicky appointments. Bob Geldof anyone?
Complain about this comment
"that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
"
Now your just making things up. As you are trying to argue blue is actually red.
What a pathetic artgument this is.
ME talking about what he said, and what he implied. The most obvious thing ever. So obvious that even the Daily Mail and Sky News have covered it as a full story.
You arguing that it didn't happen.
Your vote will be a hard fought after target. Right on the fence. Could go either way............
Complain about this comment
#154 yellow-bell
Ah, Murdoch's baiting boy's are all on a heavy line over Grayling.
Did the tory conference have a debate about law and order today?
Ssssssh, it's all so quiet, then! Bang! another cat out the bag starts another big riot.
Complain about this comment
This is the Consevatives being at their best and true to form, by admitting that its O.K. if we think of anything first, as it will be in the best interest of the Country if we hire someone, but bad for the Country should Labour hire this same Guy [ Dannatt ] instead.
Therefore, for the Conservatives its:- "Dannatt", thats done it! we've been rumbled.
Just like they will be rumbled as their Policies become un-glued before the next General Election, for I also like their meaningless joke's where they were saying at the beginning of their Conference that they will be introducing a Policy whereby once anyone reaches Retirement Age, (which was 65 upon that day), of an up-front Fee of £8.000 Pounds then anyone over that Age will have their Personal Care cost met by the State should they go into a Care Home, only to hear again the very next Day that they have within 24 Hours already moved the Goal-Post by raising the Retirement Age to 66.
Be on the look-out for even more "General" gimmicks and Political Sound-Bites from the Conservatives right up until the next Election.
Complain about this comment
sweet @ 147
your example makes no sense whatsoever
it does but it requires a grasp of simple logic
pls refer my 151 ... pretend you're Andy (if that's not too awful a thought) and let me know which of (1) or (2) you would choose
that's all I need you to do
(don't be scared, I won't bite!)
Complain about this comment
114. At 3:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
.......3: Cameron hired Bob Geldoff as his advisor on famine. A pop singer. Of course it's a gimmick
**********************************
At least Labour wouldn't resort to such lowdown gimmickry as getting someone like say, um, Bono- a pop singer - perhaps to make a video for their conference. Would they?
Complain about this comment
45. At 4:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Maybe Cameron's special advisor on Famine, and Cameron's special advisor on defence can share an office?
I realise that these are very important 9-5 government jobs, but Bob Geldoff is heading off on a world pop music tour soon, with his reformed Boomtown Rats.
Should be plenty of space for these 2 political giants to share and share alike
===
My, how obtuse are you today?
Perhaps S'Ralan and Arlene can discuss reality TV with Gordon Brown, He is a big fan of Britain's Got Talent after all.
And trying to trash the Tories for using personalities is a bit rich when Gordon Brown tried to get Fiona Phillips (has been ex-GMTV presenter) to be an adviser on child poverty or public health.
How desperate would you need to be?
Complain about this comment
“Not Tory, ABL, like 75% of the population.
Please show the quote where he says he "suspects" it is a gimmick then
---------------------------------------------------------
“I hope that this isn't a political gimmick. “
“General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government. But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this.”
I’d suggest he’s implying that he thinks it’s potentially suspicious that this is a political gimmick.
By the way he says basically that
Seriously. This isn’t even interesting any more.
Your honestly trying to convince me that the obvious didn’t happen, because of a technicality on a word.
Complain about this comment
I don’t understand this ‘Smear Brigade’ thing but I guess I am new to this. It seems clear to me without knowing the General personally that he has been planning to leave his neutral space as a Public Servant and work for the Conservatives. His behaviour as a public servant does appear to be self-serving, and highly political in the partisan fashion.
My main point is that a career Army man should not be a minister running all elements of the armed forces, he will skew the debate towards troops/army rather than other strategic longer term military assets that the country will need or potentially regret not having after Afghanistan when it’s too late. Yes fine to have military advisors from across the services on operational and strategy issues, but lets keep some separation and rounded understanding of the armed forces within the context of the society it serves.
Complain about this comment
106. At 3:45pm on 07 Oct 2009, notfooledsteve wrote:
The first question that springs to mind is that if all decisions are taken by the MOD why do we continue to keep this top brass?
"Ignorance is bliss"
You must be one happy bunny.
Complain about this comment
"Arf.
You don't know what impartiality is. Woudln't know if it jumped up and bit you.
Here's a little titbit for you. I have voted labour twice in my life. To my shame, I allowed myself to be misled by Blair.
Does that somewhat take the all of substance out of your obnoxious little tirade?
It is hilarious reading through your posts. You accuse every single person who disagrees with you of gross bias, and fail to recognise the gaping flaw in your own make up.
Just why do you think people here would be biased? We live in this country. We have only our own best interests at heart. If you are honestly suggesting that people will vote to go make themselves worse off for a preconceived bias, you have a serious mental incapacity."
Hayemaker
I've watched you come on here attacking every bit of Labour news, good or bad, for at least 3 years.
I don't believe for one minute that you are anything more than a staunch tory.
You criticise Labour, for anything. And defend the tories, no matter what they do.
If you maybe accepted the fact that the blues make the odd mistake every now and then, I'd maybe believe your unpartisan nature.
Sadly, your little more than one of these little blue attack dogs, that floods boards with hate whenever they see Gordon Brown mentioned
Complain about this comment
53. At 4:24pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"I know it is crazy isn't it - asking a General's view on a war! Everybody knows that he should have gone to a taxi driver they know everything! What do Generals know about war? And they havn't just gone for any general but the former head of the Army - really what would he know about the needs of the army?
However, I do agree with Grayling - I hope this isn't a gimmick, a good government needs people around who know what they are talking about"
Generals are paid to fight and lead.
Not use their position, to give a political party a helping hand in the polls, for a handsome pay check
===
He has retired, or did that fact escape you in your haste to post your bile?
Complain about this comment
"Mike naylor, you are so one sided, noone should ever believe a word you say.
The left is so full of inuendo, smear. We really shouldn't expect any more from a labour supporter.
Are you so ignorant and one sdied that you don't see this?
(anyone recognise the style...?)"
I have a simply reply. I implore anyone to look at Hayemakers comment history for the last year.
Where he attacks, with great ferocity any little bit of news on Labour. And attacks Nick, with great ferocity, with any negative story on Cameron.
It's either "Labour are bad" or "nick is biased". There is no middle ground.
Why am I better? I accept Labour errors, and stories. I don't claim they are false or biased.
Complain about this comment
159. At 4:28pm on 07 Oct 2009, manuinlondon wrote:
I do love the Tories on this blog. What they are trying to justify is as follows: according to a future member of the Cabinet - it is a gimmick if Labour did it, but if the Tories do it its part of a well thought out plan. Give me strength!
The Tories have yet again demonstrated total incompetence in opposition, and i for one hope that they do not get anywhere near the Government benches, for the sake of this country.
===
Please read Grayling's exact words again, and then come back on here and quote where he says it is a gimmick.
I won't be holding my breath waiting.
Complain about this comment
I think I'd get flustered if Emily Maitlis came to ask me questions. She's a bit gorgeous, isn't she? Or is it just me that thinks so?
It shows that Mr Grayling is a real man, I think.
Complain about this comment
"Gen Dannatt told BBC Radio 5live: "I think it's really sad that if you've lost the argument you stop talking about the issues and start going for the people. I mean that's not how good governments should be run.
"I think we should just move on and government by smear, politics by smear - we just don't need that."
"
General Dannant sadly refused to release his expenses, when requested. Meaning the government are having to pursue them through the freedom of information act.
The only smear is that General Dannant wouldn't release expenses when requested.
I wonder why........
Complain about this comment
Mike_Naylor wrote:
Errr
“I admire the work of General Dannatt and other senior generals who've done so much in Afghanistan and done so much to lead. I hope that this isn't a political gimmick. We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR. General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government. But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this.”
He’s categorically stating that he suspects the appointment is a gimmick.
How biased and ignorant are you people."
Obviously less biased and ignorant than you are - you have cleverly copied the quote but have managed to totally avoid a key line in your conclusions:
"We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR."
This suggests that Grayling believes (obviously wrongly) that this is a Labour announcement. His comments suggest that he agrees with the principle of Generals working with the government but he thinks that it is just being done for PR (which lets be honest is probably true - the only difference is that it is Tory PR and not Labour)
The big problem for the Tories is that one of their senior MPs has goofed - he should have been aware that this was their policy and not Labours. However, if you read his words (and take off your New Labour glasses) you will see that he thinks it is a good idea, he just clearly misheard it.
However, Nick managing to turn the words "I hope that this isn't a political gimmick" into "What Mr Grayling dismissed as a 'gimmick'" is bad journalism.
If Gordon Brown was heard to say "I hope that we don't lose the election" would you expect a journalist to lead with "Gordon Brown has admitted that Labour will lose the election"?
Complain about this comment
Chris Grayling was just doing what all politicians like to do, especially when an election is on the horizon, trying to rubbish the other parties - but this time without "hearing the question" first?
Quite a gaff during conference week and not a good omen for his future I fear.
More interesting for me though, is the position of General Dannatt himself. This announcement puts into context all the recent press he has been getting about his view of the Afgan war and his forays with the MOD.
Should we now take all of his comments with a big pinch of salt?
In my view politicians should stick to politics and Army Generals should keep out of politics.
Complain about this comment
"Gen Dannatt told BBC Radio 5live: "I think it's really sad that if you've lost the argument you stop talking about the issues and start going for the people. I mean that's not how good governments should be run.
"I think we should just move on and government by smear, politics by smear - we just don't need that.""
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAve a day off. You'd be dangerous if you actually read the news.
The "smear"? General Danannt refusing to release his expenses, under new legislation that government brought in to catch expense cheats. One the tories also backed.
Complain about this comment
Ho ho. This is why I love Party Conferences. I wonder if Mr Grayling will be heading for a lesser role in the next few weeks/months.
David Cameron has shown himself to be thoroughly ruthless in response to embarrassing gaffs.
Complain about this comment
166. At 4:33pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
"
Now your just making things up. As you are trying to argue blue is actually red.
What a pathetic artgument this is.
===
And which bit do you think is made up?
Complain about this comment
Sorry saga, but I'm too tired and have far too much to do before I go home.
I hope someone else will explain for you, but if not, remind me when I am next on and I will happily pick it up again.
Complain about this comment
"My, how obtuse are you today?
Perhaps S'Ralan and Arlene can discuss reality TV with Gordon Brown, He is a big fan of Britain's Got Talent after all.
And trying to trash the Tories for using personalities is a bit rich when Gordon Brown tried to get Fiona Phillips (has been ex-GMTV presenter) to be an adviser on child poverty or public health.
How desperate would you need to be"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure the argument is "gordon brown makes gimmicky appointments".
The argument is "David Cameron is just as bad".
Complain about this comment
"It seems clear to me without knowing the General personally that he has been planning to leave his neutral space as a Public Servant and work for the Conservatives. His behaviour as a public servant does appear to be self-serving, and highly political in the partisan fashion."
I really couldn't have put it better myself. Public Servants are neutral. When people start using this status, to help party polls, people have a problem.
The guy's been eyeing up a tory job for months. And should be ashamed of himself for cashing in his position of trust
Complain about this comment
ExiledScot - writes,
'As an army officer his first consideration is his men not politics'
That may be true of General Dannatt, but all army officers?
Can you remember when ex Prime Minister Thatcher was bowing and scraping at the feet of the mass murderer and torturer General Pinochet when he was being detained in the leafy suberbs? When, on his orders the elected leader of his country was murdered, democracy destroyed, parliament building razed to the ground,and a government of thugs installed, do you think he was thinking of his men or politics?
Complain about this comment
"and to illustrate ... to YOU now, Andrew
C555 has a choice - he can pay:
(1) one tax and it costs him £5,000, or
(2) two taxes and they together cost him £4,500
which does he choose?
to support the fallacy, he has to choose (1)
and does he?"
You're argument makes no sense posed as it is. Of course someone would rather suffer 15 or even a hundred taxes if the total tax was less than 1 tax. But that isn't what we're dealing with here.
Your one tax/two tax gets it the wrong way round, since the combined effect of IT & IHT is clearly higher than the effect of either on their own. How can it possibly be the case in your one tax/two tax argument that someone paying IT & then IHT pays less tax than someone paying one or the other? There is NO single tax in the UK with a tax rate of 64 (or 70%) so there can NEVER be a case similar to the one you use to 'prove' your case.
If we start from the premise that it is right to tax someone's income (which I accept) then can you not see that the effect of IHT is that when earned, the income is taxed (income tax) and then when you die the residual income (if you still have it) is taxed again. The combined rate will reach up to 70% next year. The residual income has been taxed. Agree? It is then taxed again. Agree?
