The King Of Swing Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Because he always comes across as always being holier than thou  He is no different to the majority of British politicians then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted January 21, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 21, 2011 According to the BBC, one of the policemen assigned with looking after him and his wife did in fact "look after" Johnson's wife. In the bedroom. Â The Policeman has been reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Because he always comes across as always being holier than thou, and a cretinous ratbag despite being a 'a calamity' and generally not having a scooby doo. Examples. going after Debbie Hirst over her fighting to get Avastin while Health Secretary, his 'slimey and very cuntish' appearences on Question Time, that he has been proven time and again to not have a fucking clue what he is going on about. How much are Employers National Insurance contribuionss? He was meant to be Shadow Chancellor and was miles out! Yet he went on as if he spoketh the truth His part in the Gitmo torture cover up and so on Utter Cunt of the highest order professionally. Hope what ever has caused his resignation is solvable and not utter crap privatly Well yes, I agree with you that he did sometimes seem pretty clueless as shadow chancellor, he even admitted it himself when he said the first thing he would do is get a copy of Economics for Beginners. Really it should have been Ed Balls from the start. I happen to agree with him about people topping up NHS care by paying for drugs privately on top, he said it would create a 2-tier health service against the principles of the NHS. And I think the woman got the cancer drug on the NHS in the end anyway. And yes, some of his actions as Home Sec were questionable like suppressing the criticism of MI5 and sacking David Nutt. He was however a good Education Secretary, far better than Gove, as my wife who is a teacher will attest.  Main think I like about him is he seems genuine, a good communicator, and importantly he has actually had a real job before politics, unlike most of the millionaires and aristocrats in the govt now. I never found him slimy.  Article about him on Labour Uncut:  Alan Johnson was too normal for the very top flight. The great paradox of his recent career is that the sense of perspective which would have made him a great leader is precisely what made him recoil from the job. He didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 An article only slightly undermined by the revelation that he's actually resigned due to his wife sliding down the greasy pole of one of the Met's finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Andy Coulson has resigned as David Cameron's director of communications in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World. Mr Coulson is thought to have concluded that his position has become untenable following a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 People in Politics do resign over the feintest of things. His old employers are hacking phones, so he must resign. Someones wife was having an affair, so he must resign. David miliband didnt get what he wanted, so he must resign. If only Michael Gove would resign for being a repulsive prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Good riddance. Indeed. Also check this out, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/2...ah-brooks-bskyb - David Cameron went round for a cosy dinner with Rebekah Brooks of News International soon after Cable's fuckup.  Shadow culture secretary Ivan Lewis last night described Cameron's decision to meet Brooks as "extraordinary". "People will question his judgment at a time when ministers are making a quasi-judicial decision about News Corp's bid for BSkyB," Lewis said. "The prime minister may be in breach of his own ministerial code, which requires openness and transparency. There is an arrogance about this prime minister that is slowly coming to the surface." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 From the New Statesman blog http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...-cameron-events  The presence of Andy Coulson in No 10 always made a mockery of David Cameron's claim to represent a break with the sleaze of the New Labour years. It was either highly reckless or highly stupid of the PM to accept the "rogue reporter" account of events at the News of the World. Cameron's decision to hire Coulson in the first place was a bad judgement but his decision to retain him was a worse one. From the moment the Guardian revealed News International's secret payouts to the victims of phone-hacking, Coulson's departure became inevitable.  The affair is reminsicent of Cameron's past failure to resolve the issue of Lord Ashcroft's tax status. He missed repeated opportunities to bring Ashcroft to heel, with the result that the story caused far more embarrassment for the party than anyone originally expected. Similarly, rather than dispensing of Coulson's services after the election, Cameron falsely calculated that his spin doctor could ride out the scandal.  The Prime Minister's defenders will argue that Coulson was simply too talented to let go. He was the man who tabloid-proofed all Conservative policy and who ensured the defection of the Murdoch press to the Tories. But while there may have been a political justification for retaining Coulson, there was never a moral one.  Owing to Rupert Murdoch's media empire and Fleet Street's code of omerta, the phone-hacking scandal has received little coverage beyond the pages of the Guardian. But voters can sense the growing stench of sleaze around the government. Cameron's promise of a "new politics" will ring increasingly hollow. As for Coulson, one expects his troubles are just beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted January 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 22, 2011 As a general rule, if the former Labour PM of the country admits ignoring advice about the legality of invading another country, but your own activities keep it off the front page, you aren't doing a great job heading up the Conservative Downing Street press office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Yeah I wonder if he was trying the old "good day to bury bad news" trick. Didn't work though did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Or it shows an institutional bias? Â One is a sleazy nothing "hacking" the phones of irrelevant people, the other has blood on his hands for hundreds of his own countrymen. Yet still, he was a twat and stuff to read those messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Recorded this to watch, anyone see it? Â Justice: Fairness and the Big Society - BBC4 Â By the way what actually is the Big Society, other than a buzz word to get Cameron elected as a "nice" Tory? I'm interested to know what you think? Â EDIT: Â Watched it over lunch, a debate about fairness regards pay, upward mobility etc then leads back to the Big Society concept. Â Seems the idea was to show the Big Society concept of people volunteering in their community is a good thing, despite a low affinity from most towards Cameron and his buzz word. Â There is second a programme that follows on by the same American bloke, also shown last night. Edited January 25, 2011 by Dynamite Duane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Now thats a shocker Duane has posted a video worth watching. Â About twenty minutes in and its like Question Time without the cunts and if the audience was given a decent chance to make a point and I for one would like to see more of this kind of debate. Â As for "the big society" as said early in the program its bollocks and imo was just an election slogan much like "things can only get better" during the 1997 general election. Edited January 25, 2011 by The King Of Swing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 So, as I understand it "Big Society" means people in society doing things or making decisions that traditionally have been the purview of government. It's basically a neat way of saying "small government". Â In the happy, jolly world in which Cameron pretends to live, this means do-gooding charity workers setting up help for handicapped children, or parents setting up shiny new schools in all the free time they have. Â In reality, it means privatising anything that's not nailed down, including THE FUCKING FORESTS and then just hoping that private firms suddenly grow social consciences and decide to run things for the benefit of all, rather than shareholders (which is after all, what they are paid to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Yes Duane, I watched it and the one on last night. Really enjoyable, thought provoking stuff that is presented in a very affable yet inquisitive manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts