Please note that the post below was published more than ten year ago on 21st November 2009 Nick Herbert MP, shadow cabinet member for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, was in Cumbria this morning to see the areas affected by the flooding. He writes on Conservative Home about his visit. Here is an extract. I’ve been in Cumbria today to see the areas affected by the floods. I arrived early in Keswick where I met officials from the Environment Agency. Although the river levels had fallen considerably and homes were no longer flooded, the damage to homes had been done. And the water which had got into houses wasn’t just from the river – it was foul water which had risen from the drains. I talked to fire crews who were pumping flood water back into the river, and discovered that they were from Tyne & Wear and Lancashire. They had been called in at an hours’ notice and had been working on the scene ever since, staying at a local hotel. You cannot fail to be impressed by the
Comments
Do the people of this country really want another episode of the Blair/Brown soap opera? When a series runs too long the storylines repeat themselves, though the actors change. Those with the walk on parts always hope for a lead role eventually. The scenario would entail a government coming to power when the economy is strong and ruining it. Remember the 1997 show when New Labour inherited a full treasury from Ken Clarke and squandered all the money, so Labour’s successor had the lovely job clearing up the mess and repaying the debt. Meanwhile Labour, sitting it out on the opposition benches, blames the nasty mean Tories for cutting public spending. I sincerely hope the people of this country remember the first episode wasn’t worth watching. When the Coalition Government has got the economy back on line don’t go back for a repeat. Behind New Labour is a thoroughly traditional old Labour mess.
Sadly I do not have time to read everything in the papers and I hadn't seen the article which inspired Tim's posts.
If someone posts a comment here which passes my gut "this could be actionable" threshold against a third party, I have to consider removing it, particularly if the comment is based on something I have not read. That applies whether the target is Matthew Paris, Stephen Pollard or anyone else.
Having now seen the article which was being criticised, I'll accept that, like John McDonnell's comments on Mrs Thatcher today and for much the same reasons, Matthew's "joke" about cyclists was tasteless and inappropriate. And I now accept that Tim's comment was not libellous.
I stand by the view that, in the article to which I had actually linked, Matthew Parris made a number of perfectly reasonable points about the disappointing campaign pitches from the candidates to lead the Labour party. If you want to decide for yourself, read the link above.
Maybe all comments were a little premature as only now (9/6/2010 13:52) do we know the full slate of candidates. Dianne Abbott will be going on to the ballot paper, so it's a bit more of a choice than was first envisaged.