Besides, as I have already pointed out, people will leave the UK and/or work out ways round it.
Complain about this comment
"pretend you're Andy (if that's not too awful a thought) and let me know which of (1) or (2) you would choose"
Oh dear, now descending to the cheap and nasty.
Complain about this comment
172
Yes, how silly of us. Listening to what people actually say instead of accusing them of saying something completely different.
Now I see my mistake.
The next time I say I hope it doesn't rain, I will really be telling everyone "look, its raining".
Complain about this comment
#93:
A truly excellent post. Well said. Just what I was thinking myself, but would never have expressed so clearly.
#94:
I refer you to my earlier post at #80 (which, to be fair, probably hadn't been approved by the mods when you posted).
#99:
Can't disagree with any of that. All I ask is why would it not be an equally silly idea if the Tories do it.
Complain about this comment
My big issue with this:
David Cameron opposed the last reinforcements Brown sent. So, morally, how can this general, with a straight face, criticise Brown, and work for Dave?
Sorry, I'm against neutral public servants cashing in on their position, to help political parties.
The sad thing is, if the tories were in power, he'd be campaigning for Labour.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Usually I don't bother with all the accusations of bias, but this blog is pretty disgraceful.
You ignore the fact that a top General has accused the Prime Minister of leaving British troops under-resourced. You ignore the fact that he says one thing and Downing Street says another (someone is lying, and I know who has the track record). But if a Tory politician says something embarrassing then suddenly it's news.
Your blog has become a mouthpiece for Labour spin.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
Your so one sided, I should really take your points with a pinch of salt.
I'll spell it out to you"
I will make it even more simple for you
"1: He was told Army man was being lined up as a junior minister.
2: He replied that the Army man is a fine public servant, but he hopes that this isn't political gimmick. And he's suspicious of motives when appointments like this are made. And how "Brown" users it for PR"
He is told that the former head of the Army is being lined up as a junior minister and replies
"Great news - he is a good man but I hope Brown isn't using him for PR"
Note that he isn't against the appointment, he just thinks it is a Labour gimmick
"3: Grayling is informed that the leader doing the hiring is his boss
4: "great news" that the general is joining the Conservatives and that he'd wished he had known before "as I'd have liked to have given him a more enthusiastic welcome"
He is then told that the General is going to be working with the Tories and replies
"Great news!"
he said the General was "an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government" even though he thought it was a Labour annoucement, he only thought it was a gimmick because frankly that is what Labour does e.g. making Sir Alan a Lord, announcing a public sector pay freeze during the Tory conference to try and steal headlines.
Labour uses gimmicks because they are out of ideas, the Tories use gimmicks as well because they don't want to tell people their ideas!
Complain about this comment
"He has retired, or did that fact escape you in your haste to post your bile?
"
He's cashing in on his position of trust, in the armed forces. Although he is retired, he is still thought of as a senior army figure
Senior Public servants are supposedly neutral.
They aren't generally used to boost one parties poll rating over the others.
Complain about this comment
173
I actually agree that this might make it necessary to take the smear accusations with a pinch of salt. On the other hand, there is some history here if I'm not mistaken...
No reason why he shouldn't have a position in the government though, as long as he has the right skills and knowledge. What should not happen is for him to be given a position as a gimmik. As in for appearance sake only. He should get the job only if he is there on merit.
As Grayling rightly said.
Complain about this comment
Where have all these labour apologists come from the last couple of days?
Posting 20 comments an hour, adding 'right on' to each others posts etc...
There are more of you on here than there were at the conference last week!
Complain about this comment
Aren't we all getting this a bit out of proportion. Chris Grayling made a mistake - but it wasn't exactly earth-shattering. It's not like he's tricked us into an illegal war or something.
Complain about this comment
sagamix
Please explain what my mistake is.
£1,000,000 bonus taxed at 40%, residual income £600,000 He has paid £400,000 IT
Man dies next day, taxable estate is £600,000
IHT at 40% = £240,000
What is being taxed? The £600,000.
What does this £600,000 represent? It represents the post tax take-home of the £1,000,000.
The £600,000 has been taxed once. That's why it is £600,000 and not £1,000,000.
It is now £340,000
The reason it is £340,000 is because it has been taxed again.
Some people might conclude that the £1,000,000 has been taxed and then the residual has been taxed. You, I am sure will be able to analyse it differently.
Complain about this comment
175
I don't feel any particular need to defend myself to the likes of you. Believe what you like, not going to lose any sleep over it.
I'm more than happy to praise anyone who gets it right, and criticise anyone who gets it wrong. I have praised Labour (tuition fees was the last big one, I was initially in favour of Iraq as well) and criticised Tory's (expenses) when deserved.
As it happens though, at the moment the Tory's are the ones getting it closer to "right" than Labour.
Complain about this comment
112. At 3:52pm on 07 Oct 2009, you wrote:
101. At 3:42pm on 07 Oct 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:
It doesn't always work though... But for a 'non-story' this is getting rather close to the century mark, so there must be something in it..
----
Now that Mr Naylor has come on stream we will soon get up to 200.
---
told you!
Complain about this comment
"PrestonFirmlie wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here that try to explain this one away. It's certainly not a non-story. This is a luxury, top of the range, 5-star gaffe. I'll bet Grayling's very popular in Manchester just now."
This is far from a 5-star gaffe, and in fact in the history of political gaffes it might rate as a footnote.
If Grayling had rubbished the idea and claimed it was a sign of a government short on ideas trying anything to grab the headlines - that would be a major gaffe.
As it is he basically said it was a good idea but it was likely a gimmick - not really very damning.
Complain about this comment
169. At 4:35pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sweet @ 147
your example makes no sense whatsoever
it does but it requires a grasp of simple logic
pls refer my 151 ... pretend you're Andy (if that's not too awful a thought) and let me know which of (1) or (2) you would choose
that's all I need you to do
(don't be scared, I won't bite!)
============
Your model is wrong, and you know it.
With IHT, a closer example would be
1) 5000
2) 5000 + IHT.
You don't pay less income tax now based on your future IHT - which is what your example is trying to imply to catch people out - so please try again. The whole point is that IHT is tax on taxed income, not two taxes.
You could try saying your example is hypothetical(?), in which case its just playing with numbers and pointless.
Complain about this comment
#117:
Well I really must have missed something if Osborne promised to massively increase inheritance tax. Can you point me to a source?
All I heard was that he wasn't going to implement his plan to DECREASE inheritance tax quite as soon as he had previously hoped to do.
Now, what was that about "Lies, Smears and Sneers"?
And BTW, what do you mean by "you lot"? Last time I checked, there was just one of me.
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor
out of interest.
When did you last praise a Tory?
Or criticise Labour?
Glass houses, stones and all that.
Complain about this comment
If this is the best the BBC and Labour have to offer as criticism then the Tories have nothing to fear.
Complain about this comment
Mike Naylor
"I've watched you come on here attacking every bit of Labour news, good or bad, for at least 3 years."
No you haven't. I have been posting on the political boards for no more than 8 months.
Complain about this comment
@ 178. At 4:44pm on 07 Oct 2009, yellowbelly1959
If a politician can't communicate, he's in the wrong job, but then again the talent pool for the Tory party is so limited, it's understandable that they can't get anyone decent. yet another reason NOT to vote Tory.
Complain about this comment
#198
Thegreatpaytaker, why did Dannatt choose to talk about a meeting he had with the Prime Minister?
Is a general that leaks a good man for a war-zone?
Is this politics choosing the Army or the Army choosing politics?
It's nothing short than a total dogs dinner of a mess.
Complain about this comment
Oh bravesouter.
I can only comment on the army officers with whom I served. Not those of any other country. I am sorry. the post was about the integrity of a UK General, I am glad to see you agree with me.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Call an election and let the people decide."
I'm pretty sure Cameron doesn't want an election now. On the week he's upset about 20% of the UK working population."
Labour let the Public Sector get THAT large? No wonder we are in such debt!
Complain about this comment
187. At 4:49pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
I'm not sure the argument is "gordon brown makes gimmicky appointments".
The argument is "David Cameron is just as bad".
---------------------------------------------
True, for ALL Political Parties resort to "gimmicky" by trying to out-spin each over, for this tomfooly in oneupmanship has been going on now for Years, and merits the Hallmarks of their daftness.
And, it Politicians that have the hind-sight to say that ordinary People don't understand how Politics Works, for can you wonder why when Dumb and Dumber are in charge of events.
The only People that won't admit to any fault-lines in objectivity are Conservative by nature.
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
"I know it is crazy isn't it - asking a General's view on a war! Everybody knows that he should have gone to a taxi driver they know everything! What do Generals know about war? And they havn't just gone for any general but the former head of the Army - really what would he know about the needs of the army?
However, I do agree with Grayling - I hope this isn't a gimmick, a good government needs people around who know what they are talking about"
Generals are paid to fight and lead.
Not use their position, to give a political party a helping hand in the polls, for a handsome pay check"
I guess that is one vote for the "Taxi Driver", god help the soldiers on the front line if you ever get elected they will probably end up with two dozen copies of the London A-Z instead of body armour.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about.
Blimey, you won't get many Ministerial interviews if you're going to that sort of harsh criteria!
I thought Grayling's gaffe was quite good fun. Like a director of Manchester United being asked about a player he's interested in joining a club - but he mishears "United" and perceives "City"...
I'm not that keen on dropping people from specific areas into ministerial jobs. It's been tried for decades. Some are good. Some can't hack it. (Estelle Morris?) But it's good to have them, around as attack dogs with the experience to get minds focused on what's really needed.
Complain about this comment
#205
I'm with you on this one, but I warn you, arguing with sagamix is like wrestling with mist.
And sooner or later he'll just stop responding and bring up another point.
He has 'previous' on IHT, trying to make out it's an evil 'Tory Toff' idea to increase allowances when he knows that labour have done a similar thing.
Complain about this comment
The conference season is famous for it's "gaffes".
There was one last week when Gordon Brown listed among Labour’s achievements the Disability Discrimination Act... which was passed under the premiership of John Major and was designed, written and taken through Parliament by William Hague.
So Gordon claiming credit for someone else's work? What a "gaffe"! Or was it just a downright lie?
That wasn't a good enough one for a blog from "impartial" Nick and the BBC, though, was it?
Complain about this comment
210. At 5:08pm on 07 Oct 2009, manuinlondon wrote:
@ 178. At 4:44pm on 07 Oct 2009, yellowbelly1959
If a politician can't communicate, he's in the wrong job, but then again the talent pool for the Tory party is so limited, it's understandable that they can't get anyone decent. yet another reason NOT to vote Tory.
---
You must feel very secure with cabinet heavyweights like Bradshaw, Burnham, Ainsworth....
Complain about this comment
What a load of tosh this story is. The BBC and their Labour supporters desperate to smear the Tories have slumped to this total nonsense. Move on everyone. The real story is about the Czechs and the Lisbon treaty, and how mssrs Kinnock and Blair etc have embedded a socialist agenda into the UK that no future Tory Gov't can remove. We will never have a strong leader ever again because we will only be electing the equivilent of large council leaders. The real power is in Brussels, and all top decisions will be made there. No more History, no more heroes, no more colour and events. How long will this creation last, who will be able to attack it in future, we have sleep walked into this, and the main beneficiary is the slimy salesman Tony. How did we let this happen - because the press, and the BBC, were more interested in what Chris Grayling said about Dannat, something that really really doesn't matter.
Grow up everyone, your all being shafted and your too busy being distracted.
Complain about this comment
#106, notfooledsteve wrote:
"I at least expected Dannett to be given a Tory seat, but on the face of it as another Toff perhaps he will be more comfortable with a peerage. The first question that springs to mind is that if all decisions are taken by the MOD why do we continue to keep this top brass? maybe its time to get rid as they don't seem to add much value or even manage the military budgets effectively. After all remembering back to General Haig in the first world war where the quote was "Lions being lead by donkeys" has anything changed?"
The decisions about when to spend money are taken by the MoD.
Goodness knows how far we'd get if we simply abolished military top brass (quite a different thing) and sent Bob Ainsworth and a bunch of civil servants to manage strategic and tactical engagements. Can't stop for tea and bickies just because it's lunch time in Afghanistan...
(Mind you, I still can't work out how we have more Admirals than ships.)
Complain about this comment
Back to the ole IHT are we? The difference between Labour and Tory IHT policy for the death of the surviving spouse leaving a house worth £1m is £96k IHT. Over that house value there is no difference. On a house worth £750k it is £0 IHT in either party case.
