I don't care very much which party the wrong uns are members of, if they're wrong 'uns they're wrong 'uns. Grant Schapps can dance around on the head of a pin if he likes, trying to justify his behaviour, which they all do at that strata of public life, but there are wrong 'uns everywhere, including Schapps.
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs to have a second job? Or to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities? Kind of defeats the point of having a pen name if you admit to being the same person.
No but fraud is and one would assume that having already been investigated for it and a conclusion drawn that offences probably were committed, albeit no charges were brought in the end, he would remember exactly when he stopped using a name other than his own?
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs to have a second job? Or to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities? Kind of defeats the point of having a pen name if you admit to being the same person.
No but fraud is and one would assume that having already been investigated for it and a conclusion drawn that offences probably were committed, albeit no charges were brought in the end, he would remember exactly when he stopped using a name other than his own?
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it's not illegal to say you're not interested in standing up for the jobless? Whereas it *is* illegal deliberately to commit defraud for monetary gain.
For anyone who can't quite picture the delightful Ms Janice Atkinson, here she saying hello to some of the constituents she represents in South East England as an MEP. More recently, she described another, Asian constituent and Ukip member as "a ting-tong from somewhere".
She's known for her views on "feckless families who have more children than they can support". Which is slightly embarrassing since she is said to owe more than £2,000 in child support. Perhaps she is indeed one of those people she describes as someone who has more children than she can support. Despite her salary as an MEP of £79,000.
Says on the news tonight that she has been suspended by UKIP because a member of "her staff" inflated a restaurant bill whilst being secretly filmed in some sort of sting. Can't see any reason not to sack her if it's true and assuming she sanctioned it.
That's what should have happened to Jack Straw of course when he over claimed his expenses all those years ago. He slipped under the radar though by apologising for his "mistake" and paying it all back whilst the extent of the expenses scandal was just breaking. That was after he had lobbied against publication of MP s expenses whilst Leader of the Commons. The press never gave him a hard time over it for some reason and nobody in Labour was going to suspend or sack him.
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it's not illegal to say you're not interested in standing up for the jobless? Whereas it *is* illegal deliberately to commit defraud for monetary gain.
No but it is somewhat immoral especially when you brief involves dealing with the jobless. Meanwhile if Shapps gets convicted of fraud then let me know until then all your accusations are simply that, accusations. Blair committed war crimes whilst Labour leader but Labour don't seem to own the fact that they allowed a war criminal to lead their party, since he has yet to be convicted by a court. Can't go both ways.
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it's not illegal to say you're not interested in standing up for the jobless? Whereas it *is* illegal deliberately to commit defraud for monetary gain.
No but it is somewhat immoral especially when you brief involves dealing with the jobless. Meanwhile if Shapps gets convicted of fraud then let me know until then all your accusations are simply that, accusations. Blair committed war crimes whilst Labour leader but Labour don't seem to own the fact that they allowed a war criminal to lead their party, since he has yet to be convicted by a court. Can't go both ways.
I didn't mention Shapps; and I haven't made any accusations against him. I was referring to Janice Atkinson's "Chief of Staff", allegedly caught trying to "repatriate" money from the EU. Clearly Shapps has plenty to answer for himself; he's looking more and more like a ridiculous choice as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
(I can't work out which selection decision shows David Cameron at his worst: Cameron's selection of future convict Andy Coulson as Communications Director after Coulson resigned from the News of the World; or Cameron's selection of dual-identity Grant Shapps as Chairman of the Conservative Party. This man is selecting the dodgiest of individuals to surround himself with. And not just surround himself, but to place at the very centre of the Government. Dangerous and odd. Which of these two appointments do you think shows Cameron in the worst, most incompetent light?).
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it's not illegal to say you're not interested in standing up for the jobless? Whereas it *is* illegal deliberately to commit defraud for monetary gain.
No but it is somewhat immoral especially when you brief involves dealing with the jobless. Meanwhile if Shapps gets convicted of fraud then let me know until then all your accusations are simply that, accusations. Blair committed war crimes whilst Labour leader but Labour don't seem to own the fact that they allowed a war criminal to lead their party, since he has yet to be convicted by a court. Can't go both ways.
