I'm a litigation lawyer. I spent more of my time advising people not to sue rather than the opposite. Litigation always costs more (and in more than financial ways) than you can possibly imagine. It should always be used as a last resort.
As an aside, that article I linked to about the EU migrant crisis, with comments slamming the BBC/broadcast media and generally supportive of Hungary, appears now to have had the comments removed...
I'm a litigation lawyer. I spent more of my time advising people not to sue rather than the opposite. Litigation always costs more (and in more than financial ways) than you can possibly imagine. It should always be used as a last resort.
Sam Cam could afford it?
Mitchell's costs were £3 million. Personally, I'd grin and bear it.
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
Is this journalist trying to make Britain look bad in front of an emerging superpower?
The nice thing is that Osborne is smiling when he said he didn't read about it. He's lucky that he was at Oxford a few years after Cameron, or else I would have put him on the shortlist of suspects, since he too has a direct interest to push Cameron out of the way.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
Tom Watson today 'leaving Labour to join the LDs would be like leaving the Beatles for a Bananrama tribute band'. Farron 'there is nothing wrong with Bananarama'
"In print and online articles in April and May 2013 we said that Alex Wood, who was standing for UKIP in the May 2013 local elections in Somerset, had been photographed making a 'Nazi salute'. We also said that he had made racist comments on Facebook.
We now accept that etc etc
We apologise to Mr Wood for the allegations made and any hurt and distress caused as a result. We hope this apology will go some way to repairing Mr Wood’s reputation.”"
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is accused of... the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
My point was there are differing standards on here based solely on whether the accused is one of us or one of them
Cameron in Apartheid SA.. just a free holiday! Not his fault etc Corbyn in East Germany.. Dangerous commie!
I'm a litigation lawyer. I spent more of my time advising people not to sue rather than the opposite. Litigation always costs more (and in more than financial ways) than you can possibly imagine. It should always be used as a last resort.
I can see the logic and the sense in what you say and sensible advice but it leaves a doubt. Smoke and fire etc. Surbiton referenced this up thread where it was stated the fact that action had not been taken means "it must be true".
Here is the danger I think because I can fully understand the costs involved and avoidance is best but with no real means of defending an allegation in a court what do you do have? particularly if you do not have pots of money to pursue. Your name is trashed and you are placed in a position of double or quits and quite often double is the outcome this having done nothing wrong ( presuming allegations are false)
I suspect the small claims court and trading standards is not going to cut it really?
There is that risk but I think there is a tendency to overestimate how much damage is caused by comparison with the pain of a long running case. There will be new political events to take over. Imagine if tomorrow there was a terror attack in the UK. Do you think even those who hate the PM would be making piggy noses at him when he comes to Parliament to report on what's happened? And if people did whom do you think would come off worse?
And the one thing you guarantee - by involving the lawyers - is that the story will run and run and run and every (and I mean every) aspect of your life will be crawled over. It simply is not worth it.
Even if you win, there will be people who won't believe that you did not do what you were wrongly accused of.
The only people who win from libel cases are the lawyers.
Better to endure some short term ribaldry and deal with it humorously than spend time and all your money with lawyers, lovely as some of us are!!
It's a tough message - but given that duelling is no longer an option - it's what I would advise, though bear in mind I am not a libel lawyer, DYOR etc etc etc..... Plus I have never read a story in a newspaper about something I have real knowledge about which has been accurate so I tend to discount all newspaper stories as being an approximation of reality and, in some cases, having barely any relationship with reality at all.
Imagine if a genie appeared to TSE on New Year's Day 2015 to tell him the following about 2015:
- The Lib Dems would lose all but 8 of their MPs - Donald Trump would be a major contender for the Republican nomination - Jeremy Corbyn would become LOTO - There would be a scandal involving the PM's nether regions and a dead animal
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
In the Hague and IDS years Ashcroft helped keep the Tories afloat when other rich donors flocked to Blair. Labour can rely on union funding in tough times as now the Tories need donors
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
Tom Watson today 'leaving Labour to join the LDs would be like leaving the Beatles for a Bananrama tribute band'. Farron 'there is nothing wrong with Bananarama'
Why would any MP want to leave the Labour party now? Just 7% of Labour voters are dissatisfied with Corbyn at present and the LD are leaking votes to Labour even now.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
Be careful now, the conservative party wouldn't exist if it were not for rich people in politics.
I have no skin in the game. If a party can't persuade ordinary people to fund it, then it deserves to die. Applies to all parties: their sense of entitlement would shame even the most egregious benefits cheat.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
No - this applies to all parties. See the Lib Dems and that Brown character and Labour and Unite.
This is not a party political point and it's precisely because all of them are at it that nothing is going to be done about the, frankly, squalid and quasi-corrupt way parties are funded. And, no, state funding is not the answer.
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
The idiot won't be assaulting any members of the public live on TV tonight then?