Time for the brothers to read the small print, and/or a quality newspaper.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone explain why Saga and Andy and others are bickering about VAT on a thread that is about a perceived gaffe during an interview?
Don't moderators stop off-topic discussions of this kind? Shouldn't they?
And shouldn't they put a top to whole debates when they reach the silly stage, when the same few people start slinging insults? On this thread there is someone called Mike Naylor who is having a battle with Mark We greathaymaker, yellowbelly and others. It is a waste of thread. Let's move on.
Couldn't we have a couple of threads, permanently open, where they could slag each other off for eternity? Then we could discuss in a more civilized fashion.
Complain about this comment
211
Hang on Derek, are you saying that if someone had deliberately and maliscuously attacked your reputation, you would just sit there and take it?
If so, congratulations, you are a better man than me. Personally, I'd fight back, and publicly.
(Note, I'm not necessarily saying that his reputation has been attacked deliberately and maliscuously, just that if it was, he is well within his rights to act).
Complain about this comment
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
"that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
"
Now your just making things up. As you are trying to argue blue is actually red."
Apparently all three actually were offered positions in Brown's government! I think Lord Sugar was the only one who accepted (hence why he is Lord Sugar).
Complain about this comment
# 210 says "If a politician can't communicate, he's in the wrong job..."
I would humbly suggest that Gordon Brown is the prime example of that dictum!
PS
Message to miscellaneous bloggers (of all political persuasions and none). Nick's last comment on his update is:-
"Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about"
Wise words, which we should all heed (including Nick sometimes, but then it's his job to say something even if there's nothing to say or he doesn't know what to say). And it's VERY difficult for a politiican to say "I don't know".
Complain about this comment
Following on from 223: There are often comments about certain regulars that suggest that they are known individuals - party stooges. Is there any evidence for this? Does someone know, for example whether Mike Naylor is someone in New Labour? Say Lord Mandelson of Foy? Or Harriett Harmon?
Is there a list or directory of people/pseudonyms?
Complain about this comment
"74. At 3:11pm on 07 Oct 2009, U14147588 wrote:
#64 Sagamix
I earn 10000, pay tax on it and save 1000, after TAX. I pay more tax on the income I earn on my previously taxed income, and this goes on each year until I die, adding to my litle pot, and paying taxes as I go, however inequitable that may be. And then, when I die, I need to pay even more tax.
Now what part of that seems to you to be entirely fair? Huh?"
"and save £1000, after TAX. I pay more on the income I earn on my previous taxed income" If you mean you pay tax on the interest on savings you actually pay tax on money which is UNEARNED and not EARNED income. If you think for a second or two you will realise this is what it should be. Real wealth can only be earned by working, that is, using human energy and sweating.
I apologise if I have misunderstood your meaning.
Complain about this comment
180. Mike_Naylor
"The only smear is that General Dannant wouldn't release expenses when requested.
I wonder why........"
=
I also wondered why when they were released. He didn't have anything to hide if you read through them. Even occasionally shopped at Aldi. His 'bosses' however are another story...
Dannatt claimed £19,291 between April 1, 2005, and March 31 this year (2009)
Bob Ainsworth claimed £394,306 in Commons expenses from 2005 to 2008 (09 not available)
Kevan Jones (Minister for Defence Equipment and Support) claimed Commons expenses totalling £454,324 from 2005 to 2008
Compare the details of their claims and draw your own conclusions as to who has the most principles.
Complain about this comment
Dannet is a man of quality and bravery Brown should understand that he wrote a book on it but I think he has as much expertise on courage as he does on economics, zip zero nickt.
But never let the tiniest opportunity pass you by
It’s over the top and the big push for the Labour Rapid Rebuttal Unit.
The election campaign and the fight back by the underdogs has started.
But this rabid posting by Naylor etc is going for a world record. This is obviously a room full of paid rebuttal typing Party members but take no notice, there on their way out.
Complain about this comment
213. At 5:09pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mark_WE wrote:
"Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Call an election and let the people decide."
I'm pretty sure Cameron doesn't want an election now. On the week he's upset about 20% of the UK working population."
Labour let the Public Sector get THAT large? No wonder we are in such debt!
------------------
i think its actually much larger than that.
the nhs alone employs around 2 million people directly, and if you count the armed forces (and i'm genuinely unsure as to whether they do officially count as 'public sector' in this context) and i think it may actually be closer to a 35%/65% ratio public to private sector workers, perhaps slightly higher.
Certainly high enough that any reduction in their dispoable income will have to impact the economy as a whole, directly affecting those in the private sector whose goods & services they would otherwise have purchased.
I'm not saying that the public sector doesn't need reform, i just think its a mistake to treat the the public and private sectors as seperate entities when its obvious that any change in the circumstance of one will inevitably affect the other.
Complain about this comment
"Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about."
How very wise Nick.
Shame the current Prime Minister doesnt follow your advice.
Complain about this comment
223. At 5:27pm on 07 Oct 2009, bertrambird wrote:
Don't moderators stop off-topic discussions of this kind? Shouldn't they?
-------------------------------------------------------
What you have to understand is that in "Having Your Say", or if you prefer the more common name - Letting Off Steam - is a release valve for many Conservatives Bloggers, and reading their Smoke - Signals on this Board is by far better Entertainment than watching a Loopy - Lou DVD.
Complain about this comment
I do not feel with so many important policy announcements that are happening at the moment, which are of great interest and concern to the people in this Country that this can be called a story to be honest. Still it is always a surprise to me what obsesses the media. No wonder the public at large have not got a clue what is going on when this is classed as a story.
First it was the Conservatives are supposed to be divided over the EU, which shows how Mandelson is still able to stir up a story from nothing. Now its a perfectly innocent slip by a Minister, who did say the right thing, even though he made a slip of who Dannatt will be working for.
I say which ever party Dannat is going to work for they are very lucky to have him. I think he is a very thoughtful and honourable man.
Labour do have a history of parachuting people in positions for political gain, have we forgotten Alan Sugar for instance, so it would not be unnatural for Grayling to think this was another case of that.
Complain about this comment
180#
You're no less partisan than anyone on this board Naylor and you know it. Your holier than thou smarm is getting to be really irksome.
There is nothing to reveal in Dannatts expenses. The man was buying wine from Lidl for crying out loud!
You're just another one of the dogwhistling brigade. I suppose theres one thing. If the appointment of Dannatt really didnt concern you, you and all your chums who have had your choke chains jerked by Charlie Whelan wouldnt be making such a damned racket about it.
Maybe Robin's got a point. You lot really are flailing arent you?
Complain about this comment
233. At 5:52pm on 07 Oct 2009, LondonHarris wrote:
223. At 5:27pm on 07 Oct 2009, bertrambird wrote:
Don't moderators stop off-topic discussions of this kind? Shouldn't they?
-------------------------------------------------------
How else would you get 230+ entries on a non-story?
Complain about this comment
Seems like a non story at the end of the day. So what if an ex general gets a cabinet post - at least he hasn't been thrown out of office twice and then come back as defacto PM!
Complain about this comment
166. At 4:33pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"that Dannatt would be a good appointment, but alluded to the fact that Brown has form in this area, Lord S'Ralan Sugar, Arlene Phillips and Fiona Phillips (he must have a Phillips phixation) to name but three.
"
Now your just making things up. As you are trying to argue blue is actually red.
What a pathetic artgument this is.
===
"Last month, GMTV host Fiona Phillips said she had turned down an offer from the prime minister to advise him on campaigning, particularly on health issues.
Asked about this, Downing Street said the government would "welcome all men and women of talent".
All parties would say the same.
Tycoon and star of The Apprentice Sir Alan Sugar has accepted an invitation to advise Mr Brown on business."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7156117.stm
"Andy Burnham will use his first big policy speech since taking charge at the Department of Health in June to contrast the success in winning bids for events such as the Olympics with an apparent failure to make a significant impact on participation rates.
He will also announce that Arlene Phillips, who was recently dismissed as a judge on Strictly Come Dancing, has been recruited as a “dance champion” to encourage more people to join dance classes. “We’re really in danger of being known as the best in the world for watching sport, but one of the worst for getting out there and doing it for ourselves,” he will say."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6794111.ece
Complain about this comment
A lot of posts seem to miss the point. The General must have known he was going to do something with the conservatives, but sort to use his position of perceived neutrality to make anti government announcements. This seems a long way short of fair. If he were a member of my senior management team and had lost an argument and then went and whinged about it, I would think he was a weak weasel - after all he never said anything publically until he was in the final days of employment. His former colleagues would also see him as a traitor for undermining their collective effort. If he sort to pass himself off as one thing when clearly being another I would think him as deceptive.
I think when he reflects on this he might see his behaviour as some way short of reputable. Also there is the question of did the conservatives know he was going to carry on making comments whilst not being honest about his political position. If they did then then they to were being dishonest. This does not reflect well on David Cameron. Finally Chris Grayling - well all you can say is watch the whole of his speech at the conference and his performance on the Daily politics, oh dear all that work for a political career to end so abruptly. He fits the lightweight tag. Apart from Ken Clark the rest have looked like rabbits caught in the headlights. They may not actually beat new labour with Gordon Brown - it is quite astonishing.
Complain about this comment
180. At 4:46pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Gen Dannatt told BBC Radio 5live: "I think it's really sad that if you've lost the argument you stop talking about the issues and start going for the people. I mean that's not how good governments should be run.
"I think we should just move on and government by smear, politics by smear - we just don't need that."
"
General Dannant sadly refused to release his expenses, when requested. Meaning the government are having to pursue them through the freedom of information act.
The only smear is that General Dannant wouldn't release expenses when requested.
I wonder why........
3. At 4:47pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"Gen Dannatt told BBC Radio 5live: "I think it's really sad that if you've lost the argument you stop talking about the issues and start going for the people. I mean that's not how good governments should be run.
"I think we should just move on and government by smear, politics by smear - we just don't need that.""
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAve a day off. You'd be dangerous if you actually read the news.
The "smear"? General Danannt refusing to release his expenses, under new legislation that government brought in to catch expense cheats. One the tories also backed.
===
Oh Mike, this is all too easy. General Dannatt's expenses, ok:
"Between April 2005 and March 2009 Sir Richard claimed just £19,291, which included having to entertain the heads of other national armies.
By comparison Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, claimed £394,306 in Commons expenses between 2005 and 2008, the latest year for which figures were available.
Those payments covered travel, staff expenses, computer equipment, stationery and his second home allowance.
Sir Richard’s expenses were described by a defence source as “perfectly reasonable” for his role as Chief of the General Staff and his previous post as Commander-in-Chief Land Forces.
The release of the figures by the Ministry of Defence is believed to have been personally sanctioned by Sir Richard who was said to be “sick of innuendo” surrounding his claims and wanted to show he had not spent lavishly.
There have been suggestions that senior Labour figures were attempting to smear him following his increasingly vocal criticism of the government.
Sir Richard’s biggest claim was £1,540.91 for a supper reception to promote “unit cohesiveness” for 110 people on July 7, 2005. That amounts to just £14 per person.
He also claimed £1,320.81 for a barbecue reception for 120 people which worked out at £11 per head. That was held to welcome the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
On one occasion he held a reception for an Indian army chief, with 24 guests, at Kensington Palace and claimed just £123.58, or £5.15 a head. He even used the budget supermarket Lidl to cut costs.
By contrast Mr Ainsworth, as revealed by the Daily Telegraph in June, claimed nearly £6,000 for the redecoration of his second home and submitted bills that included rebuilding the fireplace and fitting oak beams into his ceiling.
He also tried to claim £2,225 for a sofa and £1,000 for an LCD Samsung television, both of which were reduced by the Commons fees office."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6076925/General-Sir-Richard-Dannatts-expenses-were-a-fraction-of-defence-ministers.html
===
Mike, I think you have proved yourself to be the idiot that doesn't read the news. Like all Labour smears, it turns round and bites you in the end.
Feeling a little foolish now are you? You should be.
Complain about this comment
What's all the fuss about anyway? Just because this Dannatt bloke speaks his mind about the car crash that is the MoD.
Gen. Sir Mike Jackson also criticised the government.
So what if he joins the Tories?
What about Baron West of Spithead, Security Adviser and member of GOAT, formally First Sea Lord. Many people thought that a good idea at the time.
In a related field...
Former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Stevens who became an international security adviser to Brown.
And of course, there was Tony's namesake and glove puppet, Sir Ian. Who once famously allowed Labour election posters to appear on a Metropolitan Police car. And an innocent commuter to get shot.
Nothing new here.
