´óÏó´«Ã½

CLANG !!!!

Please post video of this brick being dropped !!!

Well done Cadet Maitlis !! Not quite in the BoJo vs Paxo league, but great stuff all the same...

Ha ha - yet another 'Tory opening mouth before putting brain in gear' scenario.

It's all about David Cameron and PR which was, lest we forget, his actual job before he joined the Westminster Village.

"Man mishears question" - stop the press.

No Nick, he said he hoped it wouldn't be, yet by the time of your last sentence it has become one and dismissed to boot. Poor story.

that's quite amusing, Nick, thank you

what a shock a top military officer with tory tendencies - you'll be telling me there are freemasons in the army next

Uh oh, I was right about the previous thread. Now, is this a bit of devilment, or what?

Is General Dannatt being promoted to the house of Lords? is this in the gift of the leader of the opposition? is it a leading question?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So Brown has elevated Gen Dannatt to the peerage?

Unusual for him to contemplate enobling anyone who he does not see as being able to keep him in post.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What refreshing honesty from Mr Grayling.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ah another bite of the cherry eh Nick. I am sure Chris Grayling's quote as detailed on your own blog was:

"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick."

Therefore he did not dismiss this as a gimmick, he hoped it was not one. A fine distinction that may not be understood in Mandelson towers where allusion (and illusion for that matter) is all that matters.

I am fairly disappointed that you have not taken my advice from the last post you made Nick. Does it not bother you that you are being used by Labour?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As you rightly say, Nick, clearly Grayling mis-heard the question. Even then he didn't say it WAS a gimmick he said he hoped it wasn't a gimmick. So even when he clearly thought it was a Labour appointment, he was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

so what's the story? This is the story from you Nick

"What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick""

Except Nick, you know he didn't dimiss it as a gimmick at all, as is clear from reading what he said.

I assume you'll now re-write that last sentence as "what Mr Grayling hoped wasn't a gimmick" That would be accurate and fair and I'm sure you strive for that in your blog.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh, nicky, nicky, nick, nick, what is this all about? Is a poorly phrased question now the trigger for a NEWS blog? Is this now just about innuendo and/or half truths? Well it is political, so I've probably answered my own question, which is what most politicians do anyway.

Is this a waste of space?

Good grief Nick, Grayling even says

"General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government"

You cannot, surely, be that desperate for anti-Conservative content that you miss-represent an answer from a miss-heard question in order to score points?

Shame on you.

"What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick" was originally planned to be the major new announcement in David Cameron's speech tomorrow."

I look forward to this political gimmick if that's the term the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will be pushing. Sir Richard was a fine officer and General and will be a good addition to the Government in any role. I just hope he is allowed to keep the reins of the Tower of London as he may need it to as a place to store dishonest Ministers or the First Lord of the Treasury...

Oh Nick, you really are a stirrer. Grayling didn't dismiss government working with army generals as a gimmick, indeed he says that ideally that's exactly what should be happening: Generals and Government working hand in hand.

Clearly, even though he thinks this a good idea, he suspects, even expects that anything this cynical and PR craving government would do would be for political reasons rather than for any particular good of the country. Given the history of the last decade, you have to admit he has a point!

#3:

I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories? Either it's a good idea or it's not. The fact that Grayling pours scorn on it shows that either he things it's not a good idea or (far more likely) he is so deeply embedded in Punch & Judy politics that he automatically is against anything done by the other side, whether he agrees with it or not.

Mind you, you could say "politician spouts meaningless drivel just in the hope of scoring cheap political points against the other side - stop the press" with equally justifiable sarcasm.

"Mr Grayling clearly misheard my colleague Emily Maitlis's question."

Unfortunately, not a difficult thing to do...

Bit of a non story Nick, posted no doubt to appease the NuLabour supporters!

AN ABSOLUTE CLASSIC !!!

Maybe Chris Grayling's brain was discombobulated by Emily's pulchritude and being a man could not multi-task and he stepped straight into the huge elephant trap...

One wonders whether they would actually be doing better if they weren't being deprived of their daily fix of Champers ?

"6. At 2:12pm on 07 Oct 2009, jollygregchance wrote:
what a shock a top military officer with tory tendencies"

Hardly surprising. Most high achieving succesful people vote Tory.

