Do read the posts in full to get the whole picture - and so Matthew's views can be properly understood. But in summary, the first post criticises the fact that the details of the calls were reported (he uses a West Wing analogy to suggest it should have been kept in the family) and the second post to suggest at the very least a sanitised report of the call would have been more appropriate. As I say, do read the full posts to ensure you don't think I am being unfair.
Anyway, here's my reply (which I have also posted on the second article on Matthew's Blog):
I'm sorry, no disrespect Matthew, but I find both your posts a bit daft.
(Full disclosure - I was one of the bloggers on the call, and I referenced shouting in my post)
This was a call arranged by the party with bloggers, (ie people who write about what's going on in the party), specifically to get this debate out there. It's hardly the same as leaking a confidence to a journalist. People in the party tell me stuff off the record all the time and I always respect that. This was a very different thing.
It's true that on this issue I have not 'toed the party line' and done so in a fairly strident manner. Well, that's because I don't agree with the party line. I think its wrong. In fact, it's not even the party line (see Conference Motion approved in Gateshead). Nor is it the Government's line (check out the coalition agreement). It's a line cooked up by Theresa May, the police, MI5 and the NSC. So no, I'm not going to 'play the game' and nod along. I'm going to shout very loudly that I think this is wrong.
Funnily enough Labour and the Tories leak a lot more than us. That's because they try and control things from the centre. It is to our great credit as a party that we don't do that and that conference calls like this are arranged in the first place.
I hear what you say Matthew - that you are not against these calls but you feel we should report them in a more judicious manner . That's your opinion and I respect it. I just don't think it's very liberal...
Thank you, Richard. I appreciate where you are coming from. Whenever I write or say anything publicly as a Liberal Democrat, I ask myself: "Would the Tories or Labour be very pleased if I said what I am about to say?" And if the answer is "Yes", then I think twice before saying it.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Richard. I appreciate where you are coming from. Whenever I write or say anything as a Liberal Democrat, I ask myself: "Would the Tories or Labour be very pleased that I am saying this?" And if the answer is "Yes", then I think twice before saying it.
ReplyDeleteIf something is the truth, if something is a principle, then it doesn't matter a fig whether Labour or the Tories would be pleased or not.
DeleteIf you censor your own speech on the basis that you don't want to give succour to your political opponents then you end up ideologically bankrupt and soulless (like Labour) or so blinkered that you do as my local tory MP did and cover up a council candidate and assistant of yours slandering an opposition council candidate as a paedophile.
George, of course I would blow the whistle on any politician who was falsely accusing an opponent of being a paedophile or something like that. It is grotesque to suggest otherwise. That has nothing to do with anything that I wrote. Richard, I am disappointed that you did not pick George up on that.
DeleteMatthew - fair enough. It is always difficult but I resolved some time ago to say what I think and blog as I find. Makes it much easier (for me) to judge whether I should write something or not - even if it doesn't always make me popular! At least I apply the same rules to our opponents:-)
ReplyDeleteGeorge - thanks for the support!
Matthew - yes, fair enough, I have no doubt you would have reported a paedophile. I didn't pick George up on it because I don't think he was quite saying you wouldn't - but happy to clarify that.
ReplyDeleteActually, re reading it, even my correction is inaccurate:-)
ReplyDeleteHappy to clarify that Matthew, I am sure you wouldn't defend a colleague who slandered an opponent.
Think that's now clear!