What do you need to be a good PM?
December 5th, 2007
Is performing well in the Commons the critical element?
The above tables are from a YouGov poll of 300 politics academics in UK universities which was prepared for the Political Studies Association.
First those questioned were asked to choose a maximum of five from a list of qualities should “matter most if a prime minister is to be successful”. Then they were asked to choose from the same list which of the qualities “matter most” IN PRACTICE to those seeking to reach Number 10.
As can be seen there was a huge difference in the response to the two questions. The academics all down-played performing well in the Commons and on TV preferring to choose “experience of real life” , “a willingness to consult”” and “intelligence”.
But when asked what mattered most in practice it was the performing elements in parliament and on TV that got highly rated. Amazingly intelligence came third from the bottom.
In this media obsessed age I think the survey is about right.
We don’t know what the political allegiances of those surveyed were but previous polls of Political Studies Association have shown a very high proportion of Labour supporters.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Ultimatly what counts is being able to get a message across. It does not matter if you have the ideas that will save the world if no one will listen.
I don’t think people are able to answer these questions honestly. What they really want - or end up voting for, but can’t admit to themselves, is an attractive telegenic person (nobody cares about parliament performance)(i.e. Blair/Cameron). Yes, I know TV perormance is number 2 on the above list but really it’s the ONLY thing that matters. Clegg may well turn out to be the best option for the LibDems.
I didn’t see PMQs but for what I read it was “dull”. Anyway, here’s the Sun reaction:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article547737.ece
A skin as thick as a Rhino NO1!
Mike I demand a new thread to discuss the massive implications leading from this,an assault on one man’s civil liberties. In my old neck of the woods too!!
http://tinyurl.com/2mdse6
Why should the views of political academics should count for more than political gamblers or political amateurs? They shouldn’t, so I would ignore question one and concentrate on question two. That at least brings forth their academic assessment of the real situation.
Nevertheless, this is still subjective twaddle and I’d take a poll of this site ahead of 300 academics as a guide to what makes a successful politician any day of the week.
Re 4, Coldstone, Admit it, its you, youold fart
5. Apologies, sentence one should read:
Why should the views of political academics count for more than political gamblers or political amateurs?
6
I do hope Marcus as PPC for Torbay, will take up the cudgel on that man’s behalf!!
Sorry to go O/T but sometimes you couldn’t make it up with regards to this government.
“Darling Spoke at Deutsche Bank Hosted Labour Fund-Raiser”
http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/exclusive-darling-at-deutsche-bank.html
Sadly I note that “Honesty” is missing from the above lists.Ah well I suppose that’s politics.
I have to dash to fly up to St James’Park to watch my beloved Arsenal beat Newcastle by the obligatory 2 goals to Nil.
I may be lucky enough to return with an autographed Newcastle shirt emblazoned with”Northern Rock” which will be donated to my local hospice to be auctioned off.
Wednesday nights don’t come any better.
4. I like Agence France Presse’s explanations… Bass (a type of beer)… breaking wind (farting) - don’t want any Frenchies to misunderstand the story.
Re 8, Coldstone, “I do hope Marcus as PPC for Torbay, will take up the cudgel on that man’s behalf!!”
We shall have to see!
I hear the man has excelent hearing but may suffer from underperforming olfactory senses.
I give the government credit for this development “UK bans non-EU unskilled workers”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7129187.stm
I can’t help thinking that if the Conservatives had suggested this sort of thing 10-15 years ago, the Labour Party would have called the Tories “racist” as a standard knee-jerk reaction, even though it is nothing of the sort.
9
Unfortunately reached the stage when nothing surprises me!
11
Shouldn’t have to explain it to the Frenchies, look at the bottle in the right hand corner.
http://www.art.co.uk/asp/View_HighZoomResPop.asp?apn=10077271&imgloc=20-2036-Z00D4Z4M.jpg&imgwidth=893&imgheight=672
Mike!
I think the question is a bit naff (including a typo) to a point that the results are meaningless IMO. When you’re doing the survey an looking for your 4th or 5th quality, “The ability to perform in the commons” would fit the bill nicely. Lowest common denominator stuff that most people could agree on is part of the PMs job. The less specific qualities are evenly spread.
Really, really bad survey.
