And another thing…

And in your own special way you manage to employ smear tactics yourself.

MSM websites picked up that story at the same time as the right wing blogosphere and whispers have been circulating far longer than when some bloggers decided to report not start them.

Tory Bear – But you accept that it is nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture? Yet you approve of Marr asking the question?

Mmm … remind me again which “right-winger” dreamt up this particular smear?

Cameron has already had worse than that, on Jonathan Ross, a question so vile for everybody concerned, I can barely believe the show was not shut down there and then.

As for the “smear”, Nixon lied perpetually about Watergate and accused journalists of doing just that. World leaders are not somehow immune from telling untruths and then adding insult to injury by accusing others.

You have already declared that “lie” is not a word you will allow in the context of politicians, so I cannot comment further.

Errrm Matthew Norman was the first to mention it – not very right wing. And today was the first time I ever heard painkillers mentioned.

I am, of course, happy to exonerate any blogger – right-wing or otherwise – who has refused to perpetuate this smear by refusing to refer to it in any way.

Great post, Tom. This is what I like to see.

I thought Andrew Marr’s question was unnecessary and lowered the entire tone of the interview.
Even IF Gordon Brown is losing the sight in his second eye, it should not effect his mind.
I have no love for Gordon Brown or the Labour party. But to use these tactics to further undermine his position is beneath contempt.
All ordinary Conservative supporters will feel the same.
We do NOT need to sink so low to win this election. Leave that to the Drapers of this world.
Well done Tom for making the point. Not all us Tories are rabid right wingers.

Tom

Andrew Marr cocked up twice.

1. He asked about the health of the PM – for political purposes. Scandalous.

2. He failed to ask GB about the UK ‘deficit’, instead using the word ‘debt’. Our deficit is in a sorry state, but as Brown quite rightly pointed out, our debt is not as bad as many other nations.

Dreadful journalism.

Ps. I hope you & your charming wife had a lovely Birthday celebration, and you didn’t forget to buy her a special gift, She clearly deserves it for helping to keep you sane!

The difference, Tom, as you tacitly acknowledge, is that McBride was working for and on behalf of the Labour Party, whereas the “right wing” bloggers are not connected with the Conservative Party.

That doesn’t make the smearing any more acceptable, but remember that it was one your Labour colleagues — and a highly prominent one at that — who first called Brown “psychologically flawed”.

PD – it’s Public Domain. The Genii is out of the ampule.

You have no proof, either way about this story. So it comes down to prejudice, in this case your own.

Flavio Briatore, one of the most powerful men in Sport, has left Renault after denying involvment in the Singapore crash and having threatened to bring criminal prosecutions against his accusers, and yet, factually, he has been banned for life by the FIA, after another witness testified against him.

Those in the sport cannot believe that a driver would risk potential death or injury, not only to himself but to others, in order to influence the outcome of a sporting event.

The point is obvious; just because someone denies a thing it does not mean it is not true. It merely means one wished it were not.

Cognitive dissonance, I think it is called.

You fail to see the differnce between the fact mcbride, draper and co, sat around making rumours up. At least some effort toward clarification has been given with this story, it apparently came from sources within the civil service.

and then a lefty…

and then it was reported across the politcal spectrum.

Obviously, it is intended as a smear. But honestly, what would be wrong if Gordon was taking painkillers, on prescription from the doctor? I really wouldn’t think any worse of an elected representative who was receiving medical treatment for pain. I would think no worse of you for example if you were receiving such treatment. Maybe you are – who knows. And it’s none of my business, any more than it is the question of what, of any, medical treatment or advice the PM is getting. The USA seems to have created an expectation that electors have a reasonable expectation of knowing about the state of health of senior politicians. But it is really nobody business but his own, and he was exactly right to tell Andrew Marr to stop asking.

Totally agree, Tom. I didn’t see that particular bit of the interview as the kids wanted to watch something else, but I thought GB was very good when Marr was trying (and failing) to put the boot in about the government’s handling of the economic crisis. Marr’s half-baked assertions were very effectively demolished by Brown.

WW’s comparison with Cameron’s interview with Jonathan Ross isn’t exactly apposite. For all Ross’s shortcomings, he’s never claimed to be a heavyweight political interviewer. He’s in show business – his people are comedians and starlets. Cameron showed himself up as a total lightweight for agreeing to put himself up for it – and really deserved everything he got when Ross started his schtick about the young Cameron fantasizing about Margaret Thatcher.

Funnily enough, I asked you months and months ago in the comments of this blog what you thought of the “Prime Mentalist” claim doing the rounds. You’ve certainly taken your time to come to the conclusion it’s a smear, haven’t you?

Although your point about Call Me Dave is valid, I must admit. It’s about time he told us what really went on during his teenage years and whether he did actually take drugs.

