[Closed] did anyone else see zac goldsmith vs johgn snow on channel four news?

Lordy....anyone sit through the whole 10 mins of that?

I managed 32 seconds - could you summarise kimbers?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/17/zac-goldsmith-versus-jon-snow

basically dispatches was looking at electoral funding zac goldsmith came out on top with the most fiddled numbers

and refused to answer questions over and over about his spending

the bit im referring to is zac saying "if ofcom prves me right you better watch out"

what a ****, he only gave up his non dom status in november so he could run in teh election obviously doesnt care enough about the country to pay taxes but good enough to be an mp i guess

I was ambivalent on the subject of Zac Goldsmith. Now I am entirely hostile to him. I'm sure he'll cope, but there we are. 🙂

To summarise: I've got absolutely bucket-loads of cash. None of which I've earned, and none of which I've ever paid any tax on.

I intend to spend said fortune on getting myself elected to a position of power where I can issue edicts to the common peasantry. Probably while eating a swan or something

And, lest we forget, This is the chinless **** who in a previous incarnation had the audacity to title himself an 'environmental campaigner'. All while jetting off round the world in private planes and being ferried from the airport to final destination by helicopter

I was (un)lucky enough to watch this when it was on, Jon Snow was well within his rights to say "shut the f up you c" and move on to the next story.

How did Goldsmith earn all that money as he seems like a clueless idiot to me?

How did Goldsmith earn all that money as he seems like a clueless idiot to me?

Earn?

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/175000/images/_179200_goldsmith150.jp g" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/175000/images/_179200_goldsmith150.jp g"/> [/img][/url](click)

Is the ridiculous carry-on about demanding an apology for supposedly mis-representing his willingness to come on the programme a deliberate (if counterproductive) device to neutralise the interview, or a disastrous failure to appreciate that we aren't interested in that, we're interested in a straight answer to the difficult question? He's such a pompous jackass that it's really hard to work it out.

Cameron's leadership allies the dynamism of youth and the moral certainty of great wealth. Goldsmith perfectly exemplifies the new face of modern Conservatism. 🙂

It is a marvellous piece of telly. I mean it took Alistair Campbell a war, several enquiries, a shooting and a change in leadership to get that wound up, and Zac Goldsmith gets that animated over was essentially an administrative error. It's priceless. That is 10 minutes of a man shouting his way out of a position in the cabinet. What a tosser.

I've just been looking at the comments on various blogs about this. Some of the Tory ones are truly comical complaining that John Snow was 'overly aggressive'. That's a bit like saying Alan Bennett is quite intimidating 🙂

Zac - what a gimp.

Lets hope he follows in the footsteps of such Tory Grandees as Aitken & Archer...

'overly aggressive'

I think Snow sticks to his guns well in the face of Goldsmith's reeking sense of entitlement and importance. The result is not pretty television, but the day when these guys simply shut up and listen to Zac telling everyone that they don't understand and that what he has to say is the only thing worth hearing we're doomed. 🙂

IanMunro - Member
I've just been looking at the comments on various blogs about this. Some of the Tory ones are truly comical complaining that John Snow was 'overly aggressive'

Had John Snow "hurt his feelings"?

Very amusing! Up there with Michael Howard getting that interview-colonic from Paxo.

Snow must be rubbing his hands at the thought of this Administration 😆

nickc - Member

That is 10 minutes of a man shouting his way out of a position in the cabinet.

Yup, I can't see Cameron giving his old Etonian mate any sort of job which requires dealing with the media now.

And I wonder how the LibDem half of the coalition now view Goldsmith - he probably wasn't very popular with them before this happened, as the dodgy expenses claims questions were in connection to the election when he ousted the sitting LibDem MP Susan Kramer. Kramer is fairly well regarded within the LibDem party (I quite like her too) And unlike Goldsmith, she certainly has plenty of media savvy.

