Forum menu
CaptJon - MemberHe 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 - MemberAh 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.