Bring those TV debates on. Let us also have ministers debating with their shadows in other parties.

Nick, did Boris have too much champagne before being interviewed by Paxman?

The Tories have already lost the plot!

Well done Nick. You are showing professionalism at it's best!

Champagne can wreak a terrible vengeance the morning after the night before.

The fact that Grayling mishears a question is far less sigificant then whether Sir Richard is a suitable person to take up a Government post.
Having Gen Dannatt as a Minister at the MoD, makes more sense than having a postman as a Home Secretary.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Has the anouncement been gazetted or is it all supposition?

Bluster and wind?

"How to ruin your boss's Press Release before it is delivered.."

Take gun. Point at foot. Shoot.

Open mouth. Insert foot.

10. At 12:20pm on 07 Oct 2009, davidou1234 wrote:
I am a teacher and why should I have to be punished in my pay? This is just another excuse by the tories to cut Government no matter what even if it damages the economy....Vote tory and you can have a pay freez. or loose your job, whereas if you are a top millionaire you dont have to pay inheritance tax

-------------


(from previous thread)

The reason, my dear chap, you should be "punished" in your pay is because everyone else in the country who is not in the public sector has been "punished".

Why do you think just because you are a teacher and paid for from the public purse that you should be exempt? I don't get my salary artificially inflated by the government to make up for the salary we were asked to forego.

Inheritance tax is a disgusting concept, don't let your envy get the better of you. Anything subject to inheritance tax has already been taxed at least once (income tax, then in all likelyhood stamp duty or VAT as well). Why should it be taxed again just because you have the bad manners to kick the oxygen habit?

C555 @ 18

aAs you rightly say, Nick, clearly Grayling misheard the question. Even then he didn't say it WAS a gimmick he said he hoped it wasn't a gimmick. So even when he clearly thought it was a Labour appointment, he was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for now

mmm a bit weak Andy, don't you think?

best to move on perhaps?

Whoops. Does Cameron not brief the rest of his cabinet?

Folks at the ´óÏó´«Ã½, I really think you should start contractual negotiations to get Claudia Winklepicker to be on the General Election political team, as she will be 'resting' from the "It Takes Two" show, in the hope of getting similar gaffes out of tired politicians out on the campaign trail.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

26#

Well, if thats a classic.... you need to get out more.

Theres a funny smell round here recently of p*** and vinegar that'll attract the dogwhistlers if we're unlucky....

Desperately seeking something to convince Bradshaw that you haven't changed sides, this must seem like Manna from Heaven. Eh Nick!

Sounds like a good plan.
At least there will be someone in the mix of armchair political soldier Ministers and faceless civil servants who seem to make all the decisions complimented by a soldier who actually knows what he's talking about.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

And he can't even blame it on the champagne!

(Joking aside, I feel that this is a bit of a non-story and would add my voice to others in requesting that the responses to topics be kept open either for 24 hours or until 500 replies or made. Curtailing the opprtunity of free speech and the right to reply to comments posted is so New-Labourish.)

Goldcaesar

exactly what is your point here? Is it party political? Is it socio-political? Is it simply a desire to be provocative without being consistent? Is it an attempt at humour?

With regard to this particular "story", it seems much play is being made of the response to a poorly phrased question. I haven't seen it on TV, nor have I heard it broadcast, and I have no idea of the context in which it was asked, i.e. in a studio as part of a planned interview, or on the fly, on the floor of the conference, with perhaps a bit of background noise and other interference? I don't know.

However, point 1, I don't believe the General Dannett should be denied a place in the House of Lords just because he was a soldier, any more than Mandelson should be denied just because he's a stranger to the truth.
Point 2, if he were appointed to the HoL, should he denied the possibility of a post associated with a political party just because of his previous role? The wrong answer might invalidate Mandelsons position.

I confidently predict that after uttering a statement which includes the words 'political' and 'gimmick' adjacent to each other Chris Grayling will now 'go to ground' for the rest of the conference.

I believe Michael Crick may refer to this as 'Doing An Oliver Letwin'...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"24. At 2:26pm on 07 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
#3:

I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories?"

I think YOU are missing the point. Grayling said he HOPED IT WASN'T A GIMMICK. He didn't say it WAS, he said he hoped it WASN'T. He clearly thought it was a good idea but obviously mistakely thinking it was a Labour idea he seemed to be worried it might be the RIGHT thing for the WRONG reason.