The Government is obviously VERY worried that their breaking the funding laws could be on a FAR bigger scale than previously admitted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7128181.stm
15. A gentleman and a scholar. I will have to revise my view of your credentials, Coldstone.
Re 17, Marquee Mark,
9. This is a resignation matter, surely
Sorry to hark back to the previous thread, but I have question for our Libdem posters. How problematic will it be, if at all, if the leadership contest result ends up being very close leaving the winner without a clear and resounding mandate?
Come on, this is getting silly now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not allowed to address an audience of City supporters? He is not allowed to answer questions? Just because it’s hosted by a bank? Almost every bank in the City has some sort of interest in the Northern Rock situation, so it would be impossible for the CoE to set foot beyond Ludgate Circus if this were the standard required. Guido’s getting his moustaches in a twist about nothing here.
[21] As with Westminister, in this case a majority of one is enough…
I think Mike S identified the problem at the start of the contest. The LibDems chose a very rushed schedule. There is no time for a challenger to make a mark. Voting happens too early. Furthermore, Clegg’s moment in the sun will be brief as it will then be swallowed up by Christmas and nobody will care in January.
All in all, straight from the “How not to run a Leadership Contest” manual.
24
It’s not the cntest that matters but the winner.
I think the LibDems are making the right choice (for the Conservative Party)
17. What I don’t get about this government (among many other things) is how they always appear to be behind the game, despite having all the levers of power in their hands.
Prisons and prisoners have been a big story since the summer, yet we go through their conference and the pre-budget report without any mention of this extra money. Suddenly, on the same day that a hideous proposal to trim sentences to fit the prisons is announced, Jack Straw finds another £1.5bn.
Black holes, anyone? Stable door slamming, anyone? Credibility, anyone?
Also, on another topic, I’d advise CCHQ to check for bugs in the PMQs prep office. It’s simply too coincidental that Brown was able to announce a new Commissioner for Standards on the very day Cameron asked about it. Call me suspicious and cynical, but…
Don’t PMs also need some luck? Napoleon thought his generals should have it.
Consulting widely might be seen as a strength, but how far was this something which Thatcher and Blair did not do? Mental and physical health shouldn’t be underated. What is odd about the survey is the instruction choose 4 or 5 from the listing of attributes. Having the ability to make decisions quckly and decisively can be seen as other attributes, but does delegation also feature in the list. The whole thing still looks very much like a game played over a couple of pints after a lecture at the end of term.
Press Release just come out from the Huhne camp:
Chris Huhne’s campaign team have released details of canvassing figures obtained by an independent third party organisation which confirm a late surge in support for Huhne. The figures show that the number of undecided voters has fallen dramatically over the past ten days (from 38.4% to 17.5%) and that these members have plumped overwhelmingly for the Eastleigh MP.
Details of the figures are as follows¹:
Chris Huhne definite - 44.7%²
Nick Clegg definite - 15.2%
Chris Huhne leaning - 5.3%
Nick Clegg leaning - 1.5%
Undecided - 17.5%
Won’t say - 14.4%
¹ A survey of 1,000 randomly selected Party members was carried out by an independent organisation. The polling was carried out in three batches – the figures above reflect the data acquired over the period 27 Nov – 4 Dec. Amalgamating the definite and leaning support and giving Nick Clegg all the “won’t say” responses, indicates that members’ support at the moment is splitting in the region of 50% Chris Huhne, 30% Nick Clegg with just under 20% undecided.
² Definite support for Huhne in the first two batches stood at 26.6% and 28.7%.
Honestly, I don’t think it matters. Huhne would have been tainted forever over Calamity Clegg and would have led a bitterly divided party. Clegg has been anonymous to the utter scorn of the press corps. Both are frankly rubbish and to top it all off, they’ve been doing the ferret-in-sack impression while serious stuff happens to the country.
And whatever honeymoon Clegg gets will be interrupted by Christmas.
Way to go LibDems!
Who on earth does not ‘have direct experience of real life’? This makes no sense as it stands. Do they mean ‘had a job outside politics’ or ‘has had a life of suffering’?
An interesting question for me is what will Clegg do with Huhne. There is a touch of the “better to rule in hell than serve in heaven” about him.
21- 50.01% would be a perfectly clear enough mandate. There’s not much policy difference between the two anyway.
28 - suspiously high support for Huhne there. I don’t believe it.
