BBC Blog Network

User Profile

harrowingdunn

Listed below are comments made by harrowingdunn between Friday, 28th November 2008 and Monday, 7th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Efficiently tackling inefficiency 6:08pm on 07 Dec 2009 Nick
Mr Brown and his Chancellor have discovered a fiscal hair shirt, it would seem. Long overdue. Please ask them why these sums were being spent in the first place if they are not necessary or could have been achieved at cheaper cost from the beginning. Mr Cameron has long practised a line in which he says that the Prime Minister "takes us for fools". Every voter and tax payer in this land deserves this description if we fall for the comments now coming from Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street. The extremity of the cuts necessary have arisen directly from the incontinent spending plans of the last ten years. Surely no-one will trust the same team to unpick the Gordon Knot they have created.
Plotters, quitters and fighters 8:01pm on 16 Nov 2009 The Electoral maths has to be a strong factor in any response to Nick's challenge. No party in "ordinary times" (ie not National Govt or post-War) has gained the swing necessary to give the Tories a majority of 1 far less a good majority with which to face the horrendous challenges of the coming years (war, debt, sluggish economy, debt, aging populations, debt...did I mention debt?). The plotters must hope that a change of leader will change the media narrative for a sufficient time to allow a honeymoon surge in the polls (Labour have gained 4% according to today's ICM Poll - 42/29/19 - and a further 5% for Labour - taken from the Tories - makes them largest party in a new Parliament: 37/34/19 giving them 304 as opposed to the Tories 269). That is not such an likely situation. Even though I would strongly want to see the back of Mr Brown and his government I cannot just wish it so and ignore the electoral maths.
Was 2,000 a myth? 11:46am on 15 Oct 2009 At the risk of sounding like a Daily Telegraph reader: This is outrageous! I am not the slightest bit interested in the semantics of whether it was 1500 or 2000 - the truth is that the military asked for an uplift eight months ago and it has only just been granted. What on earth have the Minstry of Defence and the Prime Minister been doing in that time? We know what the armed services have been doing - and we were reminded of the cost of that service to the country in the list read out yesterday before PMQs. I know that the Prime Minister has a reputation for dithering but this is dithering on a world class scale. It would be funny but for the fact that his approach has undoubtedly lead to the deaths and maiming of many soldiers during that time. PLEASE bring on an election - this is just shameful.
Discipline and the NHS 12:29pm on 14 Aug 2009 Please tell me that we are not taking an MEP's view seriously on a matter of explicitly domestic policy that has nothing to do with his role as an MEP?? Please tell me that we are not leading our news bulletins with this?? I might add that there is nothing wrong with criticising or questioning any institution, even fundamental questions as to whether it is the best way to achieve its aims - indeed we should question all such VAST spenders of tax payers' money - but it would seem that some are now deemed off limits. We are a free society and I do not notice any great reaction to criticism (some of it quite trenchant at times) of the monarch, the church, teachers etc. I thought that New Labour wanted an end to deference unless, it seems, it is for one of their political touchstones, namely the NHS. I have found the people who work in the NHS to be superb and worthy of praise but to say that the institution itself is perfect and not open to criticism is barking!
Becoming the story 12:44pm on 09 Jul 2009 Just who is making Coulson the story?? There is never a mirror around when you need one is there, Nick! Use your political nouse to trace the origins of the complaints. If the Labour Party had an ounce of sense it would have put a non-political victim of this scam up for questioning Mr Coulson and his boss. By putting forward the group you mention, one of whom happens to be the spinmeister-in-chief, they reveal the essential political tactic that this is.
Speaker's anger 10:03am on 12 May 2009 The real disgrace is the party (Labour) and the system that put Mr Martin in this role in the first place. How can we be surprised when he shows himself not to be up to the task of Speaker? He was NEVER up to that task and it is to the shame of the Labour Party that it put what it believed to be its own interest above that of Parliament (and, by implication, the nation, us!) in forcing a double Labour speaker (Boothroyd/Martin) on the House. Labour believed that it gained some sort of sectional interest by doing so - that can be the only explanation for promoting somebody so singularly unqualified for this national role. Can you imagine the furore if the Tories had done such a thing?