I am, of course, happy to exonerate any blogger – right-wing or otherwise – who has refused to perpetuate this smear by refusing to refer to it in any way.

Er?

So why are you blogging about it then.?

Isn’t that just perpetuating it?

Absolutely right, Tom.

I have complained to the BBC about this incident and would urge others to do the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

For what it’s worth,
a) it’s none of our business what Gordon is taking, as far as it doesn’t affect his ability to do the job (opinion is divided on if he has that ability, mind)
b) I think it’s right that AM asked the question though, purely from a “let’s get things out in the open, and discredit lies for what they are”. It might all just be baseless conjecture, but it’s baseless conjecture that’s had some pretty senior members of the Opposition questioning whether the PM is taking medication that may affect his ability to work; that sort of situation would still be confidential, but as a courtesy I’d imagine the Leader of the Opposition would be informed.
c) Whilst he didn’t put it down with the veracity I would have, that was the only part of the interview that I thought GB did well; his rebuttal about his eyesight and his total denial of his supposed medication needs was dealt with well, and wasn’t spun or fudged as some politicians might have.
Rest of the interview was crap though, with Gordon interrupting AM, saying he’d got his figures wrong, then proceeding to list of a bunch of “facts” that Jeff over at SNP TV has shown to be completely untrue. You just can’t say things like that Gordon and expect respect when your fibs are found out for…

Still think it’s sad the gutter-press would involve themselves in this kind of smear though. Even if it’s true, unless such medication made him unable to perform his job, it shouldn’t be an issue.
IF (big if that) it WERE true, and it WAS causing a genuine risk to his judgement, then senior civil servants, the PM himself and numerous others should be the first to say “err, lads”…
Not some two-bit tory mud-slinger who thinks a blog , a triple digit hit-count and an invitation to “influential bloggers” makes him a legitimate journalist……

Totally misrepresenting things as usual Tom Harris MP. Cameron has already been asked by journalists about former drug taking and now Brown has been asked so why does Cameron have to be asked again? This is yet more evidence of Labour’s twisted logic. Cameron’s own spin doctor (Coulson) investigated alledged drug taking when he was editor of the NOW and came up with nothing!!!

Mr Weasel, Jonathon Ross’s questioning of David Cameron may indeed have been ‘vile’, but there’s a difference between that – which everyone knew was born of Ross’s juvenile sense of humour – and the more serious claims being made regarding Gordon Brown.

You might as well compare what goes on in the kids’ playground with debates in the House of Commons.

Then again….

Tom, completely agree with you on how disgraceful this story is (blogged to that effect the time it first popped up out of the sewer). It was based on a ’special report’, which was more special needs that specially informative. i.e. Brown looks pissed-off and has a jowelly demeanor (which he’s always had), therefore he must be on obsolete prescription drugs. What complete nonsense the thing was.

However, you seem to be happy to confuse two issues here. The ‘right-wing’ smear is a silly angle to take on this. As Dizzy has said already. And Marr: right wing??? Now its all over the papers… Get a grip man.

I can’t help thinking that this is part of a continuing and unpleasant smearing of the BBC by politicians, mainly but not entirely, Labour politicians. I’ve no doubt that if (when) the Tories get into power they wil do the same thing though. We are moving ever closer to a state broadcaster that is only allowed to do what politicians say, otherwise they will be attacked in much the same way as is happening here.

Oh, And I’d be perfectly happy for the question of drug use to be put to ANY politician of ANY party.

I would have thought Brown would have jumped at the idea that he could dispel the rumours ciculating about his health and medication taking.
But no.

Me thinks he does protest too much.

I think the whole ‘psychologically flawed’ idea emerged rather a long time ago from within the labour party.

As a natural Labour supporter, I have long found the propensity of this government to resort to smears, whether regarding rail crash survivors, ‘Walter Mitty’ scientists, Army Generals or its own ministers, to be depressing and a little frightening.

That people are even asking the question should tell him what people think about the way he’s running the country. We’ve long thought the lunatics had taken over, but no-one has ever dared ask the question directly before. That Marr felt it necessary to ask ought sound some alarms as to just how poorly governed the people feel.

Although I do accept that on television isn’t really the best place to ask questions on unsubstantiated personal rumours i.e. smears.

But think about it Tom, if someone had asked you when you were in the the DfT whether you were on some kind of prescription drug, would you not wonder how poorly people thought you were doing that they’re coming up with reasons why you might be so crap?

If the PM is on drugs then fair enough, and if he’s not then he should be concerned that his performance makes people think he is.

Its ok to smeer Tories but not Labour. is that what you are saying Tom.

So to be consistant I will be looking forward to your comments when the Tories are smeered.

Certainly, Johnny – here’s what I wrote about Smeargate at the time.