It seems also that Goldsmith has something of a persecution complex - apparently it's not just Channel 4 who's out to get him, quote :

[i][b]It led to him calling Kramer an "attack dog" who told "the most appalling lies" about him. He accused the Lib Dems of trying to "kneecap" him. His posters were torn down, he claimed, and Lib Dem activists had tried to infiltrate his campaign team.[/b][/i]

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/zac-goldsmith-takes-richmond-park-from-susan-kramer ]Zac Goldsmith wrenches Richmond Park from Susan Kramer[/url]

So everyone's telling "lies" about the Celebrity Tory Boy then.

Reminds me of a slightly more polished Geoffrey Archer:

"Just you wait 'til I'm Mayor, then they'll catch it!" 😆

What's one more spoilt prick amongst so many ?

I like Zac Goldsmith. I persuaded my girlfriend to vote for him, as I couldn't and only had some wide-jawed Lib Dem shoe-in in my constituency.

Bunch of libdem stay at home mums round me. All of them fat.

I can't believe we live in a society where these people get elected. Elected! By the people!

To be fair I find the three main C4 news guys pretty aggressive with their interview tactics, often rude and always "superior".

Was quite a giggle seeing Snow get some of his own medicine for a while. Pity he didn't have the nerve to just say the interview was terminated, it did start turning into car-crash TV after the first couple of minutes.

that was a rubbish troll pk!

is he a member of your try club?

[b]mansonsoul[/b] writes:

I can't believe we live in a society where these people get elected. Elected! By the people!

'nuff said.

Actually, it all seems a bit of a non-issue. A few grand here and there for posters, stickers and jackets?

It's hardly Watergate is it?

yes abusing the spending rules whilst getting elected as a MP and over spending - from your own inherited wealth- and lying about it ...cant think why anyone would be upset about a fraudelent lyng MP total non issue.

well the electoral commission are going to review his funding
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/21/electoral-commission-zac-goldsmith-spending

but id happily bet his trust fund that he gets away scot-free, or possibly with a fine, which would be even more of an insult to mr moneybags

also his sister jemimah kahn apparently was attacking john snow on twitter but since deleted her tweets

I don't think Jon Snow will worry about a lightweight like Jemima Khan slagging him off.

It's not Watergate, but it isn't a non-issue either. A few grand is quite a lot of money for plenty of campaigns. 🙂

Feed him to Paxman.

To be fair I find the three main C4 news guys pretty aggressive with their interview tactics, often rude and always "superior".

And thank **** for that.........I can't think of anything worst than a timid interviewer giving a politician a soft easy ride.

Democracy benefits hugely by aggressively holding politicians to account, reminding them if necessary, that it is their responsibility to represent the best interests of their electorate - not their own best interests.

In the days when I used to watch The Frost Programme, I always found the sight of a grovelling and sycophantic David Frost interviewing very senior politicians particularly nauseating - he might as well have rolled onto his back and let them tickle his tummy. It rendered the interviews utterly pointless and useless.

Politicians need to be held to account.
.

Actually, it all seems a bit of a non-issue. A few grand here and there for posters, stickers and jackets?

And yet it is quite staggering the fuss which Zac Goldsmith has created concerning the whole affair.

It's almost, as if he considers it to be extremely serious allegations.

It was an unedifying spectacle all round.

I like Snow and think that journalists should be combative or robust in there questioning when faced with BS and obfuscation. Agree with e-lynch, a simpering toady is no use to anyone but Snow didn't cover himself in glory either IMO.

I like Zac Goldsmith.

I'm sure that's somewhere in my 'phrases I never thought I'd hear' list

leggyblonde - Member
that was a rubbish troll pk!

is he a member of your try club?

Sadly not Phil, it's a genuine. I think he's a good guy myself and am actually happy that there's a bit of genuine political stuff and personality going on again rather than simpering lefty-shite and career politicians that we've been spoonfed for years.

Anything that stimulates active debate and engages the public into politics again is a good thing by me.

That was a "debate"? Whining ****t going on about REALLY UNINTERESTING details about his childish gripe with channel 4 and refusing to discuss the actual issue? Like I said, Jeffrey "Brickbrain" Archer with a coat of gloss, finishing with that laughable little "threat" at the end. Pathetic pillock.

I live in his constituency and we are supposedly the best educated electorate in the country, although this may based on figures before I moved in.

I think he had every right to question Channel 4 assertion that he refused to comment if this was not true – journalists are not renowned for their ethics either - and he did this effectively for a bit but it dragged on too long. I don’t think either party came out particularly well.

My guess is that he will get a clean bill of health from the electoral commission because campaign expenses were a big issue in the campaign (and his wealth) and he is unlikely to have risked making a mistake, but no doubt we will hear in due course. His answers to the allegations are on his website.

He won because he fought a long term and active campaign on local issues such as parking charges in Richmond Park, the 3rd runway, a new Sainsbury next to a local shopping street and the selling off of local sports field. No doubt his wealth allowed him to do this, but I don’t see why a person’s good (or perhaps that should be big) fortune should be held against them. He came across as a principled and independent candidate who fought a positive campaign and that’s why he won.

Shame he couldn't keep up the pretence on Channel 4, then...

think he's a good guy myself and am actually happy that there's a bit of genuine political stuff and personality going on again rather than simpering lefty-shite and career politicians that we've been spoonfed for years.

No doubt his wealth allowed him to do this, but I don’t see why a person’s good (or perhaps that should be big) fortune should be held against them

Anything that stimulates active debate and engages the public into politics again is a good thing by me.

I agree, but I can't help thinking Zac is the sort of thing that precipitated the French Revolution. 🙂

It is perfecting possible to run such a campaign without wealth, shaun bailey did across the river in hammersmith and he comes from a diametrically opposite background - although he wasn't successful - but no doubt wealth makes it easier.

I don't care what someone's background is, I think the most able should represent us whether rich or poor. Reverse snobbery is no better than snobbery.

BTW non doms do pay UK tax, they just don't pay tax on their foreign income.

He won because he fought a long term and active campaign on local issues such as ..........

Maybe he [i]won[/i] because he spent more on his campaign than his rivals - and therefore had an unfair advantage ?

Everyone agrees that money helps to win an election ......that is precisely why there is a legal cap on election expenses - to stop those with large amounts of money having an unfair advantage over other candidates.
And it's no bad thing either.

.

He came across as a principled and independent candidate .......

So why did he stand as the official Conservative Party candidate then ? You can't be a Conservative candidate [i]and[/i] an independent candidate at the same time.

In fact Conservative Party support for Goldsmith is so strong, that he was placed on the party's "A-List" of prospective parliamentary candidates by David Cameron.

It is clear that not only is Goldsmith not an independent, he cannot even be described as a maverick Tory ..........he undeniably enjoys backing from the highest echelons of his party.

He got very different treatment on [url=

News[/url].

Well we got as much stuff through the door from the lib Dems as the Tories so I think the Lib Dems poured money in as well. The difference was we did not get a single visit from any party other than the Tories, they came to the door three times during the election. That is not money that is a better managed party volunteers. Likewise I did not see Kramer once during the campaign - bear in mind she lives in the next street, yet Goldsmith I did see. Again, that is not money.

Yes, he was an A lister - he did do alot of their enviromental work, so what, but he was local and he was passionate about local issues. Just because he is supported by the hierarchy doesn't mean he needs them now. If party policy changes on the third runway, I believe he will stick to his guns - that is what I meant by independent.

I like independent politicians, I used in live in Ken Livingstone's constituency, whilst I rarely agree with him, I thought he was good at holding the government to account. As a result, I never voted against him

BTW non doms do pay UK tax, they just don't pay tax on their foreign income

Well we got as much stuff through the door from the lib Dems as the Tories so I think the Lib Dems poured money in as well. The difference was we did not get a single visit from any party other than the Tories, they came to the door three times during the election. That is not money that is a better managed party volunteers. Likewise I did not see Kramer once during the campaign - bear in mind she lives in the next street, yet Goldsmith I did see. Again, that is not money.

It is not about whether you saw "Kramer once during the campaign".

Nor is about whether "the Lib Dems poured money in as well".

