Should men be careful before commenting on this?
June 21st, 2008
Has the Culture secretary touched a raw nerve over Shami?
The most striking thing about the Burnham-Davis-Shami Chakrabarti row is that it has opened up what appears to be a massive gender divide. Women seem to be judging the culture secretary’s comments much more severely than men and it appears to have struck a real chord with many of them.
This has become an area of debate into which male politicians and commentators should enter only at their peril. Leaving normal party politics on one side many women find that what was said to be offensive - the male reaction in the main has been to dismiss it and accuse Shami of over-reacting.
This has been seen in the comment threads here on PB where the the libel threat from the Director of Liberty has been criticised by many male contributors but our very few female participants have a taken very different and much more supportive view.
The featured story in today’s Mail seems to underline the point with women MPs of all the main parties lining up, it seems, to condemn Andy Burnham’s ill-judged words.
What is for sure is that this is going to run because Burnham has followed up his original comments with a mealy-mouthed apology that could make matters worse. The general tone that “this wasn’t meant to be offensive but it’s regrettable if that is how it seems” simply won’t suffice.
The line-up of women MPs that the Mail has spoken to should be seen as sufficient warning.
The political impact is that it keeps what I now think is Davis’s ill-judged by-election move in the headlines. I expected this to all fizzle out in the media within a few days. That might have happened if Burnham had been more careful.
MessageSpace Advertising
“What is for sure is that this is going to run because Burnham has followed up his original comments with a mealy-mouthed apology that could make matters worse. The general tone that “this wasn’t meant to be offensive but it’s regrettable if that is how it seems” simply won’t suffice.”
If the Telegraph’s reporting is accurate, Ms Chakrabarti seems to want the story to die too. So, surely Mr Burnham’s letter will ’suffice’.
Last night, Miss Chakrabarti said: “I am grateful for Mr Burnham’s personal letter which seems to show genuine regret for the distress that his remarks caused me and my family. These remarks coincided with a relentless campaign of Westminster gossip that could only have distracted from serious issues.
“I am glad that the Culture Secretary wants to move on to issues of policy and hope that he and others will remember the value of treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2166631/Andy-Burnham-writes-letter-of-apology-to-Shami-Chakrabarti-for-David-Davis-comments.html
Three threads ago: The big collapse in the Labour vote in Newbury and Christchurch was a good sign, because it indicated that the voters were getting ready for huge anti-Conservative tactical voting. If it happens in Henley then it might be a sign that former Labour voters in marginal seats will still be willing to vote Lib Dem to stop the Conservative winning.
Two threads ago: I am surprised to find that the article at the top of the thread doesn’t say “Labour experienced a massive collapse at Bromley just two years ago when Blair’s then party slipped from second to
thirdfourth place and dropped from 22.2% to 6.6%.”Mike Sole
Has John Loony ruled himself out of standing?
What would be the odds on him saving his deposit?
Yes I have - I don’t live anywhere near H&H, and we already have a prospective OMRLP candidate ready - The Party Secretary, Rosalyn Warner a.k.a. Mad Cow Girl. Unlike me, she is in favour of the 42-day proposal.
We laid 260 sausages to a mystery customer in the Home Counties.
Is this code for something? Is there a specialist meaning in the word “sausages”? Does it mean “laid” in the betting sense?
(OT) (Random thought)
To what extent do voters decide who they want to vote for on the basis of choosing between the candidates?
To what extent do voters go into the polling station and then vote for the candidate of their “usual” party?
To what extent do voters go into the polling station without knowing in advance who the candidates are (q.v. the idiots who voted for the “Literal Democrat” candidate without even realising)?
How many voters will go to vote in H&H with the intention of voting Lasbour or Lib Dem, without even realising that they don’t have a candidate?
How many spoilt papers will there be on that basis?
seanT’s IQ test
I wonder if it is possible to work out political proclivities by IQ, in the form of a table. e.g.:
IQ under 50: BNP
IQ 50-100 (from severely retarded to barely average): Labour
IQ 100-110 (just above average, but still pretty gormless): Green
IQ 110-112: (bright enough to think you’re brighter than you actually are): Lib Dem
IQ 112-140 (bright to genius level): Conservative
IQ 130-131: (narcissistically bright but not quite genius): Champagne socialist
IQ 141+ (supergenius): right wing libertarian eurosceptic sex memoirists, and his rightwing friends
Er… Sean I hope you realise that on this basis (percentiles and stuff) 48% would be Labour?
A View from Cumbria
when was the last mainland by-election when Labour did not put up a candidate?
English Universities, March 1946: Con 5,483 Ind 5,124 Ind 4,028 Ind 3,414 BPP 239
Kensington South, 20th November 1945: Con 15,846 Lib 3,559
City of London, 31st October 1945: Con 4,506 Lib 1,503
Hythe, 20th July 1939: Con 12,016 Lib 9,577 British People’s Party 576
Cornwall North, 13th July 1939: Lib 17,072 Con 15,608
Portsmouth South, 12th July 1939: Con unopposed
Westminster Abbey, 17th May 1939: Con 9,678 Ind Progressive** 4,674
Kincardineshire & Aberdeenshire West, 30th March 1939: Con 11,111 Lib 9,990
Kinrossshire & Perthshire West, 21st December 1938: Con 11,808 Ind* 10,495
Bridgwater, 17th November 1938: Ind Progressive** 19,540 Con 17,208
Oxford, 27th October 1938: Con 15,797 Ind Progressive** 12,363
* incumbent Conservative MP seeking re-election on the issue of Spain after being deselected as Conservative candidate
** supported by Labour and Liberal parties
I hope it’s “meant in jest” when people say Burnham might be a future Prime Minister!
7. Yes, John, I was aware of that unfortunate implication.
However, it must be remembered most of these Labour voters are too stupid/overweight/drunk/imprisoned to go out and actually vote, so the natural preponderance of subnormal leftwing voters - which we see in other polls, too - is outweighed by the greater likelihood of smart, rightwing people to exercise the franchise.
BTW, from the previous thread: the SNP oil bonanza theory depends on oil indeed rocketing to $200 a barrel - and staying there. Most informed opinion I see says the opposite, that the present oil price is based on tulip-fever rather than genuine shortage, and the bubble will burst as people slowly but surely turn away from oil to other fuels. With luck the black stuff should be down below $100 a barrel in a year.
Also from the previous thread - interesting to see the public reaction to Labour’s Davis Election no-show. Would seem to vindicate the Smithson-Thomas Rule. Brown Gets It Wrong, Again.
Off to the pool now, to swim off my hangover, kapkap!
Applaud Mad Cow Girl for standing in ORMLP interest if she truly supports 42-days because:
1) That’s a principled stand.
2) Voters deserve clear alternative to DD.
3) Underlines the total looniness of never-ending erosion (on both sides of the Atlantic) of the fundamental liberties that are truly the greatest jewel in Britannia’s crown, and her legacy to her colonies loyal and rebel alike.
Re Mike’s post above: One of the reasons yrs truly was one of the menfolk who was incensed by Burham’s frat-boy remarks, was that I knew full well that the women I work in the US would be extremely offended. And would crucify the sob if he pulled that “stunt” over here.
The comments certainly were ill-advised. If Burnham is truly a smart, decent guy he’ll make a proper apology. Either way, Chakrabarti is politically correct (in strategic terms) to get the discusssion back to subtance.
For as Mike has also pointed out, the media frenzy arising from Burham’s smear has helped the cause of Liberty and David Davis.
Re comments previous thred by Mike, Nick, StJohn, Ted & others: lots of sense in the argument that the David Davis bombshell is rash, reckless, unwise, egotistical and willfull if not downright disloyal. And don’t forget quixotic. And certainly playing fast if not lose (but many think both) with the British Constitution. Which leaves a bad taste in many a mouth of many a head & heart I sincerely respect. Particularly when we are talking about the North of England and not North Dakota (though of course Malcolm is qualified to adress both subjects).
However, must respectfully disagree with argument that DD’s latest stunt (and that’s fair comment) is a sin/blunder. For two reasons:
1) Liberty (in the broadest sense) is just too important. Please excuse the fact that I’m am American living in under the Cheney regime, reading every day in my newspaper about some newly uncovered outrage that has sullied the American flag. That really gives me the red ass on this one. So once again you & yours are paying for W’s sins!