BBC website has started advertising! It’ll all be down-hill from here …
StJohn - can we reassess the Clegg Huhne situation again in the light of post 28 above? Please give the YouGov breakdown on the “not voted category” at that time.
34 Outside the UK.
O/T-
“POLL: No Huckaboom in N.H. as Romney Holds Tough”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=3953614&page=1
“NH NEA TO ENDORSE CLINTON, HUCKABEE”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/05/497082.aspx
28
‘Chris Huhne’s campaign team have released details of canvassing figures obtained by an independent third party organisation which confirm a late surge in support for Huhne.’
Why not name the ‘independent third party organisation’that did the canvassing,unless it doesn’t exist
28 - “A late surge of supportfor Chris Huhne…”
It all sounds rather like some of the LD leaflets that come out in by-elections!
I am very sceptical about these figures and who is the “independant third party organisation”?
Not that it make too much difference who wins; Vince has upstaged both of tham recently!
What I find interesting is that the list of what the Political Studies Association members regard in practice as most important are more or less what I regard as most important in theory. As Benedict White notes at post 1, ultimately what counts is being able to get a message across.
Intelligence, in particular, is much overrated in political life (and elsewhere, for that matter). Judgement is much more important, and is not particularly closely correlated with intelligence. Ronald Reagan was no genius, but he was a superb politician. Michael Foot was one of the cleverest politicians of the last 50 years, but much good did it do him when he led the Labour party.
39 - Sorry, not spelling too well today!!
40 The survey is totally flawed.
37 You pays your money ….
28 This can’t be right surely? If so, it would represent the biggest shock in modern UK polical history, with the 1-6 favourite getting beaten.
43-what?
2 Steven Ronald. I reluctantly agree with you about Prime Ministers, but I think the LibDems are making a mistake in picking their leader on the same criteria. I ahve argued this before but since the Lib Dem leader is extremely unlikely (100/1 isn’t it) to become Prime Minister what he or she does need to do is articulate Liberalism, and properly demonstrate what life would be like under a Liberal Democrat administration. Personally I think the LibDems should give a much higher profile to their Mayors and Council Leaders who actually get to put policy into action, unlike the Parliamentarians. A LibDem mayor of London would be de facto party leader and get far more coverage than the leader of 60 or so MPs in a parliamentary minority, and if Clegg/Huhne really are as talented as people are saying they should run for London mayor and get something done. Would also play up the localism theme.
The new chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has been named as Sir Christopher Kelly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7128753,00.html
Wikipedia has this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Kelly
47: Just what we need a serial civil servant.
Guido obviously knows nothing about how the City works. What a fool.
28. The figures don’t add up to 100%.
That 44.7% could be just 59 out of a total sub-sample of 132 (the other percentages match a sub-sample of 132 with 2 missing).
35 I don’t know but I would think it is Yougov , prior to the Sky survey there was a Yougov LibDem leader poll which I suspected was commissioned privately by Huhne . It is quite possible they have gone back and resurveyed the original undecided respondents .
49. Guido made a fortune in the city and now blogs.
49. Guido knows more about how the City works than you or me. However, he is letting his lack of political knowledge and common sense lead him up the garden path on this one.
If you’re reading this, Guido, go and have a large Jameson’s and calm down a bit. You’re leading the pack on this and other stories, so don’t damage your rep by getting over-excited with trivia.
49 Stonch - Guido was a bond trader in the City.
He may be a lot of things, but not a fool.
I suspoect this may have been posted but for anyone that hasnt read it, just champion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/
The key requirement for a PM is imo :-
NOT to be a member of
or
read anything produced by
or
be influenced in any way by any member of
the Political Studies Association.
46 - Agree with plenty of that. A Lib Dem London Mayor is very unlikely though…would be a goldmine if they got it though.
28: entertiainng to see LD technqiues deployed internally. Can a barchart be far behind?
Re 42, Jonathan “40 The survey is totally flawed.”
Well, yes, the panel was made up of a bunch of Labour leaning leftie proffessors
58 - Nick
Spot on! It’s nice to be in happy accord!
52 - yeah whatever.
Re 49 , Stonch, I posted this at the ned of teh last thread and welcome your comments:
Re 278, Stonch, “271 - Benedict my guess is that you probably know next to nowt about the law”
And that is based on a survey of your ARSE presumably, or did it just come from there?
Try me on secure and assured tenancies, and the rights of tenants.