The allegations have nothing at all to do with how the LibDems (or any other candidate in the Richmond Park constituency) managed their election campaign.

The allegations concern whether Goldsmith exceeded the permitted legal limit on election expenses.
And whether he tried to hide the fact that he had by massaging the figures.

Those are the allegations.

But this thread is not about the allegations.

It is about whether Goldsmith's hysterical extended ranting on a live TV interview was appropriate behaviour.
I think not.

And I find it all the more bizarre because he claims that it is a lot of fuss over nothing.

So mefty, forget about whether Kramer knocked on your door during the election campaign. Or what any of the other candidates did or didn't do, and stick to the topic - instead of using diversionary tactics.

CaptJon - Member

He got very different treatment on Sky News.

British Politics embroiled in smear campaign in the media shocker! So, no change there, then.

What makes me laugh is the way Goldsmith is whining on about it like a junior-school thief caught with his hand in the cookie jar - "I didn't do it I wasn't there you can't prove anything it's SO UNFAIR!!"

Somebody once said of politics - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". And so it remains. 😆

He ran a well managed campaign, my post illustrates this, I therefore doubt he will be found to have broken the rules, but no doubt we will learn whether he did or not in due course.

As for the original post I don't think he comes across any worse than Snow and I would dispute he was hysterical. If he feels hard done by by their reporting he has a right to raise it, I don't see a problem with that.

If all posts have to stick rigidly to the original topic, you might as well stop posting now as very few do.

Like I said whats one more spolit prick amongst so many? 😉

If you want to get to the bottom of this issue the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics is trying to raise money for an investigation into suspect spending at the last election - make a donation.

[url= http://eepurl.com/KiLX ]linky.[/url]

He ran a well managed campaign

Unless you were involved in his election campaign I can't really see how you can say that .......so were you involved in his election campaign mefty ?

Of course Goldsmith was perfectly entitled to raise the matter with Channel 4 News if he felt "hard done by" as you claim. But he could have made his point in a calm and measured way and left it at that - like any other normal person would have done.

There was absolutely no need for go into an endless rant for the majority of the interview and resorting to name calling and threats. He almost behaved like a spoilt brat who is used to getting his own way by throwing tantrums.

If Goldsmith can't handle the roughty toughty world of politics because he is too precious and fragile, then I would suggest that he has perhaps made the wrong career choice. As Woppit says, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

And Goldsmith's allegation that Channel 4 News has a personal vendetta against him is quite frankly absurd, as I'm sure also is, his claim that the LibDems tried to infiltrate his campaign team.

Channel 4 News is a news and current affairs programme - it has no political agenda. It exists solely to provide news - not to fight on behalf of the LibDems in Richmond Park. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is clearly living in a crazy right-wing conspiratorial world.

Channel 4 News and Bureau of Investigative Journalism were imo, perfectly correct in questioning Goldmith's election expenses. And although I have personally never been involved on the expenses/legal side of an election campaign, I find it impossible to believe that the alleged costs of printing leaflets can simply be slashed on the grounds that not all of the leaflets were distributed - something which of course cannot be verified. And btw mefty, it suggests an appallingly [i][b]mismanaged[/i][/b] election campaigh.

I also find it quite astonishing that he believes 200 'election jackets' (in itself a bizarre Americanisation which I have never heard of before in British politics) need not be included in his election expenses.

The legal limit on election expenses in a vital characteristic of the British democratic process. It ensures that elections are fought on a level playing field. It also gives [i][b]independent candidates[/b][/i] half a chance against those who have the economic might of a political party behind them - which I'm sure you'll agree is no bad thing mefty.

When one candidate decides to take upon him or herself to ignore the rules, whilst the other candidates conform, there is no longer a level playing field. And in a marginal constituency such as Richmond Park the consequences can be particularly profound.

it has no political agenda.

Come now Ernie, there's a limit to the amount of bollocks you [s]can talk![/s] should talk!

Channel 4 news, where the end of a US presidency was announced, by Snow as follows:

"The nightmare is over."