Another happy man:
Piers MorganVerified account @piersmorgan 8h8 hours ago Just waiting for Cameron's denial: 'I did not have sexual relations with that dead pig.' #piggate
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
I was actually in agreement with Cyclefree, but then you had to stupidly bring party politics into it.
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
Likewise the Labour Party and forced subs from Union members (always on the poverty line natch!) to sub unite MPs in the commons and Labour in general? Cuts both ways pal.
He always came across to me as a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
No I would have said not. His big failing, even now, is not to realise how much lefties hate him. He is always far to generous to them, people like Yasmin Wotsit on the paper reviews.
I'm a litigation lawyer. I spent more of my time advising people not to sue rather than the opposite. Litigation always costs more (and in more than financial ways) than you can possibly imagine. It should always be used as a last resort.
I can see the logic and the sense in what you say and sensible advice but it leaves a doubt. Smoke and fire etc. Surbiton referenced this up thread where it was stated the fact that action had not been taken means "it must be true".
Here is the danger I think because I can fully understand the costs involved and avoidance is best but with no real means of defending an allegation in a court what do you do have? particularly if you do not have pots of money to pursue. Your name is trashed and you are placed in a position of double or quits and quite often double is the outcome this having done nothing wrong ( presuming allegations are false)
I suspect the small claims court and trading standards is not going to cut it really?
There is that risk but I think there is a tendency to overestimate how much damage is caused by comparison with the pain of a long running case. There will be new political events to take over. Imagine if tomorrow there was a terror attack in the UK. Do you think even those who hate the PM would be making piggy noses at him when he comes to Parliament to report on what's happened? And if people did whom do you think would come off worse?
And the one thing you guarantee - by involving the lawyers - is that the story will run and run and run and every (and I mean every) aspect of your life will be crawled over. It simply is not worth it.
Even if you win, there will be people who won't believe that you did not do what you were wrongly accused of.
The only people who win from libel cases are the lawyers.
Better to endure some short term ribaldry and deal with it humorously than spend time and all your money with lawyers, lovely as some of us are!!
It's a tough message - but given that duelling is no longer an option - it's what I would advise, though bear in mind I am not a libel lawyer, DYOR etc etc etc..... Plus I have never read a story in a newspaper about something I have real knowledge about which has been accurate so I tend to discount all newspaper stories as being an approximation of reality and, in some cases, having barely any relationship with reality at all.
My position with newspapers now is what what print has either at best a passing approximation of the truth or at worst is simply made up (any unattributed stories of politicians of any stripe). See eg the Telegraph and UKIP/Conservatives or the Mirror and anything to do with the Conservatives.
When I know the factual background it tends to reinforce my opinion.
She probably will do quite well, but in the end someone whose only claim to political fame is having failed miserably in the one election she did stand in, and whose business career is more of a negative than a positive, is not going to get the nomination.
Edit: As surbiton says, she might well get the VP nomination.
Not so sure it will be Bush, though. He's not showing very well at the moment and there are three or four other serious candidates.
To be fair, standing as a GOP candidate in California could reasonably be described as "gaining experience in a hopeless seat". But I think you're right on both points, all the same.
He always came across to me as a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
No I would have said not. His big failing, even now, is not to realise how much lefties hate him. He is always far to generous to them, people like Yasmin Wotsit on the paper reviews.
Really? He's always seemed a pleasant bloke to me, why would we hate him? He's an unapologetic Tory, but he takes an intelligent interest in other points of view too.
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
No if people want to donate they should. As long as it is publicly done. If they take umbridge like the labour donor from Hull (wotisname?) then its up to them. Lord Sainsbury kept labour afloat and got a job in the cabinet. A few rich people have kept Ukip going. Generally non political business men have a poor record in govt. Ashcroft's methods and purpose of spending his money did not give good returns in 2010 and his polling in run up to 2015 was hardly credible. It always struck me he was hoping to influence individual MPs with his constituency polling. Clearly as this gossy book proves, Ashcroft got very little back from the tories for all his money. Even as he produces this book both he and Oakshott have put their heads above the parapet. We will have to see what happens next.
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
Tom Watson today 'leaving Labour to join the LDs would be like leaving the Beatles for a Bananrama tribute band'. Farron 'there is nothing wrong with Bananarama'
Why would any MP want to leave the Labour party now? Just 7% of Labour voters are dissatisfied with Corbyn at present and the LD are leaking votes to Labour even now.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
The Conservative party is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
No - this applies to all parties. See the Lib Dems and that Brown character and Labour and Unite.
This is not a party political point and it's precisely because all of them are at it that nothing is going to be done about the, frankly, squalid and quasi-corrupt way parties are funded. And, no, state funding is not the answer.
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. he should be aware that its a double edged sword and that having pots of money will not help. Memories are long. You don't make money like he did without making lots of enemies. All his efforts to build a good name for himself buying Victoria Crosses, memorials and the like (after making his money overseas...), and most will think of him as a first class nay premier class shit. I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
It seems so, but I find it hard to accept criticism of that trip from people who say Cam in SA was just a holiday when he was younger.
