« Previous | Main | Next »

David Cameron

Eddie Mair | 16:56 UK time, Monday, 11 December 2006

appears on PM tonight. You might have a view on what he has to say - you might not. In any case, at time of writing (eek - two minutes to five) we are 21 comments away from our FIFTEEN THOUSANDTH!

Comments

  1. At 05:00 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Let's see if we can get there during the show then, & then you have to blog & present at the same time please. I know you can do it, we've seen the evidence before! Ours/yours is just the best blog anyway, hope Chris in London knows that!

  2. At 05:01 PM on 11 Dec 2006, FARES CON (aka Frances O) wrote:

    Oh, goody! Does that mean Ruth and David Archer might have another chance to split up?

  3. At 05:10 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Stewart M wrote:

    So as its now 8 minutes past five have I missed the accolade of being number 15000? The way this blog works its probably half way to 16000 by now!! Must see whats happening at the beach. Not bothered that much about Mr Cameron.

    More interested in what the Irish embassy put in the Bishop of Southwarks tipple. :-)


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6168393.stm

  4. At 05:14 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Mark Intime wrote:

    Policies from DC perhaps?

  5. At 05:18 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I'm in the office with no radio and I can't get my PC connection to work! Boo hoo! Then again, if it's David Cameron I'm missing then I'm in luck...

  6. At 05:23 PM on 11 Dec 2006, FAN SCORE (aka Frances O) wrote:

    Well, I seem to be in the only category that Dave Cameron doesn't consider to be in a family.

    Pah! I claim the right to be considered a single-member family.

  7. At 05:25 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    I'm quite relieved the Conservative party have reveted to type, I thought for a minute they were developing a social conscience & I seriously might have to consider voting for them.

    David Cameron is entirely misguided & families have absolutely nothing to do with the state's responsibility for poverty & deprivation.

    So who am I going to vote for?!

  8. At 05:26 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Appy,
    You're in luck, but it's the Bishop now.
    xx
    ed

  9. At 05:34 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Andy Miller wrote:

    A Correlation is not the same as cause and effect.

    The Conservatives say that cohabiting couples are more likely to split whilst children are young compared with married couples. The inference they appear to draw is that encouraging more to marry will reduce the numbers of children brought up by single parents. That logic is faulty. It is far more probable to just increase the number of married couples splitting up with young children - i.e. the same people will split up regardless of whether they are officially married or not.

    For many, marriage is a piece of paper, it is not something that will alter behaviour. This would be even more so if there was the tax incentives suggested by the conservatives to marry.

  10. At 05:35 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mark,

    Didn't you know all our policies come from DC anyway. That's where al Poodle gets 'briefed'.
    xx
    ed

  11. At 05:37 PM on 11 Dec 2006, SAFE CORN (aka Frances O) wrote:

    Hmmm, so when the man who found the Bishop of Southwark in his car throwing out his child's toys and 'drunk', he called an ambulance and, when the then unknown man ran off, left it at that.

    When he found out it was the Bishop, he "obviously... called the Sun". Obviously. As one would.

  12. At 05:42 PM on 11 Dec 2006, FAN SCORE (aka Frances O) wrote:

    Bah! Eric, a blatant attempt to bump us up to 15,000 by having the great VAL on. Is this our treat?

  13. At 05:43 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

    We're on 15,0008!

  14. At 05:46 PM on 11 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    When will Mr Cameron realise that he just doesn't make any sense. He tried to suggest in one breath that everyone living as a group is a family, but the best families are married ones, although politicians get divorced which happens so that's OK, and single parents need to go to work. Oh yes and gay couples are good too so long as they get married. That last bit was precious. His argument for marriage was to do with children having a better opportunity of advantage than children from unmarried couples. Apart from a few gay couples I should imagine that most of them will not be getting hitched to have children.

    What a muddle!

    You were marvelous Eddie! You made him look completely foolish!

    Mary

  15. At 05:48 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Stewart (3), thanks for the link. It is, of course, what isn't said that is so interesting...

  16. At 05:56 PM on 11 Dec 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    "David Cameron" .... Does he count as a serious thread?