It has been said, well Congress/Parliament has debated the issue, and liberty got clobbered in London/DC. Yeah, but maybe what we need is something to dramatize (and DD is one of England great dramatic actors, no doubt about that) and crystalize the issue for people in H&H and across the UK, people who are deeply and rightly concerned about terrorism. And who also love liberty from the marrow of their bones.
The end justifies the means. Which are unusual but certainly not without precedent, even if that precedent has been in abeyence in Great Britain since the 1930s.
2) Not only is DD’s action not improper, it’s not a political bunder either. Because the very fact that he’s acting well outside the normal bounds of party discipline and without the sanction - indeed against the wishes (apparently) of David Cameron & Tory Central Office - makes the point that people of good faith all up & down the political spectrum from High Toryism to Official Loonyism can support or oppose Davis on a free vote.
Indeed, DD should himself drive this point home, by urging H&H Conservatives NOT to vote for him just this once IF they fundamentally disagree with his position.
As a practical matter, he should retain the lion’s share (but not all) of the base Tory by-election vote. And attract X number of Liberal, Labour, none-of-the-above and God-knows-what votes.
Whatever the final outcome, I’m hardpressed to figure out how it hurts Cameron or Tories short-, mid- or long-term. Personally think it’s much more helpful at weakening Labour than than simply howling at Gordo.
For one thing, because it puts many marginal MPs such as Nick Palmer in a half nelson. Not necessarily fatal, but certain neither comfortable nor helpful.
The questions that John Loony asks above are relevant to my response to Benedict White from previous thred:
With respect to H&H polling, do believe David Davis will be re-elected. The real question will be, how many votes are cast/valid for/against David Davis. The percentage will be interesting. But think the actual number of votes may prove more important.
7 & 8 great stuff, John L!
Just like the good old days - John Looney talking to himself. Seven posts (six of them up to his usual standard (the sausage reference might be to a certain BBQ).
[5] Disapointed by John Looney taking a sensible position on 42 days - I think the Looney party should be proposing something more radical - Locking people up on even dates only for example.
[6] Very interesting question - If I lived in H & H would I vote Conservative (You should try everything once except Incest and Folk Dancing) or abstain?
[7] All the 140+ people I know are Lib Dems.
Interesting Sea Shanty - - I blame single sex schools!
The interesting thing aboutt DD’s actions are that they may well affect the Conservatives more than Labour. I would expect the vast majority of Conservative supporters to be 420+ dayers (Cheney would be happy in the Btish Conservative Party). If DDs action revive a more liberal attitude in the party it will be “a good thing” but I will believe it when we see what a Conservative government actual does.
13 – I would agree that for all the Tory party’s posturing on 42 days and particularly Davis’ stance on civil liberties, the proof of the pudding will be what a Tory Government actually does once in power.
I am a little intrigued however, if all your 140+ friends and acquaintances are Lib Demers and given Cameron’s opposition to 42 days detention without trail and Davies’ stand on defending civil liberties, how on earth do you reconcile that to or derive an opinion thus?
“I would expect the vast majority of Conservative supporters to be 420+ dayers”
This is an excellent piece, Mr Smithson. I really do think that there is a gender divide at work here (to the point that Labour might drop a touch in the next polls). As a man, I can see why the remarks upset Shami Chakrabarti, and felt them ill-advised on Andy Burnham’s behalf. I did feel a libel threat was OTT, but felt that Ms Chakrabarti was entitled to a full apology not a mealy-mouthed one. Mr Burnham has gone down more in my estimation for the form of his retraction than for the original remark.
What I find interesting is that quite a lot of women genuinely seem to feel much more strongly about this. If I were Mr Burnham, I’d invest in a cricket box.
Sorry to go off topic on my first post on this site, but I’d be interested in views on this question:
What has Brown got to lose by calling a referendum on Europe now? Surely he has more to gain - that’s my opinion.
12 - never voted Tory? How unadventurous. I’ve voted Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Independent and spoiled my ballot paper. It’s more fun floating, it keeps the politicians on their toes.
As I said many threads ago whilst DD’s actions will have unpredictable results there is virtually no risk involved from his point of view.
As respondent’s to my question of last night have shown Labour have been pushed into not fielding a by-election candidate for the first time in over sixty years.
But, we all forget the local. The LDs in H&H were getting well above themselves. DD has sorted that for as long as he wants to be an MP and probably for his successor as well.
As a side issue, I guess he has probably done quite a bit of good for John Howell. By introducing a different issue he has certainly disrupted the LD gameplan in Henley.
I am choking with laughter over my kippers at this piece in yestereday’s Daily Telegragh
The Prime Minister has pledged that he will step down at “some point” during the next parliament should he beat the Conservatives in two years.
Mr Brown has let a few senior Cabinet colleagues know that he intends to quit in time to allow his successor at least a year to fight the election after next, a move designed to stop speculation about his leadership.
If he pulls off a remarkable comeback and wins in 2010 he will quit well before the country goes to the polls. However, by setting out a timetable for his future departure Mr Brown may find that some question whether he should leave sooner.
Women are just overly sensitive over matters like this.
Burnham was a fool, but he didn’t exactly threaten to bathe in her blood and eat her children.
When Burnham’s letter was read out on the news I felt he was being ungallant, but that it would probably be sufficient to defuse the situation. My wife however, took a completely different view and said, “Sorry, that’s simply not good enough!”.
19. “Women are just overly sensitive over matters like this.”
Overly in what respect? Their gender represents some 50% of the population. Do you not apologise to men that you bump into?
16. You’ve voted Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Independent and spoiled your ballot paper? Amateur! I’ve voted Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour, Green, UKIP, Independent, Chocolate Fudge Cake Party, Official Monster Raving Loony Party, Communist Party of Britain and spoiled my ballot paper.
15. Seems to me Burnham has not yet really apologised. His comments rather suggest that while he acknowledged offence has been caused, this was unwittingly done. But his original remarks looked deliberately offensive, probably part of an orchestrated smear attempt. This is a member of the party of Draper, Balls, Whelan and Campbell we are talking about, after all.
20, when I was at university my course was 95% women. It was quite a strange atmosphere to be in (not without it’s low-cut advantages of course) but I soon learnt that sexist jokes aren’t merely frowned upon, but considered the work of Satan.
It’s fascinating just how sensitive/aggressive women are being over Burnham’s cack-handed contribution.
20 - I’m not a woman, but I’m with your wife on that point. Anyone can let their mouth run away with them, but if you do upset someone as a result, you have to apologise properly. This would have been a good occasion to send a bunch of flowers with a handwritten note (who knows, perhaps that happened), with a full-throated public apology for the upset caused.
An interesting theory Mike but as a man reading Burnham’s comments I reckoned that they were defamatory whereas Mrs Spaulding didn’t see what all the fuss was about. I still think it was a deeply stupid mistake. As post 1 indicates, Burnham’s letter of apology seems to have been accepted by Chakrabarti and having made her point, I am sure that she doesn’t want to fall out with the Labour Party.
Labour is best to do nothing in the DD situation, let him make a twit of himself, and welcome his return to the backbenches as an irritant to Dave. But people will insist on f*rting about.
22 - I’m in awe. You are the Platonic ideal of a floating voter.
12. Me? Talking to myself? That’s because (a) I normally arrive just before a new thread starts, so I’m stuck on the end of the old one (b) There are so many billions of messages each day that by the time I’d finished reading through all of them, a new thread had appeared anyway (c) talking to oneself is a sign of ultra-hyper-intelligence.
20. AFAIK, The Chakrabarmy has accepted the “apology” even though it wasn’t one.
21, I apologise to anyone I walk into. We’re talking about words not a physical action, and the words are stupid and offensive but Burnham didn’t call for the death of the firstborn of those who deny the true meaning of 42 days.
I do think he should’ve offered a proper apology the moment Chakrabarti revealed her less than entirely thrilled disposition to his comments, though that doesn’t mean she hasn’t gone over the top in her reaction.
I’d entirely endorse antifrank’s comment at 15 - I only read the posts on here having a pop at Chakrabati after the thread was dead, but was taken aback by some of the male hostility to her. I agree that Burnham has inadvertantly stepped into dangerous territory, and I can see a full apology coming on.
Labour have long tried to play the (wo)man not the ball when the issue is difficult (watch Gordon waffling on about Conservative poilicy most PMQs when asked a straight question.) This is a rare time they have not got away with it - good on Chakrabati.