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
Ha! Ok fair enough. There are many things we do when we are in our teens that we would wish to forget. ( or some of them anyway) I am no advocate of choosing a legal approach except perhaps in business where sometimes that is the only option.I shall keep your words in mind though In future.... I have had a business situation that still leaves a scar as I wanted to take them on but I was the little guy against a millionaire. What chance Huh?
Agree with papers and even websites. I have noted quite often the headline is no relation to the actual story....or facts.
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
Interesting development on Cameron's biggest headache - stop that giggling at the back, boys, I mean the EU:-
The French seem to think that this autumn they could reach agreement on the scope, principle and rate of the FTT. If so - and it's a big IF, then implementation would start in early 2017. Just in time for that referendum.....
Why has the EU ref gone quiet? Last I heard they were thinking about April. Is Cameron now worried because of Corbyn's victory? Can he do a renegotiation to sufficiently appease his party and keep enough of the left onside at the same time? I'm not convinced. Is the can being kicked down the road for now?
There was a piece in one of the papers yesterday quoting the Commission as saying that discussion of any Treaty revision would start in mid-2017. So if there's a referendum in 2017, it won't be on the outcome of any negotiations. Perhaps it'll be on the basis of "assuming we get what I want, do you want to stay in?" In that case, do we get to vote again if we don't get what Cameron wants? And what if we don't like what Cameron wants?
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
It seems so, but I find it hard to accept criticism of that trip from people who say Cam in SA was just a holiday when he was younger.
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
Isn't there a distinction to be made? There's little to suggest that Corbyn has changed his mind in anything since he was 16. I don't think that one can say the same about Cameron.
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
He always came across to me as a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
No I would have said not. His big failing, even now, is not to realise how much lefties hate him. He is always far to generous to them, people like Yasmin Wotsit on the paper reviews.
I'll never forget seeing him fighting with a protester live on TV;
It was surreal cause as I remember it someone was doing a "to camera" report and then in the background you see loopy Ian Dale rolling around on the floor with some some bloke...
Politics doesn't half attract some odd balls doesn't it?
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. ... I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
I read that Ashcroft had retired from the HoL some months ago.
Is this journalist trying to make Britain look bad in front of an emerging superpower?
Asking a politician a question is unpatriotic now.
No, asking him about unsubstantiated tabloid rumours that make the UK look bad while conducting UK business abroad is.
Journalists should only ask questions when the answers are known, and cannot possibly make the government look bad.
The Chinese Communist Party has the internet now, and their secretaries probably read Mail Online.
Surely we should celebrate we are a free country with a free press if this had been China and the Chinese Premier had been embarrassed like this Ashcroft and the editor of the Daily Mail could have been facing the firing squad
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. he should be aware that its a double edged sword and that having pots of money will not help. Memories are long. You don't make money like he did without making lots of enemies. All his efforts to build a good name for himself buying Victoria Crosses, memorials and the like (after making his money overseas...), and most will think of him as a first class nay premier class shit. I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
I think he quit The Lords at the election... Knew the (pig) s*it was gonna hit the fan I'm guessing!
Interesting development on Cameron's biggest headache - stop that giggling at the back, boys, I mean the EU:-
The French seem to think that this autumn they could reach agreement on the scope, principle and rate of the FTT. If so - and it's a big IF, then implementation would start in early 2017. Just in time for that referendum.....
Why has the EU ref gone quiet? Last I heard they were thinking about April. Is Cameron now worried because of Corbyn's victory? Can he do a renegotiation to sufficiently appease his party and keep enough of the left onside at the same time? I'm not convinced. Is the can being kicked down the road for now?
There was a piece in one of the papers yesterday quoting the Commission as saying that discussion of any Treaty revision would start in mid-2017. So if there's a referendum in 2017, it won't be on the outcome of any negotiations. Perhaps it'll be on the basis of "assuming we get what I want, do you want to stay in?" In that case, do we get to vote again if we don't get what Cameron wants? And what if we don't like what Cameron wants?
hmmm
Might Cameron not be biding his time before there is a coup against Corbyn. An impeccably pro-EU Labour leader would certainly make things easier.
The chances are that Ashcroft offered to indemnify the Mail against any libel claim. Unfortunately that's one of the many injustices in this country.
Rich people are untouchable.
Ashcroft is a good example of why there should be strict limits on the ability of rich people / rich organisations to fund politics in this country.
No if people want to donate they should. As long as it is publicly done. If they take umbridge like the labour donor from Hull (wotisname?) then its up to them. Lord Sainsbury kept labour afloat and got a job in the cabinet. A few rich people have kept Ukip going. Generally non political business men have a poor record in govt. Ashcroft's methods and purpose of spending his money did not give good returns in 2010 and his polling in run up to 2015 was hardly credible. It always struck me he was hoping to influence individual MPs with his constituency polling. Clearly as this gossy book proves, Ashcroft got very little back from the tories for all his money. Even as he produces this book both he and Oakshott have put their heads above the parapet. We will have to see what happens next.