  17. At 05:59 PM on 11 Dec 2006, dAVID fRYER wrote:

    What a crass comment- "If you need to refer to Listen Again you should have paid more attention the first time."
    What an arrogant comment Mr Mair. Some people can not always tune in at the time of broadcast and need to use the Listen Again facility. your smart arsed comments are out of place

  18. At 06:04 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Peter Simmons wrote:

    Hi Eddie et al
    Yesterday in Fool on the Hill http://www.oneworldnet.co.uk/blog/index.php I wrote:

    ... on the subject of Polonium 210, commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with the stuff from the phosphate fertilizer used to increase yield. The big US tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs of smokers. Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content). You can read more about this non natural phenomenon here http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html
    Flint is lying, it is not a result of the cocktail she spoke about, it's down to the fertilizer used in growing tobacco, but the anti-smoking lobby which has known about this link with a cancer causing additive for some time don't want people to start demanding organic tobacco rather than giving up smoking. It's not nicotine nor tars which cause lung cancer, but something tobacco farmers add.

  19. At 06:06 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Wee-hooo! Eric! And you simulcast!

  20. At 06:08 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Andy Stocks wrote:

    I have listened on PM to some unmitigated garbage from Government ministers over the last couple of weeks. This being on topics ranging from climate change to Iraq and have restrained myself from comment but tonight I have had to succomb. Caroline Flint, Public Health Minister, said in answer to Eddie's incisive questioning that action could not be taken against producers regarding three ingredients in cigarettes- Polonium210, arsenic and benzene. Whilst she is correct that benzene can form during burning, unless nuclear fission or fusion takes place the first two must be in the ingredients of manufacture. For God's sake get your facts right Ms Flint. You clearly are not as sharp as your name suggests!

  21. At 06:11 PM on 11 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    re: dAVID fRYER (16)

    dAVID

    wELL pOINTED oUT, hE nEEDS to be put down.

  22. At 06:14 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Oh dear, David Fryer, I believe you may have been caught out by Eddies' famous dry wit. I suggest taking a deep breath and relaxing. He was only making a joke...

  23. At 06:21 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Frances, or should I say Fan Score, I'm with you. I'm one of those non-entities that DC seems to think are just a few people lurking in the background. I say it's time for a single persons' tax allowance! Everyone else seems to get one nowadays..

  24. At 06:49 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Maybe we will find out that some poisoned the bishop, I am a bit worried that he has been presumed drunk, I hope he has been tested for diabetes (when people often appear drunk), & a mini-stroke has been ruled out, before he is cornered into resignation. Oh & he won’t be the first cleric to be tiddly, what do you think happens to the communion wine, even monks drink. Did that chap really go straight to the Sun?!

  25. At 06:53 PM on 11 Dec 2006, David Jones wrote:

    It is amazing how politicians never learn. After Major's governments attempt to tell us how to run our lives whilst all the government were having affairs and corrupt you think they would stay away from "Back to Basics".

    I also have to agree with madmary. On one hand we are told we need to raise our children better and take more interest whilst on the other we have to both work 40+ hours a week to make ends meet.

  26. At 06:56 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peter,

    Thanks very much for that, and the picture of Jesus. I wonder if al poodle sports such a stigmata?
    Houb Salaam
    ed

  27. At 06:57 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Hi Mary (14) of course I agree! & there is load of evidence to support families separating where there is conflict, hostility or violence. I suspect DC would've agreed with that anyway, prevaricating wildly as he was, & agreeing with everything. I was somewhat surprised to find that children who witness domestic violence are as damaged by it as if it was directed at them. I had thought something had changed, but at the end of the interview, all was right with the world; DC doesn’t know which way is up & the party still doesn’t have any policies.

  28. At 07:08 PM on 11 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    Mr Fryer, most people like listening to Eddie Mair the first time, and many times when they can as he has a beautiful dry wit. Maybe you need to "listen again" or more often to get it.

    It was not a crass comment. Eddie loves his audience and would not for one moment want to put people off listening again or for the first time at a later time.

    Oh NO! I've paid EM two comments now! Aperitif, when are you going to start our support group. I'm in a sorry state.

    Mary

  29. At 07:13 PM on 11 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    David Jones - you made a point that I didn't in my post, but I did make it to the cup of tea that I was brewing whilst listening. Divorces happen when people aren't given the time for each other. People make bad relationships or relationships go bad because there is just not the time to meet people in condusive environments or to nuture those relationships.

    I had a horrible shock yesterday re my husband (all is well but I thought the worst). It made me think how little time I have for time with him quality or otherwise.

    And then we often rush into relationships because everyone is saying that being a couple (preferably a married one) is the best way of being.

    Oh I could go on all night!

    Mr C wasn't going to get my vote anyway, but he would not even be an also ran.

    Mary

  30. At 07:17 PM on 11 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    I really enjoyed tonight's programme. Especially the Mysterious Case of the Drunken Bishop.