As a bloke I found what Burnham said was unprofessional, inappropriate, rude and offensive. Actually he didn’t say it, he wrote it, which makes it worse for him. Imagine if he’d said something mildly racist rather than sexist and how different the reaction would have been.
O/T I’m backing Marc Gicquel to beat David Ferrer in the tennis at the Ordina Open at lunchtime today. He’s a more natural grasscourter and has won both their previous meetings which have also been on fast surfaces. Gicquel is 3/1 with bet365.com. I’ve also backed him with a +4 game handicap with the same firm at 5/6.
(OT) There are nine hippopotamuses in Bangladesh but only three in Antwerp. When one discovers such bits of information on the internet, it probably means it’s time for me to go to bed.
30 - to be fair wasn’t most of the “male hostility” coming from one person, making lots of posts… ?
28 Marina Hyde in the Guardian has an article on Burnham which exemplifies the damage he has caused himself and how many women view his comments.
She also has the best phrase for DD’s adventure: “David Davis’s endearingly misguided decision to trigger a byelection”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/21/daviddavis.byelections
32 - No, you should do what Katie Melua did and write a song.
24 no - sexist jokes about women may be the work of satan - however I bet they were quite happy with sexist jokes about men
antifrank @ 25. Precisely! That’s how easy it could have been, but the ungallant twit chose otherwise.
35 - Gorgeous Georgian did not write the song. Mike Batt of Womble fame would have written it. For songs about hippos, though I recommend Stephanie Flanders’ daddy.
The reason women don’t laugh at sexist jokes is that they have not got a sense of humour.
Seriously, the Chakrabarti thing was a bit sexist, but it was certainly nasty.
Whatever the apology, the result is bad news for Labour, just as the Tom Harris, why is everyone so bloody miserable. In the case of Davis, it keeps his by election high profile and in the news, and the miserable story will just remind voters what Labour has done to them since Brown took over. It matters not that everyone has a fridge, wide screen telly inside loo etc, that people in the 50’s didnt have, what does matter is that peoples lifestyles are squeezed by higher mortgages, high inflation, and lower salary increases.
Its a recipe for electoral wipeout.
40, I think that’s the most relevant point.
Burnham’s idiocy has gotten more media space for Davis, in an election Labour are refusing to stand in. He makes Labour look like a snide bully standing on the touchline but refusing to play.
40 oops… I omitted house prices falling sharply.
37 - I’m an expert on apologies: I’ve had lots of experience making them. It is astounding that with all the special advisers that ministers have, Andy Burnham would have got better advice on how to sort this problem out from most blokes down the pub.
40 - I don’t have a wide screen telly. Can Labour get me a free one?
44
The good thing from this all is it further raises the issue of personal liberties and reduces the chance of Nick’s beloved ID cards coming in.
46, ID cards won’t come in. I’m near certain of it.
Firstly, the only party that wants them is Labour. For them to bring them in would require them to be the majority party after 2010 (highly unlikely) or to form a coalition with Clegg where he agrees to ID cards (also unlikely).
Secondly, they’ll cost a fortune and we don’t have the money. People are already irked with high taxes, if they see billions being spent on a piece of plastic and Big Brother’s database they’ll go nuts.
Thirdly, people will be willing to break the law not to have one. Yes, yes, they won’t be manadatory immediately, but like the EU New Labour will work salami tactics to try and get them total coverage.
I don’t know why the government persists in this, I really don’t. There is no argument for ID cards and many valid ones against. I can’t think of what sort of person would say, “I really don’t like Labour, but their expensive, useless, authoritarian ID card system, which entails me trusting the government with even more personal information, has convinced me to vote for them.”
44 - Nor me! Although in my case it’s more because when i walk into the shop i have no understanding of why two apparently identical televisions cost several hundred pounds different. Not wanting to be ripped off, buy a dud, or ask a store assistant for help, I’m stuck without
46
and will save an incoming Conservative Govt about 34 billion at a stroke.
Just been reading the headline story in the Mail. Halifax 2 yr fixed rate mortgage now 6.99% that 40% higher than when I fixed mine.(with a different lender)
on a 155k mortgage the article says thats an extra 155 quid a month.
Oh and one must factor in to all future polls that each month 1/12 of voters will be renewing their car tax, another reason to be seriously p*issed off with Brown and co.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028079/Halifax-big-lenders-hit-homeowners-punishing-rate-rises.html
What price the Tories polling 50%???
47 - be very careful of using the cost argument. Labour has got round that by claiming that all the complicated biometrics (the main cost) is required for passports (it isn’t) and are loading all the costs onto them. They are then going to market ID cards as a “bonus” for, say, an extra twenty quid.
I thought Gordon would scrap them. I really did. That is the biggest disappointment about him for me.
47. Fourthly, and I don’t know how relevant this is, NO2ID are currently making a new push and rolling out a big fund raising exercise.
51, isn’t there a new Smithsonian law: whatever choice Gordon has he gets it wrong?
53 I refer you to this that was posted yesterday over on Coffee House
Over at Comment Central, Danny Finkelstein’s posted a couple of no-holds-barred quotations from Labour MPs:
“Our Leader is utterly useless. If you asked him which of the two doors from this room he was going to exit from he would be incapable of choosing. And if someone else chose the door for him he wouldn’t be able to make his way there.”
I can’t paste the actual entry as its got a naughty word init!!
If Shami is upset at what Burnham said, don’t know what she’d make of this, look up entry for the 19th.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/
55
Oh! you have to scroll down.
48 - don’t get the cheapest or the most expensive. Get the next-cheapest.
52 Times has an article on cloning of the most common smartcard (one used for swipe entry & Oysters) which apparently is basis of ID cards.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4184481.ece
Of course Shami over-reacted.
But the approach that Burnham took was risky. He didn’t apologise; he merely wrote a letter of apology.
58 -
“Transport for London denied yesterday that any security breach had taken place. “This was not a hack of the Oyster system,” a spokesman said. “It was a single instance of a card being manipulated.””
lol.
What intrigues me is where the phrase came from? “hand wringing, heart melting phone calls.” Was this Burnham’s own off the cuff construction? A slightly unusual choice of words and not one that readily comes to my mind. If it was indeed a spontaneous quip, intended solely to ridicule Davis as a middle aged man, fired up by romantic idealism to embark on a rather preposterous act of chivalry, then fair enough in it’s intent. But to me the phrase appears more studied than that and I wonder at the author of it and it’s real intention?
Chakrabatti, has every right to seek an apology if she feels personally offended by his comments. I can’t put myself in her shoes and there probably is a gender response here but I think I would have been inclined to laugh it off as a comical piece of political theatre.
I admire her principles and sincerity but I do find her overly earnest and wonder how she seems to have become elevated to the position of the “conscience of the nation”. Plus a bit of humour helps to get the message across. Blair was a master at recognising this.
test
On the other hand… Tom Harris has apologised. I have tried to post the link to the Mail story, but its disappeared (twice) into the ether)
61. Spot on - that phrase was carefully put together, a calculated innuendo. It has the mucky fingerprints of pressmen all over it.
But on a lighter note - at least Labour’s flagship policy of getting more housing built is making real progress…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/20/housingmarket.consumeraffairs
34 - I mentioned simple crucifixion. But she single-handedly hanged, quartered, beheaded and parboiled the brute.
Would rate his prospects of every leading the Labour Party after this fisco about the same as those of Sir Oswald Moseley.
It costs Burnham nothing to make a generous apology,
Burnham would probably gain by something along the lines “We all say things we regret. I am very sorry to have caused offence by my remarks, which I can see now were badly misjudged”. (C.f. Paddy Ashdown’s apology for a more serious misjudgement which led to increased sympathy and popularity)
Burnham’s behaviour is very reminiscent of the fag-end of the last Tory govt — when Tory cabinent ministers couldn’t see a mouth without putting a foot in it.
66. Yes but when did New Labour ever apologise for any of the vile smears it has engaged in over the last decade - Addis-Kelly-Farmers etc.?
The ugly yobs who orchestrate this stuff would never allow it.
64 - I have said previously that the construct of Burnhams words were calculated to be slightly ambiguous. Pushed as being one way then onece you have generated outrage, deny that you intended offence. This has been the standard smear approach of New Labour since the start. It utterly and totally stinks!!!
Yes, it was misplaced sarcasm, but I’m sceptical that there is widespread outrage: virtually everyone quoted above (in particular Marina Hyde) has political disagreements with Burnham, specifically over 42 days. The way the press work is that they ring up as many people as possible and quote the ones whose answers fit the article.