We've had transparency and it hasn't really helped. I would prefer to have limits as well. Not just to avoid one person or organisation having excessive control but to force parties to reach out to the ordinary person. If they have funding from a few sources, even if those sources are impeccable, it still means that the party is insulated from Mr and Mrs Ordinary. And this is not a good thing.
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. ... I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
I read that Ashcroft had retired from the HoL some months ago.
I think SquareRoot was proposing he has his lands and assets seized. As happens to Klingons who fall foul of the High Council!
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. he should be aware that its a double edged sword and that having pots of money will not help. Memories are long. You don't make money like he did without making lots of enemies. All his efforts to build a good name for himself buying Victoria Crosses, memorials and the like (after making his money overseas...), and most will think of him as a first class nay premier class shit. I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
NYC Police did DeBlasio that same honour following the assassination of two of their number while on duty:
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
"Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party"
He always came across to me as a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
No I would have said not. His big failing, even now, is not to realise how much lefties hate him. He is always far to generous to them, people like Yasmin Wotsit on the paper reviews.
I'll never forget seeing him fighting with a protester live on TV;
It was surreal cause as I remember it someone was doing a "to camera" report and then in the background you see loopy Ian Dale rolling around on the floor with some some bloke...
Politics doesn't half attract some odd balls doesn't it?
Well I would defend Dale over that, even though he was being very silly. These gurning walkons are pathetic. But the tsunami of comments he got from lefties on his blog were as vitriolic as they were wild, insane and absurd.
Lord Ashcroft had better enjoy his moment of revenge.. he should be aware that its a double edged sword and that having pots of money will not help. Memories are long. You don't make money like he did without making lots of enemies. All his efforts to build a good name for himself buying Victoria Crosses, memorials and the like (after making his money overseas...), and most will think of him as a first class nay premier class shit. I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
How Cameron finds the time to be PM, a husband, an MP, and yet still engage in these odd activities boggles the mind.
In all honesty would it make the slightest bit of difference between two candidates for a job if one was a dead-porker-willy-wobbler, and the other wasn't. I think not.
I can't see what Michael Ashcroft wants from this. He's reduced himself, and hasn't hurt Cameron at all. He should just say what he wants, and its his own fault if that message is clouded by the media-storm.
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
You mean put forward some inspiring ideas that get get 100,000 people to join up, paying £45 each?
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Yes, I was exaggerating for comic effect in the Cecil the Lion/Swatting a fly post, the joke being that swatting a fly was a much less serious but he would get more stick.
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
It seems so, but I find it hard to accept criticism of that trip from people who say Cam in SA was just a holiday when he was younger.
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
I worked in SA for a number of years off and on, Richards Bay, Mossel Bay, Cape Town. You know the bigger problem there was not specifically apartheid (yes a big problem of course) it was really more tribal and actually nothing to do with the whites. There were more issues, fighting and killing between the tribes than there ever were between white and black and that's from what I saw first hand. I know that doesn't really play into the narrative but it is what it is.
In regards to apartheid we used to drink in a coloured only bar in Mossel bay. We got on fine because we treated them as equals. no one really gave a shit including the locals but I have to say I didn't like the setup. Many people made the difference and the main people were Mandela of course and Thatcher. I do though think we missed an opportunity to provide better training to those that remained and took over because this was not widely available previously.
It was not our fault but we did help the change. Is it better now than before...... Dunno.
Interesting development on Cameron's biggest headache - stop that giggling at the back, boys, I mean the EU:-
The French seem to think that this autumn they could reach agreement on the scope, principle and rate of the FTT. If so - and it's a big IF, then implementation would start in early 2017. Just in time for that referendum.....
Why has the EU ref gone quiet? Last I heard they were thinking about April. Is Cameron now worried because of Corbyn's victory? Can he do a renegotiation to sufficiently appease his party and keep enough of the left onside at the same time? I'm not convinced. Is the can being kicked down the road for now?
There was a piece in one of the papers yesterday quoting the Commission as saying that discussion of any Treaty revision would start in mid-2017. So if there's a referendum in 2017, it won't be on the outcome of any negotiations. Perhaps it'll be on the basis of "assuming we get what I want, do you want to stay in?" In that case, do we get to vote again if we don't get what Cameron wants? And what if we don't like what Cameron wants?
We will be free to vote to leave the EU at a guess sometime in autumn 2017. The basis of that referendum will be whatever it is, a treaty or effectively the basis of a treaty. I am quite happy to have a vote and wait to see what it entails. A vote will be necessary. The current border situation makes that clear and the state of the euro does too.
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
People - including politicians - are very naive about money. In their greed for it, they forget - or overlook - that the person disbursing the money wants something for it. They ought to be a bit more curious about what it is they want and whether the price they will be paying is really worth it.
