Reevesey's recommended reading

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Daily Telegraph expose MP Michael Moore, for being, erm, well, honest

I will not sit back and see the Daily Telegraph attack our MPs for being honest and having integrity when the newspaper has stooped to yet another new low, taping them in constituency surgeries when pretending to be constituents, depriving real constituents having time with their local MP.

The media are desperate for the coalition to collapse, to find splits in the coalition and probably hoping that it will fail.

The British media are strange, they left Labour alone for many things during their tenure - the illegal war in Iraq, the measly 75p rise for pensioners, the introduction of tuition fees for students and their reckless spending plans leaving us paying £120 million per day in interest payments alone.

Yet, the coalition Government is something the majority of them (Scottish journalists are used to coalition politics) don't really understand so they just launch attack after attack after attack.

Michael Moore has not said anything damaging to himself, the Party or the coalition Government, although I am sure Nick Clegg and David Cameron may disagree.  To be fair Michael Moore said nothing in his piece on tuition fees that we haven't already heard from Nick Clegg, so actually they are both on the same page on this issue.

On child benefit Michael Moore hasn't said anything controversial and was being honest with someone he thought was a constituent.

Surely the Daily Telegraph needs lambasting for depriving real constituents of time with their local MP by trying to catch MPs out in a childish and unprofessional sting?

Of course they do but no other media outlet will have the balls to do that.

I will stand and defend Michael Moore MP when attacked because I have worked with him and know him and he would do nothing other than fight for the people of the Scottish Borders and his constituency and now the people of Scotland in his new role.


Anonymous said...

Your right Andrew. Michael has really done nothing wrong unlike Vince Cable who gave private Ministerial privileged information to total strangers in a local surgery. Vince Cable should go, this was poor judgement.

Munguin said...

Honesty is a laudable trait for which I can hardly condemn. But selective honesty is as bad if not worse than outright dishonesty. How convenient for Michael that he feels the moral obligation to only be honest with people he thinks are supporters who are possibly going to vote for him in the security of what he, hitherto, thought was a private conversation. As Secretary of State for Scotland it is a shame that he does not feel the moral obligation to be honest with all of the people of Scotland in letting us all know he does not support the Government of which he is Scotland’s most senior member.

I don’t understand you assertion in the same paragraph that Nick Clegg and David Cameron will not agree that what Michael said was not damaging while later saying that Nick Clegg had said more or less the same. Do you mean that Nick Clegg would agree that what Nick Clegg had said earlier was now damaging?

Andrew Reeves said...

Munguin - Michael and Nick have both made their views on tuition fees known, it is in the public domain so don't understand your point.

On Nick agreeing, I meant that he and Cameron won't agree with the views on child benefit in public, but Nick can only agree on tuition fees as he has said it in the public domain.

Munguin said...

Where exactly in the public domain is it that Michael makes the same views as in that recording? A steer would be useful either in the item you posted or in your answer to me!

Please don't be insulted if I don't just take your word for it. But I think in this day and age it's so easy to illustrate points such as those you make with links. Don't you agree?

Munguin said...

He says that the Government’s proposals for child benefit are inelegant. a word he admits is euphemism for it (the policy) not being consistent or fair. Where is that in the public domain for example? Or is only the bit where he is allowed to disagree with government policy i.e. on tuition fees, the bit that is in actual fact in the public domain?

Douglas McLellan said...

I dont know if I can fully agree with you. Reading the papers this morning and some of the quotes has resulted in a number of face palms.

Notwithstanding the reprehensible conducted of the journalists involved I have to ask why Michael and the others felt the need to say some of these things in this way.

Who are they trying to convince - supposed supporters or themselves because it sound like themselves.

If they are not happy why are they saying one thing in public and another in private?

Oh, a Vince all but stated he was ditching the Ministerial Code. Which was not sensible. All this has done is give the right wing press ammunition. Why does Lord Young get fired for giving private thoughts an airing but not the Lib Dems>

Munguin said...

Silence is golden! Such a useful tool for the Lib Dems!

I thought it wasn't in the public domain. Clearly you can't find it or you just ignore the dufficult points.

If you only want people to agree with your blog please make that plain in your comments policy and I wont waste my time!

Andrew Reeves said...

Grow up! Yes silence is golden because I have had other things to do rather than just address your comments such as Christmas, ill relatives (in hospital) plus I get married in a month so excuse me for not jumping to your comment.

I never said his comments on child benefits were in the public domain, but his comments on tuition fees are, he was also the first Lib Dem MP to put out a press release explaining why he voted the way he did

Related Posts with Thumbnails