Something of more long-term interest is that it was reported yesterday (sorry, I’ve forgotten where) that Davis has ruled out accepting any job in the Shadow Cabinet on returning except Shadow Home Secretary. If that’s correct he seems to be positioning himself for the Heseltine role, a substantial backbench figure ready to weigh in if the leadership gets things wrong. This would be a slightly surprising career move, but then the by-election was surprising too.
69
I am sure the voters in Broxtowe wont even mention either on your doorstep canvasses this weekend…. .
69. Nick Palmer: it was reported yesterday that Davis has ruled out accepting any job in the Shadow Cabinet on returning except Shadow Home Secretary.
That seems to be at odds with his answer on QT on Thursday evening.
69
Mr Davis has not ruled himself out of a job, should he be offered one.
Long live David Davis and Stuart Wheeler.
69, I thought Davis has said he does not expect to be invited back to the Cabinet, not that he wouldn’t accept such a role?
69
‘Virtually everyone quoted above has politial disagreements with Burnham’
The fact that your government and party is deeply and irreversibly unpopular should not be used as a get out clause for outrage expressed at a cabinet minister having acted in an oikish and vile manner - it would be so where you still in the Brown bubble, vigilantly floating towards the precipice.
68. Slightly ambiguous, yes, but also aimed to be incredibly patronising. I wonder whether that’s what’s really got women worked up about the quote. As stjohn says at [61], she doesn’t have a huge amount of humour about her, but that’s her style. At least her substance matters. Burnham’s comment has too much of the ’silly little woman’ about it and I can well see why that part of the female population which has noticed would be offended by it.
On the other hand, there’s perhaps something about her style which reminds some men of their ex-wife / mother-in-law etc. who only ever pops up to complain and to add to the insult, is usually right as well.
While I think most men would recognise Burnham’s words as inappropriate (and in the case of a cabinet minister, downright stupid), there’s perhaps less sympathy for her being the butt of the joke. It’s not so much that she’s refused entry to play with the big boys, more that if she wants to, she ought to accept their rules of the game; many more women don’t accept the ‘boys club’ atmosphere of the game itself.
69. …and still the smears and spin continue. How about trying to engage with the issues Nick? Remember those?
69. Having appointed Grieve as permanent Shadow Home Secretary, I can’t see how Cameron could appoint Davis straight back into the cabinet. On top of that, were he to do so, it would give licence to other ministers / shadow ministers to go off on other similar solo campaigns without it otherwise affecting their career. No party manager could accept that, unless it was being done as a fully-signed up party action. It’s clear that in this case, Davis has the backing of the Conservative leadership on his view, but not on his tactics; it would therefore be pretty much impossible for Cameron to appoint him back as it would enable any other member of the shadow cabinet to ambush party tactics in the same way.
I do expect Davis to make a return to the front bench in the future. He is too big a beast and too capable a politician to remain on the backbenches. Whether that happens before or after the next election remains to be seen. To some extent, it depends on ‘events’ and whether (and how) vacancies arise.
All this Davis, Chakrabarti by election thing is turning into one big soap drama.
No one is coming out of this well.
I can see though how Davis’s heart could melt for Chakrabarti. Mid life crisis, boredom, narcissism- it does seem that Davis has slightly lost control of his faculties. And she is a bit of a stunner. All hypothetical of course.
Burnham’s comments- good to see in one sense a bit of blokiness returning to politics against the tide of metrosexuality.
78. What’s worse, one wonders - an ignorant boor or someone just pretending to be one?
76- some pretty nasty smears against Gordon though questionning his sexuality, and Osborne calling his autistic.
By comparison Burnham’s comments are pretty tame.
77. Forgot to mention. It’s not really in Davis’ interests to be appointed straight back to the shadow cabinet either. That would make it appear that it was all fully sanctioned by the party leadership and so diminish the nature of the campaign, tying it in with party politics. Not that he can say that publicly.
Nick 69. your “Yes, it was misplaced sarcasm, but I’m sceptical that there is widespread outrage: virtually everyone quoted above (in particular Marina Hyde) has political disagreements with Burnham,” is very much akin to your attacks on me whenever I used to cast doubts over the electoral popularity of Gordon Brown.
I think I’ve been proved right.
Seeking to attack the attacker rather than deal with the point is a NuLab characteristic that has its own dangers.
If you and the 312 PLP colleagues who signed GB’s nominations had taken more notice about the doubts on Brown then you might now have been looking forward to the future with a little bit more certainty.
Drippy, heavily-made-up, Andy Burnham didn’t think up this smear all by his pathetic lonesome. He is only His Masters Voice after all. Brown is badly rattled by this byelection and will stoop to any depths to try to damage Davis. Browns cowardice in failing to put up a candidate is going to go down badly for his already dismal reputation.
80 Have any shadow ministers questioned Browns sexuality?
84. I thought those who had questioned it were mostly from the Labour side….
Ted@58: Are you sure that the smartcard technology used for the Tube is going to be the same as the technology the government is planning to use for ID cards? If that’s true, it’s a big deal - the cards use crappy proprietary (ie. not properly reviewed) encryption technology with known flaws in it. But I wouldn’t have thought the government would have decided what to use for ID cards yet, and it seems hard to imagine that they’d use this system, which appears to be optimized to be cheap rather than secure. Unless they’re complete idiots. Which we obviously can’t rule out, but it would be good to see some evidence…
More about the technology used here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/12/mifare_classic_smartcard_crack/
Mike at 82 - “If you and the 312 PLP colleagues who signed GB’s nominations had taken more notice about the doubts on Brown then you might now have been looking forward to the future with a little bit more certainty.”
Be fair Mike, I reckon Nick is already utterly certain what the future holds… Whether or not he’s looking forward to it is, of course, another matter.
69 “…that Davis has ruled out accepting any job in the Shadow Cabinet on returning except Shadow Home Secretary”
That’s a particularly inept bit of spinning even by NuLab standards, Nick. We all know what Davis said on QT this week and it certainly wasn’t what you’re trying to make out.
Write a memo to yourself: “Must spin better, must spin better….”
80. But Gordon Brown is arguably autistic, at least mildly. His inability to empathise, his bizarrely obsessive wonking, his entire lack of self-knowledge, the congenital lying - these do point towards a personality type not a million miles from autism.
As for the Gordo’s sexuality thing, will we ever know? There are so many rumours, some of them fantastically lurid, it seems unlikely they are all invented. But not impossible, of course.
77 The issue with David Davis is as you say not really about the substance but about the tactics and more importantly priority. The Conservatives need to make Gordon Brown and his Government terminally unpopular now so that in late 2009/early 2010 as inflation falls, interest rates are cut, oil is cheaper, they don’t get the benefit, just as Major’s Government wasn’t rewarded for three years of growth and Ken Clarke’s great work as Chancellor.
The important thing strategically before the summer recess was to deepen the PLPs divisions over Brown, to make the September conference a make or break session so that Brown, Balls and co were concentrating on surviving that.
Instead they have been granted a breathing space as David Davis decided his campaign against creeping authoritarianism was more important than the wider Party campaign. He cannot be rewarded for this by a quick return to the Shadow Cabinet nor to the centre of Party strategy or planning.
Cameron will though need to involve him in ongoing opposition to British Liberty areas - perhaps even asking him to draft some constitutional legislation around the pre-eminence of parts of the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta (a Conservative approach should be to build on those rather than Labour Year Zero approach). Liberty is easier to defend based on centuries of history.
Maybe not but I bet you have as you write bile everyday.
84 Exactly, the “Gordon is Gay” allegations emanated from such NuLab stalwarts as Mandelson, Cherie Blair, Mo Mowlam etc as I recall. Even the legendary photo of “Gordon on his rocking horse” has Labour Party origins from what I’ve read. They’re not a very nice bunch are they?
34 That is a great link Ted.
The fact that Burnham’s remarks were written down means they cannot be written off as some thoughtless jocular remark.
As bloggers we know how our remarks once written can take on a different flavour from that which were in our head.
We have to take responsiblity for our words [as least on PB you don't get away without a thrashing]. He is a Minister. Its not good enough.
I think the most negative reaction will be from working women who have to balance being ‘at home’ with the guys but not demeaning themselves.
Karen Brady [Birmingham City] wrote an article about this recently. Its an everyday issue of how to survive in a male enviroment and its one that you can never be sure you have got exactly right.