Complain about this comment
BB @ 223
can anyone explain why Saga and Andy and others are bickering about IHT?
we're not bickering, Bertram babe, we're trying to explode a "Reactionary Mush" fallacy - and we're almost there too!
Andy
no that's all fine, what you're saying - however, we are debating a point of semantic logic not of opinion - i.e. NOT whether IHT is a good or a bad tax BUT whether it's particularly "wicked" because it involves being "taxed again" - and I've demonstrated to you (I hope) that it is the total tax which counts, not how many times you are taxed ... the point of my (1) vs (2) scenario ... and thus there is nothing special about IHT - it should be evaluated just as any other tax is - how efficient is it? how much does it bring in? how fair is it? etc etc - the "taxed again" point is a red herring and should not be a part of the discussion - it's a fallacy - you can look at it from the other angle if you like, the government angle - if IHT is reduced and the tax take is to stay constant, one needs to raise another tax, yes? - same point from the other side - come on, work with me on this!
and GHM - yes okay, don't you worry about it any longer - that's probably best
Complain about this comment
HA!
Nick Robinson has just referred to David Cameron as "Prime Minster" on the 6 o'clock news
Newsreader: "Right now in the hall David Cameron is as we know it is going through the speech for tomorrow...er..What's that likely to Contain"
Nick: "Well, once again the Prime Minister will once again want to concentrate on the big issue.......etc"
Complain about this comment
97. At 4:56pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
"He has retired, or did that fact escape you in your haste to post your bile?
"
He's cashing in on his position of trust, in the armed forces. Although he is retired, he is still thought of as a senior army figure
===
Only by deluded people trying to prove a point, like you Mike.
Complain about this comment
Is this the best you can do? Just a repeat of a news item. As pointed out by others, it is not quite so funny if you quote Mr Grayling accurately.
Complain about this comment
Well there goes another gimmick up in smoke!!! typical like all the tory announcements this week!!!
Complain about this comment
It's so easy to not answer the question!!
BBC 6 o'clock news TONIGHT
question to NICK ROBINSON "what do you think David Cameron will concentrate on in his speech tomorrow"
NICK ROBINSON'S REPLY "WELL THE PRIME MINISTER WILL CONCENTRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOOKED A BIT OF A CHUMP NICK
Complain about this comment
117#
The proposed policy is to raise the IHT threshold to one million pounds.
Therefore ONLY millionaires will pay IHT. Look it up.
Its so simple even a dumbed down 4 year old child could understand it.
Anyone who doesnt understand it is either thick, lying or smearing. NL have peddled this lie since it was first mooted and you appear to have bought it hook line and sinker like a good little sheeple.
So, what am I to assume, if you're running with the rest of the pack of Charlies 9-5 rebuttal hounds, peeing up lamp posts and barking like mad?
Complain about this comment
It seems its a day for Gaffes... !!!
During Huw Edwards' interview with Nick on the 6 o'clock news this evening, they both mused at Chris Grayling but then as Nick was introducing his earlier interview with David Cameron he refered to Dave as - "the prime minister"
Something you know already Nick?, or a anticipation showing through????
Complain about this comment
poor geriatric @ 228
real wealth can only be created by working, by human energy
really good point
but people often seem to think otherwise
Complain about this comment
The REAL question than needs to be investigated is the apparent inconstancy between statements made by Gen Sir Richard Dannatt and Downing Street over the request for additional troops
The General says his request for 2000 troops was turned down. Downing Street denies this.
They can't both be right, so who do we trust?
This is a government that has already let down the troops with insufficient equipment including a lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles. They have badly messed up on procurement and wasted vast sums of money.
They also tried to 'smear' the General over expenses, but this back-fired when it turned out he has always been extremely frugal, unlike self-serving troughing MPs!
Given Brown's track record and lack of honesty in other areas (eg the promised referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty) I am inclined to listen to attention to what the General is telling us.
Complain about this comment
I have just been listening to the sad plight of the 106 Year Old Lady in a Woverhampton Council Run Home whom along with others will have to be Re-housed.
This of course is directly as a result from Cuts in the Local Authority Block Grant from Central Government, and the Local Authority for this Region cannot afford the 2 Million Pounds needed to up-grade the Property.
While alot of People will be aware that the next Labour Governmenr will have to further reduce Public Expenditure across the Board, and listening to George Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference we are now fully also aware that any incoming Tory Administration will Cut Public Expenditure far more than is currently being proposed by Labour.
With a very bleak outlook for Britain under any next Conservative Administration, we had better get on with a large Building Programme for 21st Century Work-Houses, where we will ALL, (except for the Rich in the Conservative Party), will end up in the future ahead should the Conservatives win the next General Election, and get their way.
Complain about this comment
103. At 3:43pm on 07 Oct 2009, Mike_Naylor wrote:
Deary me, etc
Mike
Please read the transcript that Nick included (tongue firmly in cheek as usual).
In your deluded mind, how does "I hope that this isn't a political gimmick." become "he called it a gimmick"?
Complain about this comment
247. At 6:29pm on 07 Oct 2009, allanvyners wrote:
It's so easy to not answer the question!!
BBC 6 o'clock news TONIGHT
question to NICK ROBINSON "what do you think David Cameron will concentrate on in his speech tomorrow"
NICK ROBINSON'S REPLY "WELL THE PRIME MINISTER WILL CONCENTRATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOOKED A BIT OF A CHUMP NICK
-----
Perhaps he misheard the question.
Complain about this comment
bertram @ 227
does someone know, for example, whether Mike Naylor is someone in New Labour? Say Harriett Harman?
Mike Naylor is NOT Harriet Harman
if that were the case I would be feeling the "aura" and I'm not
Complain about this comment
125. At 4:03pm on 07 Oct 2009, Exiledscot52 wrote:
Mike Naylor at endless posts
Are you a person or an office of interns using one log on?
BBC, this is a serious question - can several PCs (other platforms are available) be logged in to the same ID concurrently and post?
Complain about this comment
Retired Gen Sir Richard Dannatt has publicly stated the reason given to him as to why he could not have the number of troops he requested in Afghanistan.
The reason, he says that PM Gordon Brown told him was that we can't afford it.
I'll let that sink in ... we can't afford it.
Upon reflection, you will probably be thinking why participate in the Afghan campaign in the first place if you think you're going to run out of money.
It has been reported that Gordon Brown has always had a grudging attitude towards the military during his tenure as Chancellor and now Dannant reveals this.
You'll have to make up your own minds about it but as somebody who worked with the military for two decades, I think they deserve a lot better from the politicians.
Complain about this comment
243. At 6:25pm on 07 Oct 2009, CaptainJuJu wrote:
HA!
Nick Robinson has just referred to David Cameron as "Prime Minster" on the 6 o'clock news
Newsreader: "Right now in the hall David Cameron is as we know it is going through the speech for tomorrow...er..What's that likely to Contain"
Nick: "Well, once again the Prime Minister will once again want to concentrate on the big issue.......etc"
===
Which must be Nick trying to prove his own point about:
"Moral of the story - don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about."
Maybe we can have a blog about Nick's Freudian slip.
Complain about this comment
im came on here knowing exactly what the blog would be and guess what Nick i wish i could have had a bet,
People on the web now know what you stand for, you know, i know and they know,and only you and the BBC can stop it but you wont,so all i can say is when they get in they stop your funding.
You are not doing what you are suppose to do and that is give unbiased reports.
10 mins to write this blog = 600 seconds x £6000 per sec in debt you work it out we just pay it.
Complain about this comment
239#
Just this time I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
"A lot of posts seem to miss the point. The General must have known he was going to do something with the conservatives, but sort to use his position of perceived neutrality to make anti government announcements."
Gen Dannatt has very recently retired as Chief Of The General Staff. During virtually the whole of his tenure in that position as head of the army, since they went into Afghanistan in 2006, he has repeatedly both privately and in the media pressed the government for the appropriate resources for the men under his command. And, the troops respected him for it. HE is the one who is accountable when he is in that position, HE is the one who would have to send troops in to battle potentially to lose their lives. I think that weighs an awful lot heavier on HIS mind than it does Brown or Ainsworth. Regardless of whether the Government is breaking the military covenant, it was his job as CGS to continue to support and fight for his servicemen and women under his command. That has put him at odds with the Brown administration. So, yes, some of what he has said has been anti government. What would you rather the country's most senior soldier tell you? A lie, that all is OK and really your sons and daughters arent dying unneccesarily for lack of equipment or resources?
"This seems a long way short of fair. If he were a member of my senior management team and had lost an argument and then went and whinged about it, I would think he was a weak weasel - after all he never said anything publically until he was in the final days of employment."
Then I sincerely hope you havent been running a business, because if you have, and you havent heard about Dannatt speaking out, then you've probably not realised that theres a recession on either. You're either mistaken or out of your depth. Or making it up. And he didnt lose the argument either. The only thing he did lose was the position he should have had, which was Chief Of The Defence Staff, but because he had spoken out for his troops and it upset Gordon immensely, he got passed over for it and the current spineless incumbent, Air Cheif Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup was extended in post.
"His former colleagues would also see him as a traitor for undermining their collective effort. If he sort to pass himself off as one thing when clearly being another I would think him as deceptive."
Then you know NOTHING about the British Armed Forces and the high regard that Dannatt is held in, almost universally.
"I think when he reflects on this he might see his behaviour as some way short of reputable. Also there is the question of did the conservatives know he was going to carry on making comments whilst not being honest about his political position. If they did then then they to were being dishonest. This does not reflect well on David Cameron."
He is alleged to have been approached by the conservatives. He was due to take up his first job after retirement as Constable Of The Tower of London. Someone in the conservative party has approached him about it, neither he nor Cameron said anything about it publicly as nothing was official and the story was broken by our erstwhile Political Editor Nick Robinson.
Thats how it is. All this is verifiable.
I await your retraction.
Complain about this comment
Hi, Nick
Just caught Lord Foulkes (sorry, if that is the right spelling) on PM with Eddie Mair. Talk about stop digging when in a hole. Lord F so bad that even his attempts to discredit the General was so blatant, defied belief.
Maybe we can get some real defence commitment now. Perhaps put the workshy into the armed forces? :-)
The expenses was a red herring as it has already been pointed out Bob the BS has claimed more on his expenses and he (the General) has been doing a 'proper' job.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick - grow up ... the country is on it's backside and although the Conservatives are attempting to give a direct message this is what you think is important to comment on. It's such a tough job being you we know - considerably overpaid, incapable of being impartial and not particularly perceptive. Carry on with the tittle-tattle journalism sonny.
Complain about this comment
Hmmmmmm, interesting, I see that the Tories are on the attack because one of their own has essentially admitted that Dave's appointment by General Dannatt would be a gimmick.
That figures.
I was all excited earlier I thought Plastic Dave's big speech was today, but alas no, I got it completely wrong and will have to wait yet another day for the big event.
Complain about this comment
Nick you are ment report political matters in an unbiased way not show your dissmay that someone with millitary knowledge may want to work for the Tory party instead of supporting Gordon Brown
Complain about this comment
252. At 6:41pm on 07 Oct 2009, LondonHarris wrote:
I have just been listening to the sad plight of the 106 Year Old Lady in a Woverhampton Council Run Home whom along with others will have to be Re-housed.
This of course is directly as a result from Cuts in the Local Authority Block Grant from Central Government, and the Local Authority for this Region cannot afford the 2 Million Pounds needed to up-grade the Property....
===
So let me get this right. The LABOUR government cuts local government block grant, causing a 106 year old lady to be moved from her home, but it is the Tories fault!
Is that what you are really saying?
Complain about this comment
197#
"He has retired, or did that fact escape you in your haste to post your bile?
He's cashing in on his position of trust, in the armed forces. Although he is retired, he is still thought of as a senior army figure
Senior Public servants are supposedly neutral.
They aren't generally used to boost one parties poll rating over the others."
Nobody seems to have told that to Gorbals Mick or Sir Gus O'Donnell, or Sir Ian Blair.....
Complain about this comment
#227 bertrambird
Can I be someone please?
I guess there aren't any Tories left (this blog is full of them - all foaming at the mouth, figuratively speaking of course) so it'll have to be one of the other parties.
Complain about this comment
Is there something in the water in Manchester Nick?
Complain about this comment
252#
Well, if you end up in the workhouse Harris, at least it'll shut that flapping hole under your nose. What has any of that got to do with the Conservatives? They're not in power. You have a Labour government, in for the last 12 years, Wolverhampton is one of the safest labour seats in the country and you've got a Labour local authority.
Bet they can afford to pay the council chief exec the thick end of 200 grand a year though, cant they?
Disgraceful lying and smearing and sneering.
Make sure you dont run off too fast, that choke chain'll hurt like hell when Charlie gives it a tug!