I didn't mention Shapps; and I haven't made any accusations against him. I was referring to Janice Atkinson's "Chief of Staff", allegedly caught trying to "repatriate" money from the EU. Clearly Shapps has plenty to answer for himself; he's looking more and more like a ridiculous choice as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
(I can't work out which selection decision shows David Cameron at his worst: Cameron's selection of future convict Andy Coulson as Communications Director after Coulson resigned from the News of the World; or Cameron's selection of dual-identity Grant Shapps as Chairman of the Conservative Party. This man is selecting the dodgiest of individuals to surround himself with. And not just surround himself, but to place at the very centre of the Government. Dangerous and odd. Which of these two appointments do you think shows Cameron in the worst, most incompetent light?).
Either or, take your pick, but compared to those sitting opposite, they make Cameron's appointments seem pretty good by comparison.
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, another Labour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it's not illegal to say you're not interested in standing up for the jobless? Whereas it *is* illegal deliberately to commit defraud for monetary gain.
No but it is somewhat immoral especially when you brief involves dealing with the jobless. Meanwhile if Shapps gets convicted of fraud then let me know until then all your accusations are simply that, accusations. Blair committed war crimes whilst Labour leader but Labour don't seem to own the fact that they allowed a war criminal to lead their party, since he has yet to be convicted by a court. Can't go both ways.
I didn't mention Shapps; and I haven't made any accusations against him. I was referring to Janice Atkinson's "Chief of Staff", allegedly caught trying to "repatriate" money from the EU. Clearly Shapps has plenty to answer for himself; he's looking more and more like a ridiculous choice as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
(I can't work out which selection decision shows David Cameron at his worst: Cameron's selection of future convict Andy Coulson as Communications Director after Coulson resigned from the News of the World; or Cameron's selection of dual-identity Grant Shapps as Chairman of the Conservative Party. This man is selecting the dodgiest of individuals to surround himself with. And not just surround himself, but to place at the very centre of the Government. Dangerous and odd. Which of these two appointments do you think shows Cameron in the worst, most incompetent light?).
Either or, take your pick, but compared to those sitting opposite, they make Cameron's appointments seem pretty good by comparison.
Really? Which key members of Ed Miliband's shadow team have ended up serving a prison sentence for conspiracy to hack phone messages and awaiting trial for perjury? And which leading Labour members have lied about having a second job, under a pseudonym?
Do you *really* think the appointment of these two entitled half-wits seem "good appointments" compared to any of Ed Miliband's?
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, aparametersbour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs to have a second job? Or to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities? Kind of defeats the point of having a pen name if you admit to being the same person.
No but fraud is and one would assume that having already been investigated for it and a conclusion drawn that offences probably were committed, albeit no charges were brought in the end, he would remember exactly when he stopped using a name other than his own?
So what you're saying is there wasn't enough evidence to convict and the charges were dropped, so he still hasn't done anything wrong.
Once the facts change feel free to bring it up again.
Er...no, my point is that YOU said that "it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs...to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities". I pointed out that Shapps had indeed been investigated by the police for doing exactly this, who concluded that there was a case to answer but it (almost certainly) failed the public interest test. Apparently now you're not prepared to consider something that could have lead to a prosecution as being within the parameters of "morally dubious" and have moved the goalposts to a situation where only a criminal conviction is now good enough.
It really is like trying to nail jelly to the wall having a sensible discussion with you sometimes.
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
Lets look at Miliband's:
Ed Balls - dressed up as a Nazi, fiddled his expenses, hit & run fine Harman - links to paedophile groups, attempted to cover up expenses fiddling, put her husband top of an all-women shortlist, found guilty of driving without due care and attention Andy Burnham - tried to suppress NHS scandals that had led to patient deaths, used NHS records for election purposes
It might not be a conspiracy but in the same week the Shadow Work&Pensions Minister said she isn't interested in standing up for the jobless, aparametersbour MP is under investigation for using Parliamentary expenses for election material and an SNP official has been suspended for homophobic abuse of the Scottish Tory leader. None of these seem to have made it onto the BBC's website or at least with no prominence whatsoever, yet the parties involved are the Opposition in Westminster or the Scottish Government, surely they should be held to the same or higher degree of scrutiny than some clueless MEPs?