62 - Benedict I’m not interested
[57] Well, Brian Paddick appears to be doing a whole lot better than Boris, but even if Livingstone is found in bed with a camel and the ex-cop ends up as Mayor, I think that having such a “Goldmine” would tend to enhance the Lib Dem leader, rather than overshadow him.
Incidentally, there is certainly some anecdotal evidence that Huhne has had an exceptionally good week, with Today being a bit of an eye-opener to many. The question is whether it is all too late?
Despite the excitement here for Huhne this afternoon - his backing price on Betfair has hardly moved, currently 1-5. More importantly, there is next to no turnover on either candidate. Clearly the market doesn’t believe this “poll”.
Re 63, Stonch, “62 - Benedict I’m not interested”
Fair enough, if you want to talk bollocks about people though, be aware they may call you up on it.
Yes - a Lib Dem Mayor (although unlikely…), would enhance the Lib Dem leader and Lib Dems generally, massively - hense Goldmine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7129449.stm
Brown can’t even organise his diary! Had no-one noticed this clash before this afternoon?
Sorry, OT, but there’s a great story in The Evening Standard today from Andrew Gilligan about corruption at City Hall.
Livingstone’s favourite “race warrior” Lee Jasper has screwed millions out of the Mayoor’s coffers for various “black” organisations and it’s all disappeared.
Should be helpful to Boris.
64 - or to put it another way, if Paddick makes it, I’ll be going back to my constituency and preparing for government. (sorry, I love paraphrasing that quote.)
69 “Should be helpful to Boris.”
Possibly, Chet, but I reckon he’ll still need the assistance of Cicero’s camel.
69 If the story is as you describe, i.e. the “disappeared” bit, it sounds massive!
23.”[21] As with Westminister, in this case a majority of one is enough…”
Sorry, maybe should have elaborated more. Could a close result be problematic if the winner does not perform well in post?
IMHO it would have made things much more difficult for Cameron within our party and in the media had he been run close by Davis in the contest and then struggled to perform well. He would have found it much harder to push forward with his own agenda right from the start as well.
You could not make it up with this government (part 2)
“Brown may miss EU treaty signing”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7129449.stm
69 the BEM Assembly Tory candidate, James Cleverly, broke this one
69 Here’s Andrew Gilligan’s piece in today’s London Evening Standard
http://tinyurl.com/28axyx
The Evening Standard’s dislike of Livingstone is much more measured and well thought out these days. The Gilligan pieces are always worth reading, because there are always a lot of facts to back up his opinions. Quite an improvement from a few years ago when the ES was so hostile and strident it was impossible to take seriously.
Sorry, I cannot take any survey of 300 people, whoever they are, seriously.
If Brown can’t even find the time to sign the thing, how he is going to manage to ratify it in parliament. I can see him doing a disappearing act and not only not (sorry for the double negative) be around to vote on it, but not bother to ratify it at all. I can just see him faxing the other leaders ‘Well I will ratify at some point but just can’t find the time right now.’
MODERATED
I like the idea of a bunch of academics thinking politicians need ‘direct experience of real life’. So they can tell the academics what it’s like, presumably.
76 Augustus
One of the lesser insights provided by the inquiry into the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death was the strange journalistic practices of Andrew Gilligan.
Do you not find it difficult to trust his testimony?
69
Many of the organisations receiving London taxpayers money were apparently based in a single room in Kennington,must have been a bit overcrowded!
81 To be honest, Peter, No I do not. His articles (by newspaper standards) are very long, and appear very well researched. I get the impression that he knows what he is talking about. He certainly seems to have a lot of “friends in low places” willing to tell him things.
64. Cicero - unfortunately I still think it is too late for Cnris. Yougov was 58/42 on the 48% of the total electorate that had already voted which adjusted to 56/44 when the voters who had definitely decided but who had not yet voted were added in, which appears to account for another 31% of the total electorate. That leaves 31% of the electorate as undecided or not voting.
Assuming Chris’ very best scenario in which all of this remaining 31% vote 60-40 in his favour in line with his figures which have just been released then the best predicted poll result for him is 52/48 in percentage terms.
An important question not taken into account by the above analysis is how many voters, who told Yougov they had made up their minds but had yet to vote, actually have changed or will have changed their minds at the time of voting.
I think the current Betfair odds accurately reflect the situation.
