Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Bit rich asking other people if they watched the show

I didn't

 

when you clearly didn't

I did

 

Otherwise you'd have known that dimblebee constantly told him to stop interrupting ( which you didn't )

I did, and I think I mentioned that in a previous post.

[tonyh29]

Bit rich asking other people if they watched the show

I didn't

when you clearly didn't

I did

Otherwise you'd have known that dimblebee constantly told him to stop interrupting ( which you didn't )

I did, and I think I mentioned that in a previous post.

To answer points a and C

A) you did

C) you claimed that he was interrupted by the lib dem bint and the macho posturing of the Tory boys .. You didn't acknowledge that he interrupted throughout the show in fact you quite clearly stated that he didn't ... It's below to refresh your memory

For those who can't bear to sit though the tedium that is Question TIme, the Guardian have helpfully provided a clip of the best minute or so - Mehdi Hasan summarising what is wrong with the Mail. Here.

Well tbf he probably could have had longer and finished the job properly had he not constantly interrupted every other speaker and killed the show

Like I said he was pandering to the audience so much last night the WWF want to adopt him as their new logo

No, he didn't interrupt every other speaker. The Libdem woman interrupted him, and he gave way, though her point was trivial and a diversion.

The two male tories tried the "I'm the Alpha male" lark, and he wasn't having it. I guess that's what you mean.

And Hasan made the show. Unmediated, vibrant opinions, delivered with commitment. Compare and contrast Cooper's very professional, but studied and insincere, performance.

Which brings me back to point B and based on your own comments

You didn't

[colhint]

One thing is quite clear though he is obviously a liar or an idiot. I doubt if anyone can change their opinion so much on the Mail without being one of those 2 things

[tonyh29]

One thing is quite clear though he is obviously a liar or an idiot. I doubt if anyone can change their opinion so much on the Mail without being one of those 2 things

Well it's quite clear he is also a hypocrite

[peterms]

Tony, your quoting is just impossible to follow, so I've given up.

 

1.  I did not ask if he watched the show.  My post offers two possibilities, one of which is forming a snap judgement based on an extract.  Read it again, or ask someone to read it to you.

 

2.  Yes, I did.  All the discussion, anyway.  I confess I skipped through the theme tune and the credits at the end, but unless they buried subliminal propaganda there, I don't suppose that counts as missing content, eh?

 

3.  He didn't interrupt every other speaker, as I said.  He didn't interrupt all through the show.  Dimbleby did tell him to stop interrupting.  Do you understand that these three things are not mutually exclusive?

[snowychap]

Hoorah for Newsnight!

 

Apologies if this wasn't the thread in which we discussed energy prices but whichever it is, thanks to newsnight for actually starting their piece with a comment about price regulation being withdrawn in 2002/3.

 

Shame that the Tory afterwards has just ploughed a partisan line blaming the previous government for 'the creation of the big six'. Really? Surely it was a demonstration of what happens when you 'free up a market' and allow companies free reign (bigger companies swallowed up smaller ones - very quickly, too).

[drat01]

Just saw that snowy. The tory bloke basically killed himself from the first word out of his mouth.

[peterms]

One thing is quite clear though he is obviously a liar or an idiot. I doubt if anyone can change their opinion so much on the Mail without being one of those 2 things

 

Is that a response to my post?  Because it doesn't address the point I made.  In fact, it seems to reinforce it.

 

Do you not think it possible for someone to work for a company with whom they have disagreements about policy, without being a liar or an idiot?  Pretty much the entire working population would fall into your definition, I suspect.  That seems a little harsh.

 

Or do you think it's different for journos?  They should have higher standards?  Since they regularly come out as one of the least trusted professions, that looks unrealistic.

 

Or is it him personally?  Which gets back to the question, do you actually know anything about his views beyond what you gleaned from this programme?  And if you don't, on what basis do you so confidently condemn him? 

 

Having read a few things he's written, my view is he's a pretty conservative bloke, and I don't see a great conflict between what he's written to the Mail and what he's written elsewhere.

 

The Mail's trick in quoting it is to elide "criticises something Mail stands for", with "must be a raving lefty", with "applied to us for a job, must be hypocrite". 

 

I can see why the Mail would do this, from a spiteful, selling papers, have-a-go-at-anyone-who-we-disagree-with-on-anything basis, but why would anyone else see any merit in this knee-jerk non-argument?

[StefanAVFC]

 

Gove owned everyone on question time the other week. He made will self look the fool he is. Gove is an excellent speaker despite being a tosser

 

Gove makes himself look a fool.

 

This is a classic, and will be quoted for many years to come.

 

 

Q97 Chair: Secretary of State, we are moving to a novel, new section: quick fire questions and answers, inspired by the Twitter feed #askgove-5,000-plus wanting to interact with you. So we are going to go round each of us in fairly strict timing. If you could give us quick answers, that would be great.

 

Michael Gove: I will try my best.

 

Q98 Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

 

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

 

Q99 Chair: So it is possible, is it?

 

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

 

Q100 Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?

 

 

He is such a moron 

[peterms]

 

 

Gove owned everyone on question time the other week. He made will self look the fool he is. Gove is an excellent speaker despite being a tosser

 

Gove makes himself look a fool.

 

This is a classic, and will be quoted for many years to come.

 

 

Q97 Chair: Secretary of State, we are moving to a novel, new section: quick fire questions and answers, inspired by the Twitter feed #askgove-5,000-plus wanting to interact with you. So we are going to go round each of us in fairly strict timing. If you could give us quick answers, that would be great.

 

Michael Gove: I will try my best.

 

Q98 Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

 

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

 

Q99 Chair: So it is possible, is it?

 

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

 

Q100 Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?

 

 

He is such a moron 

 

 

What's odd is that he is extremely articulate, and also good at fashioning an argument.  In fact, if you wanted a good night arguing with a political opponent for an evening over a few beers, he's be a far better bet than those utter fuckwits Cameron and Osborne.

 

But as things like this show, and free schools, he has great gaping deserts of intellectual blindness, at the same time.

[Risso]

Peter, your argument about people thinking that he's a leftie and calling him a hypocrite because of it is deliberately missing the point spectacularly.  He wrote a letter saying how much he admires The Daily Mail's policies, then takes potshots at those policies in return for a few cheap rounds of applause on QT.

[peterms]

Peter, your argument about people thinking that he's a leftie and calling him a hypocrite because of it is deliberately missing the point spectacularly.  He wrote a letter saying how much he admires The Daily Mail's policies, then takes potshots at those policies in return for a few cheap rounds of applause on QT.

 

No, he doesn't take potshots at those policies.

 

Have you read what he's written?  Anywhere at all, other than viewing this programme?

 

Did you hear what he said?

 

Your post seems like it's intended to support my suggestion that any criticism of the Mail =lefty=a set of predetermined beliefs that we don't need to hear because we know what we think already.

[Risso]

You really couldn't be more wrong, and you should absolutely stop putting words in people's mouths, as you've been doing it all night.

 

Firstly, I don't know anybody, of any political persuasion, who agrees with what the Daily Mail wrote about Milliband's father.  It was indefensible on any level.  If he'd merely attacked that article, he'd have been on completely sure ground.  However, he went further and attacked their central policies.  You don't need to have read ANYTHING ELSE that he's ever written to accuse him of hypocrisy on that issue, and it matters not a jot what his political leanings are.  To write to an organisation laying it on with a trowel about how much he admires their writing, then to attack them for that writing makes him either a liar, a hypocrite or a jilted lover.

[snowychap]

I like the blonde lady.

[peterms]

You really couldn't be more wrong,

Mmmm. Let's see.

 

and you should absolutely stop putting words in people's mouths, as you've been doing it all night.

Well, no, I haven't. I've offered interpretations of comments posted, and asked people to come back if they think I've misinterpreted. I see that you haven't corrected a misinterpretation, but have criticised "putting words in people's mouths", without saying what you mean. That's[pretty unhelpful, in my view.

 

Firstly, I don't know anybody, of any political persuasion, who agrees with what the Daily Mail wrote about Milliband's father.  It was indefensible on any level.  If he'd merely attacked that article, he'd have been on completely sure ground.  However, he went further and attacked their central policies.

Why is that a problem? It's their central policies, their world view, that inclines them towards this stuff. Had they employed Hasan, I doubt they could have got him to write this shite.  Why should he not criticise it?

 

You don't need to have read ANYTHING ELSE that he's ever written to accuse him of hypocrisy on that issue, and it matters not a jot what his political leanings are.  To write to an organisation laying it on with a trowel about how much he admires their writing, then to attack them for that writing makes him either a liar, a hypocrite or a jilted lover.

Read it.

What does he praise?

What of that is in keeping with his own views, and what contradicts it?

Your comment hovers in generality, and hopes to make its point there. It won't wash. Get specific, or get out.

[colhint]

Well doesn't he admire their news Values. whatever that means. I took it that he understood what sort of stuff the mail wrote and admired it.

and doesn't he admire their outspoken defense of our faith and Christian culture, yet he then calls them immigrant bashing.

Doesn't he admire their values on the family abortion and teenage pregnancies and yet call them women hating. . 

 

To me it does seem he either believed what he wrote on his application or what he said on question time. At one of those instances he was a liar.

[Risso]

It really is an extremely simple concept that it seems you're struggling to grasp.  The same person praised the Daily Mail's values on once occasion, then attacked those same perceived values on another.  Even though I'm quite aware of his views which are on the whole what you'd expect from somebody who is fairly religiously conservative, it is entirely appropriate to consider him to be a hypocrite based on a) that letter to the Mail in which he praises the Mail's 'boldness and values', and his performance on QT in which he takes quite the opposite view.  It's quite possible to consider one or two important items from a person's work in isolation, and to draw judgements from those items.

[drat01]

Interesting the (typical) deflection by the right wing supporters here. The issue still pretty much remains of what was a pretty disgusting approach by the tory supporting daily mail, along with the bigger issue of how this continues but despite an independent report prompting for more controls, this gvmt does nothing about. Typically though the right wing seem more interested in trying to character assasinate anyone who questions the approach and condemn the message rather than debate the serious issues.

[TrentVilla]

Well I'm not right wing, I'm certainly not a Tory voter but I agree entirely with Mr Risso.

[tonyh29]

I call deflection Trent