Complain about this comment
FS @ 260
he was due to take up his first job after retirement as Constable Of The Tower of London
what the devil is that, Fubar?
seems a bit of a drop in status if it's what I think it is ... you know, keeping the tourists in order and stuff
Complain about this comment
Nick. Surely "Cameron is already Prime Minister" says BBC Political Editor, makes a much more important headline then "Shadow Minister makes a minor slip-up?"
Complain about this comment
261#
Foulkes is an embarrasment, the oldest of the Brown attack dogs. Mind you when I say "attack", it brings back Dennis Healeys old quote of "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
Makes George Best look like a model of temperance. Not to be taken seriously. I switched it off as soon as Eddie announced it.
Complain about this comment
sense @ 264
I thought Plastic Dave's big speech was today, but alas no, I got it completely wrong and will have to wait yet another day for the big event
yes, it's tomorrow ... not great for me
I'm washing my hair
Complain about this comment
#248:
"The proposed policy is to raise the IHT threshold to one million pounds.
Therefore ONLY millionaires will pay IHT. Look it up.
Its so simple even a dumbed down 4 year old child could understand it.
Anyone who doesnt understand it is either thick, lying or smearing."
Oh dear. I think you are confusing "increasing IHT" with "increasing the IHT threshold". Increasing the threshold is equivalent to decreasing the tax.
Now, which of those 3 things that you mention applies to you?
Complain about this comment
Ah Mr Robinson, a word to the wise, David Cameron is, thankfully, not Prime Minister quite yet contrary to your assertion tonight on the 6 O'clock News. What made your slip-up worse was you had only a few words before, smirkingly castigated shadow home secretary Chris Grayling for his error today. Who knows a wheel may fall of Cameron's rolling bandwagon between now and the election. Remember, there's many a slip twixt cup and lip, as you well know.
Regards
Julian Morgan
Complain about this comment
Yes, Nick did refer to Cameron as the prime minister. But surely you can distinguish between a slip lip like this and a politician looking to attack what he thought was a government move, when he actually supported such a move himself.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians acknowledged and supported another parties proposal from time to time.
This particular MP showed his true colours today, that the good of the country takes a backseat if it stands in the way of his agenda.
Complain about this comment
Smear campaign by Mr Naylor?
And below a partner in crime?
Ladies and gentlemen an expensive peer of the realm,a man who has FOI'd us all into considerable debt , but most despicably over general Sir Richard Dannatt, I give you George Foulkes !
"Earlier he complained he had been smeared by the government for speaking out about resources.
But Labour peer Lord Foulkes said it had been "unprecedented" for a serving officer to speak out publicly. "
A man trying to defend his actions by dribbling on about
" unprecedented" etc.
Well , old Foulksy, you might have the pleasure of sitting near the general in the not too distant future, bet he's a better shot than you!
If no Army leader speaks up for our troops when equipment is lacking, then there will be no troops.
I say the General would have been a lesser man for NOT speaking up .
I say he is obliged to speak up for his men, our sons and daughters.
The carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan, the coffins flying back to the UK.
The unprecedented deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan, some one sure should be " speaking up"
Do you agree?
Complain about this comment
# 197 Mike_Naylot
"Senior Public servants are supposedly neutral"
Yeah, and politicians are supposedly truthful and trustworthy. But they are not.
The General is right to speak out.
Complain about this comment
274. At 7:24pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sense @ 264
I thought Plastic Dave's big speech was today, but alas no, I got it completely wrong and will have to wait yet another day for the big event
yes, it's tomorrow ... not great for me
I'm washing my hair
****************************
As opposed to tearing out verbally on here :-)
Complain about this comment
255. At 6:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
bertram @ 227
does someone know, for example, whether Mike Naylor is someone in New Labour? Say Harriett Harman?
Mike Naylor is NOT Harriet Harman
if that were the case I would be feeling the "aura" and I'm not
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that be the " aura " of guilt
Complain about this comment
I presume this is confirmation that the Cameron old Etonian inner circle is alive and well and Chris Grayling isn't part of it.
Complain about this comment
274. At 7:24pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
sense @ 264
I thought Plastic Dave's big speech was today, but alas no, I got it completely wrong and will have to wait yet another day for the big event
yes, it's tomorrow ... not great for me
I'm washing my hair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crikey Chief .... Didn't think you had any hair to wash
Complain about this comment
Everyone seems to be dissecting Graylings comments.
Clearly he did NOT say this was a gimmick as seen below, but the following sentence gives the real context with the implication that if it's Gordon Brown making the appointment it IS a gimmick and just for PR, But if its a Cameron appointment......well quite.
Nick, perhaps you should take a leaf from the MRS Merton book of interview questions;
" Mr Cameron, what first attracted you to the Government Bashing General, currently basking in the Murdoch Media Spotlight?"
=========
Grayling Quote
"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick. We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR."
+++++++++++++
PS All falling apart for the Tories on Europe, what was it that Whispering Eric said on Sunday "Its almost certain the treaty won't be ratified by the election" Evasion or Lack of judgement? either way it shows the desparation.
Complain about this comment
271#
Its one of those old ceremonial roles, like Black Rod. Usually held by a retired military officer.
248#
I heard it as clear as day, when it was announced and in yesterdays speech as well. "only millionaires will pay inheritance tax".
I cant see how it can be made any less ambiguous. You still having trouble getting it??
Complain about this comment
Oh great.... another one of Charlies dogs has got out.
I'm beginning to wonder if he's put them onto spilt shifts.....
Complain about this comment
My response to this story is: Yawn.
This is one of those "stories" that has been posted just to rile the right and give the left a giggle. It doesn't have any real merit. I didn't hear him dismiss the idea or claim it was a gimmick. You could argue he insinuated it was a gimmick, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't really matter what he said or what he meant. Politicians should be able to express an opinion that isn't in step with the party line. I feel the same way when stories like this propagate the internet in regards to Labour ministers. It's all rather pointless, the opposing side laugh and the other side defend. The people in the middle just sigh and yawn.
I've also decided to only read this blog after 5pm. The last two days I've noticed that this is when Labour's favourite employee, who shall henceforth be referred too as "ignorant multi-posting debate killer" -- IMP-DK for short, clocks off. I wonder how much cutting the likes of him would save the tax payer. I'm sure the Conservatives have a few also, but they seem far more subtle and way less offensive.
Complain about this comment
LondonHarris
Please state in your own words that you don't really believe that money grows on trees.
Complain about this comment
I think the point is : -
Labour announcements during the conservative party conference are gimmicks, either to distract from the conference or to give out news in the hope that it will be overshadowed by the conference.
I don't really see the need for Grayling to be sheepish.
The real issue is which party will clean up Britain's streets?
Labour has presided over the degeneration of morals, attitude and work ethic over the last decade.
Labour streets are not paved with gold, in stark contrast they are paved with vomit as a result of 24 hour licensing and labour's cultivated culture of binge drinking.
Try going into any city centre before lunch and the pools of vomit from the previous night are there bearing silent witness to labour depravity.
A drunken public is a labour public.
Only the Tories will tackle the scourge that stalk our streets.
The scourge that strike fear into the elderly and drive decent people away from city centers as darkness falls.
The tories will help us reclaim our streets, reclaim our heritage and reinstate moralilty back into society.
Complain about this comment
274. At 7:24pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix
If you got the date wrong - old chap - maybe you have politics wrong too.
Time to revisit your political leanings and see Labour for what it is .
The BAD OLD LOONEY LEFT.
Complain about this comment
The last political generaL in a democracy was Douglas Macarthur,hero of the Pacific war, who was recalled from Korea when he publicly disagreed with president Harry Truman about using the atom bomb against the Chinese.
He was thought to be a dangerous fellow, there were voices who whispered he would march on Washington on his return, but he retired gracefully and wasn`t heard of again.
Political soldiers are best avoided as the Roman Republic showed,they too easily become military politicians like Ceaser,Bonaparte and Hitler.
Complain about this comment
Very intersting and refreshingly honest quote from the boss of HSBC today.
"Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis.
"It also owes the real world a commitment to learn the lessons. Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry," he said.
"You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
=========
Clearly won't go down to well with the tired Tory narrative of "its all Brown's fault"
Does anyone know how much of the approx £175B borrowing requirement is down to bailing out the banks and stimulating the Economy to clean up the Bankers mess?
Complain about this comment
271. At 7:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
FS @ 260
he was due to take up his first job after retirement as Constable Of The Tower of London
what the devil is that, Fubar?
seems a bit of a drop in status if it's what I think it is ... you know, keeping the tourists in order and stuff
a drop in status is an issue why exactly?
saga - that's off message! - naughty corner for you tomorrow when mandy gets in.
oooh - no upper-case letters used - but a lot of hyphens - mmmmm!
Complain about this comment
“don’t open your mouth if you don’t know what you are talking about”. Good advice Mr Robinson, good advice. A few weeks of peace and quite during the political party conference season would do us all a world of good. Lots of bile about General Dannatt I notice. How many of you “class warriors” have got an MC then? Never mind, back to your comfy armchairs whilst somebody else spills their guts on the cheap for you!
Complain about this comment
286 Fubar
Said (yet again)
"Oh great.... another one of Charlies dogs has got out.
I'm beginning to wonder if he's put them onto spilt shifts....."
======
Getting a bit boring Fubes, the old Labour Trolls thing I mean, particularly as there's only one party that could currently afford such luxuries and we know who that is and there's only one Peer of the realm (Ashcroft) who's just bought a controlling share in two blogging sites,
PoliticsHome and Conservative home so I think its fair to say he takes a "great interest" in political blogging
Complain about this comment
He obviously used politicspeak to imply that it was a gimmick without actually saying it. The interviewer definately said tory government and it was very clear. Its much funnier if you watch the above video then watch this one straight afterwards.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8295396.stm
He obviously never thought it was a gimmick at all. Stretching honesty to breaking point I think.
Complain about this comment
rifle @ 295
Getting a bit boring Fubes, the old Labour Trolls thing I mean
yes and dig this, he made a dramatic debut ... old fubar did ... on the Peston blog the other day with the same thing
the Peston Blog!
Complain about this comment
#291 bryhers
"Political soldiers are best avoided as the Roman Republic showed,they too easily become military politicians like Ceaser,Bonaparte and Hitler."
-------------------------
Dwight D Eisenhower? I think you're being a little bit harsh.
He once said,'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.'
Complain about this comment
#292, Eatonrifle wrote:
"Very intersting and refreshingly honest quote from the boss of HSBC today.
"Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis.
It also owes the real world a commitment to learn the lessons. Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry," he said. You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
=========
Clearly won't go down to well with the tired Tory narrative of "its all Brown's fault". Does anyone know how much of the approx £175B borrowing requirement is down to bailing out the banks and stimulating the Economy to clean up the Bankers mess?"
EatonR,
I agree. HSBC has proved slightly more adept at running a proper bank than most. They've taken some big hits, but dealt with them pretty well from their own resources. (Though I'm concerned they may re-locate tax HQ out of the UK. And that's worrying.)
I certainly don't blame Brown for the global financial melt-down (but then I'm not a card-carrying anything). I do blame him for allowing the credit bubble within the UK - and for poor regulation of banks here.
As a simple sort of guy, I fancy what has happened so far has been money (our's plus the stuff borrowed and just printed) has been pumped in simply to keep banks afloat.
We haven't even begun to deal with the GBP200-300 BILLION of toxic assets that Brown has kindly offered to take off the banks' hands against payment of a (certainly swingeing) "insurance" premium they'll need to pay. If the banks can't even value their junk - and sell it - how on earth is the Teasury/BoE whoever going to buy a bargain there?
Said it before, but I'd still like to see the Serious Fraud mob poring over the banks' books/directors' statements/rights issues, etc. When something smells so bad, it must have been going off for a long time.
Complain about this comment
If I were Dannatt I would be more than a tad concerned about taking on a job located at the Tower Of London. Lord Mandelson might get ideas above his station and try to get him kept there under lock and key..
Complain about this comment
This is a non starter of a story as politicians of all parties make gaffes of a sort. If the incumbent defense secretary can state that he does no very little about defense matters, why should there be an outcry in the possibility of appointing someone with a military background in the H of L. After all, can we forget the peerages given to those who have actually done nothing except donate to a party?
Old news not worthy of this blog paid for by taxpayers money, move on from this and give us something more concrete. One gaffe is simply not news, it shows spite and that is surely not unbiased or impartial, is it not?
I hope this is the last we hear of this rubbish, there are far more important things going on
Complain about this comment
288. At 8:00pm on 07 Oct 2009, InModeration wrote:
LondonHarris
Please state in your own words that you don't really believe that money grows on trees.
--------------------------------------------------
No, your right, most of it can be found as you well know in the Bank Accounts of Rich Conservatives.
Please, tell me in your own words are you one of them, or their Stage Manager
Complain about this comment
Shame on you Nicholas for this inane blog subject!
Labour has hobbled the UK with almost unimaginable levels of debt and you want us to play "He said She said".
Everyone must bear the burden of Brown's sewage farm of debt.
He may be Mr Kircaldy but he is no Adam Smith.
While we still languish in the midst of recession, other more prudent nations are on the road to recovery.
Truly he is Brown by name and Brown by nature.
Under Cameron we have a political party prepared to tell us the truth about the situation and what we need to do to get out of labour's mess.
None of us like the message, but we must accept it.
In the private sector we have had a pay freeze so why the hell should the public sector expect a pay rise?
Why should we accept the lazy labour masses of skivers and shirkers claiming benefits?
The longer we are saddled with the Brown debt, the longer our taxes will be wasted paying the interest on the Brown debt.
Labour ruined the UK in the 70's and they have done it again.
God help us if the IMF decides to downgrade our credit rating.
Complain about this comment
297. At 8:38pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix
Is it better to be Pestoff than Peston?
Complain about this comment
EQ @ 287
I've also decided to only read this blog after 5pm
Emily! - is that what I think it is? - you know, like when a girl tells you where she'll probably be after piano practice "most nights" ??
(are you watching my programme, btw? - on NOW - hilarious, it is!)
Complain about this comment
103 Mike Naylor
I do not know you so I will not question your motives or honour, I do know General Dannatt and General Jackson before him, I had the privilege of serving with them when they were much junior officers, I would not question their motives other than to do the right thing by the members of the armed forces they commanded. They are honourable and genuine and is it not correct, that both have criticised this Government for their inept handling of various conflicts in which I suspect you and other critics have never taken part, I may be wrong. So unless you have proof of such actions to benefit the tories (who I do not support) then I suggest you put up or shut up.
Complain about this comment
The most frightening aspect of the whole Labour debt scandal is the devaluation of sterling.
Unless you are lucky enough to be paid in Euros you have received a Labour devised paycut of approximately a third of your salary.
We are printing money, our credit rating could be downgraded, our currency could devalue even further.
Does anyone still think that Labour has done us proud?
Their actions are nothing short of treason.
Complain about this comment
in mod @ 293
oooh - no upper case letters used - but a lot of hyphens - mmmmm!
okay okay, so I have a "style" ... and so do you, don't you?
would you like me to tell you what it is?
Complain about this comment
Embarrassed Tory? c'est la vie
Did he apologise?
Did he mispake?
Does he resile?
Was it within the rules?
Convenient gaff for labour
Complain about this comment
eaton @ 292
"Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry. You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
that is unquestionably true - I saw it from the inside ... I was part of it (the shame the shame) for heaven's sake! ... and Regulation (although not a TOTAL side issue) is dwarfed in importance, as a cause of what happened, by the Get Rich Quick culture in the City and on Wall St
I offer that more as a "truth" point than any sort of political one
Complain about this comment
Let's now turn our attention to Teaching.
My wife - Mrs Zim - is an IT teacher.
She has witnessed the steady decline in behaviour and standards over the last decade.
Literacy, numeracy and the ability to communicate are a thing of the past; the scummy chavs make the lives of teachers and other pupils a misery.
Labour's adult layabout benefit spongers are as badly behaved as their spawn.
I welcome the Tory annoncements that will clean up schools, taking them back for the teachers and the children who have a genuine desire to learn.
Complain about this comment
291#
Last retired one I can think of was a bit more recent than that; Colin Powell.
Wouldnt be surprised if the Israeli's had one or two as well, but I'm not sure they'd be universally counted as a democracy by all the posters on here and other BBC boards....
Complain about this comment
It is refreshing to see the Tory faithful defending the party from a poorly timed about to be announcement. Just face the facts folks Field Marshall Cameron does make errors in communication and is subject to the same cock-ups as any other politician. I think Nick's newslog just highlights the lack of planning and communication within the Tory leadership and headline chasing to mae the most of any anti-government publicity.
As for the former General's motives, whilst a brilliant soldier the timing of the remarks and the way he has publicised himself makes me wonder how long this has been planned. I don't doubt he would be an excellent adviser, but his self promotion has ensured that his retirement has been short-lived and he has a new career in politics.
Complain about this comment
So Labour 'outsiders' e.g. Lord Darzi and Lord Maloch Brown are bad but Tory ones - LORD Dannant (because he will be made a lord) ones are good?
Smacks of usual Tory hypocracy to me especially as Cameron has complained about giving peerages like this (even though he has some in his own shadow team)
Complain about this comment
295
Eaton.. at last someone who'se politics I might not agree with but at least can debate with some decorum.
I try and rise above it, but there have been a few times over the last few days where the level of lying and twisting has reached levels I'd never thought I'd see. Chances are it'll probably get worse from both sides over the next 5-6 months.
I dont have any issue with seeing both sides, I dont have any issue with robust banter or putting my hands up when I'm wrong.
The two things I do have an issue with though are hypocrisy and downright outright lying that has nothing to do with political philosophy or political differences and there has been, I'm afraid, a bit too much of that over the last couple of days.
Complain about this comment
292#
No, you're not wrong in either case. Lets just say it wasnt the tripartite's finest hour.
Complain about this comment
So its cynical if the government do it ,not if Cammy does it. And its ok to drink champers as long as theres no photographers around. And, George, don't smile when you deliver your speech. And the audience, clap when your told, laugh when your told. Dont mention the referendum. And when labour have unelected people in the government its undemocratic, but hey, its alright for Dave. And when Blair announced important additions to the team before telling his cabinet it was Presidential and arrogant, but again, its ok for Dave. And lastly dont forget were in this together, me , you , the multi millionaires and the public servant on 19k a year ( frozen by the way ). Did Dave do any good at his PR job, as he cant run his conference without resorting to spin spin and spin, whats he going to be like running the country...One shudders.
Complain about this comment
310#
Dwarfed in importance maybe, but nonetheless it was a contributory factor, Saga. On both sides of the Atlantic.
Complain about this comment
311 Invader-Zim
Bit spooky, I mentioned your absence and you reappear. No poems tho so is it really you?
Complain about this comment
314#
In fairness, a potential junior defence minister's slot is slightly different to giving a peerage to someone who was twice forced to resign from cabinet positions as an MP due to irregularities, not to mention a list of appointments as long as your arm, across a number of portfolios making him effectively the real deputy prime minister....
or an AG who breaks the law that she helped guide through the system.
Most of the goats have resigned anyway. I think, if I recall correctly, there is only one left.
Complain about this comment
this so called gentleman is a member of the armed forces.
his comments are listened to buy our forces closley.
he is a non political person, well he is supposed to be.
his comments about the current administration are shocking and to then accept a position with the opposition is disgusting.
he should resign his privaleged new position within the tower and appologies to the armed forces and the people of the uk and retire in disgrace. he should also at no point accept or be offered a job in polotic's. and if he does he should be made to pay everything he earns into a militry charity and not profit in any way on the backs of service men and women who have died in conflict
Complain about this comment
#311, Invader-Zim wrote:
"Let's now turn our attention to Teaching.
...Literacy, numeracy and the ability to communicate are a thing of the past...
I welcome the Tory annoncements that will clean up schools, taking them back for the teachers and the children who have a genuine desire to learn."
Zim,
Had to take out some of your comments. Seems to me that there are plenty of poorly focused children - and aggressive parents - from across the political spectrum.
But the notion that kids should sit down, shut up and learn is going to be really hard to implement. And obviously you need some active back-and-forth to help a class along.
Just a realisation that self-discipline and a collective sense of discipline is as much needed in learning fundamental subjects, as in playing sport or learning a musical instrument.
I went to a couple of really good schools years ago. Even then there were intellectually excellent teachers who had no idea how to handle a bunch of kids.
BTW, my secondary level school included 4 wooden structured classrooms that were cold as Alaska in winter and hot as Hades in summer. Didn't stop good teachers leading interesting classes.
Complain about this comment
317#
So, how many peers are there in the shadow cabinet?
Theres nothing wrong with drinking champagne anyway, regardless. Whats the big deal for gods sake. Just in case it might offend the sink estate proles who probably wouldnt vote for you anyway? Daft.
And for Labour to lecture ANYONE on the subject of spin is positively nauseous.
Complain about this comment
321#
And you are plainly out of your depth on a subject you know next to nothing about. Thank god no-one will pay attention and take it seriously.
Complain about this comment
I've been listening to other Army Spokeperson's whom are saying, it is one thing too expect General Dannatt to have been effectively announced to have changed sides while still being paid as a Commissioned Officer on Active Duty, and therefore again effectively to still be advising the Government about Troop arrangements,(Whether he agrees with his Employers of not), while still at the same time to now becoming drafted by Cameron into the Enemy Camp.
This is all a bit like a Serving Union Officer going to advise a bog - standard Confederate Troop-Meeting on how to beat your Pay-Masters during the American Civil War.
The view is also that Dannett will have to take it on he chin if other Leading Army personnel don't think the same way as Dick Dannett doe's.
Complain about this comment
'Forces of conservatism' as its known, starts with private education then follows a top civil service job and ends with a Tory peerage.
Complain about this comment
#321 alfojam
As head of the British Army, General Dannett (and General Jackson before him), alongside ACM Stirrup have been telling one Mr G Brown, first as chancellor and then as prime minister (or should that be prime miser with respect to the British Armed Forces) that the British Armed Forces are over-stretched and under equipped for years. Mr G Brown decided that he had better things to spend our money on, rather than the British Armed Forces engaged in Battle!
Actions speak louder than words. By their actions, General Dannatt is perceived as an honourable and brave man, and Gordon Brown is perceived as a cowardly liar.
It is Gordon Brown, the Squanderer in Chief, who should resign, and give up his not inconsiderable pension and personal fortune to pay for the medical care and rehabilitation of those Servicemen who have been maimed because of his parsimonious ways.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
just seen this Grayling gaffe for the first time - it's a nothing story, just a bit of knockabout stuff really (isn't it?)
WAS funny though
what a berk!
Complain about this comment
292. At 8:07pm on 07 Oct 2009, Eatonrifle wrote:
Very intersting and refreshingly honest quote from the boss of HSBC today.
"Mr Green, in Istanbul for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, admitted the banking industry collectively owed the world an apology for the financial crisis.
"It also owes the real world a commitment to learn the lessons. Some of them are about governance and ethics and culture within the industry," he said.
"You can't do all this simply by rules and regulations."
=========
Clearly won't go down to well with the tired Tory narrative of "its all Brown's fault"
Does anyone know how much of the approx £175B borrowing requirement is down to bailing out the banks and stimulating the Economy to clean up the Bankers mess?
===
Probably a net zero figure, as this is conveniently the same amount of quantitative easing (otherwise known as printing money Weimar Republic style) that we have "enjoyed" the last few months.
I too read HSBC chairman Stephen Green's speech to the World Bank and the IMF. As you say, refreshingly honest. What do you make of his Chief Executive Michael Geoghegan's comments that he fears that this is a double dip recession?
Complain about this comment
eye zed @ 304
is it better to be Pestoff than Peston?
pains me to say it but that's not completely unfunny
Complain about this comment
300. At 9:07pm on 07 Oct 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:
If I were Dannatt I would be more than a tad concerned about taking on a job located at the Tower Of London. Lord Mandelson might get ideas above his station and try to get him kept there under lock and key..
===
Lord Mandelson? Ideas above his station? How could that be possible?
Complain about this comment
xt @ 319
no poems though, so is it really you?
nooo! ... don't mention the IZ "poems"
Complain about this comment
329 sagamix
Considering your own oft-repeated insistence that a certain episode a couple of weeks ago was a non-story, it was a little test of your blogging integrity that you called this one right too.
But for the unnecessary "isn't it?", you would have scored full marks.
Complain about this comment
325#
Oh for gods sake Comrade Brother Harris.
Dannatt is on what is known as Terminal Leave, prior to being discharged on retirement from the Army.
There is already another officer in place as Chief Of The General Staff who is advising the current government on all matters relating to the army.
Dannatt can now do what the devil he likes. If he wants to play politics then thats his lookout.
Labour are beating their gums and counter-smearing about it because they know he's more respected on defence matters than any of the current defence ministers with the possible exception of Lord Drayson (surprise surprise, a proper toff).
Otherwise you wouldnt all keep banging on about it.
Complain about this comment
328#
Certainly more than your myopic view of the world in 326 would suggest.