75 One member of the LDA board, Eric Ollerenshaw, last night described the Standard’s findings as “incredible” and said: “We may have to seek the views of the Audit Commission.
Just how pathetic does that sound - just pick up the bloody phone and call the Police!!
66 Benedict - yer going too far with the language for me.
Mike - a bit of moderating required here ? Arse and bollocks are not terms I’d like to see used time and time again on pb.com
75 et al. This does seem pretty damning, doesn’t it?
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer sh*t, IMHO.
O/T-When is next poll?
79
One of the grant recipients,Diversity International,controlled by a friend of Jasper (Livingstone’s director of equalities) received £295,000 from London taxpayers for a web-based tool for London business,even though the business consultancy has no experience in computers and is based in Liverpool.
The website does not exist,the company has gone into liquidation and all the money has vanished.
84. To clarify my “best predicted result for Chris” is a 52/48 win for Clegg.
Ken! I like you mate! Can I have millions of pounds of ratepayers’ money?*
*(not really)
83 My impression was Augustus, and I may be wrong, that he was very careless, particularly in respect of the important journalistic virtue of taking and retaining notes and records. I also had the impression, and again this could be wrong, that he was a little careless in protecting his source, Dr Kelly.
Of course he may have changed his methods for the better but you can’t blame one for wondering.
As regards the Evening Standard, I rather like the paper and buy it from time to time, but again you have to maintain doubts about its reports on Ken. The silliness of the ‘Nazi’ reporter incident rather undermines the publication’s case from the outset, which is certainly a pity if they have one.
Mcavity…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7129449.stm
66 Benedict. Touche!
86 Big Tall Tim. Grow up! (Live up to your name)
91 Not really, Test? Sounds fair enough to me.
44 - PtP you didn’t see the odds on Alan Johnson getting the Labour deputy leadership just before it was announced then!
And 28 is fascinating, but surely needs backing up if it is to be taken seriously. Does anyone have links/details on this?
92 Please don’t think that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Evening Standard!! Every night, on my way to St Paul’s tube station, I think to myself, “Have I got enough money for a newspaper?” And I answer, “No, but I have enough for an Evening Standard.”
I think Gilligan was careless, but he was not the main villan in the Kelly affair. At least as a print journalist he has the time (and the sub-editors!) to ensure accuracy, which maybe he didn’t when working on live Steam Radio.
O/T again(sorry if someone posted)
“Mike Huckabee Leads Republican Field for First Time in Latest National Tracking Poll”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html
“Amazingly intelligence came third from the bottom.”
Hardly amazing by current experience, Mike!
96 Tpfkar
You did know that there’s now a £1 fine for any poster on PB confusing PtP and PfP? Cheques are payable to the IPF (Injured Punters Fund).
You have the address?
re 94, Disraeli, “66 Benedict. Touche! :-)”
I did not care for Stonch’s comment on the last thread when I responded to someone who presumed I was a lawyer. I was merely correcting his statement robustly.
96. tpkfar - Here is the Chris Huhne link:
http://www.chris2win.org/news/000168/new_figures_confirm_huhne_surge.html
and here is the Yougov link:
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/Lib%20Dem%20leadership.pdf
100 - Bummer.
28. Hmmm are the rampers of last time back up to their old tricks?
I suppose you can’t really blame Brown for not going along to Lisbon after Baroso and most of the other EU leaders snubbed him over the Africa conference and made it clear that they prefered to invite a genocidal maniac like Mugabe rather than have Gordon there.
Personally I think Gordon should get his own back and send Peter Tatchell along as our representative so he has a good chance of arresting Mugabe.
97 LOL Augustus!
As I indicated, I actually quite like the paper, especially when Brian Sewell appears. The City page is first class and it has lots of interesting features. Its obsession with Ken is regretable however, if only because it undermines anything they report on him, and goodness know we could do with somebody keeping an eye on him and his mates.
I am a long way from being an expert on the death of Dr Kelly but I remember thinking at the time that if I had been Gilligan, I would have had difficulty living with myself afterwards.
Incidentally, I also remember thinking that the unfortunate doctor was to a very large extent the author of his own misfortune. It was an unfashionable and perhaps indelicate view to display at the time. Perhaps it can now be said without fear or favour.
Don’t know if anyone saw this in The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/05/npolice105.xml
That’s a lot of voters to hack off!
