Comments on: In defence of the unknown researcher http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/ crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:58:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Mark Pack http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139448 Mark Pack Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:14:14 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139448 Ooh, nice dodge again Penelope :-) If you will insist on claiming that you're a party member, why not produce some evidence to back up that claim? Ooh, nice dodge again Penelope :-) If you will insist on claiming that you’re a party member, why not produce some evidence to back up that claim?

]]> By: Penelope http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139432 Penelope Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:33:16 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139432 James - thanks for wondering if I was looking into a mirror. Alas I don't suffer from the same absence of Low-Self Esteem as Mr. Huhne. So I'm not quite as passionate about myself as Huhne is about himself. I don't hide my animus towards him. But held for good reasons. Since I admire you as a writer - I would be grateful if you would put your suspicions about my motives to one side (at least for a moment) and please address the issue of whether you feel Huhne and Werrin were being truthful when they said that such an important document was sent without senior supervision. It speaks to credibility/competence. Joe - you are correct. There IS room for doubt. Mark Pack: Why hello again. You are correct that you eventually demanded my party membership number before publishing a post on LibDemVoice - even though the site makes no statement that one has to do so. Or even be a member to post. Of course you only asked for my membership number after various other pretexts were given by you for not posting my comment. But that's your prerogative. And mine - as a Liberal Party member since the late 1960's is to not respond to such hostile and illiberal demands. "I don't believe in that sort of thing - I'm a Liberal" I note that you too refuse to address the issues I raise. Are you SURE you're not a closet Labourite or Tory? We true Liberals are not afraid to discuss uncomfortable issues. It's what makes us better than the other parties... James - thanks for wondering if I was looking into a mirror. Alas I don’t suffer from the same absence of Low-Self Esteem as Mr. Huhne. So I’m not quite as passionate about myself as Huhne is about himself.

I don’t hide my animus towards him. But held for good reasons. Since I admire you as a writer - I would be grateful if you would put your suspicions about my motives to one side (at least for a moment) and please address the issue of whether you feel Huhne and Werrin were being truthful when they said that such an important document was sent without senior supervision. It speaks to credibility/competence.

Joe - you are correct. There IS room for doubt.

Mark Pack: Why hello again. You are correct that you eventually demanded my party membership number before publishing a post on LibDemVoice - even though the site makes no statement that one has to do so. Or even be a member to post. Of course you only asked for my membership number after various other pretexts were given by you for not posting my comment. But that’s your prerogative. And mine - as a Liberal Party member since the late 1960’s is to not respond to such hostile and illiberal demands. “I don’t believe in that sort of thing - I’m a Liberal”

I note that you too refuse to address the issues I raise. Are you SURE you’re not a closet Labourite or Tory? We true Liberals are not afraid to discuss uncomfortable issues. It’s what makes us better than the other parties…

]]> By: Paul Walter http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139311 Paul Walter Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:00:45 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139311 Not sure about the "what if" also. When phone canvassing either it didn't change people's minds or they said "well at least it shows that Huhne is tough" in the way he dealt with it and perhaps even by the inference that he was behind it. I think this researcher has a much bigger burden than possibly snatching defeat from victory for Huhne - it is now clear that they are a Doris Day fan - that is a much bigger lifelong burden to carry. Not sure about the “what if” also. When phone canvassing either it didn’t change people’s minds or they said “well at least it shows that Huhne is tough” in the way he dealt with it and perhaps even by the inference that he was behind it.

I think this researcher has a much bigger burden than possibly snatching defeat from victory for Huhne - it is now clear that they are a Doris Day fan - that is a much bigger lifelong burden to carry.

]]> By: Mark Pack http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139295 Mark Pack Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:32:47 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139295 Well, hello again Penelope. I see you're back to describing yourself as a Liberal Democrat member ("our party"); strange then that in our email correspondence you refused to provide any evidence that you are a party member isn't it? Well, hello again Penelope. I see you’re back to describing yourself as a Liberal Democrat member (”our party”); strange then that in our email correspondence you refused to provide any evidence that you are a party member isn’t it?

