Gordon Brown....

[BooScout]

He really, really, really shouldn't smile. He scares me when he smiles.......well he scares me even when he isn't smiling..........but when he smiles.........it's just friggin creepy.:scared:

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. He's auditioning for the remake of 'V' ...

:evilgrin:

[non sociopath skin]

2. He doesn't scare me.

Anger, yes. Scare, no.

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

3. No, Blair was frigging creepy; Cameron is a stupid upper-class twit; Brown is just annoying but the

least scary of the bunch (and that's sad in itself).

[non sociopath skin]

4. I don't think Cameron is stupid.

A lot nastier than he lets on, though, I suspect.

The Skin

[TheBigotBasher]

5. Given the history with his son

I doubt it. I guess he is more of an Etonian Paternalist than he lets on. (Eg Hurd, McMillan).

He will still have very difficult problems to face after the electionthough with a largely insurmountable budget deficit. However any Party will face that )even though Brown does not even admit to the cuts that are in his own Treasury estimates).

[LeftishBrit]

6. I agree with you in a way; but I think his strings will be pulled by the truly nasty

He's no Macmillan. Macmillan was politically clever enough to rule from the ideological left of his party, and marginalize or control the right-wingers. Thatcher was politically clever enough to rule from the ideological right of her party and marginalize or control the moderates. Cameron isn't politically clever in that way; he is vaguely moderate but has no real ideas except wanting to be PM; and is *lucky* in that the Labour party are obligingly making that easy for him and that our media are predominantly pro-Tory. Once he gets into office, he'll be pulled this way and that by those politically cleverer and mostly more right-wing than himself, and will either kowtow to them, or be pushed out in favour of someone more ideologically RW - probably the former.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. "Predominantly pro-Tory"?

Certainly not over the last few years. Even The Times and Telegraph were used as New Labour mouth pieces but that was probably more due to the abilities of Blair, Campbell and Mandleson than anything else. Just before the expenses scandal they went after Paul Staines for breaking the smear story. (Good ole Barclay Brothers). Murdoch in the UK flys his flag whichever way the wind is blowing.

The BBC have their own bias, (although blunted by Campbell when the BBC WAS IN THE RIGHT). The bias is a British establishment bias pretending not to be, it is not a Labour or Conservative bias, which is why those two Parties never really get it when they complain of bias.

That BBC bias is also why I am concerned about the BBC pushing the candidacy of Esther Rantzen. If her desire is to fight corruption, then in Luton that is done. There are lots more MPs (including in the Cabinet) that she can no go after - so why stay in Luton?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Most definitely, over the past few years

The Telegraph was never a 'New Labour mouthpiece'. It's stayed reliably Tory. Going after Staines isn't an indication of anything apart from a vague bit of decency - he's a nasty little shit. The Mail was always pro-Tory; The Sun supported Blair, but has been pro-Cameron certainly since Blair left. The Express is reliably right wing, even if its owner cosied up to Blair and New Labour.

[TheBigotBasher]

10. In what way is Paul Staines a nasty little shit?

His Libertarian views? It means he will go after Cameron just as much as Brown. His readership, which includes members of all Political Parties (including nutty UKIPPERS). He has made his site the largest political blog in the UK by far.

The Telegraph even since Blair went literally just reprinted Labour spin emails and press releases, which is why they were caught out on the smear stories. That piece on Staines was written by the Downing Street bunker. It was a Downing Street hit piece. The original article as written also broke many data protection and privacy rules.

Almost all of the hit pieces about Ministers that have come from Mandleson have gone to The Times and Telegraph. The Budget details for this year were leaked to The Times and Telegraph.

The Sun endorsed Labour again in 2005 (I doubt they will do so again).

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. He's a homophobic drink driver

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/paul_staines_ak.asp

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/pandora-dave-gets-shirty-over-order-to-undress-818060.html

[TheBigotBasher]

12. In reality who is that smear about?

I now have heard that podcast in full. Not sure you have. While I would not label Mark Oaten a Pedo on a podcast, he is a creep. As is the President of the UK Liberl Democrats (do you forget his campaign against Peter Tatchell suggesting exactly that). THat was an official By Election campaign. Run by a person who then came out.

