Comments on: Pie-eyed Piper?

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:48:05 +0000

Ummm….I think they have plenty positive to say actually. You’re just not listening to that.

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=129040

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=128948

By: scott

scott — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:42:50 +0000

The Guardian published the entire page of the advice pamphlet, there didn’t seem to be a context for the remarks to be taken out of. It looks extremely odd and not a little disturbing.
Like others I have to ask why Rennard didn’t simply state, ‘it’s 12 years old and we no longer give actvists this advice’ etc etc- in fact I don’t ever recall seeing it in the first place. It would have killed the story dead had it been denounced as out of date and inappropriate in today’s climate ,the Beeb,The Daily Mirror and The Guardian have Rennard defending it on behalf of The Lib Dems.Why?

By: Antony

Antony — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:58:42 +0000

Rennard seemed to me (from reading the BBC story) to be sensibly not directly commenting and turning attention to the very proper question of why the Tories have nothing positive to say.

By: James

James — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:09:54 +0000

“I donâ€™t think Peter Freitag is that mysterious, James!”

Maybe not to you, but I’ve been an activist within the party for 10 years and I’ve never heard of him.

I didn’t know training manuals were designed to only be readable if you were a member of a select elite.

And it isn’t an anecdote, or at least it isn’t presented as one. It is presented as actual advice. If it is simply a question of a poor choice of language, just say so – where’s the harm? Significantly, Rennard has refused to do so.

By: Oxonian

Oxonian — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:25:45 +0000

I don’t think Peter Freitag is that mysterious, James!

I’d only take issue with the somewhat dated language but not the general thrust of the advice. Oh, and I think you don’t need to offer sweets. In the right places, with the right person & with the right approach, kids will gladly help you out.

More generally, guides like this would be a lot less readable (& less well read) without the occasional amusing anecdote like this one.

By: Steve Cov

Steve Cov — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:13:58 +0000

James: Mixed feelings really. Hadn’t changed my view on CK but obviously uncomfortable about the way in which it happened (It was always my view that he was a decent chap, just not up to the job).

I guess the question that needs to be asked is whether the Party in a better postion. Probably not.

By: James

James — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:49:43 +0000

Dominic: “weâ€™re probably a bit too PC to say that in the handbook” – God, if only PC considerations were taken into account when writing that effing paragraph!

Even if some people can “pull it off” – the mysterious Freitag perhaps – it is hardly worth mentioning as “best practice” is it? Some people are capable of all sorts of things; that doesn’t mean you advise everyone to do the same in a “how to” guide. What’s wrong with a little Blue Peter-esque “don’t try this at home, kids!”?

Steve: Hi Steve! Pleased we finally followed your advice and got rid of Charles?

By: Steve Cov

Steve Cov — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:41:33 +0000

James,

Chanced across the blog and thought i’d say hello.

With regards to Frietag i think it’s more a case of a ‘who’ than a ‘what’ (unless ALDC have taken to using German codewords).

Does the rest of the document talk about FokusblÃ¤ttchen deliveries? (Translation courtesy of Babelfish)

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:29:10 +0000

Rennard could actually be being honest for once…

By: Valerie

Valerie — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:22:08 +0000

Excellent post. If it’s no longer in the latest editions – as it shouldn’t be – then why on earth didn’t we say so?