By the way Tom Your blog is as good as it is because people like me find you are the only Labour person you can have a meaningful blog with.

That is why Brown must have asked you to leave. You knew your brief and started to ask common sense questions that did not follow the party line and that would never do.
The Labour party are followers not leaders except Tom Harris.
Lots of empty seats at conference of people like you.

Smear not Smeer sorry,

The rumour is very real and also very plausible – whatever its provenance. The Prime Minister has for long believed he is a moral man of principle and courage concerned with long term strategy and the highest ideals. His remoteness in the Treasury and fondness for cliques ensured that this proposition was rarely tested. Now it is tested daily, publicly and with remorseless humiliation. He has been found lacking in leadership skills, calculating (usually badly) cowardly and indecisive. This is an epic personal reckoning, and the psychological dissonance must be immense. In other words, you’d expect him to be depressed.

Marr gave Brown a chance to kill off the rumour but the transcript shows him evading the question and making diversionary comments about his eyesight.

I think important to remember the disgrace of the Lobby pack concealing Charles Kennedy’s drinking. I think it is important that we know the mental state of our Prime minister and I think that journalists should be free to ask any question of any politician.

Some would say it is an “are you still beating your wife” question. The answer to that is “no and I never have”. What would be wrong with Brown answering Marr’s question in that way?

Or if it is true, saying – “like everyone else, I expect confidentiality in medical matters”?

But what’s your arguments in democratic terms that such questions should not be asked? Seems like a throw-back to a long gone age of deference.

Finally – the tiresome pillorying of ‘right wing bloggers’… first they are mostly not ‘right wing’ and they are doing a rather better job of providing news, comment and analysis than most of the mainstream press.

MD

I don’t understand the logic. McBride worked for Labour.

Bloggers work for themselves. What has it got to do with opposition parties ?

And that ignores the issue that “right wing bloggers” didn’t actually start the rumour – who actually started it, Tom ?

Absolute standards require me to say Marr was wrong.

Period.

Cameron has been asked the drugs question many times; by Andrew Marr during the Tory leadership contest and also by Alex Thomson of Channel Four news. Funnily enough, I don’t remember many Labour MP’s crying ‘foul’ then.

Given Labour’s long and proud history of smearing, whilst in opposition and in Government; including even smearing Brown’s psychological adequacies, it’s rather disingenuous to start foaming at the mouth about smears now.

However, unless Marr has some very good sources and proof, then I agree questions about Brown’s mental health should not have been asked.

And quite frankly I don’t care either, there are many and varied reasons I don’t want Brown as PM and would never vote for him, but the question of if he’s on medication, would not be one of them.

If Gordon Brown is not depressed, he ought to be.

Still all is well in Norwich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SDPB_1d_L0

Remember Tom: the stories about Gordon Brown started with the anecdotes by No. 10 (and previously No. 11) insiders about his personal behaviour. These stories are too numerous for them to be simply dismissed as the smears of a disgruntled employee.

These anecdotes have never been fully refuted and indicate to me anyway a personality that should not be in the top job. The problem in Marr’s interview was that Gordon, when asked about medication, only referred to his physical handicap of his eyesight.

We’re all in agreement with the fact that this is irrelevant. Blunkett did his job perfectly fine.

But his mental health IS a valid issue. How can it not be after all you’ve heard about his personality? How on earth can can you not see that just coz Guido et al have fun this, it is not simply a right-wing smear.

There is too much circumstantial evidence out there.

AM had limited time with GB and should have used it to get the most important information possible.

If AM believes that GB denying being on prescription painkillers is a good use of his time then sobeit. His editor and viewers may take a different view but it should be up to AM.

If GB had laughed the question off as ridiculous then it would not be a smear, just a waste of time.

Frankly you should be able to ask the leader of the country ANY question you want to that relates to his ability to function properly as glorious leader.

“Now when the rumor comes to your town
It grows and grows, where it started no one knows

Some of your neighbors will invite it right in
Maybe it’s a lie, even if it’s a sin
They’ll repeat the rumor again …

Big men, little men turned into dust
Maybe it was all in fun, they didn’t mean to ruin no one
Could there be someone, someone here among this crowd
Who’s been accused, had his name so misused
And his privacy refused? …

For whether this rumor proves true or false
You can forgive or you can regret
But he will never ever forget”

What a fine band were The Band.

Marr looked like a class swot trying to show how hard he is against a struggling teacher. It was completely juvenile.

I wonder if the many people of the UK who regularly have their details accessed without their knowledge, come under scrutiny by councils, government departments or quangoes under laws brought in by Labour would agree with the ‘outrage’ that many on the Labour side now feel over this issue?