Charities and politics 09:56am on 09 Apr 2009 Of course the Labour government is backing this initiative - it is in their interest to have so-called independent bodies talking about traditionally Labour issues, especially during the time of an election and a potential Conservative government. It might be worth asking each of these "independent" bodies how many of their employees took unpaid leave (I hope it was unpaid!) to work for the Labour election campaign in 1997, 2001 and 2005. Perhaps this is the innovative political campaigning to which Liam Burne is referring. Is it wrong of me also to question whether this is the right time to be giving away even this relatively small sum of taxpayers money? Hardly core activity - unless you accept the broader political desire to advantage the government and disadvantage your opponents in that category.
Expenses exposed 09:29am on 24 Mar 2009 I might be a bit out on a limb in this posting, but here goes! Quite simply an annual salary of £63,000 is not enough for someone to purchase and maintain two homes, one of which must be in or near central London (even with recent price falls). We, the electorate, would be highly critical of candidates who did not have a foothold in or very near the constituency they represent and would equally damn them if they failed to spend sufficient time in Westminster representing us and holding the executive to account. The answer is either the current allowance system, perhaps with the M25 being the outer boundary for exclusion, a higher salary or the provision of accommodation by the state near Westminster. There must be some ghastly tower block in the midst of a challenging estate that would be ripe for such provision. Might even bring our legislators and governors nearer the problems (and people) they claim to be seeking to address. It is easy to throw criticism at MPs over this issue (and, my goodness, they give us ample cause and opportunity) but we should also be realistic in what we can and should expect of them and provide for them to undertake this incredibly important role. I want more active MPs, I want them to be more intrusive in the running and machinations of the state, I want them to safeguard the freedoms that enable me to write comments such as this (and others more critical). They will not be able to do that effectively while sleeping on the floors of their offices or stranded at the end of a four hour train journey each day.
Perils of political promises 1:12pm on 23 Mar 2009 Dear Nick
I am saddened to have to endorse the repeated comments about the bias implicit in your blog (as a whole - although amply exemplified by this entry). The McNulty story is positively outrageous and warrants three lines - this is likely to be the Westminster equivalent of the AIG bonus story in the US. You can have no idea how this playing "out here" - everyone I have spoken to (and part of my "name" may give you a hint as to where I am based - watch out for a Tory win in Harrow East) is incredibly unimpressed with this issue. This is what they are talking about and are angry about, not the nuance of wording chosen by a SHADOW minister. Incidentally, when were you planning to blog on:
1. H Harman's leadership bid
2. The current state of the public finances
3. The Guardian interview with Hazel Blears in which she is critical of world-saver GB
4. Labour MPs preparing their cv's and future job prospects in anticipation of a wipeout in 2010
These are the real stories in the political world as they are from within the governing party, the group who have a direct influence over you and me right now - and yet they figure not in your blog, Nick. Why?
Green's arrest draws parallels 2:03pm on 28 Nov 2008 I promise that I have pondered long the batch of responses to recent Nick Robinson blogs all alleging bias. I have wanted to believe that my my concerns were misplaced and that my own political views (heavily blue I am happy to confirm!) and subsequent sensitivities would not colour my response to this significant (and, so often in the past, impressive) political and journalistic figure. This blog has removed any reservations that I might have had. This commentary represents a serious misjudgement on Nick's part in making a wholly inappropriate comparison in pursuit, I presume, of balance. We should expect better of the Political Editor of the BBC. The two issues linked to the arrest of these figures are entirely different as various responses have highlighted. Secondly, the roles of the two people concerned are entirely different. Damien Green is an elected representative of the people of Ashford. Ruth Turner was a Party appointment working, in effect, for the then Prime Minister in his role as Party Leader. To compare the two is to demonstrate an incredible lack of historical, journalistic and political judgement on Nick's part. If he wishes to protest that balance was his aim then the only suitable comparison was one G Brown who regularly leaked (in the political sense!) in the 1980s. Of course he was never arrested even though his leaks were often from the much more sensitive Ministry of Defence. This blog from Nick truly defies believe and I cannot wonder that there are so many responses awaiting moderation because I suspect that spluttering rage will have been the quite justified response of several correspondents to this story in general and Nick's spin on it in particular.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

harrowingdunn