He said he hoped it WASN'T a gimmick he didn't say it WAS a gimmick.

Hoped it WASN'T. Didn't say WAS.

Perhaps it would be better to refer to this as an 'own-goal' rather than the more emotive 'friendly fire' - or should that be 'Blue On Blue' ??

General Sir Richard Dannett is a highly respected figure who should rightly advise any givernment on the military and its requirements.

It would certainly have been a gimmick if he had been appointed by a Labour government which would have been highly unlikely after the number of spats he's had with Gordon Brown.

I understand Grayling's language regarding this point and his concern and expectancy that this could be yet another dirty trick by the present government to try to undermine their Party Conference. A slight misunderstanding of what the interviewer said is understandable.

Afghanistan is a touchy subject for any future government and the slow progress in the US on a new strategy leaves the whole of NATO in limbo.
This was not David Camerion's war as it was not Obama's but as ever Blair and Bush rushed into wars but were unable to win them.

"mmm a bit weak Andy, don't you think?

best to move on perhaps? - Sagamix"

I think it a proper analysis of what happened. It would, of course, be to much to ask for an analysis from you.

What I suggest you do is cut and paste one sentence from this message and then type a trite, meaningless comment afterwards.

I'll even do it for you

"Best not think about the unvieled plans of the Tories, eh, that would be scary"

Surely this is a non story, he said he liked the idea of ministers and generals working together and he hoped it wasnt just a gimmick. I fail to see how this is a story. A minister havin skeptism of his partys actions is surely a good thing if it means they come under closer scrutiny to make sure that it isnt a gimmick.

31. At 2:32pm on 07 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
gold ... "I never had U down as one these fools who embarass themselves by bandying around words like 'socialst', communist' 'nazi' and 'fascist' whilst clearly having no idea what these very specific political terms refer to"

how odd ... I did


-------

i'm still waiting for either an apology or at least an explanation as to why a prediction that gen dannatts apparant move to the tories would attract accusations that he previously undermined the govt for political gain amounts to 'socialist bile'

Perhaps its me who doesn't understand very basic political terms, perhaps 'socialist bile' really means 'stating the inevitable'.

Whatever next? Ashcroft, Laidlaw and co paying taxes? Will they be non doms? or tax exiles? or government? Ah. Tory Britain?

"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick".

Note the words..."I hope..."

"Chris Grayling: I admire the work of General Dannatt and other senior generals who've done so much in Afghanistan and done so much to lead."

Execellent.

"I hope that this isn't a political gimmick."

Fair enough

"We've seen too many appointments in this government of external people where it's all been about Gordon Brown's PR."

Very true!

"General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government."

Well said.

"But I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this."

Indeed, we all are and we all should be.

So, Nick...not much of a story really. Was it your assistant that wrote it?

Since the previous blog has been closed (before I even had a chance to see it), in response to

#22 on previous blog:The Army seems to want to expand the mission beyond whatever resources are given and then complain that it needs more resources to do the expanded mission.

The Army (and the other armed services) do exactly what the idiot politicians tell them to do.

Full marks to Gen. D and others for standing up for the lads.

Speaking as ex-TA, that is.

Ah ! Just imagine the 'Thick Of It' style panic to damp down this little local difficulty before it really starts to take hold in the press...

Well.Well. The Bullingdon Kid is going to find a place in one of the most undemocratic instititions in the western world for someone schooled in such a democratic organisation as the British Army.I suppose it takes a political novice to recognise one.

The problem with civvies running a war,
Is they ain't got a clue - it's such a bore,
But put an ex-General in a government post,
We end up with forces of which we can boast

Is this CRAP what I pay my licence fee for??????? - puerile rubbish.

This country has gone to worse than the dogs - we have corrupt Govt and if this is removed I will name the names - some booted out twice for just that - ex PM building up an £11 million portfolio of properties and u STILL get Liebour idiots talkng about toffs - check where MOST of thwe Cabinet went to school - clue - it was not State schools.

Mr Robinson - I expect REAL items to debate here, otherwise look for a new job now, because in 2010 u will certainly need one, as the Govt will have changed to TORY.

This is the man they want as 'Home Secretary', the 'toughest job in politics' ?

