As the Government continues with its decimation of our constitution and replaces the Lord Chancellor with a mere Speaker later in the year, speculation has started in who the first Speaker might be. Lord Falconer of Thingy has made clear he doesn't like wearing wigs (not what I'd heard, but there you go) so he's ruled himself out. I wonder whether Betty Boothroyd or Bernard Weatherill might fancy a swansong. It's highly likely that the Speaker will emerge from the ranks of the Crossbenches, although I understand David Steel has made it known that he quite fancies the job...and the £80,000 salary that goes with it... and the rather palatial apartments. I wonder though whether it's quite the done thing to advertise the fact that you'd like the job. Their Lordships are nothing if not wary of a self publicist. My own personal favourite for the job would be Gillian Shephard. She's probably too new to the Lords and probably wouldn't want to do it anyway, but she'd certainly make her mark on the job. Who would your tip be?
9 comments:
Your highest referral may be Guido Fawkes, but his latest post about Tny Blair's daughter is over the top and massively cruel. By the time you see it it may have gone. But if you retain a link - I'm gone, as will many others.
Bye then. I wouldn't have written it myself, but I'm also not a great believer in censorship. If you don't want to look at his site, don't. It's called a free country.
Yet, when Sky News made an apparent snide reference to Simon Hughes you said "I can't believe what the newsreader on Sky (who has just said - "My instant reaction was when I heard about this was that it was someone else, but let's not go there." He should hang his head in shame. The newsreader, I mean."
And that is an adult politician. Different rules for children?
Come again?! First of all, I didn't take that as a reference to Simon Hughes. Second, that was on a national TV channel, not a Blog, and thirdly, if you have an issue with this, take it up with Guido, not me! I haven't even done anything! Jesus.
In the post I responded to you were happy to carry and support a link to a post which makes awful comments about a child. Yet you previously criticised - "hang his head in shame" - less precise (you now claim) statements about an adult Lib Dem MP (so many to choose from!).
The fact it is a blog is irrelevant as you know. More people have access to the internet that SKY.
Kathryn Blair is 17 ys and 11 months old. Hardly a child. As I said on my first reply, I wouldn;t have written it. Take it up with Guido. Not my fault. Just as I wouldn;t support the curtailing of freedom of speech in the Religious Hatred Bill, I;m not olanning to remove a link to a blogger who may be outrageous from time to time, but is generally highly informative and entertaining. If you don't like this approach you are of course free to boycott my blog.
17yrs and 11 months. That's fine then. What has a very nasty comment about a child (under 18) got to do with the Religious Hatred Bill?! It's the absence of any acceptance that the post is nasty I find surprising, in light of your previous statements on various issues. OK, censorship may be extreme, but suggesting it is Ok because someone is 17yrs and 11 months....
Oh dear. I quote from above. "I wouldn't have written it myself" Ergo I think it is OTT. But to delete a link to his site on the basis of one comment is a bit extreme. And I ain't gonna do it. The link to Religious Hatred was about censorhsip. But then you knew that.
I'm off to bed - early start. Can we take up the cudgels again tomorrow? God, I love a good row.
Post a Comment