Friday, November 05, 2010

LibDem Sighs of Relief Over Woolas...

With Phil Woolas mistruths on his election literature getting him barred from Parliament, MPs have been relieved to discover that lies about policy will not result in a re-run of the election. 

Students on the other hand will be disappointed…

:)

13 comments:

albertmbankment said...

Over the years, the Liberals (and later the Liberal Democrats) have been the most brazen of smearing dis-informationists at election time. To take just one disgusting example, there was the way that the Simon Hughes Bermondsey campaign blackened Peter Tatchell as a predatory poof ("I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell") in 1983. Hughes was later forced to admit that he is, at 'best', bisexual.

Although his politics are deeply unappealing, I can't help but feel that Tatchell would have been a more beneficial, and far less hypocritical, adornment to Parliament than the repellently sanctimonious Hughes. Whenever I hear Hughes mouthing off, I am reminded of the Emerson quotation: "The louder her talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons".

Tony Butcher said...

The is a need for politiciains at all levels to reassess why they have been elected to office and the they represent when they are there

pls see Pondering on Politicians - http://tonybutcher.blogspot.com/2010/11/pondering-on-politicians.html

pete-s said...

I'm with Albert, Hughes is about as odious as they come, he and Brown would be good company for each other.

neil craig said...

I have to agree about the hypocrisy of courts that "false statements" involving race alone as a reason for a rerun.

Did Gordon Brown's barrister not tell a court that it would be quite improper to expect a politician's election promises to be treated as a promise.

Which parties were it that made manifesto promises of a referendum on the Constitreaty & lied?

So what gives a judge a right to decide that in a democracy it is proper for all parties to lie on some subjects, where the establishment coincidentally approves of the policy, but not on others where it doesn't?

Norfolk Blogger said...

Albert embankment. if you are going back 27 years in order to justify something that happened this year, you really do need to move on.

There is also a big difference between some activists turning up with badges on, and a full on campaign run on the basis of implying support for Islamic extremism.

Pensfold said...

Since the Lib Dems did not win the election they can not implement their policy for students :(

cartersRB said...

@Tony Butcher:

Only problem with that - if a politician's reassessment confirms that they are in politics to grab power and/or money, they'll just lie about it some more.

It's we - the people - that need to be doing some reassessing, and kicking some more liars and crooks out of parliament.

albertmbankment said...

Dear Norfolk Blogger,

I was simply taking a single, particularly high-profile example of the Liberals' disgusting, destructive, deceptive and generally bilious behaviour -when coming from behind (fnarr). When they are the underdogs, they tend to behave appallingly.

Hughes' campaign was egregious in its 'ad hominem' attacks on Tatchell; the more so in the light of Hughes' dissembling over, and eventual admission of, his own 'unconventional' sexuality.

Tatchell's subsequent career has been notable for its dignity and often reckless courage and principle. I disagree vehemently with his politics, but he seems a far better man than Hughes, who slithered into Parliament on the back of the sort of loathsome campaign that distinguishes the Liberals (LibDems). As for the example ancient history, my local LibDem candidate was playing the same sort of game in May. Having failed, however, he can, thankfully be forgotten. His name will never be known, whereas Hughes will inevitably be kicked upstairs to the Lords.

Manfarang said...

Albert
Don't let facts get in your way.
What about the remarks made by some Labour people in Bermondsey about Tatchell at that time.

trevorsden said...

I take the point of your joke - but all policy commitments from wherever are subject to circumstance.

Lets take the example of education spending to a silly degree - if the governor of the Bank of England said to a new govt that to spend extra money on education would result in a run on the pound then policy would have to change.

Expediency is the let out clause for opposition election plans.

The campaign against Tatchel was hardly a high water mark min morality fo0r the LibDems - but the local labour party were not much better.

I do not like Tatchell but getting himself beaten up by Mugabi's bodyguards was brave of him. Fair doos.

Mr Craig does well to remind us of Browns Lawyer ...
Ps
interestingly my WV is 'slytho'

Dick the Prick said...

Steady on Iain, steady the chuff on.

I know you've tried to get selected a couple of times but I was the muppet in the middle of 2 Tory marginals trying to keep them on-side. If you want to go down the false promise type slope then you are defo on your own.

Bad form.


Rejoice in the Woolas mendacity and keep your counsel. I don't think 'your lie's bigger than my lie' cuts much mustard these days.

I've just had lunch with an exceptionally senior Tory and this is a good day. Obama's chucked $600 billion down the drain, Woolas is skeeeerweered and the people are being kept onside by the cuts agenda with Libs commonsense.

Smiley face aside, Woolas is horrid (and I have that on 25 year authority). :-,

DespairingLiberal said...

Totally agree with albertmbankment, Tatchell is a big gap in the H of C, although he perhaps does his rather impressive thing better as an outsider.

The whole point surely is that this sets some sort of precedent - why not get out there and take a close look at statements from a wide range of sitting MPs about their opponents in the last election now? There must be others. I agree that LibDems have been notorious for telling blatant lies in election literature, but that's not a totally exclusive position.

The other puzzle is why this doesn't apply to newspapers/media? Sky News told some deliberate falsehoods during the election as did several newspapers, including the Mail. Where are the prosecutions?

Windsor Tripehound said...

@Dick the Prick

I've just read your post for the third time and I still don't understand it.

Would you be so kind as to write it again, but in English this time?