Thursday, June 19, 2008
Burnham/Chakrabati
The Independent seems to give the most incisive comments on this matter.
It seems extremely sinister that Mr Burnham should be able to give such a precise description of David Davis's "late-night phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti": how exactly did the minister know what times of day such alleged phone calls took place?
IMO: If Burnham speaks even one iota of truth, one can only assume illegal wiretapping, perhaps aided and abetted by illegal use of security services. And it is a bad, obvious lie otherwise, equally strange for a possible PM-designate.
Even more curiously, Ms Chakrabarti claims to have been open about the fact that she had spoken on the phone to Mr Davis after the vote on 42 days, when he told her of his plans to resign and fight a by-election; but the point is that she had tried to persuade him not to do so.
And if the public is so compelled by Labour's arguments, then why is the party completely unwilling to test them in the by-election that Mr Davis has called?
Labour, then, has ducked the very challenge Mr Burnham claims to welcome and on which he insists that it has the public's support.
One of Mr Davis's miscalculations was failing to anticipate that New Labour would not stand and fight. He was under the misapprehension that they really cared deeply about these issues. Strangely for he is very far from being a political innocent himself David Davis underestimated their cynicism.
IMO: I would truly want to support a decent Labor party, but they seem to have behaved, at least at the current higher echelons, most badly and inappropriately, almost too often for support by now. It is all rather a pity.
The Independent seems to give the most incisive comments on this matter.
It seems extremely sinister that Mr Burnham should be able to give such a precise description of David Davis's "late-night phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti": how exactly did the minister know what times of day such alleged phone calls took place?
IMO: If Burnham speaks even one iota of truth, one can only assume illegal wiretapping, perhaps aided and abetted by illegal use of security services. And it is a bad, obvious lie otherwise, equally strange for a possible PM-designate.
Even more curiously, Ms Chakrabarti claims to have been open about the fact that she had spoken on the phone to Mr Davis after the vote on 42 days, when he told her of his plans to resign and fight a by-election; but the point is that she had tried to persuade him not to do so.
And if the public is so compelled by Labour's arguments, then why is the party completely unwilling to test them in the by-election that Mr Davis has called?
Labour, then, has ducked the very challenge Mr Burnham claims to welcome and on which he insists that it has the public's support.
One of Mr Davis's miscalculations was failing to anticipate that New Labour would not stand and fight. He was under the misapprehension that they really cared deeply about these issues. Strangely for he is very far from being a political innocent himself David Davis underestimated their cynicism.
IMO: I would truly want to support a decent Labor party, but they seem to have behaved, at least at the current higher echelons, most badly and inappropriately, almost too often for support by now. It is all rather a pity.
# posted by uv : 7:32 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