On some days I feel that politicians and aspiring ones could do no better than read the novels of Balzac, Trollope and Vanity Fair. Politics and money - in essence - are no different to what they were then, whatever the superficial changes.
How Cameron finds the time to be PM, a husband, an MP, and yet still engage in these odd activities boggles the mind.
In all honesty would it make the slightest bit of difference between two candidates for a job if one was a dead-porker-willy-wobbler, and the other wasn't. I think not.
I can't see what Michael Ashcroft wants from this. He's reduced himself, and hasn't hurt Cameron at all. He should just say what he wants, and its his own fault if that message is clouded by the media-storm.
I believe Cam misbehaved before he was MP, PM and husband!
The idiot won't be assaulting any members of the public live on TV tonight then?
Another happy man:
Piers MorganVerified account @piersmorgan 8h8 hours ago Just waiting for Cameron's denial: 'I did not have sexual relations with that dead pig.' #piggate
I'd imagine there's a few women who say that about Piers Morgan.
A PM's position to pursue litigation does make it incredibly difficult I suppose insofar as they could be called in event of court proceedings or I presume so? Bit tricky when still in office because the denial has been tried before and proven well economical with the actual " I did not have relations etc etc...."
Even Ashcroft seems to be digging an escape tunnel saying that maybe it was not Cameron but someone else... mistaken identity.... errr....
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
People - including politicians - are very naive about money. In their greed for it, they forget - or overlook - that the person disbursing the money wants something for it. They ought to be a bit more curious about what it is they want and whether the price they will be paying is really worth it.
On some days I feel that politicians and aspiring ones could do no better than read the novels of Balzac, Trollope and Vanity Fair. Politics and money - in essence - are no different to what they were then, whatever the superficial changes.
Oh you couldn't be more right. Nothing has changed - nothing. Things haven't changed because people haven't changed. Not just politicians who could learn from the past either.
Politics and money - in essence - are no different to what they were then, whatever the superficial changes.
Indeed, and it explains why Shakespeare is sill relevant or even some greek / roman stories. People have not really changed in the last several thousand years. The outer veneer may be different but underneath the same old motivations are there.
I don't know what shocks me more. The Prime Minister caught in flagrante delicto with a dead pig or a standing ovation for the man who destroyed the Lib Dems
Tom Watson today 'leaving Labour to join the LDs would be like leaving the Beatles for a Bananrama tribute band'. Farron 'there is nothing wrong with Bananarama'
Why would any MP want to leave the Labour party now? Just 7% of Labour voters are dissatisfied with Corbyn at present and the LD are leaking votes to Labour even now.
Indeed which is why Watson won that battle
The LDs are not even in the fight never mind winning the battle. A chance to lose the battle would be good for them. As it is they are likely to lose more of their pacifists to labour.
There were more issues, fighting and killing between the tribes than there ever were between white and black and that's from what I saw first hand. I know that doesn't really play into the narrative but it is what it is.
Where I grew up (Belfast) it was common knowledge that the biggest threat to the nationalist community was from their own terrorists rather than the unionist ones, police or army.
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
You mean put forward some inspiring ideas that get get 100,000 people to join up, paying £45 each?
We've taken your excellent advice!
And you will have to live with it. Matthew Parris made the point on Saturday that it shows that the Corbynites are perhaps more true Labour than the moderates. The moderates took people for granted and have suffered as a result. This should be a lesson to them.
The fascist left (I know you will find this prejudicial but bear with me) has taken over your party because the alternatives did not, for too long, put in the graft needed to persuade people to join and vote. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The fact that I don't like the choice you and others have made (I may have mentioned this!) doesn't invalidate the suggestion.
Now you have to follow the next bit of my advice, wean yourself off union funding and agree that opt-in for trade union members is the way to go!
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Yes, I was exaggerating for comic effect in the Cecil the Lion/Swatting a fly post, the joke being that swatting a fly was a much less serious but he would get more stick.
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Yes, I was exaggerating for comic effect in the Cecil the Lion/Swatting a fly post, the joke being that swatting a fly was a much less serious but he would get more stick.
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
So Hillary's net favorability rating goes to -5 overall in her home state and -33 with independents there, lower than even the Donald's!
Sure, this is of all voters, no Dem primary voters, but it is of relevance to the Party grandees who might be encouraging Biden or someone else to run - it is hard to see how someone with a net -33 with independents will win the GE.
There are two constants when it comes to money (and this goes back thousands of years): Greed and Stupidity.
It's the human condition and no law/regulation or anything else will be even remotely successful - or even have a chance at being midly successful - unless it understands this basic point.
A PM's position to pursue litigation does make it incredibly difficult I suppose insofar as they could be called in event of court proceedings or I presume so? Bit tricky when still in office because the denial has been tried before and proven well economical with the actual " I did not have relations etc etc...."