What Paul Williams said…me too

The rumours doing the rounds on the net are not that Brown is regularly taking painkillers, but that he is taking a particular kind of anti-depressent, which are generally prescribed when the ones now in more general use haven’t worked. The rumours are prevalent in the Westminster bubble and the media – just as the rumours were about Charles Kennedy’s drinking. They are reported and discussed as rumours, not fact.

Unfortunately, when a rumour is doing the rounds, it is impossible to stop it without giving a very firm rebuttal. Marr gave Brown a very good, high-profile opportunity to deny the rumours. But he did it by asking the wrong question, so the rumours won’t stop. All that has gone on the record is that Brown denies taking painkillers and has poor eyesight. The main subject of the rumours hasn’t been addressed.

Whether Brown likes it or not, we have a right to know the state of health of our Prime Minister. Someone who is reliant on mood altering substances may not be competent to be Prime Minister.

That Nadine Dorries thinks it went over the mark indicates that Marr made a mistake.

http://is.gd/3K8MA

It was wrong to ask such a question. I have read these rumours for months and it apparently is associated with the PM being forbidden foods associated with (MAOI) anti depressant drugs. I understand these drugs predate current antidepressant medication (ie SSRI such as Prozac)and are used for severe depression as well as Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. All speculative of course as he may have consulted a dietician who has placed him on a diet which could preclude foods such as those that cause adverse reactions whilst taking MAOIs.

Unlike the US presidential system when incumbents of the White House have to be examined annually to ensure they are fit for office, we have a Cabinet Government which offers us some protection from an unfit PM. Therefore, I do not hold with the argument that the PM’s health should be subject to the same scrutiny as his policies etc. I am particularly concerned that the issues of mental well being are being discussed too. I know of many people who have had temporary medication for depression and it has not influenced their abilities to undertake their job.

I am not a fan of GB’s but feel that he deserves our sympathy for this type of questioning. I just wish that he had handled the situation better. He is adept at turning questions around to suit himself (I hate this) and we are none the wiser.

Did you say why you were not at the conference this week? It looks like the turn out is poor. A reflection of how everyone is feeling about the poor leadership me thinks…….

I’m probably one of the last people to defend Labour. On the other hand, I’m probably one of the first to place more value on honesty than cantilevered mistruths. So I’m going to draw the attention of your good selves to a particularly calculated snipe on the BBC’s part, when Alistair Darling said that people might think Labour had ‘lost the will to live’, and ever since then, every media outlet has ascribed this belief to Darling himself. I recall something very similar happening around the time Hazel Blears resigned. I can’t for the life of me recall exactly what she said now, nor can I manage to Google it up (after twenty minutes or so), but I definitely recall that it was twisted into an attack on the government, without justification.

And this is all the BBC seems to do these days. Scrutinise any comment made by a leading figure in Labour, from every angle, and then serve it up as another political bombshell.

Ah, got it. Blears’ line about the government’s ‘lamentable failure to get our message across’ was regularly abreviated to ‘lamentable failures’, and even “‘lamentable’ Labour”. It would help if the media didn’t deliberately distort the message beyond all recognition…

Lord Mandy referring to “extreme right wing” bloggers smearing.

Now I’ve not heard the Independent called that before.

Nasty Nazis.

Jane
Monday 28 September 2009 at 11:59 am

“Unlike the US presidential system when incumbents of the White House have to be examined annually to ensure they are fit for office, we have a Cabinet Government which offers us some protection from an unfit PM.”

————

Except it hasn’t.

Oh dear, Tom – the truth about the Dear Leader hurts, doesn’t it?

So let me lob this one at you; when asked about the financial state of the country, why does he always talk ONLY of the national debt – which is bad, but manageable – but NEVER of the appalling structural deficit he has gifted us?

That is lying by omission.

When an advocate or barrister asks a question in court it is a rule that he or she must have a basis for the question. This may not be a very good basis-it may be that it is the wild allegations of their client-but there must be a basis. For more serious allegations such as a previous conviction the advocate must have absolute proof such as an extract.
I think the BBC should act in the same way. Unless Andrew Marr had some evidence to support the allegation (and it is the first time I have heard painkillers as opposed to anti-depressants (was this just another mistake or was it intended to give Brown an out? no that way lies madness))he should not have asked.
We are familiar with the American concept of push polling: would you vote for X if he flipped his main residence to avoid CGT, employed an illegal immigant, lied about seeing papers etc to plant wholly unfounded ideas in the the potential voters mind. I think the MSM has to be careful being brought into that by gossip and we have to be careful not to go down that road.
None of this stops Brown being the worst PM in history.

Lest we forget

Meddlesome on Brown

Further evidence of Brown’s total unfitness as PM

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/news/international/chanos_warning_g7.fortune/?postversion=2009082612

OK, I get it: you don’t like Gordon Brown. Message received. Now get over it.