]]> By: Joe Otten http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139294 Joe Otten Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:27:53 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139294 Not convinced by your what-if analysis. Chris gave every indication of continuing the same negative strategy unabashed, and there was always the risk of it blowing up in his face, sooner or later, one way or another. Or it might have continued to the end of the campaign, with more bitterness all round. The Huhne campaign by all accounts (or perhaps by spun accounts) had a good finish - so the change of tack midway did it some good. If that hadn't happened, Nick's majority might have been much bigger. Maybe I am wrong, but there is surely considerable room for doubt. Not convinced by your what-if analysis. Chris gave every indication of continuing the same negative strategy unabashed, and there was always the risk of it blowing up in his face, sooner or later, one way or another. Or it might have continued to the end of the campaign, with more bitterness all round.

The Huhne campaign by all accounts (or perhaps by spun accounts) had a good finish - so the change of tack midway did it some good. If that hadn’t happened, Nick’s majority might have been much bigger.

Maybe I am wrong, but there is surely considerable room for doubt.

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139169 James Graham Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:53:21 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139169 I'm not sure that anyone with a festering grudge such as your own Penelope is in any position to judge to what extent Huhne will be willing to move on from this episode. Are you really giving us your clear cut analysis or looking into a mirror and finding yourself? Get over it. I'm sure Chris and Nick will. I’m not sure that anyone with a festering grudge such as your own Penelope is in any position to judge to what extent Huhne will be willing to move on from this episode. Are you really giving us your clear cut analysis or looking into a mirror and finding yourself?

Get over it. I’m sure Chris and Nick will.

]]> By: Penelope http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139163 Penelope Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:35:04 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/12/20/in-defence-of-the-unknown-researcher/#comment-139163 To the extent that a man with Huhne's level of hubris ever kicks himself - I'm sure that he knows that that dossier event was over the line and cost him at least 260 votes that would have made him the winner. But I think the fundamental error was in the defence offered by Huhne and Werrin. Even the phrase "over-zealous staff member" evoked Richard Nixon's excuse for his Watergate dirty tricks. Ultimately you have to ask yourself how probable was it that a briefing that was being sent to the producer of the Politics Show (on which he was due to appear two days later) could ever be sent out to such an important media outlet without a senior figure in the campaign giving a cursory glance - if only to check the spellings etc. So the claim that neither he nor anyone senior knew about it was either not credible (making Huhne a liar) or true but revealing of gross incompetence. My guess is that Huhne preferred people to think of him as a liar with very sharp elbows rather than incompetent. That incident allowed people outside our party to call us "nasty". I am glad Nick won. But I warn him. Don't trust Huhne. He will be holding a giant dagger and the resentment of a man who deep down, underneath it all, in the quiet of the night.... loves himself very passionately. To the extent that a man with Huhne’s level of hubris ever kicks himself - I’m sure that he knows that that dossier event was over the line and cost him at least 260 votes that would have made him the winner. But I think the fundamental error was in the defence offered by Huhne and Werrin. Even the phrase “over-zealous staff member” evoked Richard Nixon’s excuse for his Watergate dirty tricks.

Ultimately you have to ask yourself how probable was it that a briefing that was being sent to the producer of the Politics Show (on which he was due to appear two days later) could ever be sent out to such an important media outlet without a senior figure in the campaign giving a cursory glance - if only to check the spellings etc.

So the claim that neither he nor anyone senior knew about it was either not credible (making Huhne a liar) or true but revealing of gross incompetence.

My guess is that Huhne preferred people to think of him as a liar with very sharp elbows rather than incompetent.

That incident allowed people outside our party to call us “nasty”. I am glad Nick won. But I warn him. Don’t trust Huhne. He will be holding a giant dagger and the resentment of a man who deep down, underneath it all, in the quiet of the night…. loves himself very passionately.

]]>