Even Ashcroft seems to be digging an escape tunnel saying that maybe it was not Cameron but someone else... mistaken identity.... errr....
Perhaps a boar..ed of enquiry instead to see if someone will squeal?
Groan
The killer point in this is the reference to a unknown someone who knows someone who has the photograph.
When I edited the student rag at University I took the job seriously enough to do a journalism course. One lesson is that there is a river of repellent stories about *everyone* in public life - a tide of filth that is 99.99% rubbish.
If you want to see how stupid and repellent this stuff is, dig around and you will see there is a flourishing trade in lies about Corbyn now. No, not a few quid for a con man, or a hand shake with Hamas.... real, hard core, crazy evil stuff. All invented, strangely enough, shortly after he appeared on the top level of the public stage.
The trick is to smell out early on when a story id bogus. The photos that no-one you can actually speak to has seen is a classic of the genre.
If it turns out to be bogus, any promises by Ashcroft to guarantee legal costs will evaporate - such is the way of millionaires. There will be a get out clause somewhere that leaves everyone else holding the bag.
A PM's position to pursue litigation does make it incredibly difficult I suppose insofar as they could be called in event of court proceedings or I presume so? Bit tricky when still in office because the denial has been tried before and proven well economical with the actual " I did not have relations etc etc...."
Even Ashcroft seems to be digging an escape tunnel saying that maybe it was not Cameron but someone else... mistaken identity.... errr....
Yes I know. The person you were responding to said UKIP, not Farage
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is.. the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
Urrrm, no, I was talking about Farage, in response to your post commenting on people for defending Cameron blindly:
"He could have drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion & the Tories on here would say it's not as bad as Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly"
I was just pointing out that you would defend - and have in the past defended - Farage in the same way as those Tories you commented on.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree (snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Yes, I was exaggerating for comic effect in the Cecil the Lion/Swatting a fly post, the joke being that swatting a fly was a much less serious but he would get more stick.
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Haha!
Love, peace & harmony are very nice, but maybe in the next world!
To put today's shenanigans into context, today at work I had to read some emails which contained stuff (in the same area) but far more revolting - and not even remotely amusing - than anything alleged about the PM.
Such is the sad lot of the investigator..... Off to dinner now.
A PM's position to pursue litigation does make it incredibly difficult I suppose insofar as they could be called in event of court proceedings or I presume so? Bit tricky when still in office because the denial has been tried before and proven well economical with the actual " I did not have relations etc etc...."
Even Ashcroft seems to be digging an escape tunnel saying that maybe it was not Cameron but someone else... mistaken identity.... errr....
Perhaps a boar..ed of enquiry instead to see if someone will squeal?
Groan
The killer point in this is the reference to a unknown someone who knows someone who has the photograph.
When I edited the student rag at University I took the job seriously enough to do a journalism course. One lesson is that there is a river of repellent stories about *everyone* in public life - a tide of filth that is 99.99% rubbish.
If you want to see how stupid and repellent this stuff is, dig around and you will see there is a flourishing trade in lies about Corbyn now. No, not a few quid for a con man, or a hand shake with Hamas.... real, hard core, crazy evil stuff. All invented, strangely enough, shortly after he appeared on the top level of the public stage.
The trick is to smell out early on when a story id bogus. The photos that no-one you can actually speak to has seen is a classic of the genre.
If it turns out to be bogus, any promises by Ashcroft to guarantee legal costs will evaporate - such is the way of millionaires. There will be a get out clause somewhere that leaves everyone else holding the bag.
The evil Machiavellian in me is sensing that this is, in fact, a hatchet job on Ashcroft - not on Cameron. Fed false innuendo and outright lies which he credulously gobbled up, only to make a fool of himself. However, if this is perpetrated by a Cameron fan or inner circle, it is a very high risk strategy. Perhaps someone who has a beef with both Cameron and Ashcroft ...
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
People - including politicians - are very naive about money. In their greed for it, they forget - or overlook - that the person disbursing the money wants something for it. They ought to be a bit more curious about what it is they want and whether the price they will be paying is really worth it.
On some days I feel that politicians and aspiring ones could do no better than read the novels of Balzac, Trollope and Vanity Fair. Politics and money - in essence - are no different to what they were then, whatever the superficial changes.
There is a neat parallel with authors, and I don't suppose it occurred to Ashcroft or Oakeshott that the Daily Mail would splash the most lurid story it could find in order to sell more papers, even if that story was probably a two-line anecdote in the book.
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
People - including politicians - are very naive about money. In their greed for it, they forget - or overlook - that the person disbursing the money wants something for it. They ought to be a bit more curious about what it is they want and whether the price they will be paying is really worth it.
(snip)
I tend to agree, but there are exceptions. Someone I know raised a large amount of money for charity, and wrote a lot of begging letters to celebrities and businessmen. One businessman pledged to match whatever he raised, and did so even when it went into six figures.