It am less amd less willing to give Burnham the benefit of the doubt. Partly because of his apology [or lack of] and unfortunately for him I have been reminded by Ted’s link of the case of the man whose career this Government tried to trash and whose collegues came on TV to defend.
And reminded of Dr Kelly.
Its part of the culture of the Labour Party.
Labour is the nasty party.
91 for 84
Andy Burnham’s and other similar comments just reflect what happens when a man and woman work closely together. Other people gossip it is annoying and offensive if you are on the receiving end.Its good that Andy Burnham is getting a kicking on this…people will perhaps learn to be a bit more professional in the work place.
90 Ted, don’t bank on the UK economy picking up through late 2009, early 2010. There’s a lot of unravelling to take place before this cycle is over and several years of pain to come. The Tories will inherit a very poisoned chalice in 2010, perhaps even worse than the one Thatcher was faced with in 79.
96
If thinks get as bad as I think they will.a vote of no confidence is not out of the question, it might even be won.
94 But dez, I’m not in the eminently responsible position of being a govt/shadow minister so my musings are of little or no consideration. Except to you, obviously.
93: Labour has a long history of sliming people who challenge them. The problems for them now is that the media, who in the past gave them an easy ride, are running with the story.
Tyson Surely Burnham is a ‘metrosexual’ up to his mascara?
This was not a bit of ‘blokiness’, it was carefully rehearsed and released on time and in place. As a specimen it fits neatly into the New Labour book of political tactics: if you can’t win the argument attack the opponent, and if you have no ammunition then create some.
They do it to one another, to other parties, to politicians of other countries, to civil servants………
Perhaps that is why the phenomenon of the shy Labour voter is growing. They just can’t bring themselves to admit they are partly responsible for allowing this mendacious mediocrity to stay in office.
80 To be fair Osborne didn’t set about calling Brown autistic.
He was supposed to be outr of step with his peers and some sort of child genuis. On of the press pack said, ‘Didn’t they think you might be autistic?’
Osborne laughed at himself as much as the press and the quickly retorted, ‘Lets not get on to Gordon yet?’.
The press howled with laughter. It was banter.
The comment was clearly lighthearted and he had just laughed off the same critisism.
86 From what we are told about ID cards and biometric passports they will, like Mifare cards, be proximity cards. So a smartcard chip, readable by a scanner, so would have very similar security weaknesses to those exposed.
The ID project is at heart about building a society around ID recognition, with cards required to access services, to monitor usage of services, travel patters etc. Not because the Government wants to be Big Brother but because central planning is easier if you get more information (as Tesco finds with loyalty cards). We are in an information age and the appetite for data is huge, ID cards provide a way to feed that appetite.
But all societies have rebels and criminals and the Identity society will no different; cards, databases, records will all be open to fraud or people will work their way round them.
***
Mike, Mike, Mike,
You are missing a much bigger, possibly seismic, story here !!
The Daily Mail is edited by one of Gordon Brown’s ‘nearest and dearest’ chums, Paul Dacre. The bizarre idea that such a ‘right-wing rag’ can be run by a chum of a LABOUR, yes, LABOUR Prime Minister makes some sense when you realise that what both ‘New’ Labour and the Daily Mail try to do is tap into the mindset of Middle England.
Up to now the Mail hasn’t really had a lot of truck with the civil liberties brigade - they are more of the ‘bang em up and throw away the key while flogging them for an awfully long time until they are ready to be hanged, drawn and quartered’…
Dacre would have always backed Brown against a right-wing ‘maverick’ like David Davis.
But this has exposed the fault line that the ‘traditional’ Daily Mail view would have been to support David Davis on things like the ‘Death Penalty’ for murderers.
The Big Picture here is that the Daily Mail may be shifting AWAY from Brown and AWAY from being anti-civil-liberties ['the human rights brigade'] and adopting a more libertarian stance.
The impact if this change is being made cannot be underestimated on the chances of Brown winning the next election against a new, more ‘touchy feely’ Conservative Party.
What do other people think ???
***
Hang on I thought you were arguing that Labour’s decision not to stand had vindicated Davis’s decision Mr Smithson.
100
Completely agree - this is not ‘blokiness’ any more than the Tory Welsh AM was ‘laddishness’, it is however entirely in character with the Labour government.
Shy Labour voters should soon become shy ex Labour voters and not long after that vehement Labour haters along with the rest of us. Labour have nothing left to give - what exactly has the Brown vision given us in a year, 6 weeks in clink for chuckles aside?
Incompetence on an industrial scale, Brown is taking his numerous limitations global, excuse me if I don’t enjoy the ride.
89. Gordon Brown as an autistic is perhaps a possibility but more likely he is suffers from dissocial personality disorder sometimes referred to as Antisocial personality disorder. This is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy. Tick
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.Tick
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.Tick
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.Tick
5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.Tick
6. Marked proneness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.Tick
7. Persistent irritability.Tick
People with autism tend not to lie or at least not very well. My youngest child who is autistic can now lie at the age of 11 but very unconvincingly. This tends to be true through all the varieties of autism.
75 David
‘many more women don’t accept the ‘boys club’ atmosphere of the game itself.’
Its a male assuption that they should. In the long run it may not be a boy’s club. In areas where women have made inroads perhaps it already isn’t and the boys can’t see the rules have changed.
In this case I don’t think it was that innocent. The only thing Burnham didn’t realise had changed is public awareness of their tactics.
89 Yes, I think it’s likely that Gordon Brown is what would be described as on the autistic spectrum. You could make a case for admiring him for achieving so much despite such obvious limitations, or equally despair at the Labour Party for allowing such a flawed and frequently wrong-headed man to hold so much sway within the party for so long.
Sacha Baron Cohen has an academic brother who is an authority on autism, if only we could see Ali G interview Simon Baron Cohen and get his opinion on the GB autism question!
102: OK, so the similarity is that they’re going to work by proximity, not that they’re going to use dodgy proprietary technology to keep the costs down. (Which they may or may not do - too early to tell, I guess.)
O/T but I want to return to the question of “wasted” oil revenues in the last post. They weren’t wasted (by being siphoned off by government cronies, or wasted on giant prestige projects) but formed part of the general revenue. This assisted the government in restructuring the economy, and was a factor in ensuring that the UK has outgrown the OECD average since 1980.
96 Economically, 2010 will probably not be a bad time to get elected. But the voters will probably still be feeling pain, and disinclined to support the government (as they were from 1992 to 1997).
103 I think you make a good point about the Mail. I don’t buy it but if Radio 4 were right they came out against 42 days. ‘Today’ said all the papers had apart from The Sun.
My first thought was ‘The Mail!’.
Noone could doubt Lett’s disgust with Brown at the subsequent press conference.
If your journalists despise him, the policy is so obviously flawed and politically motivated that it gets almost universal condemnation from all the papers and even gets Heffer ranting in the Telegraph and it looks like your man is a lost cause and you are going to alienate the next Gov, is it time to jump ship?
Henley:
Just been in Sonning Common, at the south end of the constituency. Saw three posters in the whole village - all Tory. Bought the local paper, the Henley Standard. Very little about the election. Page of profiles of the candidates, written by the parties. On the front page, piccies of Labour candidate with HH, and the two beauty queen candidates.
Somebody here suggested that the Tory threat to sue was to generate publicity and would benefit the Tories. I could find not mention of it in the Standard, a weekly paper published yesterday. The website has a bit more on the election, but still the focus is on local worthies getting gongs from the Queen.
I’m not sure the South Oxfordshire Chronicle is still going. It was basically the Reading Chronicle with a few bits about Henley. I’ll get one later today.
I don’t know what local papers circulate at the other end of the constituency. I think the LDs are more active round Thame and Chinnor.
All looks very dull. Reduced turnout, small Tory to LD swing, Labour lose deposit I’d hazard.
1) Andy Burnham is not Gordon Brown.
2) The typical Daily Mail reader is female.
There is no reason to assume that the tenor of the article at the top of this thread has more meaning than that.
103 I think you misunderstand the economics and readership of the Daily Mail.
Sir David English achieved a great deal of the Daily Mail’s growth through targeting female readers, and editorially it continues to focus on its female readership. Not a surprise that it would side with the woman against the heavy handed insinuations of a man.
112 - also, no urgent missives received from m’lud Rennard so guess no LD win on the cards.
Front page news today in one on the local Henley papers.