    Helen Sparkles has some interesting theories.

    Oddly the thought occurred to me that the Bishop might have had his drinks spiked or become ill.

    On a lighter note, can you imagine coming upon a person you think is stealing from your car and when confronting him he tells you he is the Bishp of Somewhere. I was waiting for the guy to say that he or his friend replied Oh right and I'm the Pope, before calling the police. Classic stuff from which a good old fashioned British Movie would be made.

    I'm sorry for the Bish though.

    Mary

  31. At 08:46 PM on 11 Dec 2006, whisht wrote:

    I cannot believe how negative people are about "Back to Basics"!!

    Its a fantastic album, with some really astute and poignant lyrics from an in-form Billy Bragg.

    oh... ahh... sorry...

    [ahem]

  32. At 10:40 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    (13) You seem to have added an extra 0zero00.

  33. At 10:40 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    I bunked off a very recent event that was to include the Bish of Southwark - half wish I had been there now to see the black eye, but I don't particularly like this Bish. (I've heard him before); ArchBish of York gets my vote for next ArchBish of Cant, but not in hurry for that. Have also run into former Bish of Liverpool, Shepheard (sp), the cricketer, who pioneered Anglican/Catholic cooperation in Liverpool with (sorry, forgot the name, Warlock?).

    But reason for posting is that I missed half of PM and this comment about polonium 210 being in tobacco. I'm afraid the contribution I heard was total rubbish, you do not make 210PLo (or arsenic or other elements) by smoking tobacco, you may liberate it if it's already in the dried leaf, which comes from the plant growing in soil contaminated with it. Oh, I see Andy (20), makes the same point, but may as well reinforce it.

  34. At 10:43 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    P.S.

    My last PM newsletter was dated the 7th Dec, and arrived over the weekend. The Friday and Monday editions are still lost. Am I the only one, and is (the wonderful) Lissa avoiding acknowledging my complaints on this?

  35. At 10:45 PM on 11 Dec 2006, Deepthought (John W) wrote:

    BTW, do people remember the Stephen Fry/John Bird "Absolute Power" where they spike a Bishop's drink, and he performs so "lit up"....

  36. At 11:32 PM on 11 Dec 2006, gossipmistress wrote:

    Jonnie (21) ..or at least to sit on the Naughtie step (again)

  37. At 01:01 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    madmary, hope your shock has abated, I think I left you a hug on another thread, but can't be sure; really I can only follow one thread!

  38. At 01:07 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    "Contains moderate scepticism."
    Lady Penelope supported by Mrs Naughtie

    Ooh, Lady Penelope (as was)
    Isn't this exciting, Dear.
    Your exquiste strapline offering has been chosen.
    I'm obviously not the only one to recognise a good thing when it's put in front of me.
    Congratulations, but I'm sorry that my name has been added. I didn't mean to hijack your bandwagon, I just wanted to show my approval. It's really really appropriate in view of Monday's programme, don't you think?

  39. At 01:20 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Mrs. Naughtie wrote:

    jonnie Dear,

    When you get fed up of sitting there in the cold, just reach through the letter box - you'll find a piece of string with the door key on the end.
    You'll find the tea bags in the jar marked "Biscuits" and the mince pies in the one marked "Chocolate Biscuits". Mr. Naughtie broke the tea and coffee jars, but we don't speak of him.
    If I'm asleep in front of the TV, bring me a cup, there's a dear.

  40. At 01:29 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    There will be an all night vigil at my house for Women Who Love (Eddie) Too Much tomorrow night. Bring your own candle...

  41. At 02:31 AM on 12 Dec 2006, jonnie wrote:

    Re(39) Mrs Naughtie,

    Did you find your cup!

    I left it there, next to you!

    You'll find me snuggled up with Mr Naughtie.

    Can I have a cup of Earl Grey at about 09:30 -- I'd like to catch a bit of Trisha and have a nice snooooze!

    Only joking ,.,.,.,.

    Ooooh! I've done it now ;-(

  42. At 02:45 AM on 12 Dec 2006, censor wrote:

    40 "Complain about this comment "

    I'm not sure I dare.

  43. At 08:42 AM on 12 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    Postscript to the Bishop story. Do you think there were any actresses involved? Do you think we should be told?

    Mary

    PS Aperitif I have a few scented candles, will they be OK?

  44. At 10:49 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Christ, I'm a natural Tory (but not a party member) and even I don't know where they are going! How is anyone else supposed to figure it out?