You do realise that it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs to have a second job? Or to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities? Kind of defeats the point of having a pen name if you admit to being the same person.
No but fraud is and one would assume that having already been investigated for it and a conclusion drawn that offences probably were committed, albeit no charges were brought in the end, he would remember exactly when he stopped using a name other than his own?
So what you're saying is there wasn't enough evidence to convict and the charges were dropped, so he still hasn't done anything wrong.
Once the facts change feel free to bring it up again.
Er...no, my point is that YOU said that "it isn't illegal or immoral for MPs...to deny that you are behind a pen name, as long as the pen name is not being used for legally or morally dubious activities". I pointed out that Shapps had indeed been investigated by the police for doing exactly this who concluded that there was a case to answer but it (almost certainly) failed the public interest test. Apparently now you're not prepared to consider something that could have lead to a prosecution as being within the parameters of "morally dubious" and have moved the goalposts to a situation where only a criminal conviction is now good enough.
It really is like trying to nail jelly to the wall having a sensible discussion with you sometimes.
I'm still not seeing the part where he has actually been found guilty of doing anything wrong, so unless the legal system in this country has been drastically overhauled since this morning and apparently people can be assumed to be guilty of wrongdoing because they're Tories, then your above post, just like nailing jelly to a wall, is pointless.
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
So Coulson lied and, in response, Cameron chose him as a Director of Communications? Brilliant!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
So Coulson lied and, in response, Cameron chose him as a Director of Communications? Brilliant!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Err so now Cameron is meant to be psychic? Ok.
Ok so what questions would you ask? That would be impossible to answer without obviously lying? And considering that the person being interviewed is a journalist and is therefore quite good at making lies seem like the truth?
Can you honestly say you've never been lied to or believed something that later turned out to be a lie?
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
So Coulson lied and, in response, Cameron chose him as a Director of Communications? Brilliant!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Err so now Cameron is meant to be psychic? Ok.
Ok so what questions would you ask? That would be impossible to answer without obviously lying? And considering that the person being interviewed is a journalist and is therefore quite good at making lies seem like the truth?
Can you honestly say you've never been lied to or believed something that later turned out to be a lie?
Let me give it one more go: the important thing is not whether he asked questions; it's the astonishingly bad judgement he showed by hiring him.
Cameron hired someone on the strength of the conversations he had with him. He placed him at the absolutely centre of his operations. In an incredibly important, trusting role. First as his Director of Communications as Leader of the Opposition and, later, within Government. He got it spectacularly wrong.
Yes, I have been lied to. Probably more often than I realise. When I was a journalist, I was able both to disguise and to discover the truth when I needed to. My judgement probably isn't much better than most people's. But, it's not my judgement that's important. It's the Prime Minister's. He ought to have excellent judgement. He demonstrably falls far short of that.
For a politican, judgement is an important skill. For the leader of a party, it's one of the most important skills. Arguably, for Prime Minster, it's the only important skill. In this regard, Cameron has failed spectacularly.
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
So Coulson lied and, in response, Cameron chose him as a Director of Communications? Brilliant!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Err so now Cameron is meant to be psychic? Ok.
Ok so what questions would you ask? That would be impossible to answer without obviously lying? And considering that the person being interviewed is a journalist and is therefore quite good at making lies seem like the truth?
Can you honestly say you've never been lied to or believed something that later turned out to be a lie?
Let me give it one more go: the important thing is not whether he asked questions; it's the astonishingly bad judgement he showed by hiring him.
Cameron hired someone on the strength of the conversations he had with him. He placed him at the absolutely centre of his operations. In an incredibly important, trusting role. First as his Director of Communications as Leader of the Opposition and, later, within Government. He got it spectacularly wrong.
Yes, I have been lied to. Probably more often than I realise. When I was a journalist, I was able both to disguise and to discover the truth when I needed to. My judgement probably isn't much better than most people's. But, it's not my judgement that's important. It's the Prime Minister's. He ought to have excellent judgement. He demonstrably falls far short of that.
For a politican, judgement is an important skill. For the leader of a party, it's one of the most important skills. Arguably, for Prime Minster, it's the only important skill. In this regard, Cameron has failed spectacularly.