I think Boris and Dave’s loud noises about the LD campaign were designed to increase scepticism.
This story will help and may feed into an emerging narrative of ‘they are all out to do anything to stop/get us’ after the anti Tory tactics at C&N were so widely publicised.
http://www.thametoday.co.uk/news/39Don39t-use-us-as-a.4208827.jp
114. Yes what Burnham has achieved no doubt through much wailing and gnashing of Dacre’s teeth is to force the Mail to line up behind Davis rather than stick the boot in. What an idiotic move by Burnham not to douse the flames immediately.
The cat’s away in Saudi Arabia..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7466872.stm
The mice are going to play in the Youkay..
Thinking back to Sir David’s time at the Mail, just imagine what the redoubtable pairing of Jean Rook and Lynda Lee Potter could have done to Mr Burnham…
106. Oh, you know Brown personally?
116 - yes, I thought things were a bit more lively up in Thame. The Henley end looks very sleepy and very Tory.
But even in your link I can find no mention of the supposed Tory attempt to sue the LDs.
119 Another interesting point to this is that much of the support in the Polls for 42, 90 500 day detention etc has come from women. Men have been much more sceptical. It’ll be interesting to see if this moves at all as a result.
Michael White has been to Henley.
I am getting the distinct impression White is warming ever so slightly to Cameron.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/06/on_the_byelection_trail_in_hen.html
116 The Conservatives really need to learn from the Lib Dems don’t they.
Grayling should by now have sent off an urgent eMail to Conservative activists and supporters “Keep a look out! We will be issuing a new leaflet tomorrow which contains some very interesting facts about our opponents etc. keeping this under embargo till tomorrow but be ready! ”
Then the activists could have been briefed to post on Pb.com and other political blogs “No-one in Mill Lane Primary has heard of Mr Kearney”,”The Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors outraged”, “He has never visited” “Those children pictured look a bit Devonish to me”.
Chris Grayling could follow up with “The Lib Dems have questions to answer about their tall tales, why hasn’t the Primary School any idea what they are taliking about? Is it true to picture was posed outside Plymouth XXX primary school?
Pretty below the belt from Burnham. The whole fuss seems a bit old-fashioned though, doesn’t it? I mean why is all the sympathy with Chakribati and not Davis? He’s a married man, after all and a higher profile figure. Burnham urged to apologise to Davis’s wife. But why not to Davis himself?
Frank B old fashioned is become the new fashion after 12 years of ‘modern’. A natural progression of course.
Re the news that Brown will step down half way through the next parliament (no laughing at the back) and hand over to someone else……
Vote Brown Get Balls! Not exactly a vote winner is it?
Tyson, I’m sad to see you say this was just “blokishness” - it was not it was clearly calculated.
I fully understand the anger of female commentators over this. My wife and I have seen Chakrabati in person, and my wife was in awe. Like Shami my wife is a short woman who believes things strongly, but my wife is in awe of Shami’s strength, commitment and stage presence. I think women feel empowered that a little woman like Shami can go head to head with the biggest government (male) beasts and best them easily.
Women really respect Shami for that. She is a trailblazer for modern young women in a way that Thatcher never was. So to see the male reaction of “Oh yes, well the only way Shami wins arguments and convinces men is by seducing them” is grossly offensive and hugely sexist.
Not to mention the implication to Shami’s husband and Davis’s wife that there might be some kind of infidelity going on.
I think it’s both bigger and worse than most people are claiming. I really think Burnham should resign. In any Scandinavian country he would be sacked for such comments.
121 My guess is that the threat to sue was to neutralise the LD attacks and to get their voters to the polls in anger or as a result of a percieved threat.
I suspect it was also an element of warning shot across Rennard’s bows…’Go too far and we will’. If the LDs were libellous and lost or were forced to settled an action, it would undermine every future LD campaign.
112, 116, etc.: Yes, the Thame end of the constituency is livelier than the southern end - probably because the Lib Dem HQ is there (don’t know where the Tory HQ is), and because most Lib Dem targets at a local government level must be in that area. FWIW, in the bit of Thame I had a look around yesterday, Lib Dem posters beat Tories by 4-2, though I think that indicates nothing more than a slight differential across the constituency. I agree with SBS: Tory win with a reduced majority: depending on how the votes turn out, possibly quite a sharply reduced majority.
Sally C as any libel would have been against the Mayor of London it might be very expensive too. Can the LibDems afford it? Perhaps Cameron would end up facing two bankrupt opposition parties?
121 I hear rumours that LibDems are going to sue Cameron for making false and frivolous claims that the Conservatives were going to sue the LibDems .
10 “intelligence” from the man who actually believes he is a wit rather than an internet message board troll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
131 Libel is expensive anyway. Hugely. Its a high court only action. You would need a specialist libel lawyer [take the fees of an expensive lawyer, double, then add a nought]. Unless you can get someone to do it for free. But if you lose, you will sit end up paying the other sides costs.
Meow.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/06/meltdown-in-the.html
106. That is a pretty damning checklist. Wow. Gordon’s a fruitloop - official.
As for the Burnham thing, I must admit I didn’t think what he said was that bad, at all - just some clumsy badinage, at which the notably sensitive Chakrawotsit is maybe protesting too much?
HOWEVER Mike Smithson’s overarching point is totally right. Anything which puts the focus back on the Davis by-election, and thereby highlights Labour’s pathetic refusal to fight, is bad for Labour.
Given that Burnham has done just that - it was a very silly mistake.
Labour’s only hope, if they refuse to stand a candidate, is to not mention Davis at all and pretend the whole thing isn’t happening. But I’m not sure how do-able that is, which rather points up the risks of their no-candidate approach.
The Narrative of Labour Cowardice is gaining in strength.
I don’t know if there is a gender divide on this or not, but if so I’m out of line with my gender.
I think it is outrageous that a Government Minister should make remarks like these about a respected civil liberties campaigner.
He clearly would not have done so if the head of Liberty was male.
The remarks are insulting to both the people involved and denigrate the importance of the issue.
136
Well, if it was a woman fox-hunter you’d probably be all over it; but as it was a civil libertaian you don’t see it as too bad.
I feel it was disgraceful and typical of this bunch of authoritarians that we have to refer to as ‘government.’ The right needs to be onside with those that wish to maintain our freedoms; the old left have always been with them. This loony crew in Whitehall need to be isolated and defeated; if they are not then we are allowing them to do the terrorists work.
Remember the islamist jihadists are extreme conservatives in both religious and political terms.
Malcolm
“I think it’s both bigger and worse than most people are claiming. I really think Burnham should resign. In any Scandinavian country he would be sacked for such comments.”
I think it was a silly and discourteous comment, but not a resigning issue. And, I’m relieved that we’re aren’t a Scandinavian country.
138. Derrrrr. As about a zillion posts of mine would prove, I am totally in agreement with Shami and David Davis on the 42-day issue - and for that matter ID cards, and too much CCTV, and religious hatred laws, and banning naughty drawings, and and all the rest of clattering nonsense of authoritarian do-gooding which so typifies this dreadful, dying, dolorous government.
However I call it like I see it. Burnham made some very mildly outre remarks, which seemed more playful than malicious; and anyway he has since apologised, what’s the fuss about? Why the hysteria from Tories on here? Why the gusset-wetting?
Could it be that rightwingers are just stoking up this non-issue cause it embarrasses Labour? Surely not!
Much though I enjoy reading SeanT’s posts, I am not sure his boundaries for verbal banter are universally shared and certainly do not provide a template for a Government minister.
I detected a note of jealousy in Andy’s article. Deconstructing the text, wasn’t he trying to say: Why aren’t I – a right-on, jack-the-lad scouser – doing the Mr Sympathy routine and having these late-night chats? What’s this white-haired reactionary got that I haven’t?
140.Could it be that rightwingers are just stoking up this non-issue cause it embarrasses Labour? Surely not!
by seanT June 21st, 2008
The political division it seemsbe confinded to men.
In fact, Park Town Boy and Malcolm v the ‘Seans’ would indicate it is the right wing boys who are generous to Burnham versus the left wing boys who are not.
Burnham’s comment was carefully crafted, ther can be little doubt that he meant it. Anyone who’s ever written anything should know that. It is however just the tip of an iceberg. Comments like this don’t just happen, they are the product of someone who has discussed them and who has had their view reinforced by their colleagues. Given that backing someone feels comfortable enough to put them in print. As such Burnham is likely to be just one among many in the government with the same view. This is not about one person it’s about the whole culture of the governing party.