As I said cranberry .............[i]only in a crazy right-wing conspiratorial world[/i]

And only in a crazy right-wing conspiratorial world do people take what is said out of context and twist and manipulate to hide the truth.

In fact only today, a news story broke to give a perfect example of exactly that :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/white-house-shirley-sherrod

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10732839

But cranberry, you just carry on believing that Channel 4 News is a clandestine arm of the Liberal Democrat & Labour parties, out to destroy the integrity of honest decent Tory politicians ........I'm sure it satisfies a need, as you wallow in your fantasy world 🙂

Ernie, what a long post and isn't it slightly off the original topic.

1.From my experience as a resident I think I can form a view of his campaign as I was subject to it - can you say the same? It came across as well managed, likewise my dealings with tesco suggest to me that is a well managed company.

2.News organisations like controversial stories, the way they, in Goldsmith's view misleadingly, reported it made it appear as he was avoiding it which makes it a better story and therefore would suit them. No need for a political agenda.

3. The rest involves you suggesting things that I disagree with which I never did so won't bother with them.

I can form a view of his campaign as I was subject to it ........ It came across as well managed

He bought and paid for 62,000 leaflets which he claims were never delivered. That sounds like very poor management to me.

Although on the plus side ....... had he managed to get them delivered, he would have been well above his legal limit. Which would have been a criminal offence and have resulted in him being barred from standing for election for up to 5 years.

Which begs the question ..... why did he ever make an order for the 62,000 leaflets which if delivered, would have been a criminal offence and have resulted in him being barred from standing for election for up to 5 years in the first place ?

It sounds like very poor management to me.

But I can fully understand that you might well have been highly impressed by Goldsmith's election campaign mefty ..........specially if it turns out that he spent far more than any of his rivals.

The current rules governing election expenses where introduced by a Tory government btw.
So I'm sure they weren't designed to disadvantage Tory candidates in any way.

I imagine you produce different leaflets for different scenarios and only use the ones that suit your purposes most effectively as the campaign develops - I think that is known as contingency planning.

different leaflets for different scenarios and only use the ones that suit your purposes most effectively as the campaign develops

Different scenarios as the [i]campaign develops[/i] ? .......over a [i]3 week[/i] period ? LOL ! 😀

BTW, it's just as well Goldsmith isn't too concerned with environmental issues - otherwise he would have undoubtedly been mortified at the thought of all the trees which had to be pulped to produce the 62,000 completely unused leaflets.

And it's also just as well the Tory Party isn't too concerned about being thrifty - otherwise they would undoubtedly be mortified at thought of a Tory MP spunking thousands of pounds on completely unused leaflets..... and at the thought of a Tory MP over ordering so much that nearly a quarter of the order is never used.

Still, we all know that Goldsmith is almost certainly lying, and [i]of course[/i] all the leaflets were delivered - which resulted in him overspending and having an unfair advantage over his rivals.

We also know that this criminal act which breaks election law is impossible to prove. Time the law was changed - it clearly has loopholes which Goldsmith can't possibly have been the only one to break. Although the [i]sheer scale[/i] of Goldsmith's pisstake is impressive.

Did I imagine that the Tories junked one of their party political broadcasts and replaced it with one made during the campaign? Of course things change during the campaign that you need to react to.

You just carry on throwing allegations around, I am happy to wait for the Electoral Commission to make their decision.

Of course things change during the campaign that you need to react to

During the typical 3 week period of an election campaign the issues do not change - political parties do not change their manifestos during that period.

I have never known an election where the issues changed during the course of the campaign. What sometimes happens is that circumstances develop, for example, a rival candidate might make a comment which requires a response. In such cases it might be necessary to get the printers to rush through a new leaflet for distribution - I have known that to happen.

But it is quite impossible for a candidate can have an infinite range of leaflets, to deal with an infinite range of hypothetical scenarios. And completely unnecessary too - a well organised campaign will have no problems whatsoever in getting new leaflets printed quickly.

This however, is all beside the point, because Goldsmith has never claimed that the 62,000 leaflets were in any way different to the others - merely that they were not "distributed".