98 “Mike Huckabee Leads Republican Field for First Time in Latest National Tracking Poll”
Surely cracking value with Ladbrokes at 8-1 to win the nomination?
108-You’re talking with someone that doesn’t know much about bets!Right now, I think he has “momentum”. But it’s good to keep an eye in Romney because of his “faith speech” tomorrow, if he goes really well, he will capture some votes in Iowa…
108 Yes indeed. Helped myself to £50 earlier.
I didn’t mention?
109 Here are Ladbrokes current odds, including stake:
Rudolph Giuliani 2.00
Mitt Romney 3.00
Ron Paul 7.00
Mike Huckabee 9.00
So Hucks, ahead in the latest poll is 8-1, compared with the favourite Giuliani at even money.
By any standards, that has to shout value!
110 No Peter, you didn’t - but then I’m not surprised after you called Hucks a complete no-hoper here just last weekend!
If those are the odds you may be able to arbitrage Huckabee on Betfair.
President Huckabee sounds like a very unfunny film with Eddie Murphy in it.
108 PfP It could be cracking value if you are able to trade out of your position after Iowa.
He won’t win though - the GOP establishment will make sure their guy wins in South Carolina as they always do, especially once the field narrows post New Hampshire. The establishment guy won’t be Huckabee.
113 Absolutely so, Chrishio, by laying at 6.2-1 on Betfair last time I looked - but after my “free money” fiasco yesterday, I was too embarrassed to mention it!
PfP
I agree with Paul M at 115, but doesn’t mean I’m averse to snatching some value off out-of-line Ladbrokes.
“By any standards, that has to shout value!”
If you say so, I believe it!!!!!!=)
Anyway, as I said before not sure if he can keep his “momentum”, Romney can change this tomorrow!
My post 118 was in response to 111!
=)
188 “Romney can change this tomorrow!”
Hmmm..he can, Me. He can also bollux it up. Romney not the Worlds Greatest Communicator.
Bet with care.
106. There was a particularly nasty episode where Gilligan secretly tipped off various members of the FAC, in advance of Kelly’s appearance, with a strong hint that Kelly was a source for the BBC journalist Susan Watts.
This led to Kelly being close questioned about this relationship and, unfortunately, he appeared not to tell the whole truth. According to his close friends, he was extremely angry with himself after that appearance.
I think Gilligan later apologised for the episode during the Hutton enquiry…but it was a bit late by then.
121 Thanks Gabble.
Your acquaintance with the detail is obviously better than mine. I recall mainly that Gilligan’s role was questionable, but it’s hard to judge and we shouldn’t judge too harshly where we can only have a partial understanding of a complex picture.
120-PtP- You’re right, but if he can do it, he will capture some really good votes in Iowa. If he doesn’t, he will lose some….
“Bet with care.”
Don’t worry…=)
114. No more unlikely than President
Polk..
Fillmore..
Taft..
Eisenhower..
79: I’ve no information on Mr Jasper, but this post looks libellous to me. Posters should bear in mind that they are putting Mike as well as themselves at risk when they talk in loose terms about people unless they have overwhelming evidence (and any idea that a piece by Andrew Gilligan constitutes overwhelming evidence is not wise).
New thread - Team Huhne claim late survey boost
re 125. Thanks Nick - the comment has been deleted.
whatever about Gilligan - It was very convenient for Blair that Kelly happened to kill himself though wasn’t it?
127 Mike
Could you let us know in advance, please, when you are going to delete a post, so that we can have a good old read of it before it disappears?
128 Was it, Steven?
You know something we don’t?
129-Thanks!I went there to read it, but “MODERATED”…
130 - I know nothing that you don’t know. It was *Very* conveient for Blair that Kelly killed himself. He was *the* Goverenment expert that was told directly to sex up the dossier despite his misgivings.
132 “I know nothing that you don’t know.”
Then don’t imply that you do.
132. You are totally ignorant about these events.
Even the government’s harshest critics would not make such a ludricous suggestion.
David Kelly was a weapons inspector who contributed some historical information to the dossier. No-one has ever suggested that he sexed it up or that he was even asked to sex it up.
133 - fair enough - I can see how someone could possible read it another way. Take it as a simple statement/sentence of fact.
This is all very well, but the things that matter in practice are in general the things that give us evidence that they’ve got what should matters. How can we judge what they’re doing, and how well they understand stuff, if they can’t explain themselves in the media and in Parliament?
