Monday, November 29, 2004
Well, What Did you Think?
I have just got back from appearing on Newsnight to talk about the David Blunkett situation. I was on with Labour MP Clive Betts, with whom I had done a News 24 interview earlier this evening. Clive is a nice guy but does rant a bit. So in contrast I seemed to be the voice of sweet reason (for once!). I will happily admit that I was quite nervous about appearing on this programme and was a little suspicious as to why I had been asked. But when I was sitting there waiting for the opening titles to roll and felt remarkably calm. Jeremy Paxman, who had obviously seen the earlier News 24 piece had earlier sttled me down by greeting with the words "Hello, you attack dog!" I replied that I thought that was normally his role. He then said "Oh you're not going to have a go at me about the Michael Howard interview are you?" Luckily I hadn't seen it. Anyway, I everyone tells me I did OK. Roll on Question Time!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Stunningly good, Iain! Compared to that looney Labour MP man, you did look very calm and reasonable. Plus what you said about what would happen if it were a Tory MP was spot on.
I am only sad not to live in Norfolk - if I did, I'd vote for you!
Iain,
I caught you on News 24 and found you reason personified. Clive Betts was far too overbearing and pushy.
nice tie
:-) Yes, it was rather a striking item of neckwear. Regimental or old school, Iain?
It's a Duchamp tie. I have 5 different ones, all rather multicoloured. I do like a colourful tie!
How did you get back home by 11.59?
I changed the clock mechanism so it would be posted as a Monday post rather than a Tuesday post! Simple.
Thank goodness. I would hate to have seen one the party's most promising stars caught speeding!
I imagine I'd then have to be investigated by Sir Alan Budd...
I imagine you'd get off lightly. Oh hang on, we're Tories, different rules for us......
Yes. Archer and Aitken were basically misunderstood philanthropists in my view.
And what's your point, exactly?
As you said on Newsnight, if it had been a Tory Home Secretary, he would have been forced out by now. However, Labour politicians seem to get off lightly in these matters.
My point was that saying "Labour gets off lightly" is revisionism to say the least.
Aitken and Archer were senior figures who were convicted of very serious criminal offences. Hamilton was not, of course, a convicted criminal but the courts preferred to believe Mr Al Fayed over him on the issue of bribes in brown envelopes, which is not an advertisement for the former's honesty. Another MP (somebody Smith?) at least had the grace to admit taking bribes and resigned.
Others were condemned over sex scandals but you have to remember the context. Mellor was unnecessarily removed after a second scandal (not the first), an open season was then declared by the media, and not Labour. People like Yeo could hardly stay when Lilley had just produced his "little list" including single mothers, which Yeo had been busy creating.
I must say it is profoundly depressing that the first reaction of many Conservative politicians is "we would never have got away with it". Neither is it true, nor is it particularly helpful, nor does it excuse serious misdeeds (including accepting bribes and serious criminal offences) committed in the period 1992-7.
Post a Comment