« Tory Philistines | Main | Conference-lite »

September 21, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Graham Marlowe

I have in the past said some harsh things about James Purnell, but at least he appears, all of a sudden to have entered the real world, and left Planet Freud.

Forgive the source, but it is the only direct quotation I can find - it isn't even on the BBC site as yet:


Any fool would have been aware that unemployment has been rising for many months now. What is the point of persecuting the sick and disabled just so you can look "tough" (given his soft background I don't think he could really be tough with the skin of a rice pudding!), knowing this.

I wonder what his millionaire mentor, David Freud will have to say? After all Purnell would look even more stupid now if he mithered on about getting disabled people into work when, by his own admission, many able bodied people will be out of work. Perhaps Freud will be too busy with his accountant seeing how many millions he has lost this week to notice, but if I were Jimmy I would try to avoid Frank Field - Field has been so obssessed for years it will be handbags at ten paces - especially as I read yesterday that Field is about to start his own blog called "Frankly Speaking". I bet Gordon can hardly wait for that to appear!

Hen Ferchetan

"he point of the comment, Hen Ferchetan was that the contribution came from someone who hasw had the experrience on living on benefits in recent years. She acknowledged the value of labour's work to help those that in her position."

Then wh didn't you say that, instead of saying that JK was a "struggling single mum who benefited from Labour's policies", something that is clearly untrue.

I'm not arguying that JK is in a relatively good position to comment on policies for single mams, although I'm sure people who are still struggling single mums will be in an even better position, I'm just pointing out that the point you originally made was that she was a stuggling single mum who benefited from Labour policies, and that's just not true.

Is it really that hard to admit that you just got your facts wrong on a single small comment?

Graham Marlowe

Paul you wrote "the contribution came from someone who hasw had the experrience on living on benefits in recent years."

What a good job for Ms Rowling she doesn't need benefits now, because David Freud and James Purnell would do their best to make sure she didn't get them - the millionaire and his pal would have her sweeping the streets or clearing up graffiti, perhaps?


The point of the comment, Hen Ferchetan was that the contribution came from someone who hasw had the experrience on living on benefits in recent years. She acknowledged the value of labour's work to help those that in her position.

That gives his gift a greater significance that cash given to Tories by people who have been billionaires for most of their lives.

Hen Ferchetan

"She remained a single mother, Hen Ferchtan"

But that's not what you said Paul, you said she was a "STRUGGLING single mother who benefited from Labour's policies".

Not one of Labour's tax credits, child benefits or any other benefit available to single mothers benefited Joanne. Since she is not employed in the usual sense she did not need childcare places etc and would not have been eligible for any means tested asistance anyway (since everything in Labour's Britain is means tested).

There's a big difference between:

"retained an understanding of the plight of those in similar position to hers"


"a struggling single mother who benefited from Labour’s policies."

Instead of trying to bluff your way out and lying about what your point was, how about just saying "yes I got that one wrong, I thought the first Harry Potter book was much later than 1997, clearly JK Rowling was not a struggling single mum benefiting from Labour policies. Having said that she does know the struggles poor single mothers go through and can appreciate the good our policies are doing for them".

Or aren't Labour MP's allowed to admit fallacies at all these days?

Graham Marlowe

I think Ms Rowling would have been better advised to give her million to a charity, such as one dealing with cancer, or third world poverty, rather than give it to NL: After all Lord Sainsbury is always good for a few million for NL (at least he was when he was a government minister), so Harry potter money could have had more worthy recipients. For NL "The Lord will provide"


She remained a single mother, Hen Ferchtan, and retained an understanding of the plight of those in similar position to hers- even after the £millions dropped into her bank account.

Hen Ferchetan

A but late getting to this one, but how did the struggling single mother JK Rowling benefit from Labour's policies?

The first Harry Potter book was released in June 1997, barely a month after Blair came to power!

Huw O'Sullivan

Those who would praise unfettered capitalism would do well to learn how to spell it.

Johnny Boy

So much misinformation. So many stupid ideas (ideals), weasel words and vacous content I don't know where to start Paul!

Truly your Socialist dream needs shattering with some basic reality (remember that?).

Firstly you seem to think Socialist ideals bailing out risky loans in rotten businesses by robbing taxpayers "stabalises the market". Do you practice being stupid for a living?

Does shifting a smelly fish from the kitchen to the lounge change the smell?

So why do you think the public, already over -taxed by Labour (on income, more with VAT on goods, 2 taxes on petrol, new 2nd time tax on pensions) and struggling, bailing out risky business makes anything more stable? It just blows more money chasing bad business. Got it?

Similarly passing a rotten asset from private sector to public sector doesn't change anything whatsoever or make the asset 'good' or less bad. Try shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic if you like acts of total Socialist futility.

Capatalism works. Capatalism would have carved up the carcass of Northern Rock for a fraction of the £80bn Labour has p*ssed down the drain. And capatalism would dispose massively more efficiently than Labours £30bn extortion of public finances to prop up this lame duck.

We do not need Socialism, or regulation, to "save" capatalism because there's no magic wand to change bad debts or bad loans or bad business into good. Let the market work.

The fact is it is good capatalism that bad socialism needs to live off to survive. As we saw with centralist controlled Russia all the bad decisions get repeated until capital is worthless and the country goes bankrupt. The only solution for bad capatalism is capatalism. Socialism just throws good capital after bad (eg. Northern Rock and Brad&Bing).

The comments to this entry are closed.