political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Monday, November 08, 2010
For All Those Sally Bercow Fans Out There...
Yesterday I was on the Politics Show with Sally Bercow. Enjoy. And if you haven't had enough of La Bercow, she will be on HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU on Thursday. I have set Sky Plus...
I watched you on TV yesterday. I sad to say that I did not agree with your stance on the Welfare reforms.
I find what is proposed will put the unemployed on the same level as petty criminals doing 'community service' - and that is a step too far for me in this Government's re-visiting of the Victorian work-house ethic.
The nasty party has been reborn and has found coalition allies it would seem.
What will happen is plenty of firms will use cheap labour. If it is privately run this will happen. I believe that Ed Miliband should call a censure motion on this issue. Let's see how the Libs go on this one
I watched as you sat idly by while the silly Ber-cow blithely dismissed what Woolas had done as OK, 'cos it was NOT a 'criminal offence'!! So WTF was it then? Why didn't you tell her she was talking a load of )(*)(*&*(&*(&))_)s. I particularly liked the way she started to talk about the labour party as 'us' and 'we', and then corrected herself. And again, you sat by and let it pass. And there was me thinking you were an experienced commentator. Hah!
You keep implying (and you said it during the programme) that Woolas's actions were a "criminal" offence. This is technically untrue. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it illegal, but it is not a criminal matter; there is no police involvement and the counts do not impose criminal penalties.
Coulson by contrast has been interviewed by the police in connection with matters that are criminal in nature, even if he himself has not (yet) been charged with anything.
Stop blowing smoke over this with deliberate falsehoods.
Ian, the fact that Ber-cow 'condemns herself from her own mouth' is not enough. There are enough peole out there who would see the nuances of her arguments and how idiotic they may be. It is up to people like you to make sure these nuances are opened up to the glare of the spotlight of truth. She is one of those people who are 'intoxicated by the exuberance of their verbosity'. She needs to be kept in line and reminded of her position - and the lack of qualification she has to pontificate on anything (except being laid).
If the Conservative party want to put Labour on the backfoot in Oldham East and Saddleworth it is these type of incidents they must jump on and jump up and down about - Labour being dishonest with the voters.
For that is the reason this by-election has come about and must be made a key theme of this by-election.
Labour has been even more shameless and dishonest since the election and making honesty with the electorate an issue in OE&S can resonate as the voters may just punish the party that brought this by-election about with its dishonesty.
Of course cuts will be a major issue in this by-election but that then allows the Conservatives to nullify Labour's campaign by showing that Labour are being dishonest again on cuts.
Labour are trying to give an impression that they either oppose cuts or, where they know people won't buy this, not in support of the cuts that are being put in place.
What the Conservatives and its coalition partners have to do is connect the issue of honesty (or Labour dishonesty) with the issue of cuts. The way to do this? Show that Labour planned cuts that are worse than have ever been experienced. That their cuts would be little different from the coalition's.
They are already exposed on this. It's up to the coalition parties to keep repeating that Labour cuts would be little different from coalition cuts. That Labour is being dishonest with the voters when they pretend to say they oppose this and that cut.
First you can use the admission by Alistair Darling that Labour cuts would be "deeper and tougher" that that of the Conservative Government in the 1980s. Destroy any chance they have of saying that the cuts of today are like the 1980s.
Second is the leaked Labour memo which has them admitting that their cuts would have been little different than the coalition's.
And keep on repeating those messages. Flood the OE&S with leaflets saying Labour is being dishonest with you on cuts - they admit their's will have been worse than Margaret Thatcher's and are little different from the coalition's. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
People get angry and disillusioned with dishonest politicians. Saying Labour would have just kept on borrowing only helps it appeal to those voters who believe that. Tell those voters that Labour is being dishonest about that and would have been little different from the coalition destroys that voter base for them. Makes them angry and disillusioned with Labour.
By saying that Labour would just have been the same would destroy Labour's USP on cuts as well as raise the issue that sparked this by-election - Labour dishonesty. It would nullify their USP and then destroy it with truth.
Coulson by contrast has been interviewed by the police in connection with matters that are criminal in nature, even if he himself has not (yet) been charged with anything.
He was not arrested, he was not interviewed under caution, he is being treated as a witness. I'm just wondering if any of the "hackers" were Liberal party activists?