Well, I suppose he is at least 'expendable'..

'What Mr Grayling dismissed as a "gimmick"'

He didn't dismiss anything as a gimmick, as I'm sure you will know Nick.

I'm left wondering whether the ´óÏó´«Ã½ complaints commission covers blogs. The pro-Labour spin on this blog has become outrageous.

#39 Saga

C'mon you can do better than that, you know you can. I'll keep leaving you little trails, and then you can pick up on them. Eventually you'll be able to have a whole coherent thought all of your own, and who knows where that might lead? Enlightenment, perhaps?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, clearly has political aspirations we should have seen this coming. No real public servant makes the amount of noise he did without some kind of backdoor deal being done with the political opposition. Why is it good for an Army man to become a defence minister, I am guessing RAF and Navy will fair badly and the long-term strategic interests they pursue for the UK will falter as a result of this kind of appointment, all to allow Cameron to get a quick Sun headline and appear to have the nations military issues in his mind.

Why is military pay not to be frozen like the majority of public servants? More cynical Sun newspaper love-up. We all thought the Blair years saw an unhealthy obsession with Murdoch’s media empire, are we to perceive this as another step forward in the relentless march of a foreign media billionaire helping to shape UK policy.

#58 Bravesouter....

Admiral West, Baroness Scotland, Mandleson stones people glass throw houses rearrange if you have the intellect.

Nick -- haven't you got better things to write about than trying to upstage the Conservative Party conference. Always remember that things could actually change @ No 10 next year and life may not be quite so cozy for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ political arm.

Chris Grayling now involved in some frantic back-pedalling on screen.

"Really good news.."

Goldcaesar

exactly what is your point here? Is it party political? Is it socio-political? Is it simply a desire to be provocative without being consistent? Is it an attempt at humour?


-----------

My point is that you decribed an apolitical comment made by myself as 'socialist bile'. which i was inititially confused and then intrigued by.

The fact that you've chosen to completely ignore my question as to what made my comment 'socialist bile' and presumably myself a 'socialist' only serves to underline the impression that you freely use stock terms or phrases you've picked up as insults, whilst lacking the most basic comprehension of what they actually mean.

Chris Grayling with press minders 'like a kid whose kicked a football through neighbour's window being marched round with parents..'

Classic !!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Chris Grayling "I wish I could have given him a better welcome.."

Er, yeeess.. as Paxman might say. Can't wait to see him asked about his plans for 'Instant Punishment'.

#64 Sagamix

I earn 10000, pay tax on it and save 1000, after TAX. I pay more tax on the income I earn on my previously taxed income, and this goes on each year until I die, adding to my litle pot, and paying taxes as I go, however inequitable that may be. And then, when I die, I need to pay even more tax.

Now what part of that seems to you to be entirely fair? Huh?

64

Yes, absolutely.

The big difference, if you can be bothered to think it through.

VAT is paid because of an event chosen by the spender. You know before you buy something that you will pay a certain amount of VAT, if this is acceptable, you go ahead and buy it. You pay tax on what you choose to buy, if you would like to look at it that way. Inheritance tax is grave robbery.

Hell, I'm actually a big fan of VAT. You choose how to spend your money, and when you do, you pay your tax at that point. Much better than this taking my money before I ever see it malarky. Ramp VAT up to 50%, I wouldn't complain, that'd get to your philosophy of wealth redistribution quite nicely I'd say.

62#

It does, but your complaint gets dealt with in that same, smarmy Terry Woganesque Sunday afternoon "Points Of View" way. Yeah, your complaint will be answered, but nothing will change.

Try again #58

Talking about undemocratic how about

Admiral West, Baroness Scot, Mandelson

house stones glass should throw not people in re arrange!!!!!

67. At 3:03pm on 07 Oct 2009, Me-thinks wrote:

Nick -- haven't you got better things to write about than trying to upstage the Conservative Party conference. Always remember that things could actually change @ No 10 next year and life may not be quite so cozy for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ political arm.
------
Congratulations on getting that published. I have had two posts pointing out this non-story (57 in the previous blog @ 1:38 and 43 in this blog @ 2:39) blocked with no explanation from the mods.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#48:

It's true he didn't say it was a gimmick, but if you listen to the tone of the interview on the video clip I think it's pretty clear he was doing his best to imply that he thought it was a gimmick. The bit where he says "I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this" is what really gives it away.

#64 You are labouring (pun intended) under the supposition that the government should tax every single money transaction in the country.

Once you put that supposition aside then you have to decide whether wealth should 'cascade down the generations' or if the government should appropriate it.

A further, significant point, is that the IHT has to be paid BEFORE the estate can be liquidated - so the executors of the estate have to find the money first. (This is why many people deliberately set aside funds or arange life insurance into trusts - so that the exepcted IHT can be paid without such inconvenience).

65

Ah good, more smearing.

When in doubt... Discredit, mislead, do whatever you can malign someone who's views you don't agree with.

Where did you learn a trick like that?

65#

Well, at least you're appropriately named.

Senior Military pay comes under the same pay review board as senior civil servants. So, it will be covered. The rest of the military will also be covered by it, except the junior ranks. Those that are covered by it and are deployed to Afghan are to have their allowances reviewed to compensate.

Seems like its been thought out to me. Maybe you should read the small print rather than being full of bile.

Great news about the appointment , perhaps now we will get some honest answers from Brown et al .

#64 "hear this "taxed again" thing a lot as an argument for why IHT is particularly "disgusting""

Unusual for you saga to actually be putting an argument with substance. and the point about VAT being paid out of post tax income is a reasonable one but let's be honest VAT is, after all, a tax on luxuries and so theoretically optional. You can't, though, bandy figures about when they are set up by you to prove your point. The 'tax on tax' point on IHT is a valid one.

If (say) Mr Muggins was daft enough to already own a house worth £325,000 so that he's used up his nil-rate band and if he then (I dunno) invented some amazing life saving device for a private firm so pleased with him that they gave him a £1m bonus and he then got run down on the way home by a post-office van (to show how unlucky he was, given that they're usually on strike) then first HMRC would take £400,000 off him in income tax and then of the remaining £600,000, another £240,000 would go in IHT. His poor orphaned, disabled children (their mother having already died) would have just £360,000 left of the £1m. which may seem a lot, but there are four of them. Mr Muggins has suffered a tax rate of 64% (rising to 70% next year). The point being that realising that this might happen might lead Mr Muggins to move abroad, leaving us with whatever % we like of nothing at all.

35#

Plain and simple.

Jealousy. Someone else has got it, they havent.

End of.

Hey! the snob mob have come up with a behind the bike shed idea.

"Lets ask a generals view about afghan"

Cameron has dug out his old light brigade set, volley, thunder, shudder.

U @ 63

eventually you'll be able to have a whole coherent thought all of your own, and who knows where that might lead? Enlightenment, perhaps?

you, babe, are making quite a serious Transposition error

... it's "Float like a Butterfly and Sting like a Bee"

Well, it's fair to assume that a man in Mr Grayling's position is aware where General Dannatt's political sympathies lie. So if he thought General Dannatt was joining a Labour government, of course he would wonder if it was a political gimmick.

What's the problem?

"come on Andy, I was last seen on the "Gamble" thread making a compelling (and thoroughly reasoned) case for you to pay more tax!

hardly a banal contribution, I wouldn't have thought" - sagamix

Hmm, must have missed that. Lots of your posts say there ought to be higher taxes but I'd hardly say that amounts to 'making a case'.

If you're a barrister, shouting "he's guilty, he's guilty, he's guilty" over and over again would certainly amount to you saying that you thought someone was guilty but I wouldn't go so far as saying that was 'making a case'.

73#

Wasnt Gelert the dog who got killed by his master Prince Llewelyn, who thought he'd bitten his kid while his back was turned? Turned out the dog didnt do it and the chump had killed his dog for nothing?

Hmmmm. Seems an appropriate handle....

#64:

I'll go for your option 2 and the RM fallacy theory.

Not only that, but in my book it doesn't get much fairer than taxing dead people. They can hardly claim they need the money to live on, can they?

If I were looking a repairing the gaping hole in the public finances, whacking up inheritance tax to ridiculously high levels for large estates (say above £1M) would be somewhere near the top of my list. Funny we didn't hear that from the Tories. But I'm sure the vast personal fortune of Dave and Samantha's parents couldn't be at all connected to that, could it?

Referring to atrisse on post #12;

"Just, why are your blogs closed down after about half a day or when they reach approx 60 posts? Just that it isn't always possible to respond the moment your comments appear."

I wouldn't normally deliberately go completely off-topic like this; but that above matter is beginning to infuriate me, also. So, in the absence of being able to offer any sort of opinion without going through the insanely convoluted "complaints" page on the Beeb website, I'm raising this here, as atrisse is also.

In recent weeks blogs have been closed pretty quickly; but today, it seems the previous blog - "Cameron talks to Gen. Dannett" - was closed within two hours (as far as I can tell) of it's initial publication.

Guys; there is NO POINT whatsoever in doing this. If you're not going to leave these blogs open for at least a day, don't bother posting them in the first place. It's a waste of your time, and my licence fee.

As a licence-fee payer, I'd like to request that whichever incompetent idiot closed the last blog, be sacked. I normally stick up for the ´óÏó´«Ã½, against the various right-wing loonies who scream "bias" every time you publish something which doesn't fit their pre-conceptions - but quite frankly, anybody stupid enough to have taken that particular decision (to close the blog before most people had even noticed it was there) should not be drawing their wages from my licence fee.

On the same note - find out whichever of your illiterate mods on the HYS pages is incapable of understand the part of the rules which says "If a post doesn't break any of the rules, it will always be published" and get rid of him/her, too.

Thanks. Don't publish this if you don't want to. Just make sure you damn well listen to what you're being told.

24. At 2:26pm on 07 Oct 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
#3:

I think you're missing the point. Why should mishearing the question make any difference to the answer? Is it fair to suggest that it's a gimmick if it's done by Labour but obviously it's not a gimmick if it's done by the Tories? Either it's a good idea or it's not. The fact that Grayling pours scorn on it shows that either he things it's not a good idea or (far more likely) he is so deeply embedded in Punch & Judy politics that he automatically is against anything done by the other side, whether he agrees with it or not.

===

I think you are missing the point. Did you actually read Grayling's statement before spouting off? Which bit of "General Dannatt's an experienced figure and should rightly be working alongside government." do you not understand?

Goldcaesar,

it seems I can't answer you because my riposte gor rejecetd. I made a reeasonably argued case, but the mods didn't like it. I suppose its because I retracted the solcialist epithet, replacing it with the f word from opposite end of the political spectrum. Mosely, Hitler, Muss and Franco would have been rpoiud to be in your company. There's freedom of speech for you

--------

So being someone who likes to see words used in their correct context and with their correct meaning makes me a word fascist.

genius.

And in your world that apparently puts me in the same league as
'Mosely, Hitler, Mussoli and Franco'.

Seems like you probably need some lessons in basic political history as well as 'a political vocabularly' for beginners...

@ 74 and 75 - U and great haye

you've both put a considerable distance between yourselves and The Point

I'm illustrating to you why the number of taxes is less important than the TOTAL tax ... and hence why the "taxed again" argument is soft head RM Fallacy

pls refer my Q:

are you (1) or are you (2)

??

80

He is suspicious of the government's motives with jolly good reason.

You might notice that he is suspicious of this government's motives only. Presumably he is not suspicious of the motives of his own party. In fact, he even praises it as a good move when he thinks it is Labour doing the hiring! I mean for pity's sake, how much more even and fair can he have been?

typical tory mp in this day and age, they drop clangers faster than gordon changes direction.
voters can only hope the idiots are removed in the next election.

#80 DoM2
It's true he didn't say it was a gimmick, but if you listen to the tone of the interview on the video clip I think it's pretty clear he was doing his best to imply that he thought it was a gimmick. The bit where he says "I'm always suspicious of government's motives when it does things like this" is what really gives it away.
----------------------------------------------
The experience of Brown's 'Government of all the talents' shows that Grayling is right to be doubtful if the motives of this government. How many of Brown's initial independent appointments are still around? Answer, hardly any and most have not been replaced showing that it was essentially a PR exercise.

# 87. derekbarker wrote:

"Hey! the snob mob..."

I guess resorting to cheap insults on what is in many ways a discriminatory basis is to be expected from you.

Where rational argument fails you, go for the "politics of envy" approach.
Cheap and sleazy, but probably to be expected given the lack of substance in your previous rants.