Cameron vs Miliband

hattip: eureferendum.blogspot

Ed Miliband did well, adopting the right tone.  I only saw the last part.

Cameron on the counter attack, relying heavily on statements yesterday from Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch.

The problem is for both our two parties (what happened to the Lib Dems?)

David Davis – hypocricy – looking back at previous Labour government.

Johnson on Wallis appointment.  Good question.  Sounded a little vulnerable.

Jack Straw – Coulson answer weak.

viz.  Coulson gave me assurances he didn’t know about the hacking, and I believed him.

Tom Watson’s question.  He did notify Cameron in  a latter that Coulson had been involved in illegal activity.  Cameron did  not reply to the letter.

Fallback to different defence –  ‘his conduct at No 10 was beyond reproach.  I gave him a second chance.’

Trying to get on with media companies to get our message across.

Our mistake (both parties) was not to regulate relations with the media.

In other words, our house is in order.  It’s the media that’s at fault.

TAP – what difference will that make?  None at all.

Next question about what didn’t come out yesterday –

Let’s get on with the enquiries  –  LONG GRASS.

Next MP – Terms of Reference for the Leverson Enquiry are too narrow.  Must include all information crime.

Cameron happy with that.

Mensch – attacks partisanship, then is partisan.

Skinner did he discuss BskyB in the meetings with Brooks and NI?
Cameron: I never had one inappropriate conversation.  I took myself out of every thing to do with this bid.

That is very weak, merely echoing what Rebekah Brooks said, word for word. 

Cameron rushing for the enquiries to get on with the job and for the Police investigations, as his cover.

Cameron is claiming full transparency.  Yet there are gaps in his transparency.

David Lammy – asks about the informality of his relationship with Brooks.  Cameron’s answer is about formal contacts.  I have never seen her in her pyjamas.  Again, not answering the question.

Next question a specific example of information being supplied indicating Coulson was known to be involved in criminal activity against a senior member of government. (missed the name)

CAMERON – I take responsibility for employing Andy Coulson.  He didn’t behave in any way inappropriately during his time in Downing Street.

The BBC cannot be left out of the coming media debate entirely – although no sense of any problem with their monopoly.

Q about Coulson employment, who made the decisions.  If I had any information that he knew about hacking, I would have fired him, and if I’d found out he was responsible for hacking, I would have fired him.

Handy Cock! WAS BSKYB MENTIONED?  I asked to be taken out of the information about BskyB to avoid being compromised.

Q.  Did the PM want to be kept in the dark by the Police?  Or was he angry that he was kept in the dark?

A.  It was the correct procedure.

………..I’ve had enough!

Repeat of Q from Watson – what is the answer about Watson’s letter?

Same answers.  Generalities not specifics.

Q.  Brooks said Osborne chose Coulson.  Was it true or was she trying to protect her friend the Prime Minister?

A  Cameron says.  It was my decision.  I’m at the top.  The buck stops here.  (very bad for Osborne)

Q.  Was Coulson put through standard vetting?  
A.  SPad code of conduct, which he obeyed unlike Damian McBride.

Cameron claims he didn’t discuss the BskyB decision with the Culture Secretary.  Coulson again.

A.  Damian McBride.  Alastair Campbell falsifying documents.  Tom Baldwin still working for Labour.  Gotcha! (very confident on attacking Labour’s record)

Q. Chequers being used for media slumber parties
A  He won’t invite Rebekah Wade to one. (getting cocky)

REPEAT Q about Watson’s letter advising him of Coulson’s criminality.  He says he will go back to No 10 and reply to it robustly.  (sent nearly a year ago)

1 PM CAMERON – ‘all my conversations are appropriate.’ very cocky.

I bet that Cameron reassured the Murdochs that Vince Cable was being shifted and replaced with Jeremy Hunt.  

And who set up Vince Cable?


Carl Bernstein – The News Of The World was run on thuggery.  Like many parts of the Murdoch empire.  Some titles are run respectably.  Others are in the sewer.

The last thing we need is to overreact and over-regulate the Press. The government would end up in greater control, and the people more disenfranchised.  The law needs enforcing.  But as the Police are corrupted and in cahoots, it’s the lack of law enforcement that is the problem.

Murdoch is the most powerful individual in British politics.  The coming to light of the awfulness of what Murdoch has done is bringing to light the institutional abuse of power, where the institutions were captured by Murdoch, and corrupted.

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

7 Responses to “Cameron vs Miliband”

  1. Me says:

    What happens if/when Cameron resigns? I think that’s inevitable now because there are just so many jokes to be had.