Unsworth, you're an idiot - what difference would it make if I had? The simple fact is that Iain lied during the programme, saying that Woolas has been found guilty of a criminal offence - cobblers. Woolas is an arse but these things matter - accusing him of a criminal offence and then rubbishing Bercow for saying the opposite is the worst sort of manouverist humbug and it's what makes Iain Dale, for all his good points, an obvious Fox candidate. No doubt he is striving for that job on Sky.
Someone who is 'intoxicated by the exuberance of their verbosity' is a pretty handy definition of a politician or, for that matter, a political pundit. I don't agree with Sally Bercow on this or anything else much, but she is no more or less qualified to pontificate than Iain Dale.
I'd be interested to know whether you think she should be kept in her place because you don't like her views or because she is a woman.
Then again, I think I probably already know the answer. Its the gratuitous sexual reference in your last three words that gives it away I am afraid. Cold baths help I believe.
DL, you are an effing liar. I never said that AT all. I most categorically did not say Woolas had committed a criminal offence and I challenge you to show where I did.
What a prat you are making of yourself on the blog today.
"What a prat you are making of yourself on the blog today."
Ah, plus ça change....
The point is that an 'interview' is by no means the same as being found guilty or even being charged. But the idiotic Desperate One clearly does not understand such matters.
"You keep implying (and you said it during the programme) that Woolas's actions were a "criminal" offence. This is technically untrue. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it illegal, but it is not a criminal matter; there is no police involvement and the counts do not impose criminal penalties."
I thought the news reports said that the file had been passed to the police who were going to investigate whether there should be any criminal charges. So it has not been decided yet.
2:13 in the video. Sally Bercow has just said that Woolas did not commit a criminal offence. You said "you could argue that that's what it led to". What's that if not an accusation that he did in fact commit a criminal offence? Weasel words.
There you go again. Lying. Blatantly. I did say "You could say that is what it led to." But it was in reference to her saying ballot rigging. I made no comment on the criminal offence issue, as well you know.
Now just accept that you either got this wrong or you deliberately accused me of something you know I didn't mean.
Right so we are all agreed..Bercow is a slapper best ignored and his wife is no better.....As regards Saddleworth re run, just hope for a better result for Nigel Farage...
What? What kind of double-talk is this? So you only accused him of ballot-rigging? Itself a criminal offence? OK fine. I humbly apologise for saying that you accused him of the wrong criminal offence.
No, I don't want teh Ber-cow to be kept in her place 'because she is a woman', or because I am 'opposed to her views'.
She should "know" her place and respect the role she has as Speaker's wife. The fact that she thinks that she is qualified in ANY way to make political comment - on anything and everything (which seems to me what she does)just because she is Mrs Speaker is the point at issue here. As a test of this point, if she were just a single (failed) graduate that she really is no-one would give her the time of day. She is, by any measure of these things, a complete waste of space.
What do your Labour readers think the various New Deal schemes (compulsory for claimants after six or eighteen months to the best of my recollection as a JCP Personal Advisor) which included paid-for work placements? Or the More Frequent Attendance interviews designed to disrupt suspected fraudsters or lead-swingers' working weeks. As any claimant knows, the Jobseekeer's Agreement sets availability for work as a condition of receiving JSA. Isn't doing organised work for the benefit of the community excellent evidence of that?
Iain,
ReplyDeleteI watched you on TV yesterday. I sad to say that I did not agree with your stance on the Welfare reforms.
I find what is proposed will put the unemployed on the same level as petty criminals doing 'community service' - and that is a step too far for me in this Government's re-visiting of the Victorian work-house ethic.
The nasty party has been reborn and has found coalition allies it would seem.
BBC News reports
ReplyDelete"Labour MP Graham Stringer has said Phil Woolas was "hung out to dry" after being banned from politics by a specially convened election court."
What will happen is plenty of firms will use cheap labour. If it is privately run this will happen. I believe that Ed Miliband should call a censure motion on this issue. Let's see how the Libs go on this one
ReplyDeleteI watched as you sat idly by while the silly Ber-cow blithely dismissed what Woolas had done as OK, 'cos it was NOT a 'criminal offence'!!
ReplyDeleteSo WTF was it then? Why didn't you tell her she was talking a load of )(*)(*&*(&*(&))_)s.