At least we know where you stand, eh?
Complain about this comment
fubar seems to be doing a very good impression of Jack Dee this bit is a bit like the stuff Dee did on 'live at the apollo'.
fubar
Theres nothing wrong with drinking champagne anyway, regardless. Whats the big deal for gods sake. Just in case it might offend the sink estate proles who probably wouldnt vote for you anyway? Daft.
Triumphalism in 1992 lost Labour the election in 1992. I think thats what the not drinking champagne rule was about. A bit over the top maybe.
Didn't fubar say he had a low bordom threshold of Vic Reeves?
Complain about this comment
287. EmilyQuango
"I've also decided to only read this blog after 5pm. The last two days I've noticed that this is when Labour's favourite employee, who shall henceforth be referred too as "ignorant multi-posting debate killer" -- IMP-DK for short, clocks off. I wonder how much cutting the likes of him would save the tax payer. I'm sure the Conservatives have a few also, but they seem far more subtle and way less offensive."
Didn't take you long to suss things out, EQ. Spleen venting is the local sport. I thought 'IMP-DK' clocked off at 5-30pm not 5pm. Now that is ripping the taxpayer off.
Complain about this comment
335.
Lord Fuber,
I am fully aware that Ex: Chief of the General Staff - Richard Dannett Retired from his previous Post on: 28th August last, and handed over to General Sir David Richards, while Dannett has currently been appointed for a maximum period of up to 5 Years Under the Queens Regulations for the Army in the Post as Constable of The Tower of London.
The point that is being preceived by the many is what I have already stated in my previous Post @325 in that, " it is one thing too expect General Dannett to have been effectively announced to have changed sides", in other words - What others again are precieving only to believe to be the facts.
To the many, it looks like ( I am not saying it is the Case ), that Dannett has simply moved across the floor from Labour to the Conservatives even as you infer he is now a free Agents to do this if he pleases.
What many are also saying is that Dannett should have waited until he had been longer removed further out of the lime-light before following a career in Politics, with his chosen Agenda.
Complain about this comment
I see the poor Tory guy who got it wrong about the army man is still causing comment/hilarity.
And yes it was funny, as was Nick calling Dave the Prime Minister.
But we all get things wrong. The question that hasnt been asked is havnt the Tories got a system to advise all their inner sanctum about impending announcements of such import ?
Perhaps they have and then like the rest of us he gets so much crap coming through he missed the important bit. Thus proving he is human.
Complain about this comment
dhw @ 337
I think that's what the not drinking rule was about. A bit over the top maybe
no, not OTT - there's cameras and mikes all over these events, remember, and clowns plus booze is an accident waiting to happen - couple of jars, the "anecdotes" and the "repartee" start to flow
DC knows that ... he may be many things but he's no fool
Complain about this comment
pezzer @ 334
it was a little test of your blogging integrity that you called this one right too
why thank you, JR!
although it does sometimes get a bit lonely, I must confess, being pretty much the only unaligned Blogger on the Board
Complain about this comment
339. LondonHarris wrote:
"What many are also saying is that Dannett should have waited until he had been longer removed further out of the lime-light before following a career in Politics, with his chosen Agenda."
Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you and/or the many.
But I'm guessing part of the reason he is not waiting for the grass to grow under his feet is that there is a war on in which he feels young men and women are not getting the support they need and deserve. I'm guessing he wants to continue putting pressure on the government in any way he can. What do you think?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps one of your well informed contributors can help me - how are resources allocated to the armed forces? The CGS writes down a number (advised by his staff officers of course) and the Treasury hands it over? Is that it? But what's all this about "options" - Dannett says he provided the Government with "options" (even though we are now told that all but one would be selling the forces down the river) for resourcing. It appears that the Government did not choose his preferred option. If there was no level of resource other than that that would allow him to maintain his forces' effectiveness and safety, then he should have presented no options. He should have specified precisely what he felt was essential, and offered his resignation if the Government failed to agree.
I also find it interesting that Dodgy Dave acknowledged that he had been in discussion with Dannett about his future relationship with the Conservatives - and I am sure that no House of Lords place would have been offered, for Dave is an honourable man - before Dannett's strategically timed announcement.
Complain about this comment
"that there is a war on in which he feels young men and women are not getting the support they need and deserve."
----------------------------------------------
True, and I'm also quite sure he has the best interest of our brave Soldiers at heart.
But the problem that is being preceived again by many, is that he is while trying to put the issues of shortages of equipment at the center of any Debate, this issue is at lease being seen currently as two-fold matter, being:
Firstly, It will be judged my many, both inside and outside the Army, that he is ( for whatever reason[s], truu/false ), getting his own back at the Labour Government for some sort of personal reasons that have so far been un-reported, ie: has he had a bad fall out with someone over Troop Policy beside the known shortages. and,
Secondly, many will and are already saying that he is still to close to events, and any signs of a Political Agenda this close to stepping down from his previous Post, may effectly be seen as if he is in some way Politicising by default his former position as Chief of The General Staff, and this may make things difficult for any successors to this Post to walk a Non-Political line between Battle- Field Soldiering Decisions and Politics in the future.
Complain about this comment
# 345. LondonHarris wrote:
"Firstly, It will be judged my many, both inside and outside the Army, that he is ( for whatever reason[s], truu/false ), getting his own back at the Labour Government for some sort of personal reasons that have so far been un-reported, ie: has he had a bad fall out with someone over Troop Policy beside the known shortages. and,"
It was quite widely reported that Gordon Brown personally blocked his expected move to Chief of the Defence staff because of his stance trying to get better conditions for troops. Pretty much forcing him towards retirement.
So yes, he has issues with the government, based on doing what I would hope any good commander would do and standing up for those they're responsible for.
To try to then dismiss his previous comments as politically motivated when if he hadn't made them he would likely be CDS smacks of damage limitation.
If by talking to and advising the tories he can get a better deal for our servicemen, good luck to him; the current government don't seem to care let's hope the next one does.
Complain about this comment
345. LondonHarris wrote:
"Politicising by default his former position as Chief of The General Staff.."
I think in many ways Gordon Brown politicised the post and that of CDS by blocking what was seen as the obvious appointment for political reasons.
Complain about this comment
Nick it transpires that General Dannatt is more in sync with British thinking than the Brown stuff is!
Complain about this comment
Nick I have just done a troll of the media and surprisingly found nothing from Meddlesome. Do you reckon he is keeping his powder dry ready for his transformation to Tory, post the GE?
Naturally he wants to carry on serving Britain….yeah!
Complain about this comment
What gets me about this is why people have to be made peers before they're allowed to advise the cabinet on anything.
I've no problem with governments of any party seeking advice from knowledgeable people who have vast experience of what they do - as invariably they will be in a better position to make decisions than the cabinet ministers themselves.
It's only right that ministers gain as large a perspective on their chosen area as possible.
But do we really have to make the likes of General Dannatt, or Alan Sugar et al into peers in order to do so? In fact, wouldn't doing so actually cloud the issues by making it more attractive to agree with the government's particular viewpoint?
Complain about this comment
sagamix 342
"being pretty much the only unaligned Blogger on the Board"
.... And there go another couple of marks!
Complain about this comment
339#
"What many are also saying is that Dannett should have waited until he had been longer removed further out of the lime-light before following a career in Politics, with his chosen Agenda."
"Many"?
Where, Harris?
Many in the No10 Bunker? Many in the Islington New Labour chattering classes?
Drivel.
The further Dannatt went from the front line as ex-CGS, the quieter it would have got for Gordon, potentially, Richards is more conventional than Dannatt - he will endeavour to keep most of the noise out of the public eye as CGS/CAS/FSL/CDS always used to do. Hence less noise from the senior military, the easier time Gordon will get on defence matters until the next election. Dont pretend youre acting in anything other than Gordon's self interest - certainly not in the interests of those coming back from Afghan either dead or badly injured.
The difference in this case is that there is a war on and when the coffins are coming back on a weekly basis, it tends to get more difficult to keep out of the public eye. Dannatt would not have resorted to going public unless he had to.
But considering how Labour have always treated the armed forces as a joke, 4 Defence secretary's in 4 years, one of them part time for gods sake - none of this, nor your leaping like a salmon to Browns defence is in any way surprising.
Complain about this comment
#285:
"I heard it as clear as day, when it was announced and in yesterdays speech as well. "only millionaires will pay inheritance tax".
I cant see how it can be made any less ambiguous. You still having trouble getting it?? "
Fubar old chap, have you actually been reading a single word I've posted?
Let me start again, slowly.
I started by saying (see #92) it's a shame that the Tories are not planning to increase inheritance tax (note the lack of the word "threshold" in that context). My point was that, since there is a gaping hole in the public finances, it is necessary to collect more taxes, and inheritance tax would be a good target.
You then suggested (#117) that Osborne had promised to do exactly that. I assume that this is because you misread my post at #92 and thought I was saying that he should increase the threshold. We all agree he plans to increase the threshold. That will result in collecting LESS inheritance tax, as more estates will be exempt.
So, do you see what I object to now? I think we should be collecting more money in inheritance tax. Osborne wants to collect less money in inheritance tax.
The problem here, I think, is that you responded to my post without taking the trouble to understand what I was saying. I'm sure Nick Robinson posted a blog about that little phenomenon once.
Complain about this comment
337#
Right. So, drinking champagne equals triumphalism.
Good grief. Its a glass of sparkling wine for gods sake.
Why do people have to read so much damned symbolism into everything?
Ah yes I forgot. Because it tends to be expensive compared to sink estate Lambrini and dear god, we cant have that. Champagne equals money, money equals inherited, passed-down wealth, which equals public school toff, which equals unfit to govern "because you're not down to earth like us". Silly me. Now maybe I'm starting to understand the McGuire mindset, pathetic and twisted as it is...
What a load of old BS.
What if he'd have been snapped with a pint in his hand instead? What difference would it have made? Its pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#350:
Excellent point.
And I think there's more. By making them peers, such people are given a false legitimacy, and end up at the heart of government in positions of potentially great power, able to make important decisions.
This is despite the fact that they are unelected. That's really not how things should work in a democracy.
Knowledgeable people whom the government would like to use as advisers, like General Dannatt, should remain exactly that: advisers. Not decision makers. If they want to make decisions on behalf of government, then they should stand for election themselves.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 342
"being pretty much the only unaligned Blogger on the Board"
...like Tony Blair is a Catholic!
Complain about this comment
#342:
"although it does sometimes get a bit lonely, I must confess, being pretty much the only unaligned Blogger on the Board"
Well, I would also consider myself unaligned. Does that mean that we are, therefore, aligned with each other? I feel a paradox coming on.
Complain about this comment
Well, it's nice to see Nick own up to a mistake and proves just like Grayling he is only human.
I couldn't believe my ears when he referred to Cameron as the PM and thought, Christ, have I missed a General Election!!
Well done, Nick, for owning up. Let's hope politicians follow your lead.
Complain about this comment
353#
Evidently we're at crossed purposes here. I readily admit I may have misread your post but I cant be bothered to go back and check, I'm not that much of a pedant. I'll agree that it is possible.
We still appear to be diametrically opposed on the core of it though. You think it would be a good idea given the economic circumstances, perhaps even a soft target if I may be so bold. You might be right. I personally, subscribe more to the ideological grave-robbing view.
Incidentally, I have no declared personal interest. Any estate that I may be left is not going to be anything like that and anything I leave to my wife is also likely to be well under the current threshold.
Such is life. That is by the by and if you've been caught up in the crossfire between me and the pack then I apologise. I have been getting rather wound up by these chumps over the last 4 days and as I've alluded to before, some of us can be bulls in search of red rags. Bit like San Fermin, but every day during conference season.
What I find highly odious is the Labour dogwhistling that this is perceived as a tax cut for 3000 millionaires. Its complete garbage. They dont object to the raising of the threshold because it just means less tax collected. Its the perception that it is the rich getting away with it again whilst the honest poor are made to stump up and it is garbage, from a party that has probably done more to load the very same "honest poor" with more direct and indirect taxes in living memory.
And these stooges have got the brass neck to openly advocate this kind of class warfare? It makes me puke.
So. Again, we take leave to differ, but as I said, if you got caught in the crossfire, please accept my apology and retraction.
Complain about this comment
#353:
Apology accepted. Particularly in view of your splendid use of the word "chumps". It continues to amuse me greatly how that word has re-entered mainstream use in political dialogue recently.
We will, however, have to agree to differ on whether IHT is a good thing.