    So, new election? Should we support the global warmist Milliband? I thought he was one of the globalists, just not the favourite one.

    Of course, we should give him a chance if he wants to fight his brother.

  2. stedra rulz says:

    Did Cameron really choose to hire Andy Coulson?

    Or was the choice made for him?

  3. Tapestry says:

    Me, the decoding of current events is probably beyond me. My best effort was to see the two sides of the OWG starting to slit each others’ throats, the war-making debt-bankers, who have been making all the running of late, being attacked by the global warming wing, who’ve seen their train derailed by exposure of their lies.

    Is the same thing starting to happen to the war-debt side, with email exposures apparently coming next?

    In an optimistic moment you might be forgiven for hoping that information exposure is quietly dismantling the whole power structure which has been built in secrecy over one hundred years and more. That is the thing that underlies all the current currents as it were – yet even this week people can’t see something as obvious as the Jonnie Marbles stunt being an ‘inside job’.

    You give people enough facts to decipher events but they still prefer their TV set to tell them what they are watching, rather than work it out for themselves. There is no hope of freedom while people still trust the communications they receive as 100% factual. Peoples’ unwillingness to start thinking what is happening is the great problem. If we want freedom, we have to dismantle the power structures by thinking and talking. Otherwise they dumb us down and use us to enslave each other.

    Miliband in alliance with The Guardian, The Independent and others wants to build a power base from which to dismantle Cameron’s act, and it is tempting to believe he will stop the wars and allow the economy to recover. In truth he will ruin the country with his environmental insanities, and probably hasten the depopulation programme.

    As they are all equally hateful, for different reasons, it is important that they fight like ferrets in a sack and get each other by the throat, and start spilling information about each other until people start to awaken.

    If any of them become too powerful, it is extremely dangerous for the rest of us. Cameron is rushing to sign us away into power structures that have no interest in our survival. Miliband would do the same but in a slightly different way.

    Right now I fear Cameron and Clegg’s arrogance more than Ed’s bookishness. He is a great improvement on his brother, at least, who was licking the backsides of the international elites and couldn’t wait to join them. In truth I can’t decipher Ed, but I trust him more than Cameron on some kind of instinctive level. Am I right? Probably not, but given the choices on offer, where else can we look?

    If only the public would awaken, turn off their TVs and start thinking and talking to each other. That is the element that is missing. I find that many/most people are too fearful and want all of it to just go away.

  4. Tapestry says:

    Stedra, Cameron thought the media was powerful enough that he would never have to account for his actions. We have to demonstrate to politicians that they cannot relax and take the public for granted. Blair got away clean, despite endless lies, but then there weren’t enough email hackers and no internet/blogosphere/twitter in 2003.

    We need to build these channels until the lies are exposed more rapidly and more forcefully, if we can. Cameron still thinks this is just a tiny setback, and he’ll reframe the relationship between media, politicians and Police into some kind of regulatory box-ticking structure, in which he is more protected from criticism.

    He has no intention of changing direction. Our job is to harry him and bring him down if we can. There are good people inside the Conservative Party, but they are kept out of the front rank for the most part. The corruption goes right to the top.

  5. Tapestry says:

    Gillian –

    Two excellent blog posts Tap, if I may say so.
    I believe your summation of the current situation is spot-on. Not least because it concurs with my own!
    Although I have to say that you as always write with more conviction and supporting evidence to add real weight
    to your conclusions than I ever could.


    P.S. Is it okay for me to draw these two blogs to the attention of the mainly nice commenters
    on another man’s blog site, namely Alastair Campbell?

    I know you don’t like him and I quite
    understand the reasons for your dislike or mistrust of him.

    Tap, while on on the subject of AC, I would appreciate your opinion of that infamous dodgy dossier.

    This is just a little idea that came into my mind recently. AC is widely regarded as the person who persuaded
    MI5 or was it 6 to produce further evidence to “sex-up” said dossier! What if it was the other way around?
    The reason I say this is because given the reputation/s of MI5 or 6 then it seems very unlikely to me at least, that
    either or both of these organisations could be persuaded by any Government lackey to do anything that didn’t suit
    their agenda! However, if it was the other way around that makes more sense to me at least. What do you think Tap?
    only if you’ve got the time and/or inclination of course.

  6. Tapestry says:

    I see Campbell as someone who could do much to expose the lies of 2003, but who chooses not to do so. He obviously feels very sorry for himself, but I don’t feel any sympathy for someone who assisted in the deaths and maiming of very large numbers.

    If he would come clean and tell us what really happened, and not expect us to believe the tripe he spouts endlessly, I would be most grateful. How does he live with himself?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.