I particularly liked the way she started to talk about the labour party as 'us' and 'we', and then corrected herself. And again, you sat by and let it pass.
And there was me thinking you were an experienced commentator. Hah!
Simon,
ReplyDeleteI agree, what firm is going to turn down the opportunity for free labour - Trebles all around in the board room! (and donations to the Tory Party?)
It is hard to see how the unemployed will get a real paying job, when there are all these captive people for free.
The systemic problem is that it completely undermines the jobs market in the 'minimum wage' sector.
Phil, what you don't see to understand is that Sally Bercow condemns herself out of her own mouth. It doesn't need constant pointing out.
ReplyDeleteYou keep implying (and you said it during the programme) that Woolas's actions were a "criminal" offence. This is technically untrue. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it illegal, but it is not a criminal matter; there is no police involvement and the counts do not impose criminal penalties.
ReplyDeleteCoulson by contrast has been interviewed by the police in connection with matters that are criminal in nature, even if he himself has not (yet) been charged with anything.
Stop blowing smoke over this with deliberate falsehoods.
Ian, the fact that Ber-cow 'condemns herself from her own mouth' is not enough. There are enough peole out there who would see the nuances of her arguments and how idiotic they may be.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to people like you to make sure these nuances are opened up to the glare of the spotlight of truth.
She is one of those people who are 'intoxicated by the exuberance of their verbosity'. She needs to be kept in line and reminded of her position - and the lack of qualification she has to pontificate on anything (except being laid).
Iain
ReplyDelete"Sally Bercow condemns herself out of her own mouth"
So, is that where she speaks from?
Iain, your post on The Shamelessness of Harriet Harman.
ReplyDeleteIf the Conservative party want to put Labour on the backfoot in Oldham East and Saddleworth it is these type of incidents they must jump on and jump up and down about - Labour being dishonest with the voters.
For that is the reason this by-election has come about and must be made a key theme of this by-election.
Labour has been even more shameless and dishonest since the election and making honesty with the electorate an issue in OE&S can resonate as the voters may just punish the party that brought this by-election about with its dishonesty.
Of course cuts will be a major issue in this by-election but that then allows the Conservatives to nullify Labour's campaign by showing that Labour are being dishonest again on cuts.
Labour are trying to give an impression that they either oppose cuts or, where they know people won't buy this, not in support of the cuts that are being put in place.
What the Conservatives and its coalition partners have to do is connect the issue of honesty (or Labour dishonesty) with the issue of cuts. The way to do this? Show that Labour planned cuts that are worse than have ever been experienced. That their cuts would be little different from the coalition's.
They are already exposed on this. It's up to the coalition parties to keep repeating that Labour cuts would be little different from coalition cuts. That Labour is being dishonest with the voters when they pretend to say they oppose this and that cut.
First you can use the admission by Alistair Darling that Labour cuts would be "deeper and tougher" that that of the Conservative Government in the 1980s. Destroy any chance they have of saying that the cuts of today are like the 1980s.
Second is the leaked Labour memo which has them admitting that their cuts would have been little different than the coalition's.
And keep on repeating those messages. Flood the OE&S with leaflets saying Labour is being dishonest with you on cuts - they admit their's will have been worse than Margaret Thatcher's and are little different from the coalition's. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
People get angry and disillusioned with dishonest politicians. Saying Labour would have just kept on borrowing only helps it appeal to those voters who believe that. Tell those voters that Labour is being dishonest about that and would have been little different from the coalition destroys that voter base for them. Makes them angry and disillusioned with Labour.
By saying that Labour would just have been the same would destroy Labour's USP on cuts as well as raise the issue that sparked this by-election - Labour dishonesty. It would nullify their USP and then destroy it with truth.
@ Despairing Liberal
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been interviewed by the police?
Those eyes...
ReplyDeleteCoulson by contrast has been interviewed by the police in connection with matters that are criminal in nature, even if he himself has not (yet) been charged with anything.
ReplyDeleteHe was not arrested, he was not interviewed under caution, he is being treated as a witness. I'm just wondering if any of the "hackers" were Liberal party activists?
If you corrected every error in Ms Bercow's script, you would make no points of your own.
ReplyDeleteWould it not have been nice if she had bothered to check on Wikipaedia what judicial review is?