Complain about this comment
disgusted @ 357
Does that mean that we are aligned with each other?
that would be rather nice!
well for me anyway
Complain about this comment
"HutzAttorney wrote:
Yes, Nick did refer to Cameron as the prime minister. But surely you can distinguish between a slip lip like this and a politician looking to attack what he thought was a government move, when he actually supported such a move himself.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians acknowledged and supported another parties proposal from time to time."
You mean saying something like "General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government."
Damn he is really slating the government with lines like that.
Grayling WAS supporting the proposal he was just hoping that the appointment was done for the right reasons (the experience that the General could bring to government) and not for the wrong reasons (it looks good in the papers).
Personally I think his comment stands regardless of which government the general would work with.
Complain about this comment
"Eatonrifle wrote:
Getting a bit boring Fubes, the old Labour Trolls thing I mean, particularly as there's only one party that could currently afford such luxuries and we know who that is and there's only one Peer of the realm (Ashcroft) who's just bought a controlling share in two blogging sites"
Both parties (ab)use the internet for political gain, haven't the Labour party come up with a Twitter Czar to help them communicate with the public (I wonder if this post is paid for by the Labour party or by the public purse).
And the whole "Red Rag" thing - wasn't that an organised on-line Labour smear campaign?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
just seen this Grayling gaffe for the first time - it's a nothing story, just a bit of knockabout stuff really (isn't it?)
WAS funny though
what a berk!"
Totally agree, shame he didn't really lay into the idea now THAT would have been really funny.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
Triumphalism in 1992 lost Labour the election in 1992. I think thats what the not drinking champagne rule was about. A bit over the top maybe."
My understanding was that the Tories didn't want to appear drinking champagne while the recession was on as it would be rubbing their wealth in people's faces.
Stupid really IMO, most people know that some senior Tories are very wealthy and probabl drink champagne so trying to make it seem like they don't just appears false - and then when they do get caught out it makes the front of the papers (or the Mirror at least)
Complain about this comment
352
Fuber
You are sounding like a complete burke if you believe for one minute that Dannett could not take any disliking to anything that your beloved David or George might do the future.
But then, like all good little Conservatives you will shoot the messenger and proclaim over and over again that whatever any Conservative Policy is at any given point in time, then it must be the correct one.
Dannett can only really know what conditions are like at any given point in time upon the Battle-Field of War if he is in charge at the Front-Line, otherwise even he from any future Benches in the Lords would have to listen to sounding from other Generals that are.
Even Ex-Generals can get things wrong, Custer and all.
Complain about this comment
Fubar_sanders@
"Right. So, drinking champagne equals triumphalism.
Good grief. Its a glass of sparkling wine for gods sake.
Why do people have to read so much damned symbolism into everything?"
I thought it was Cameron's own rule? He's the one who's so keen on his party's Image in front of the media. It may seem a bit over the top but the whole world has become obsessed with media. It could be The Mirror trying to pick up the people the The Sun has just abandoned when it became a propaganda sheet for the Conservative party. I don't really care about "What about when it supported Labour?". To reverse anyone's possible argument about that. I don't hear you complaining now.
Complain about this comment
366
Your first sentence is a bit rubbish, can't get any sense out of it whatsoever I'm afraid, so lets skip past that.
Its you bit about Dannet not really knowing what is going on I take serious issue with.
This is the man who the army reports to. His views ARE the views of his men. Trying to degrade them by saying "well, he doesn't really know what he is talking about" and by inference suggesting that things aren't really that bad (and incidentally implying that the government knows better than the general) is something you should be really ashamed of.
Hang your head sir, you don't deserve the space you polute on this blog.
Complain about this comment
367
Regarding champers.
I agree, they look a bit silly. Whats the sodding point of making this rule, letting the media know about it, and then completely and openly flouting it. Badly thought out.
Don't really give a stuff about it though. No issue at all if they had said nothing and just quaffed the odd glass when they felt like it, its just a bit embarrassing to have let it be known you would do something and not follow through.
Like when I tell the Mrs I will do the cleaning before she gets home.
Complain about this comment
I've been watching how Cameron has been building -up in front of the Media for his Grand Conerence speech this afternoon, what with all the many re-writes to his final speech to avoid the gaffs of others with some directions being given in cut and paste mode by a former Ex-Boy Wonder William Hague.
David is also getting well into shape what with all his running around, if only to be able to stand at the foot of any hill he builds ready to climb,(so we are told), or is he running off the calories so that he can drink a few more bottles of Champagne?
Can't wait to hear the rest of his dizzy Speech this afternoon.
Complain about this comment
366
Harris, I'm not a tory, for a start, but I am an ex serviceman. I stand by every word of 352. Its typical that anyone who doesnt agree with the Labour party is instantly labelled a tory, in the same way the politburo used to say that anyone who disagreed with them was a counter-revolutionary or a fascist imperialist. Some things never change.
Ministers are always going to interfere in military matters regardless of their political hue. If Camerons team do that then they will deserve the opprobrium they get. The worst defence secretary I ever served under bar none was Bunter Soames. A tory, a public schoolboy and a former army officer to boot. The full set! But he was beyond useless.
Both the conservatives in the 1990's with the peace dividend from the cold war and Labour from 1997 to now have mismanaged the transition that the forces have to go through to continue to be not only relevant but also effective in discharging the duties expected of them by the government of the day. Too much has been left in the hands of the single service chiefs and through the burgeoning layers of civilianisation where there were previously uniformed service personnel delivering against known military requirements, for instance hospitals (closed under tories and labour) the supply chain, maintenance of aircraft, ships and vehicles and so on. Yes, even generals can get things wrong and you dont have to go back as far as Custer. Mountbatten will do, adequately, not to mention those of the first world war.
The current crop, of which Dannatt was the only notable exception had become, as the police chiefs had done, more politicians concerned with protecting their own pensions rather than realising that their dwindling overstretched troops are their main priority. In this respect, both Lord West, Glenn Torpy and Sir Jock Stirrup to name but three, have failed their services.
Now, the only thing you can attack Dannatt for is that this decision makes him look partisan and you are trying to say that all along, during all the time he was CGS that he was complaining about resources, helicopters, etc, that this was being steered by his puppetmasters to be at Conservative Central Office. That is the line the Labour party is taking, that is the line you're taking. You're trying to undermine his credibility. The Military Cross, which he was awarded in 1973 is not given away in Cornflakes packets for political expediency in the way most of Gordon and Tony's ermine clad chums have been. It is awarded for "an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land".
Now that, I'm afraid, to me as an ex serviceman reinforces his credibility and that he talks with authority, rather than diminishes it. The reason you guys are upset about it and banging on about it is that here is an officer who has been there seen it and done it and has current knowledge of the areas of operations, with an approval rating with the public that Brown would give his eye teeth for (if he's got any) who might just be able to make a difference. And, instead of going into the Lords a few years later as a cross bencher where the government of the day can ignore him as ranting old man, like Labour have tried to do with Field Marshall Lord Bramhall, Dannatt has not only broken your first cardinal rule, but has walked into the open arms of your sworn enemies and will tell them precisely how badly your lot stitched him up and what needs to be done to resolve it.
That must really stick in your throat.
The timing of it all gives you the thinnest sliver of grass to cling to in that it makes him look partisan. But that wont last for long.
Complain about this comment
367#
Well, if the tories have become that wet and paranoid, then they dont deserve my vote. You cant be a serious political leader living from news cycle to news cycle being run by whatever picture is on the front pages.
Jesus, nearly three years of Brown has taught us that.
Complain about this comment
Do Generals take some kind of oath when they are appointed? Does this include something about carrying out the will of the elected government who represent the people of this country?
Complain about this comment
373#
Nope, just HMQ, her heirs and successors.
Complain about this comment
370#
Ah, service with a sneer Harris..... pity you've got nothing else to offer.
Complain about this comment
#373. At 1:06pm on 08 Oct 2009, BoathouseBeek wrote:
Do Generals take some kind of oath when they are appointed? Does this include something about carrying out the will of the elected government who represent the people of this country?
I think there's a bit about the wishes of "Her Majesty's government".
And some legal limitations about what the government can ask them to do.
And there used to be a compact that says roughly "IN return for you risking life and limb, we the government will provide during the times of combat and look after you once it's over - or you personally need help in recovery".
I haven't seen much reluctance on the part of the military to get stuck in. Not sure ministers have been quite so forthcoming...
Complain about this comment
Aren't we forgetting that this man has been in charge of the Armed Forces for some time and has not managed to equip his troops with the correct kit, despite the obscene MoD budget. Who's fault is that? It's his isn't it? It doesn't say much for his powers of persuasion or political influence that he can't succeed in securing new money or diverting existing money to get the right kit. And what about the lousy procurement system - wasting our money leftrigh and centre on rubbish that doesn't even work. Bravo.
But of course, he's a military man and we can't criticise them in war time can we now?
Complain about this comment
377#
Not quite strictly true. He was Chief of the General Staff, ie the Army. The top slot, Chief Of The Defence Staff is Sir Jock Stirrup.
You can only equip people with the kit when you know where and when they are going to use it. The only true thing 'elicopter Bob has said is "that you dont just nip down to Tesco Extra and place an order for Chinooks."
Managing the procurement process does not come under his remit, that is a separate MOD organisation entirely called Defence Equipment & Support, composed almost overwhelmingly of Civil Serpents, with some military in for good measure.
And you cant secure new money if Darling & Gordon dont give you any. You can ask all you like, but it doesnt mean youre going to get.
And lastly, they're not immune to criticism. Those who were in his place in the mid-late 1990's from all three services are part of the reason why things are so screwed up now. Once a senior officer normally gets into MOD, he becomes more of a politician than a soldier sailor or airman and is more concerned about keeping his pension or going for Chief Of The Defence Staff. There is a long list of them who have let us down, but Dannatt is not one of them. Not on this occasion.
Complain about this comment
354. At 08:39am on 08 Oct 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
337#
...What if he'd have been snapped with a pint in his hand instead? What difference would it have made? Its pathetic.
===
My guess is we would have had the "wee Willie Hague in his baseball cap drinking 14 pints" drivel instead.
Complain about this comment
The bbc should stop wasting tax payers money on the wages of Nick Robinson et al. Politics is not about common good it's about money. Plain and simple.
Dire BBC web-site.
Dire BBC blogging staff.
Dire User comments.
Dire.
Complain about this comment
Now that, I'm afraid, to me as an ex serviceman reinforces his credibility and that he talks with authority, rather than diminishes it.
-----------------------------------------------
Fubar, I have at NO time questioned the credibility of Dannatt as a Soldier, nor am I going to, for how ever good he WAS in his days in Command is rightly to be praised, but this is not in the main what the Issue here is all about, for the Question is: Should he ( Dannatt ) be transformed into effectively what is a Conservative Minister without Portfollio in the House of Lords having had the ear of the this Counties sitting Prime Minister in a time of War, simply so that Cameron can make Political Capital out of any information Dannatt has previously learnt which was soley for the ears of the P.M.
This has got nothing at all to do with any matters relating to whether you like Gordon Brown, or any previous Ministers of State for Defence.
I keep coming back to the point, that the way this appointment of Dannatt has been handled show us that Cameron wants Power at any cost regardless for the needs to show any Leadership concerns in these times of a War in progress, for even Civil Servants are subjected to the Offical Secrets Act even for a spell after they Retire.
Dannatt should have waited until a passage of time of at lease a Year had passed before making any pitch to further his Political Career Agenda inside the Conservative Party.
And as far as any sneering goe's, for vise - versa, you should take your advice with this, for you want to try reading what you write yourself.
Complain about this comment
Harris:
Whatever... You're not going to listen... I have explained myself in two detailed posts, which I have just reappraised and I still stand by what I posted.
Dannatt did not approach Cameron, it was the other way around.
CGS does not report directly to the PM, he reports to CDS, who reports to Secretary of State who reports to Cabinet and PM. He can be called upon to breif Cabinet and the PM, but he doesnt report to him. So, PM's ears only, I'm afraid, you're mistaken. Doesnt work like that.
You just think its about a political agenda. You dont see what I see because you have no interest in what I see.
Complain about this comment
Dannatt did not approach Cameron, it was the other way around.
--------------
Then he should have said NO to Cameron, not just Yet.
Complain about this comment
383#
That had to be a judgement call for Dannatt. He will stand or fall by his own decisions. You dont like it because it reflects badly on Brown. No other reason.
One thing you'll never accept Harris. Had Gordon given defence, the troops and their commanders the priority and the funding they warranted, given what they're being asked to do, or had he had the backbone and the leadership to reduce our commitment in Afghan commensurate to what we are capable of delivering- none of this would have happened.
We wouldnt be arguing the toss about politicising the military.
But... thats not how it happened, was it.
Cause and effect.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS