No Armstrong was in a very different position (although I think he was the original 'economic with the truth' comment rather than the Franglais version)
He was talking about government and economics. The same holds true for diplomacy. We elect the government ro represent the nation's interests. Sometimes that involves doing stuff we wouldn't want to do (or know) ourselves.
Reckless lied, disembled, or if you want to be charitable, practiced sophistry (lying by misdirection)
Economical with the actualité was Alan Clark describing his answers to questions in parliament, effectively ending the Matrix Churchill trial and leading to the Scott report, Robin Cook, and a Labour landslide in 1997.
Anyway, the real winner will be apathy. A plague on all your houses was already the public mood, and that was before the current "none of the above" politicians offered their non-offers.
An Ed Miliband who is 20 points behind David Cameron will not win an apathy election.
30 points behind......it's 20 points behind in Scotland......
I was pandering to those Labourites who think Ed will suddenly have a rush of popularity ahead of the election....
Ultimately the election will come down to who they think is most connected with their reality. And for a lot of people not seeing any signs of economic recovery the Tories campaigning on "didn't we do well" doesn't go down at all well as I'm seeing on the doorstep in what should be Tory areas. Too many PB Tories dismiss voters not crediting them with economic recovery as ungrateful. The reality is that for large swathes of the country there hasn't been economic recovery. That you don't get this is why regardless of Ed the Tories will lose.
When it comes to the economy, you are going to be disappointed if you think Labour owns connection to reality. The reality is that Labour has a broken business model. And the people who suffer every time they trash the economy are not the rich, or even the squeezed middle. It is the poor. That is who Labour hurts every time.
The poor are who all the Parties hurt, all of the time. Politics is about power, and by definition the poor haven't got any.
Innocent Abroad, I should probably ask you for an apology! There's obviously plenty of space between a bit to the right of the current government and a hard right, ultra-Thatcherite party. All I have said is that the former might possibly form a government (and I haven't expressed a view as to whether it would be my preference, let alone "nirvana'!) while the latter would be doomed. I certainly haven't contradicted myself in the way you suggested...
The veneer of Ukip's libertariansim is shown yet again by Farage ditching the Wags Tax proposal in the style of a formidable totalitarian.Führerprinzip in an authoritarian party-bad news for any non-Aryan humans.
I quite agree. Mr Reckless hasn't covered himself in glory at any point IMO. He was drunk and incapable before a Budget vote no less. bbc.co.uk/news/10590725
- Personally, he's no great loss to the Conservative party. He is an unpleasant individual, a persistent rebel and had no future in the party
(snip)
- But all that said Cameron has a serious problem with his party. It is not enough to blame the limited patronage available as a result of coalition. Cameron rose too quickly to build a genuine, deep base of support within the party, and as leader he has neglected to do so. While in some respects I applaud him for trying to reach over the heads of his party and talk directly to the people, as Blair did, Cameron has to recognise that his position within the party has never been as secure as Blair's (Brown notwithstanding). Cameron did not lead the Tories to an epoch-defining victory in 2010. He cannot afford to disregard his malcontents in the way Blair could. He must do more to build bridges.
I agree with most of that. Losing the likes of Mark Reckless in my view strengthens the brand of Conservatism and improves their chances of winning elections by demonstrating that they are indeed a centre right party.
What I am not so sure about is how much of his time Cameron should spend trying to build bridges in the party. There is no upside to gratuitous rudeness but Cameron needs his supporters to do this work for him rather than getting too hands on. He certainly does not want to be seen throwing "red meat" to this section of the party. Firstly, that does not work and secondly it taints his own brand which is key to a good result.
The message at Conference is that this is a job for Constituency Chairmen and women and all elected representatives of the party. They need self discipline, not discipline imposed upon them. They need to think through the implications for both the party and the country of a Conservative party going into the next election weak and divided. A Miliband premiership would be the result and at the moment that looks pretty frightening.
But isn't UKIP a bit odd anyway. Leader: Farage - a lot more French than Cameron or Clegg, methinks. Here in the frozen East, UKIP have had some problems with Cllrs. Lagoda and Giorgiou (not very English either) who have been convicted and 'resigned' from UKIP. Is UKIP really an EU front organisation? Did Farage let the cat out of the bag with his advert this week?
TBH, if I were a Tory in his constituency - I'd be full of revenge and do my best to kill him off in the ballot box.
His ego needs a serious pricking. I don't feel the same about Mr Carswell - he was a paid up maverick, not someone who appeared to be under a false flag from Day One.
The only way Reckless by Name hasn't ended his political career is if the Men of Kent abandon Labour. Which seems to me the most interesting aspect of this defection....
Will Labour voters embrace Reckless's vision of a low tax, small state UK? I doubt it.
Re Reckless.. according to Guido, He was denying that he was defecting right up to the moment he jumped ship. It may be politics but with that kind of dissembling, I wouldn't trust Reckless as far as I could throw him.
There was a line in an old Callan episode I watched the other day: "in addition to smoking and swearing, I also tell lies". Tbh, I do not think many voters will be astonished that politicians are not always to be trusted.
Callan was a cracking show.
I think there's a Denzel Washington film version of The Equalizer out soon.
Exactly. I've a few red lines when it comes to behaviour - and Mr Reckless has crossed all of them. Being cast into Outer Darkness is too good for him.
Re Reckless.. according to Guido, He was denying that he was defecting right up to the moment he jumped ship. It may be politics but with that kind of dissembling, I wouldn't trust Reckless as far as I could throw him.
There was a line in an old Callan episode I watched the other day: "in addition to smoking and swearing, I also tell lies". Tbh, I do not think many voters will be astonished that politicians are not always to be trusted.
No, but it says a lot about the character of the man.
I think Carswell's an idiot with his head in the clouds. But he's an honourable idiot.
Reckless lied to his colleagues and actively sought to harm them. That's a bad leaver in my book.
Comments
"Senators are primarily elected by municipal officials"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Senate_election,_2014
How does that work?
A nitwit of the highest order.
His ego needs a serious pricking. I don't feel the same about Mr Carswell - he was a paid up maverick, not someone who appeared to be under a false flag from Day One.