The story Iain Dale won’t tell you

It’s here, here, here, herehere and even self-referentially here. It’s got politics. It’s got David Cameron. And it’s on a topic that features regularly on Iain’s blog. But he’s not written a blog posting about it.

How curious.

Share:
This entry was posted in Opposition watch and tagged . Bookmark the permalink or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/636 for twitter and emails. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

13 Comments

  • Antony Hook
    Posted 29th March 2007 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think it’s on Conservative Home either.

    This just goes to show that Iain Dale’s blog and Conservative Home are one-sided pro-party mouthpieces and nothing more.

    Lib Dem Voice reports plenty of things that are not politically useful for the Lib Dems.

    It’s called balance or honesty and it’s a good reason to be a Lib Dem.

  • Hywel Morgan
    Posted 29th March 2007 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    There’s no reason why LDV should be balanced.

    I’m not even sure it’s true to say that LDV is balanced about reporting stories which are not useful for the party – for example there was nothing about the Burnley vote fraud trial/convictions.

  • Posted 29th March 2007 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Not true. I commented on it twice in this thread https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=469445909040271912

  • Mark Pack
    Posted 29th March 2007 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    And your blog posting (a word used deliberately instead of comment) is where …?

  • Ian
    Posted 30th March 2007 at 2:33 am | Permalink

    By the way,how many Tory councillors have defected to the Lib Dems in the last two years?

  • Posted 30th March 2007 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    4. Exactly. Typical Tory hypocrisy. Just like their deafening silence over al-Yamamah & BAE because of their links to Wafic Said & the wodge of cash they got from Mrs Said.

  • Posted 30th March 2007 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    I have been pondering this one. Mr C is very sorry for being a naughty boy and clearly believes that is enough………..hmmm, in my job I think what he did may be regarded as “gross misconduct” and I am sure however grovelling my apology was – it might not swing it.

  • Posted 30th March 2007 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    for example there was nothing about the Burnley vote fraud trial/convictions.

    There was, but at the time I thought it better to cover it in the ‘members only’ bit. I think at the time I was getting it in the neck for running too many ‘unhelpful’ stories

  • Antony Hook
    Posted 30th March 2007 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Iain,

    I like your Diary, and might have told you so when I saw you on the Sevenoaks train.

    But you know in your heart that if any other party had been selling these dinners you would have had a lot more to say about it.

    Your Diary is like the whole Cameron-thing, intersting at first glance but too often leaving doubts later that it isn’t old fashioned Toryism.

  • Posted 30th March 2007 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Antony, absolutely true. And I don;t deny it. But why would you find that odd? I don;t expect to see long articles on LibDem Voice on the Michael Brown issue, and I haven’t been disappointed. So don’t try and take the moral high ground on this because you are not entitled to. My blog is a Conservative blog. As I have already said above, I commented on the Cameron thing in a Comment thread and made clear that I disapprove of any activity which could be interpreted in a ‘cash for access’ manner. David Cameron immediately apologised after the ruling in sharp contrast to other politicians who have had been ruled against by Sir PhiliP Mawer.

  • Posted 30th March 2007 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    I have to say (I also said this on Norfolk Blogger’s blog this morning) I agree with Iain on this. We’re party political bloggers, not impartial news agencies. That said – I think Lib Dem Voice has run plenty of stuff on Michael Brown, both on the public blog and in the members-only area.

  • Antony Hook
    Posted 30th March 2007 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Fair enough.

  • Mark Pack
    Posted 1st April 2007 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Iain – I think you’ve missed the thrust of the hypocrisy question – at least to my mind – which is that in some cases you are very keen for parties to pay back money and in other cases you are, err…, not.

    You present the “pay back the money” argument as being a principled one, so it should then be applied across the board shouldn’t it?

    And that means if a party leader, even your own, has had their fundraising operation ruled out of order, then you should be saying “pay it back” or (agreeing that we’re all political bloggers) saying nothing, rather than saying an apology is enough.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but will not publish personally abusive comments. Our comments policy is published here, please respect it and all readers of the site.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Do you agree to the T&Cs?