55 - Whoever wrote that article coldstone (someone called Dave T) deserves to die a long drawn out, painful death. Seriously.
120. Do I know Gordon Brown personally, no.
However I do believe he is not autistic. Most autistics I know are nice people who I look forward to meeting and interacting with. They are seldom duplicitous or sneering. Just straightforward and honest.
Gordon from what I can see is definitely not in this mold, he fits quite well with the seven criteria I mentioned, though this could be said of many people to a greater or lesser degree.
However with Gordon, you could run through the 7, just this year, and see elements of how Gordon behaves that fit well with each one.
Found this on one of the LibDem websites.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Henley deliveries - we’re 10 grams ahead of the Tories!
This reflective Henley constituency resident has carefully described all the election literature she has so far received:
The 13 publications which I have received from the Liberal Democrats weighs a total of 118 grams, the Conservatives have sent 10 which weigh in at 108 grams.
Wey-hey!
Posted by The Burbler at Friday, June 20, 2008
Is Rennard losing his grip on the campaign? What’s the carbon footprint of this campaign? Come on, Chris, get those kids under control.
I wouldn’t mind 42 day detention with Shami!
I agree with Mike’s point on the poor politics of this, and agree that it has (thank Heaven) scuppered any idea of Burnham becoming leader next time around.
However, I still think this is a ridiculous overreaction to a very mild bit of teasing, and to read it as sexist is hysterical and to read it as a slur is to forget how a good slur works.
No-one thought they were having an affair, no-one thinks worse of either Shami or Davis, and although it was ill-judged the reaction has been absurd. No-one was ’smeared’ (do people even remember what that means - it means having your reputation *destroyed* by a lie), no-one defamed - two heavyweight political actors got mildly teased. If either of them feels that this sort of comment constitutes an *attack*, they’re in the wrong job.
This unholy alliance of politically-correcter-than-thou leftwingers, and the worst sort of opportunistic rightwingers have collectively pulled this to thier own pits, stretching it so thin and wide that common sense of the centre ground can no longer grasp the whole of it.
I had nothing but derision for the stupid pseudo-scandals than bogged Obama - the flagpin, bitter-gate, President of Canada. This nonsense is exactly the same, except that no voters or policies were hurt in the production of this comment. I think the hothouse has caused us to lose all perspective of what actually constitutes a scandal. This has been pathetic.
147. Now that would be torture!
The Total Politics (Iain Dales magazine) has gone live. Looks quite interesting at first glance if slightly colourful.
121 The trouble is that the Tories are getting a little too good at crying wolf.
They threatened to sue in Bromley and didn’t.
They have threatened Labour in recent by-elections as well.
The only recent example I can think of when a leaflet was actually stopped was the ‘Mark Hunter’s Criminal Record’ leaflet the Tories put out in Cheadle which was truly outrageous. In that case the Lib Dems didn’t threaten, they just stopped it.
Cameron was made to look rather silly on the regional news last night. They had a clip of him laying into the Lib Dems for producing a leaflet in the form of a non-party magazine followed by some blike from the Lib Dems holding up the Tory one they had done earlier in the campaign.
148 Burnham still one for the future though. I doubt he’d have challenged anyway unless Miliband self destructed first. Of all the current crop Smith seems most impressive. I think Labour will have cause to regret she is sitting in a Marginal seat after the next election.
140
There’s certainly an element of that I suppose, but it goes deeper. Its not even that Cabinet ministers should not act as if they were in the playground - it is far darker and more malicious than that. It is deliberately slurring by unsubtle implication two of the current leading civil liberty voices quite openly and flagratly. This is from a senior member of a government that refuses to enter into the debate. It is cowardice incarnate.
Either that or it is pure juvenile imbecility - either way the man has no place in government and the government has no place in power - it is reduced to rule by slur.
140 - “Could it be that rightwingers are just stoking up this non-issue cause it embarrasses Labour? Surely not!”
If not, why not?
153 Was it Ruth Addis who was smeared as being a racist, because she complained about her NHS treatment? That was really nasty and despicable, but this isn’t in that league.
148. Yes can we have a proper sex scandal please. This just shows how the quality of sexual scandal has fallen under this wretched and helpless government. Even the tittle-tattle is crap.
When the Tories were in power MPs were regularly found naked and dead on their kitchen tables, with stockings wrapped around their necks and small citrus fruits stuffed in their mouths.
Now THAT’s a sex scandal. A tepid bit of innuendo from some lefty nonentity about a possible budding romance between two heteresexual people which probably didn’t happen?
Call the News of the World. Not.
At this rate, David Davis is going to have a coronation - he has seen off the Sun, Murdoch, and the political classes and made the Labour party look like fools. He is starting to shift opinion on 42 days - when will we next get a poll on this?
He is changing the narrative - it was “42 days are a bit authoritarian but they are supported by 50+x% of the population”. Without the opinion poll support, this is simply an unpopular & stupid piece of legislation.
When was the last time that a politician set out to change public opinion for a specific issue like this?
148
This unholy alliance of politically-correcter-than-thou leftwingers, and the worst sort of opportunistic rightwingers have collectively pulled this to thier own pits, stretching it so thin and wide that common sense of the centre ground can no longer grasp the whole of it.
Since most of the ‘opportunustic right-wingers’ are women, perhaps you should have heeded Mike’s advise at the top of the thread.
For the most part I think we have explained our position in thoughtful and measured terms.
140. If you don’t want to be hit for six, slow spin bowling (with poor spin) straight at the wicket is not going to work. Complaining about it just makes you look foolish.
I see that both David Davis and Shami Chakrabarti sit on the Total Politics editorial board.
160 What are you suggesting.
Re 144, Morus, I need to get in touch with the firend of yours who came to the bash last Thursday.
Can you email at benedictmpwhite at gmail dhat com?
Sally C - I have no problem with how you have delivered your message, just that it strikes me as having lost all perspective.
The idea that I should avoid calling this the travesty of a scandal that it really is (because women will turn on me en masse) is as insulting to women and to me as anything Burnham said.
Not all women MPs are complaining about this, just those of a certain type. I cannot for the life of me imagine Gwyneth Dunwoody or Margeret Thatcher chiming in to rebuke Burnham - you don’t get to deputise all women to the side of the over-easily-offended. This was a silly overreaction, and I don’t think Burnham should give any further apology than he already has done.
162 - I’ll give him your e-mail address and ask him to drop you a line Benedict.
Betfair now have two H&H markets up. One on the winner and the other on DD’s percentage vote. Not much activity on either market yet.
I think she’s right to find the suggestion that, because they have some common political ground they clearly must be, um, you know pretty offensive. If the director of Liberty was a man, the suggestion would never have been made.
I reckon it exposes Burnham as having rather immature attitudes towards women, but there you go.
Oh, just a heads up for you guys, David Icke of “shape shifting lizards control the world” fame is apparently considering a run in Haltemprice and Howden. Wonder if David Davis is a lizard?
155
Degrees of despicability?
I just think there are only two options
1) Deliberate slur whilst avoiding debating a genuinely frightening movement away from civil liberties - slur instead of debate, a 1984ish approach
2) Pig Ignorance from one of the nations leaders - do we really think such people deserve power?
The welsh Tory AM made what was stated to be a ‘laddish’ comment - it was anti-Italian, he immediately apologised and resigned and will likely now not be able to run for parliament (quite rightly) - the difference in approach is clear and for me, the moral authority to lead is now fully with Cameron’s Cconservatives.
Thats where I am coming from on this, the sliding scale of how ‘bad’ the comment was is a side issue.
148. In my opinion these were carefully crafted words to get out the exact meaning that Labour, not just Andy Burnham, wanted, to imply, that David Davis was having some sort of inappropriate relationship with Shami Chakrabarti.
Labour just cannot believe that the Conservatives can appeal to such a broad range of people. They cannot understand why their message is being rejected by the British people and now they are reverting to their sad old tricks of trying to smear and denigrate people rather than argue the case or the facts. This is typical Gordon Brown behaviour. He hates the fact that he cannot “dominate” the free-thinking public and so will come out with tactics that, forgive my footballing parlance ,play the (wo)man rather than the ball.
145/120 He does`nt know him is just making a diagnosis as a guack, from afar.
Most people he knows are nice but GB isn`t, hope nobody pays him.