But anyway, even if it was, as you say - some form if "insurance", then it obviously would have been part of his election strategy - a strategy which incurred a cost (he didn't get those leaflets for free) so therefore also part of the election campaign costs.

And the leaflets are not the only issue which is cause for concern, amongst other suspicious issues is the even more unbelievable election poster issue. Goldsmith lobbed off a quarter of the cost of his election posters on the grounds that some of the posters were to be used in local elections - despite the fact they had his name and photo, and that Goldsmith is not standing in the local elections........I reckon the geezer is taking the piss.

.

Finally mefty, you seem very keen to hear what decision the Electoral Commission comes to, whilst at the same time vigorously objecting to anyone discussing Goldsmith's campaign costs - apparently preferring that everyone remains silent on the issue.

Which suggests you have completely failed to appreciate that the reason the matter has been referred to the Electoral Commission is [b][i][u]precisely[/u][/i][/b] because the matter has been publicly discussed.

And just for the record ..... I would be more than happy if Goldsmith was exonerated, that it was shown it was all just a big misunderstanding, that everything had in fact been done above board. That the Richmond Park constituency election had been fought in a fair and honest manner by all those concerned.

I derive no pleasure at all from hearing about corruption and dodgy stuff in British elections - whatever party or individuals might be responsible. I suspect however, that Goldsmith is just a little shit 🙂

We over-ordered literature so as not to be left short, and to allow ourselves the flexibility to back off with one leaflet and focus on another.

That's from his website so I think he is saying he had different leaflets.

As always the remainder is you suggesting I said things I never did. I think it would be pretty futile for me to try stopping other people to stop repeating the allegations on the internet. Indeed, by continuing to post here, am I not encouraging the discourse to continue? This either means that I am stupid, which is no doubt a distinct possibility, or your analysis leaves something to be desired. I have only said I am happy to await for the conclusion of the Electoral Commission. This is because they will have access to all the facts and understand electoral law, which I don't think anyone, including myself, on this forum do. If someone appears to educate us all well and good, otherwise there is nothing new to learn from the discussion and therefore it is pretty pointless.

And bearing in mind your previously expressed views about the Tories, I think I will take your final couple of paragraphs with a pinch of salt.

bearing in mind your previously expressed views about the Tories, I think I will take your final couple of paragraphs with a pinch of salt.

😕 What previously expressed views about the Tories ?........that I prefer dodgy corrupt Tories to ones with a bit of honesty and integrity ?

Well if I previously expressed that view, then I would like to retract it immediately.

I can't for the life of me think why I might want Tory politicians (or any other politicians for that matter) to be dodgy and corrupt.

And I can't for the life of me think why I might have said such a thing.........maybe I was [i]"tired and emotional"[/i] ? 💡

I seem to remember something about never being able to trust a Tory, but the accusation would I admit be much stronger with the quote. Unfortunately, my inability to use the search function, which is a criticism of my abilities rather the search function, your extensive posting history and my limited patience conspired against me finding it.

I'll try and find it for you mefty .........I'm a bit handy with the search function.

Nah, after doing a targeted search of all my posts for the words "trust" and "Tories", the best I could come up with was : [i]"you just can't trust a privately educated toff"[/i]

As in :

ernie_lynch - Member

Ah right, many Tory supporters did though - that's how he managed to get two landslide victories.

Of course many Labour supporters voted for him simply because they felt that they had no choice - that's how and why New Labour were so good at winning elections.

But of course anokdale is absolutely right - Tony Blair just looked after his own arse, and sod socialist principles.

Which all goes to show.................[b]that you just can't trust a privately educated toff[/b].

Thanks for bringing that up Captain

Posted 3 months ago #

Maybe it was someone else ? ..........someone who looks/sounds like me ?

loving Gus's rants 🙂

Goldsmith was a right tw*t on CH4, had the fortune to watch it live and couldn't believe what I was watching.

That is not it, my memory of the precise words seems to be wrong, but I am sure I have got the expressed sentiment correct. I wouldn't confuse you with anyone - other than that Zulu bloke.