Fair enough. So he made one bad error of judgement in your opinion. He isn't the first PM to do so.
Cameron's judgement regarding Coulson was bad but in fairness Coulson's activities that got him convicted were not public knowledge prior to his appointment so he can hardly be blamed for Coulson being arrested after his appointment (in fact Coulson had been replaced months before his arrest). Having a pen name is different from lying about a second job, people operating under a pen name are entitled to their anonymity.
This is hilarious!
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
Err, yes, he did, and whatever questions those were, Coulson clearly lied. So by your own test of good judgement (ie that Cameron asked the right questions), Cameron passes, and if another party leader was in Cameron's position they would have done the same thing.
So Coulson lied and, in response, Cameron chose him as a Director of Communications? Brilliant!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Err so now Cameron is meant to be psychic? Ok.
Ok so what questions would you ask? That would be impossible to answer without obviously lying? And considering that the person being interviewed is a journalist and is therefore quite good at making lies seem like the truth?
Can you honestly say you've never been lied to or believed something that later turned out to be a lie?
Let me give it one more go: the important thing is not whether he asked questions; it's the astonishingly bad judgement he showed by hiring him.
Cameron hired someone on the strength of the conversations he had with him. He placed him at the absolutely centre of his operations. In an incredibly important, trusting role. First as his Director of Communications as Leader of the Opposition and, later, within Government. He got it spectacularly wrong.
Yes, I have been lied to. Probably more often than I realise. When I was a journalist, I was able both to disguise and to discover the truth when I needed to. My judgement probably isn't much better than most people's. But, it's not my judgement that's important. It's the Prime Minister's. He ought to have excellent judgement. He demonstrably falls far short of that.
For a politican, judgement is an important skill. For the leader of a party, it's one of the most important skills. Arguably, for Prime Minster, it's the only important skill. In this regard, Cameron has failed spectacularly.
Fair enough. So he made one bad error of judgement in your opinion. He isn't the first PM to do so.
Not sure if you're aware that numerous people from all sides of the political spectrum advised him against Coulson but he ignored them? Worse than an error of judgement, an example of the arrogance of the man.
For anyone who can't quite picture the delightful Ms Janice Atkinson, here she saying hello to some of the constituents she represents in South East England as an MEP. More recently, she described another, Asian constituent and Ukip member as "a ting-tong from somewhere".
She's known for her views on "feckless families who have more children than they can support". Which is slightly embarrassing since she is said to owe more than £2,000 in child support. Perhaps she is indeed one of those people she describes as someone who has more children than she can support. Despite her salary as an MEP of £79,000.
Anybody know when UKIP are publishing their manifesto?
I hope UKIP show they are different and don't publish one. The Tories didn't mention gay marriage in there last manifesto. Surely such a major social change, which they so deeply believed in should have taken pride of place in the last election.
The lib dems also quite famously changed there mind on tuitaton fees. This is essentially defrauding the electorate.
Anybody know when UKIP are publishing their manifesto?
I hope UKIP show they are different and don't publish one. The Tories didn't mention gay marriage in there last manifesto. Surely such a major social change, which they so deeply believed in should have taken pride of place in the last election.
The lib dems also quite famously changed there mind on tuitaton fees. This is essentially defrauding the electorate.
According to UKIP the will publish but not untill mid April. Not that it matters much as The party has struggled with its policy process for several years. Last year, Mr Farage disowned the party’s entire 2010 manifesto, which included ideas such as painting trains in traditional colours and insisting on formal dress at the theatre, calling it “drivel”.
There is a major witch hunt against UKIP a t m .. the 'major' parties are running scared ..
Yeah those two or three seats they gain are going to put them in a real position of power...
it's not so much the seats that UKIP will/may win, more the votes it will gain at the expense of the main parties, making the outcomes in so many seats, both Tory and Labour, so unpredictable. I agree that UKIP will get very few seats ... BUT .. it will get a lot of votes to come 2nd/3rd all over the country
Comments
Grant Schapps can dance around on the head of a pin if he likes, trying to justify his behaviour, which they all do at that strata of public life, but there are wrong 'uns everywhere, including Schapps.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483906/Police-wont-act-fraud-claim-Grant-Shapps-tech-company.html
Once the facts change feel free to bring it up again.