Re 164, Morus, Many thanks.
I had a great dream last night, Brown suddenly called a general election and Cameron won! On the downside he only had a majority of 8 and the LD’s seemed to increase their tally of seats to about 80 or so! There were still a number of Sinners, so i took comfort in an averall Maj. of about 12! Surely i should have dreams about women in various states of undr*ss etc!!!
Now back to reality, the DD /Chakrabarti row whilst amusing to many men touches on womens nerves for two reasons, one is the fact that men (including Burnham by his comments rightly or wrongly)seem to think it appropriate to advocate that a women will submit to a man s*xually if she supports him professionally - very outdated view! The second is that it is tarnishing Chakrabarti’s purity, women in this day and age still have to be careful about their percieved propensity to engage with numbers of partners - where as Clegg recently advised that men in the public arena still have the whip hand! (So it would seem).
So the DD - Chakrabarti row exposes some interesting attitudes in society toward profesional relationships and how people misinterpret these alliances at there peril.
Apocryphally, but this dangerous and sexist smearing of political opponents is not new:
ASTOR: Sir, if you were my husband, I would put arsenic in your tea
CHURCHILL: Madame, if I were your husband I would drink it
ASTOR: Sir, you are drunk
CHURCHILL: And you, madame, are ugly, but at least in the morning I shall be sober
Morus - we wouldn’t still be talking about this had Mr Burnham, irrespective of what you or I or Sally or anyone else thinks, made a fulsome apology immediately. One without “If” in it.
What there is associated with this is various Labour supporting journalists saying that “Tory MPs” had been rumour making prior to Mr Burnham article. The truth is that in all probability the Boys Club, Labour, Tory & Lib Dem had been “joking” about lonely David and pretty Shami. Whatever you view of his aims Burnham got those stories into the press.
169. Why would anybody pay me for an opinion? I do believe he is not autistic just a danger to this country.
172
Thank you Morus. I’ve been trying to remember how that second quote went.
173 - As I said yesterday, if I inadvertantly offend, and they tell me so, I will almost always (unless they are completely off-the-charts wrong, and even then) offer a complete and unequivocal apology.
If I inadvertantly offend, and someone uses the megaphone of the national press to demand an apology and threatens me with defamation, then I will not offer an apology, because an apology should never be given because you have a gun to your head.
He has not done anything seriously wrong, and has tendered a mild apology if offence was caused. That is more than enough. Given that this never would have been a stry if she hadn’t threatened to sue him, it is a bit rich to decry him for making it a national story.
151. “some blike from the Lib Dems”
You are Prince Charles and I claim my five pinds.
174 - you could make the same points about pretty much any leader, I’d say. They tend to be obsessive, driven, hard working people, who will turn on you in an instant. Clinton for instance.
It’s how you get to the top.
Bad News on Oil - Nigerian pipe line Blown up and will cause 120,000 BPD to be lost in production. Sky News TV reporting.
This may mean that $150 PB is hit this week! More pain and misery to come!
176 Morus, the letter from Chakrabhati was a day after the smear, after he had been given opportunity to apologise but instead had a Civil Servant Press Officer issue a weasely “if he has offended and If you are upset it wasn’t intended” type apology. His bad grace and refusal added credence to the deliberation behind the innuendo.
Politically he was stupid, morally he was stupid.
“IQ 141+ (supergenius): right wing libertarian eurosceptic sex memoirists, and his rightwing friends”
I am deeply insulted. My IQ has normally been measured between 146 and 162 (which itself showing the worthlessness of these tests) andI am sure I have a much better sex life than sean t, which is why I feel no need to share the details!
160.
“both David Davis and Shami Chakrabarti sit on the Total Politics editorial board.”
Are the board flattered or flattened?
171 Are you now moving into Fortune telling?
168 that is the story. Labour dont even understand why they are behind in the polls, let alone 20% behind. Brown says he wont stand in a second general election…… i mean seriously what kind of idiot could make that statement
183. Unfortunatly not! Thought it was amusing given that the Tories are thought to be heading for a majority 4 or 5 times that and the LD’s are thought to be heading for a drop in seats!
180 - I don’t think his comment deserved any more than that - I agree that something a little more fulsome might have been politically better, but short of killing her dog, such an apology was simply not necessary.
I re-iterate - if the apology is for offence, then the Head of Civil Liberties should remember her own words that the UK does not grant a ‘right not to be offended’.
If the apology is demanded for embarassment/defamation, then maybe she shouldn’t have *made* his obscure remarks a front page story by threatening to sue after she already had an apology-of-sorts.
Bad politics, but he has not done anything morally wrong at all.
186 Are you still holding your Wales seat predictions at the moment. IIRC It was Lab 17 Con 11 LD 4 and PC 6?
BTW Paul Linford clearly feels Brown is not out of the woods. Money quote after 1 year in power “I for one would currently lay reasonably long odds against him making it to two.” Ouch.
OK, I need to go out, but I’m sure we’ll return to this later.
187 - Not had any reason to change my view, but that is the worst case scenario for Labour, so if I change any predictions, itwould be Labour to gain some more.
186 - I don’t think the issue is at all about being offended, it is about Burnham trying to deny the importance of the issues by imagining that it is about personality instead. Burnham doesn’t understand about the anger over the issue and that is compounded by his boneheaded imaginings of what he thinks it must ‘really’ be about as a result.
Either he’s stupid or he’s arrogant, or maybe he’s both atupd *and* arrogant.
New posting from me - Pictures from Thursday’s PB barbecue
O/T but Simon Hoggart in his weekly Sketch has a great allusion as to why Brown is safe as PM for now”
“it may have been your lifelong ambition to be master of a White Star liner. But you wouldn’t wait until it had hit the iceberg and was sinking with all hands to make your bid.”
He also repeats a good Jo Brand joke. She had had a complaint from a lesb1an organisation complaining that she was giving gay women a bad name. She riposted that she was straight.
“And I’m very happily married,” she said - pause - “mind you, my husband isn’t …”
atupd = stupid (I think)
Re 192, Ted, ““And I’m very happily married,” she said - pause - “mind you, my husband isn’t …””
Jo Brand can be very funny!
184. So why did he announce all those ‘reviews’ to influence policy ‘for the next ten years’ ?
168.
“Labour just cannot believe that the Conservatives can appeal to such a broad range of people”
Whyever not is beyond me. Cameron is using straightforward unamended policyless platitudes fooling most of the people most of the time aka Blairism.
Davis’ move cannot be all that ill-judged as it is proving extremely popular and fomenting discontent with Gordon Brown.
Burnham’s comments are puerile. If he’s seen as future leadership material, God help the Labour Party.
I can understand Chakrabati being furious about it all.
But it doesn’t demean David Davis at all, and as you say, keeps him in the news. The one thing you need when running any campaign is lots of people attacking your position, feeding you oxygen.
173. The second one was involved Bessie Braddock.
My favourite is:
Winston: Madame, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
US society madame: Why, yes Mr. Churchill, for a million dollars I would.
Winston: would you sleep with me for ONE dollar?
US society madame: Why, Mr. Churchill, what do you suppose I am?
Winston: We’ve already established what you are. I’m merely negotiating the price….
144 Sally
People tend to place issues in the way they recognise ‘their’ world. My own life experiences tell me that men find it so easy to gang up on women. They easily excuse their own ‘laddish’ behaviour but are all over women when they take a tough line on an issue.
Many Labour politicians are among the worst; a long-serving Labour Council leader would only spend time discussing issues with his women colleagues when it was absolutely necessary, and women were only allowed to chair committees that dealt with ’soft’ issues like social services and education.
Perhaps you can tell me if that view is displayed in Tory circles.
Dear Mo Mowlam gave as one of her reasons for abandoning Party Politics that she hated the ‘boys’ thing.
Malcolm
Perhaps I am being dim but can someone explain to me why Burnham’s saloon bar prattle was sexist? Is it sexist to suggest Double D Cup fancies Shami?
199 - I thought that was George Bernard Shaw, not Churchill.
Re 202, archroy “199 - I thought that was George Bernard Shaw, not Churchill.”
I have heard it ascribed to Oscar Wilde.
199/292/203 I beleive it was Groucho Marx and is more in keeping with his style.
Its pretty distasteful that Chakrabati of all people would seek to use the UK’s famously repressive libel laws to silence this kind of thing
Re 205: she’s a civil liberties campaigner, not an anarchist.