One of the criteria was that he got no publicity and his donation was kept as much as possible quiet (obviously the charity had to know). His name appears on here with some disdain occasionally.
People can sometimes give without wanting anything in return, especially if they believe in something, and even when it could gain them some much-needed good publicity.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34311254
He's lucky that he was at Oxford a few years after Cameron, or else I would have put him on the shortlist of suspects, since he too has a direct interest to push Cameron out of the way.
He always came across to me as a few sandwiches short of a picnic...
She sounds very evasive about this pig story and whether she could actually back up the claim with a witness.
http://tinyurl.com/pavx8wv
Iain Dale @IainDale 7h7 hours ago
Just doubled the print run for 'Call Me Dave'. Largest initial print run in @BitebackPub's history. @LordAshcroft @IsabelOakeshott
But anyway, this all started because you inferred I would defend Farage if he was alleged to have done what Cameron is accused of... the truth is that I haven't attacked Cameron for it, so I cant understand why you brought Farage into it at all
My point was there are differing standards on here based solely on whether the accused is one of us or one of them
Cameron in Apartheid SA.. just a free holiday! Not his fault etc
Corbyn in East Germany.. Dangerous commie!
And the one thing you guarantee - by involving the lawyers - is that the story will run and run and run and every (and I mean every) aspect of your life will be crawled over. It simply is not worth it.
Even if you win, there will be people who won't believe that you did not do what you were wrongly accused of.
The only people who win from libel cases are the lawyers.
Better to endure some short term ribaldry and deal with it humorously than spend time and all your money with lawyers, lovely as some of us are!!
It's a tough message - but given that duelling is no longer an option - it's what I would advise, though bear in mind I am not a libel lawyer, DYOR etc etc etc..... Plus I have never read a story in a newspaper about something I have real knowledge about which has been accurate so I tend to discount all newspaper stories as being an approximation of reality and, in some cases, having barely any relationship with reality at all.
- The Lib Dems would lose all but 8 of their MPs
- Donald Trump would be a major contender for the Republican nomination
- Jeremy Corbyn would become LOTO
- There would be a scandal involving the PM's nether regions and a dead animal
Just 7% of Labour voters are dissatisfied with Corbyn at present and the LD are leaking votes to Labour even now.
No - this applies to all parties. See the Lib Dems and that Brown character and Labour and Unite.
This is not a party political point and it's precisely because all of them are at it that nothing is going to be done about the, frankly, squalid and quasi-corrupt way parties are funded. And, no, state funding is not the answer.
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
Piers MorganVerified account @piersmorgan 8h8 hours ago
Just waiting for Cameron's denial:
'I did not have sexual relations with that dead pig.' #piggate
When I know the factual background it tends to reinforce my opinion.
The Chinese Communist Party has the internet now, and their secretaries probably read Mail Online.
No, and at the risk of spending the rest of the evening having to argue about this, you are barking up the wrong tree
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok
Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/oh-man-i-hope-its-true-that-cameron-did-that-thing-with-a-pig-hed-be-king-of-the-lads/
I have often defended Farage, because I mostly agree with what he has said and been criticised for saying, but what I haven't done is said "Outrageous behaviour from *Tory/Labour MP* then said the same behaviour was ok when Farage does it.. that's what I seem to see from
Cam in SA =ok
Corbyn in DDR= proves he is a commie
Isn't it Cornyn in DDR + all other evidence pointing the same way = proof of being a commie?
Generally non political business men have a poor record in govt. Ashcroft's methods and purpose of spending his money did not give good returns in 2010 and his polling in run up to 2015 was hardly credible. It always struck me he was hoping to influence individual MPs with his constituency polling.
Clearly as this gossy book proves, Ashcroft got very little back from the tories for all his money. Even as he produces this book both he and Oakshott have put their heads above the parapet. We will have to see what happens next.
All his efforts to build a good name for himself buying Victoria Crosses, memorials and the like (after making his money overseas...), and most will think of him as a first class nay premier class shit.
I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
It seems so, but I find it hard to accept criticism of that trip from people who say Cam in SA was just a holiday when he was younger.
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
Ha! Ok fair enough.
There are many things we do when we are in our teens that we would wish to forget. ( or some of them anyway) I am no advocate of choosing a legal approach except perhaps in business where sometimes that is the only option.I shall keep your words in mind though In future.... I have had a business situation that still leaves a scar as I wanted to take them on but I was the little guy against a millionaire. What chance Huh?
Agree with papers and even websites. I have noted quite often the headline is no relation to the actual story....or facts.
(snip)
We'll just have to disagree on this one, and wait for Farage to put his foot in it again.
But do you see the difference? Even if I defend Farage next time he puts his foot in it, that wont mean anything unless I had previously criticised someone else for the same thing.
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
Isn't there a distinction to be made? There's little to suggest that Corbyn has changed his mind in anything since he was 16. I don't think that one can say the same about Cameron.