She's known for her views on "feckless families who have more children than they can support". Which is slightly embarrassing since she is said to owe more than £2,000 in child support. Perhaps she is indeed one of those people she describes as someone who has more children than she can support. Despite her salary as an MEP of £79,000.
That's what should have happened to Jack Straw of course when he over claimed his expenses all those years ago. He slipped under the radar though by apologising for his "mistake" and paying it all back whilst the extent of the expenses scandal was just breaking. That was after he had lobbied against publication of MP s expenses whilst Leader of the Commons. The press never gave him a hard time over it for some reason and nobody in Labour was going to suspend or sack him.
(I can't work out which selection decision shows David Cameron at his worst: Cameron's selection of future convict Andy Coulson as Communications Director after Coulson resigned from the News of the World; or Cameron's selection of dual-identity Grant Shapps as Chairman of the Conservative Party. This man is selecting the dodgiest of individuals to surround himself with. And not just surround himself, but to place at the very centre of the Government. Dangerous and odd. Which of these two appointments do you think shows Cameron in the worst, most incompetent light?).
Do you *really* think the appointment of these two entitled half-wits seem "good appointments" compared to any of Ed Miliband's?
It really is like trying to nail jelly to the wall having a sensible discussion with you sometimes.
Lets look at Miliband's:
Ed Balls - dressed up as a Nazi, fiddled his expenses, hit & run fine
Harman - links to paedophile groups, attempted to cover up expenses fiddling, put her husband top of an all-women shortlist, found guilty of driving without due care and attention
Andy Burnham - tried to suppress NHS scandals that had led to patient deaths, used NHS records for election purposes
plus various others
Cameron appointed Coulson after Coulson had resigned from the News of the World because one of his staff had been convicted. If that didn't send enough alarm bells ringing, then what could? His breathtaking, immoral and illegal activities may not have been "public knowledge" in 2007, but wouldn't it be fair to expect that the leader of the Conservative Party should ask a few questions and make a judgement based on the answers he gets? If he *did* ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. If he didn't ask them, that's probably worse.
Yes, "having a pen name" *is* different from "lying about a second job". But he did both.
Cameron's judgement is indefensible. But hats off to you for giving it a go!
It's not just asking the questions, it's making a judgement on the answers. As I said earlier, if he did ask the right questions, then his judgement is terrible. Another party leader would have asked the questions. But I can't imagine another party leader being so weak and credulous as to believe him. Cameron's supposed to be in charge of the country. It's terrifying that he's so easily deceived.
Coulson... Shapps... who next? Cameron almost makes Nigel Farage look like a safe pair of hands!
Ok so what questions would you ask? That would be impossible to answer without obviously lying? And considering that the person being interviewed is a journalist and is therefore quite good at making lies seem like the truth?
Can you honestly say you've never been lied to or believed something that later turned out to be a lie?
Cameron hired someone on the strength of the conversations he had with him. He placed him at the absolutely centre of his operations. In an incredibly important, trusting role. First as his Director of Communications as Leader of the Opposition and, later, within Government. He got it spectacularly wrong.
Yes, I have been lied to. Probably more often than I realise. When I was a journalist, I was able both to disguise and to discover the truth when I needed to. My judgement probably isn't much better than most people's. But, it's not my judgement that's important. It's the Prime Minister's. He ought to have excellent judgement. He demonstrably falls far short of that.
For a politican, judgement is an important skill. For the leader of a party, it's one of the most important skills. Arguably, for Prime Minster, it's the only important skill. In this regard, Cameron has failed spectacularly.
The Tories didn't mention gay marriage in there last manifesto. Surely such a major social change, which they so deeply believed in should have taken pride of place in the last election.
The lib dems also quite famously changed there mind on tuitaton fees. This is essentially defrauding the electorate.
it's not so much the seats that UKIP will/may win, more the votes it will gain at the expense of the main parties, making the outcomes in so many seats, both Tory and Labour, so unpredictable.
I agree that UKIP will get very few seats ... BUT .. it will get a lot of votes to come 2nd/3rd all over the country