Paul Staines is not a homophobe. It is stupid to suggest that he is.

THat podcast was from 2006. So look at the context of that smear. Coming out now when he was behind smeargate and in some ways linked to the expenses being outed.

Again I asked who was behind this smear and for what purpose?

Am I to think less of George Michael because he was caught drink driving? People do stupid things he was being stupid got caught and was prosecuted. No one died.

Labour will not win this way.

[TheBigotBasher]

14. In addition

Remember the context of this chat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/22/uk.liberaldemocrats

Mark Oaten another "happily married" family man L/D was caught with a Rent Boy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. So you're saying that gossip about politicians' private lives is a good thing?

Is that meant to make us like Fawkes? How about he participates in some politics, not people's sex lives?

[TheBigotBasher]

16. His Party the SDP disbanded. Why should any political blogger stand?

Political blogging is about finding out the news. Researching it. Pulling it from various sources and that includes gossip, especially about a Party that portrays a pro gay stance nationally and an anti gay stance locally.

He also did not out Oaten and to be fair, despite the most homophobic campaign ran against him, Tatchell did not out Simon Hughes.

The Liberal Democrats campaign on left wing politics in Labour areas, they push right wing policies in Tory areas. It is not a bad tactic but it is disingenuous.

No one expects any one to like Paul Staines, although if they knew the history I would say that those still enjoying house and dance music nights across the UK may well do.

[LeftishBrit]

18. In what ways isn't he?

He is a classic right-libertarian, i.e. just a RW Tory who smokes pot.

I'm all for an end to drug prohibition, but there are plenty of other issues at stake as well. Any return to economic Thatcherism, especially during a recession, would be absolute disaster. (Or rather any INCREASE in economic Thatcherism, as New Labour just practice a more moderate form of it than the Tories.)

[T_i_B]

19. "just a RW Tory who smokes pot"

That's about the long and short of it.

It's worth rememebering that the Damien McBride scandal came about because Labour were trying to create their own version of Staines poxy website. The difference being that Paul Staines takes much greater care to cover his own tracks when smearing people then Derek Draper did.

That's why the very worst of his blog tends to be anonymous sockpuppets in the comments section.

[TheBigotBasher]

20. One does it with private money

the other was doing it while being paid by taxpayers, from Downing Street. Big difference.

Also which smear published by Staines was a lie? There was no truth in any of the Draper smears and many of them were disgusting.

[T_i_B]

21. Are you really that naive?

One does it with private money. the other was doing it while being paid by taxpayers, from Downing Street. Big difference.

Who's to say that theredrag wouldn't have been funded by Labour party funds? And I wouldn't make guesses at where Guido's cash comes from if I were you. If i were you I'd also check out the meaning of the term "astroturf" and how that tactic is used by policical parties of all stripes.

The below blog post should help as background info on Staines many smears. If you really do belive the crap that comes from that site then you need your head examining.

http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2009/04/smeargate-was-car-crash-waiting-to.html

[TheBigotBasher]

22. The "funding" of the RedRag website was not an issue.

Go to wordpress.com, set up a free blog. Nice and easy. Free of charge.

Paul Staines is a Private individual. "Smeargate" involved Ministers and Civil Servants, paid for by taxpayers.

It is hardly naive to know that there is a big difference there.

[LeftishBrit]

9. You're right about Auntie Beeb to a degree...

as regards the papers, I think they mostly do have a pro-Right bias, which admittedly doesn't always translate as Tory, but frequently it does, and right now it does. Blair was an exception for some of them, but that's because he was a Tory. Brown doesn't get the same exemption. Especially from the tabloids that have the widest readership. (Well, UKIP also benefits from them.)

In bad economic times there's always an anti-incumbent mood; but I'm still hoping against hope that some scandal or something will affect the Tories before the general election.

[non sociopath skin]

13. I disagree. He has far more of the Thatcher in him than he has of the One Nation Toffs ...

... like MacMillan and Hurd, who at least had had a whiff of the real world through war and diplomacy.

Not sure what his son has to do with it. Paternal emotion is in a different box from party rectitude.

The Skin

[TheBigotBasher]

17. Having a secerely disabled son would most certainly

affect how you view services like the NHS and related services such as Social Services.