134 - Rubbish. People haven’t forgoten what happend.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,,1021813,00.html
137. Well done - you’ve googled a link to a timeline of events.
Now, please point out the bit that says that David Kelly sexed up the dossier or was asked to sex it up, as you stated:
“He (Kelly) was *the* Goverenment expert that was told directly to sex up the dossier despite his misgivings.”
“August 13: A recording of her May 7 telephone call with Dr Kelly shows he did claim someone, probably No 10, “sexed up” the dossier.”
139. You said that Kelly was asked to sex up the dossier - now you’re saying it was the government.
Which is it?
Ok i’ll take my statement back - i have obviously misremembered. I will replace it with this one-
It was very convienent for Blair that Kelly happened to kill himself as he was the only one with inside knowledge and brave enough to tell journalists that the dossier was sexed up.
It’s a bit like the hutton report this, isn’t it? You getting all offended because i’ve miss worded something and using it as an excuse to sweep under the carpet some, frankly very scary, facts.
141. Oh, I see.
You’re suggesting that once the ’sexed-up dossier’ story was public knowledge and Kelly had identified himself as the probable source, Blair decided, in order to make the story go away, that he would have Kelly murdered and for his body to be left in the woods to look like a suicide.
What a pathetic individual you are.
141. Do you realise how much distress ghouls like you cause the Kelly family?
143 - You may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
144 - I can agree that Kelly’s death was tragic.
145 - sorry, I just couldn’t waste an opporuntity to use that quote. I’m not suggesting anything that I have not already clearly stated.
54 guido - “He may be a lot of things, but not a fool.”
You didn’t see his humiliation on newsnight then
Precision is important, Steven.
There is the world of difference between sexing up a document, and telling someone to do it.
Similarly, there is a world of difference between sexing up, and lying.
And again, it is one thing to put pressure on a leaky official, quite another to connive in his death.
The Hutton Report said many, many things that were damaging to the Govenment, but it did not say the Government lied, or instructed its officials to lie, much less did it imply that there was connivance in his death.
The Report was quite damning enough without anybody overstating or misrepresenting its conclusions.
148. No-one should miss ‘that’ appearance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5d2Ccpo3I
148 I did, LH, and I thought he made a mistake in allowing himself to be presented in the way he was.
I believe he too thinks it was a mistake.
Ask him. He’s perfectly open and honest about it.
Ok, I can agree with precision being important. I obviously slipped up slightly earlier.
I, personally, do not trust or really believe the Hutton report.
I thought Guido did alright on newsnight. Not great - but it was two against one. He clearly stated on his blog afterwards that he thought it was a mistake.
152 That’s your right, Steven. Forgive me though if I regard it as the product of honourable people trying to produce a balanced and accurate account of a complex and murky series of events.
151. He wasn’t ‘open and honest’ about it on the night it was broadcast.
The only comments allowed on his site were either supportive or neutral (sock puppets?), whereas on all the other blogs the comments were almost entirely negative.
154 - fair enough. Don’t take this next link too seriously - I’ve just put it there for a laugh.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1099
155 Hmmm…are you sure about that Gabble?
Maybe if Guido is around, he can comment. Or maybe he doesn’t give a stuff.
I’m not a fan of his blog, and I’ve had my disagreements with him in the past, but I’ve always found him pretty honest and open.
155/157-
http://www.order-order.com/2007/03/guido-regrets.html
He caught White lying on camera if nothing else.
157. I have a distinct memory of it.
After the broadcast I made a point of going onto his site to rub it in, only to find he had (unusually) enabled comment moderation. There were a couple of negatives, for appearance sake, but most were supportive (self-justifying?) or attacking White.
I had to go onto Iain Dale to vent my feelings, along with many others.
Libertarian - my arse!
159 LOL!
I might bring that up next time I’m having a spat with him, although our paths don’t cross much these days.
156 Yeah, I can see the humour, Steven, although in view of the fate of the unfortunate Kelly, and indeed many others, I’m afraid I can’t chortle too much.
Anyone seen any posts from stjohn today? I had sooo wanted to gloat over the profits to date on my house price index bets, following the data from the Halifax today, which I’ve written about here a couple of times, but apart from him, were studiously ignored - looks like I’ll just have to await his return.
162 Oops, posted on wrong thread!