I must learn to use that distrust more often.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEXIpz1XI7M
It was surreal cause as I remember it someone was doing a "to camera" report and then in the background you see loopy Ian Dale rolling around on the floor with some some bloke...
Politics doesn't half attract some odd balls doesn't it?
Might Cameron not be biding his time before there is a coup against Corbyn. An impeccably pro-EU Labour leader would certainly make things easier.
We've had transparency and it hasn't really helped. I would prefer to have limits as well. Not just to avoid one person or organisation having excessive control but to force parties to reach out to the ordinary person. If they have funding from a few sources, even if those sources are impeccable, it still means that the party is insulated from Mr and Mrs Ordinary. And this is not a good thing.
No, because your original quote was not about the same thing. "Corbyn being a vegetarian and swatting a fly" is not the same as "drugged & beheaded Cecil the Lion".
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ramosfuneral.jpg
"Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWeZ5SKXvj8
"I do hope Peers in the HOL(if he ever turns up there) , pointedly turn their backs on him in a form of Klingon discommendation.
Hell hath no fury like Tories scorned!
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
How Cameron finds the time to be PM, a husband, an MP, and yet still engage in these odd activities boggles the mind.
In all honesty would it make the slightest bit of difference between two candidates for a job if one was a dead-porker-willy-wobbler, and the other wasn't. I think not.
I can't see what Michael Ashcroft wants from this. He's reduced himself, and hasn't hurt Cameron at all. He should just say what he wants, and its his own fault if that message is clouded by the media-storm.
We've taken your excellent advice!
Still, let's eave it here, shall we? We seem to have been getting on better over recent months, and it'd be nice to keep it that way.
Yes, I was exaggerating for comic effect in the Cecil the Lion/Swatting a fly post, the joke being that swatting a fly was a much less serious but he would get more stick.
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
Likewise Cam is allowed to change his mind on Section 28 but I don't think Corbyn would be let off something he voted for 20 years ago
I worked in SA for a number of years off and on, Richards Bay, Mossel Bay, Cape Town. You know the bigger problem there was not specifically apartheid (yes a big problem of course) it was really more tribal and actually nothing to do with the whites. There were more issues, fighting and killing between the tribes than there ever were between white and black and that's from what I saw first hand. I know that doesn't really play into the narrative but it is what it is.
In regards to apartheid we used to drink in a coloured only bar in Mossel bay. We got on fine because we treated them as equals. no one really gave a shit including the locals but I have to say I didn't like the setup. Many people made the difference and the main people were Mandela of course and Thatcher. I do though think we missed an opportunity to provide better training to those that remained and took over because this was not widely available previously.
It was not our fault but we did help the change. Is it better now than before...... Dunno.
On some days I feel that politicians and aspiring ones could do no better than read the novels of Balzac, Trollope and Vanity Fair. Politics and money - in essence - are no different to what they were then, whatever the superficial changes.
Plus ca change...
The fascist left (I know you will find this prejudicial but bear with me) has taken over your party because the alternatives did not, for too long, put in the graft needed to persuade people to join and vote. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The fact that I don't like the choice you and others have made (I may have mentioned this!) doesn't invalidate the suggestion.
Now you have to follow the next bit of my advice, wean yourself off union funding and agree that opt-in for trade union members is the way to go!
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
So we are typical blokes just can't multi hate...
Yes I agree! I can only hate a maximum of three people on here at any given time
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Sure, this is of all voters, no Dem primary voters, but it is of relevance to the Party grandees who might be encouraging Biden or someone else to run - it is hard to see how someone with a net -33 with independents will win the GE.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-is-now-viewed-unfavorably-in-new-york/
It's the human condition and no law/regulation or anything else will be even remotely successful - or even have a chance at being midly successful - unless it understands this basic point.
When I edited the student rag at University I took the job seriously enough to do a journalism course. One lesson is that there is a river of repellent stories about *everyone* in public life - a tide of filth that is 99.99% rubbish.
If you want to see how stupid and repellent this stuff is, dig around and you will see there is a flourishing trade in lies about Corbyn now. No, not a few quid for a con man, or a hand shake with Hamas.... real, hard core, crazy evil stuff. All invented, strangely enough, shortly after he appeared on the top level of the public stage.
The trick is to smell out early on when a story id bogus. The photos that no-one you can actually speak to has seen is a classic of the genre.
If it turns out to be bogus, any promises by Ashcroft to guarantee legal costs will evaporate - such is the way of millionaires. There will be a get out clause somewhere that leaves everyone else holding the bag.
I have therefore both punished and consoled myself with yet another cold beer before I get my coat......
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Haha!
Love, peace & harmony are very nice, but maybe in the next world!
Such is the sad lot of the investigator..... Off to dinner now.
One of the criteria was that he got no publicity and his donation was kept as much as possible quiet (obviously the charity had to know). His name appears on here with some disdain occasionally.
People can sometimes give without wanting anything in return, especially if they believe in something, and even when it could gain them some much-needed good publicity.