ChatterBank0 min ago
Will Jack Straw And To A Lesser Extent Malcolm Rifkind Get Into The House Of Lords?
According to Jack Straw its almost a gimme, and one would in normal circumstances with a long government service so would Rifkind. But will they be too toxic in the short ready to be quietly slipped in at a later time. At the end of the day they pretty much allow any old rubbish into the Lords.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Discussed here:
http://
http://
AOG - "Has anyone else notice how it seems that Malcolm Rifkind (Con) seems to be getting the most exposure via the BBC?
Would it have anything to do with the three letters I enclosed in brackets."
I don't believe so.
I think Sir Malcolm has the most exposure because of the differing ways the two handled the same situation.
Mr Straw said little and kept his head down, Sir Malcolm came out all guns blazing huffing and puffing in a storm of self-righteous fury saying he would defend himself, all a disgrace, etc.
Having so publicly announced his ire - coupled with the dreadful exposure of the comments on film (plenty of time to walk and read books etc.), Sir Malcolm found himself utterly alone, with absolutely zero support from either the government or his party.
Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, and his worth as an MP, someone must have had a serious word with him, sufficient for him to walk away from his Security Council role (expected) and his proposed final term in office as an MP (totally unexpected).
It says something for the speed and power (and possible over-estimated popularity in his party) of the political machine that an elder statesman with the career and pedigree that Sir Malcolm had, is so rapidly removed from the scene as the election campaign moves onwards.
A salutary lesson for all - no-one is bigger than the party, and ironically, I think that goes double for the Conservative Party who have closed ranks and expelled one of their grandees with a speed and severity that must have made his eyes water.
Would it have anything to do with the three letters I enclosed in brackets."
I don't believe so.
I think Sir Malcolm has the most exposure because of the differing ways the two handled the same situation.
Mr Straw said little and kept his head down, Sir Malcolm came out all guns blazing huffing and puffing in a storm of self-righteous fury saying he would defend himself, all a disgrace, etc.
Having so publicly announced his ire - coupled with the dreadful exposure of the comments on film (plenty of time to walk and read books etc.), Sir Malcolm found himself utterly alone, with absolutely zero support from either the government or his party.
Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, and his worth as an MP, someone must have had a serious word with him, sufficient for him to walk away from his Security Council role (expected) and his proposed final term in office as an MP (totally unexpected).
It says something for the speed and power (and possible over-estimated popularity in his party) of the political machine that an elder statesman with the career and pedigree that Sir Malcolm had, is so rapidly removed from the scene as the election campaign moves onwards.
A salutary lesson for all - no-one is bigger than the party, and ironically, I think that goes double for the Conservative Party who have closed ranks and expelled one of their grandees with a speed and severity that must have made his eyes water.
there is something to be said for having expertise in foreign affaris in the Lords. However, if they are not elevated, they could sell their services to the government on a freelance basis. It would probably be cheaper than having them clock into the Lords for five minutes every day to collect their zillion-pound expenses.
/// Mr Straw said little and kept his head down, Sir Malcolm came out all guns blazing huffing and puffing in a storm of self-righteous fury saying he would defend himself, all a disgrace, etc. ///
That was simply because he wasn't given the chance to keep his head down, the media where gunning for him and Mr Straw was left more or less alone.
/// Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, ///
Now come on Andy why the need for the rather rude insults?
But knowing your politics plus the sheer length of your condemnation of Sir Malcolm, you have gone some way towards answering my question.
That was simply because he wasn't given the chance to keep his head down, the media where gunning for him and Mr Straw was left more or less alone.
/// Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, ///
Now come on Andy why the need for the rather rude insults?
But knowing your politics plus the sheer length of your condemnation of Sir Malcolm, you have gone some way towards answering my question.
AOG
The Straw/Rifkind story was broke by the Daily Torygraph. Rifkind became the centre of the story because the things he said were more damning than the others. You haven't called the Telegraph biased for concentrating on Rifkind, the main culprit, but you accuse the BBC when they follow the same tack.
My conclusion is that it is probably you that is biased.
The Straw/Rifkind story was broke by the Daily Torygraph. Rifkind became the centre of the story because the things he said were more damning than the others. You haven't called the Telegraph biased for concentrating on Rifkind, the main culprit, but you accuse the BBC when they follow the same tack.
My conclusion is that it is probably you that is biased.
AOG - "/// Mr Straw said little and kept his head down, Sir Malcolm came out all guns blazing huffing and puffing in a storm of self-righteous fury saying he would defend himself, all a disgrace, etc. ///
That was simply because he wasn't given the chance to keep his head down, the media where gunning for him and Mr Straw was left more or less alone."
I think the media were gunning for Sir Malcolm, but only because he put his head above the parapet with his on-film remarks about 'not being paid a salary', and 'deserving more than an MP's salary' which makes him fair game for a story, which is what the media do.
" /// Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, ///
Now come on Andy why the need for the rather rude insults?"
A fair point - insult withdrawn.
"But knowing your politics plus the sheer length of your condemnation of Sir Malcolm, you have gone some way towards answering my question."
The strength of my condemnation of Sir Malcolm is based on his perceived arrogance and the hubris that has rapidly followed.
Sir Malcolm was scathing of the Telegraph and the BBC for their accusations, but to be objective - they are only able to make those accusations because he put himself in that position by running off at the mouth whilst on camera. Had he said less then, and more importantly, been a little more realistically contrite afterwards, I could have had a degree more symptathy.
I do not nfor one moment excuse Mr Straw's part in this sorry business, either because of his political position, or because I think he is less to blame for his own situation - merely that he did not come out all guns blazing with a riot of self-righteous indignation, and then have to eat his words twenty-four hours later.
All politicians possess an unhealthy degree of self-importance, it's just that I feel Sir Malcolm's was rather more on show this time around.
That was simply because he wasn't given the chance to keep his head down, the media where gunning for him and Mr Straw was left more or less alone."
I think the media were gunning for Sir Malcolm, but only because he put his head above the parapet with his on-film remarks about 'not being paid a salary', and 'deserving more than an MP's salary' which makes him fair game for a story, which is what the media do.
" /// Thus exposed as somewhat of a pompous windbag, with dubious attitudes to his responsibilities, ///
Now come on Andy why the need for the rather rude insults?"
A fair point - insult withdrawn.
"But knowing your politics plus the sheer length of your condemnation of Sir Malcolm, you have gone some way towards answering my question."
The strength of my condemnation of Sir Malcolm is based on his perceived arrogance and the hubris that has rapidly followed.
Sir Malcolm was scathing of the Telegraph and the BBC for their accusations, but to be objective - they are only able to make those accusations because he put himself in that position by running off at the mouth whilst on camera. Had he said less then, and more importantly, been a little more realistically contrite afterwards, I could have had a degree more symptathy.
I do not nfor one moment excuse Mr Straw's part in this sorry business, either because of his political position, or because I think he is less to blame for his own situation - merely that he did not come out all guns blazing with a riot of self-righteous indignation, and then have to eat his words twenty-four hours later.
All politicians possess an unhealthy degree of self-importance, it's just that I feel Sir Malcolm's was rather more on show this time around.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.