    Mind you I'm an odd blend, a social liberal, but a criminal hanger-and-flogger. I believe that Portillo stood back and learned the lessons of the defeat of 1997, unlike many of his contemporaries who went into denial. He seemed to come out of a period of thought and reflection with some credit, but was rejected by them because of some bad press.

    I am not a fan of DC for the same reason I dislike Tory Blur. All spin and style, warm words and platitudes with no policies. Where's the meat?

    I'll still vote for them though. I could never vote for 'new' Labour. I don't trust them even an inch. How can I? They urge us all to save for our future whilst they raid billions in taxation from our pension policies. No wonder they want us compelled to have a pension, the Treasury will take even more from us! And the Tax Credits system is a complete mess.

    As for the LibDems, they are led by a nonagenarian named after a thousand year-old chinese vase, how can you take that seriously!

    Now if the Monster Raving Loonies were standing in my area..... The current choice is so anodyne they make the Loonies look sane.

    I do hope that my fellow froggers won't desert me, now that I've come out of the political closet. Being something of a Conservative doesn't seem very popular around here.

    Si.

  45. At 11:00 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:


    'I'll tell the Bishop'
    'I AM the Bishop'

  46. At 11:03 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    So Polonium 210 and other contaminants get into tobacco via the soil because of the use of intensive agriculture, and the government wants to prevent people from taking such substances in by discouraging smoking.

    People have a choice whether to smoke. But we do not have a choice whether to eat.

    If tobacco is contaminated then so is all food produced by similar intensive methods. I don't hear the government speaking out about that.

    It just confirms me in my choice only to eat what I grow myself or is otherwise organically produced.

    (PS Abusive posting warning repeatedly even though I haven't posted at all today.....)

  47. At 11:18 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Simon (44) - we still love you and would never mistake honest expression of opinion for something nastier.

    But as a Scot (and as it happens also a Lib Dem) I do think I should tell you that Ming is the normal nickname for anyone called Menzies and nothing to do with vases or Merciless tyrants - and none of us can help our age. And OK I have not suffered a sense of humour failure, anyone who stands as a politician must take what is thrown at them.

    But here's a thought - remember the debate between Kennedy and Nixon when all the radio listeners thought Nixon had it on the argument and the TV viewers voted for the looks.

    Perhaps we should ban all TV politics and make people listen to what is actually said as per last night's interviews with DC and Caroline Flint.

    Keep up the good work Eddie.

  48. At 11:23 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Simon
    Please be whatever you are as long as you don't frighten the moose.
    I enjoy listening (reading) views of people who can articulate their thoughts. I only have two or three things about which I am blindly passionate, otherwise I can be argued to see the virtue of almost any argument..... so rave on mon brave... any more of that Quinta on your person?

  49. At 11:38 AM on 12 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia in usual hurry wrote:

    Haven't had time to read all this blog yet, but:

    I was much relieved to hear a politician at last supporting the blank obvious about marriage. Only the most devious and articulate spin-doctors can still publicly reject the evidence of the past 40 years since all that "Free Love" stuff came - to our great delight and enormous detriment. Listening to Dr. Singh this morning, I thought he had a very good point about it being more than a matter of tinkering with tax incentives. Note that for pensioners the State pension is a disincentive to marriage. Certainly State provision should not encourage immorality.

  50. At 12:15 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Fifi (and I'm still not Fiona!) wrote:

    Si (44) and Vyle (49):

    The only thing IDS and DC said that I agreed with was to the effect of: you have to stop tinkering with 'drugs policy' and 'tax policy' and 'antisocial behaviour' ... and look at the whole thing together.

    What has caused our society to get into such a mess?

    Alas, being politicians (of whatever stripe) they stopped at the first big-looking issue: marriage and families. It looks like an answer, sure. Cure the feckless attitude to relationships and babies and you stop the whole runaway train in its tracks.

    Wrong. Because I have a question: what has *caused* that attitude to develop as it has?

    My theory on this may be just as wrong as theirs... and I was too young to be interested in politics and current affairs at the time...

    But I seem to remember a certain female prime minister who made business more important than people; who privatised nationalised services and demanded they compete in 'markets' and turn a profit for shareholders; who clobbered all our heavy industries and turned us into a nation of call centres; who made it the norm to look out for yourself at the expense of everyone who wasn't able to do that.

    We need to look further than the breakdown of attitudes to family life -- which is just another symptom -- and preferably stop patronising the public with pat-sounding 'answers' that merely demonise hard working people who are simply trying to keep up with a pace of life that is not of their choosing.