Yes, it is rich that Lib Dems squeal when defamed and I think that Graham Stringer has a point; wounded Woolas has been left behind.
Personally, I do not think Woolas ever recovered from the spanking administered by Joanna Lumley.
Unsworth, you're an idiot - what difference would it make if I had? The simple fact is that Iain lied during the programme, saying that Woolas has been found guilty of a criminal offence - cobblers. Woolas is an arse but these things matter - accusing him of a criminal offence and then rubbishing Bercow for saying the opposite is the worst sort of manouverist humbug and it's what makes Iain Dale, for all his good points, an obvious Fox candidate. No doubt he is striving for that job on Sky.
ReplyDelete@Phil
ReplyDeleteSomeone who is 'intoxicated by the exuberance of their verbosity' is a pretty handy definition of a politician or, for that matter, a political pundit. I don't agree with Sally Bercow on this or anything else much, but she is no more or less qualified to pontificate than Iain Dale.
I'd be interested to know whether you think she should be kept in her place because you don't like her views or because she is a woman.
Then again, I think I probably already know the answer. Its the gratuitous sexual reference in your last three words that gives it away I am afraid. Cold baths help I believe.
DL, you are an effing liar. I never said that AT all. I most categorically did not say Woolas had committed a criminal offence and I challenge you to show where I did.
ReplyDeleteWhat a prat you are making of yourself on the blog today.
"What a prat you are making of yourself on the blog today."
ReplyDeleteAh, plus ça change....
The point is that an 'interview' is by no means the same as being found guilty or even being charged. But the idiotic Desperate One clearly does not understand such matters.
"You keep implying (and you said it during the programme) that Woolas's actions were a "criminal" offence. This is technically untrue. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it illegal, but it is not a criminal matter; there is no police involvement and the counts do not impose criminal penalties."
ReplyDeleteI thought the news reports said that the file had been passed to the police who were going to investigate whether there should be any criminal charges. So it has not been decided yet.
Five words re.Sally Bercow - "Empty vessels make most noise".
ReplyDeleteCome off it.
ReplyDelete2:13 in the video. Sally Bercow has just said that Woolas did not commit a criminal offence. You said "you could argue that that's what it led to". What's that if not an accusation that he did in fact commit a criminal offence? Weasel words.
There you go again. Lying. Blatantly. I did say "You could say that is what it led to." But it was in reference to her saying ballot rigging. I made no comment on the criminal offence issue, as well you know.
ReplyDeleteNow just accept that you either got this wrong or you deliberately accused me of something you know I didn't mean.
Right so we are all agreed..Bercow is a slapper best ignored and his wife is no better.....As regards Saddleworth re run, just hope for a better result for Nigel Farage...
ReplyDeleteWhat? What kind of double-talk is this? So you only accused him of ballot-rigging? Itself a criminal offence? OK fine. I humbly apologise for saying that you accused him of the wrong criminal offence.
ReplyDelete@HampsteadOwl:
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't want teh Ber-cow to be kept in her place 'because she is a woman', or because I am 'opposed to her views'.
She should "know" her place and respect the role she has as Speaker's wife. The fact that she thinks that she is qualified in ANY way to make political comment - on anything and everything (which seems to me what she does)just because she is Mrs Speaker is the point at issue here. As a test of this point, if she were just a single (failed) graduate that she really is no-one would give her the time of day. She is, by any measure of these things, a complete waste of space.
@ HampsteadOwl
ReplyDeleteIs there any published independent medical confirmation of La Bercow's gender?
What do your Labour readers think the various New Deal schemes (compulsory for claimants after six or eighteen months to the best of my recollection as a JCP Personal Advisor) which included paid-for work placements? Or the More Frequent Attendance interviews designed to disrupt suspected fraudsters or lead-swingers' working weeks. As any claimant knows, the Jobseekeer's Agreement sets availability for work as a condition of receiving JSA. Isn't doing organised work for the benefit of the community excellent evidence of that?
ReplyDelete@ Unsworth said...
ReplyDelete"Sally Bercow condemns herself out of her own mouth"
"So, is that where she speaks from?"
I was under the impression that she issued communication through a different orifice, lower down and rear facing?
She impressed me as having the intellectual edge of a rather naiive 18 year old studying a level politics. She makes her husband look good.
ReplyDelete