    I would actually have voted Monster Raving Loony if David Sutch hadn't upped and died and there were no candidates. Instead I voted for an independent who hadn't a hope in hell, in hopes that getting any votes at all would encourage him to keep trying to make a difference.

    He didn't get in -- but he did rather better than I expected.

  51. At 01:29 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Auntie D (48);
    My hip flask.....

    Si.

  52. At 01:56 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    People coming out as Tory and Lib Dem on one thread??? I'm going back to the beach for a lie down!

    Scented candles will be fine Mary. Vigil begins at dusk -- in a couple of hours then! -- and through until dawn. Only one rule -- get all of your love for Eric out of the way before the new day dawns and then you can go forwards with a clear head and free heart...

  53. At 01:58 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Si (47, I think) you are absolutely right about Michael Portillo, I really like watching him & Dianne Abbott on This Week when I remember. It seems though that we only really get honesty when there isn't any power to be gained.

    Fifi (50) you won't get any argument from me, but then I agree with virtually everything Tony Benn ever says, so no surprise there! The only thing I would add is that the individualism, bred by the Thatcher/Regan monetarist version of capitalism was a global trend, witness the (completely) unsustainable development of the Tiger Economies. I don’t know how much the UK could have resisted it, particularly given the hegemonic status of the USA in the context of the Thatcher/Regan love in, & the fact that it was a universally aspired to.

    So many countries are really just service industries now, using China et al. as their manufacturing base & profit is all. I don’t know why but I was really disturbed by this article yesterday, I mean how much more money do people have to make, & isn’t there something more important, it seems not now. Personally, I am not surprised that all the programmes, books and scientific research into happiness is telling us we need less stuff & more people related activities in our lives; there is such a thing as society!

  54. At 02:04 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    fifi (50)

    Did you see the literature at the last General Election from the OMRLP?

    They wanted to introduce a 99p coin, to save all that change-giving.

    Any party that can produce such sensible solutions to daft pricing has to be worth thinking about.

  55. At 03:42 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Fifi wrote:

    Vyle Hernia (54) : that's exactly how I felt about them, latterly.

    If that's loonyism, then somebody pass the nice white jacket with all the buckles....

    fifi

  56. At 04:07 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    It was this article, the spell which was spun to enable me to link, has worn off!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1969948,00.html

  57. At 04:15 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    RE. politicians - agree wholeheartedly. Couldn't stand Tony Benn when he was in power; now he's excellent. And M. Portillo had a splendid programme about the NHS last night. Listen again if you weren't paying attention the first time.

  58. At 05:16 PM on 12 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    Fifi and Helen S, I think I'd vote for you two. Far more sensible than any others on offer.

    I feel for you Simon Worrall. Not because you are a Tory voter, but you are suffering from what us wannabe labour voters have been suffering from, that it a natural inclination to vote for a party without understanding what on earth they stand for. The difference between you and I is that I haven't voted Labour for years owing to what I see as their complete betrayal of principles.

    I find it weird that politicial parties are hunting for causes and policies. I niavely (sp?) thought that a party was formed because of a belief in fundamental principles which are applied to general issues of concern to produce policies and then actions. I just feel that the current big two don't really understand that and just say stuff which sounds appealling without any clear basis for their pronouncements.

    Candles lit Aperitif! Eddie's voice is on the radio now, but I'm chanting stuff like "He's not that great ... " . It's not easy though. I need a lie down on the beach.

    Mary

  59. At 08:06 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Mad mary,

    On The nature of political parties.

    xx
    ed

  60. At 08:27 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Helen Sparkles wrote:

    Vyle, I was but I might again! I agree Mary that the political ideology of parties seems to have fallen by the wayside, & am sure DC is only hijacking the social justice agenda because everyone can now see that TB is no socialist.

    In 1998, I was in Oona King's constituency, she old me that TB was just doing what he did to get in, but then it would all be old Labour. I wasn't going to vote at all, despite taking my vote seriously, but I was pursuaded. Oh no, I didn't vote for TB; I was in a safe Labour seat, but she lied - any chance of an apology do you think?!

  61. At 10:41 PM on 12 Dec 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Sparkly Helen, I don't think you can say that Oona King lied - I think rather she hoped. As did everyone. Have you tried asking her direct for an apology? She might surprise you.

  62. At 10:50 PM on 12 Dec 2006, madmary wrote:

    Aperitif, what was suggested to Helen Sparkles if not a lie was certainly a suggestion that the revered leader or the party was endeavouring to get into power under false pretences. She may only have been hopeful but surely she was supporting a deceitful position?

    Mary

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.