Jamie Reed in his own words ...
This blog will be five years old in just under a month, making it one of the longest running political blogs, and far and away the longest running in Copeland. As I believe in genuine debate, I am pleased to see competition in ideas, and so I welcome the newest political blog in Copeland, which was set up three days ago by local MP Jamie Reed.
The "About" section of Jamie's blog currently (28th January) reads as follows:
"As soon as I can be bothered and time allows, I’ll put my details here. Anyway, I’m an MP…"
Jamie's second post, "The Weirdness" is about the groundrules for his blog, and here are some extracts:
"As political websites are often havens for the criminally insane, we need to lay down a few ground rules."
"Opinions and comment are both welcome of course, but there’s a weirdness/litigation/mental health threshold which I won’t allow comments to cross.
With this in mind, I’m off to enlist the help of a team of clinical psychologists to help me develop an editorial policy.
My house, my rules."
Now I would be the first to agree that it is up to the person running a blog what comments he or she accepts, and if someone wants to allow only comments from their own party, or which they agree with, that is their prerogative. Personally I find those blogs which allow people who disagree with them to post things to be more interesting to read.
Certainly all the top blogs - such as Political Betting, Iain Dale, Conservative Home, and yes, Jamie's friend and colleague Tom Harris MP - would be infinitely less readable without the wide range of people who comment on them.
Which is why I've allowed several councillors and activists from other parties (including Labour), and local residents who don't much like any party, to post things on this blog which are highly critical of myself, my team, or my views as long as they word their comments in a way which does not create a risk of legal action and is not grossly offensive.
There are now three blogs run by parliamentary candidates in Copeland, but it remains to be seen whether either of the others will permit the expression of a similar range of views and the omens are not good. One person who was recently selected as his party's PPC to stand against myself and Jamie has been blogging for 18 months or so, but I have rarely if ever seen anything critical in the comments on his blog.
And it would appear that when Jamie says "My house, my rules" he means that his opponents don't need to waste their time posting even friendly comments.
The day after Jamie set up his blog I posted a comment (under my real name, of course) along the lines of
"A friendly bipartisan welcome to the newest political blog in Copeland from the oldest one."
Life is far too short for me to get particularly worked up about the fact that Jamie or one of his staff blocked it. But if he's scared of comments like that, he's not going to get much real debate on his blog.
The "About" section of Jamie's blog currently (28th January) reads as follows:
"As soon as I can be bothered and time allows, I’ll put my details here. Anyway, I’m an MP…"
Jamie's second post, "The Weirdness" is about the groundrules for his blog, and here are some extracts:
"As political websites are often havens for the criminally insane, we need to lay down a few ground rules."
"Opinions and comment are both welcome of course, but there’s a weirdness/litigation/mental health threshold which I won’t allow comments to cross.
With this in mind, I’m off to enlist the help of a team of clinical psychologists to help me develop an editorial policy.
My house, my rules."
Now I would be the first to agree that it is up to the person running a blog what comments he or she accepts, and if someone wants to allow only comments from their own party, or which they agree with, that is their prerogative. Personally I find those blogs which allow people who disagree with them to post things to be more interesting to read.
Certainly all the top blogs - such as Political Betting, Iain Dale, Conservative Home, and yes, Jamie's friend and colleague Tom Harris MP - would be infinitely less readable without the wide range of people who comment on them.
Which is why I've allowed several councillors and activists from other parties (including Labour), and local residents who don't much like any party, to post things on this blog which are highly critical of myself, my team, or my views as long as they word their comments in a way which does not create a risk of legal action and is not grossly offensive.
There are now three blogs run by parliamentary candidates in Copeland, but it remains to be seen whether either of the others will permit the expression of a similar range of views and the omens are not good. One person who was recently selected as his party's PPC to stand against myself and Jamie has been blogging for 18 months or so, but I have rarely if ever seen anything critical in the comments on his blog.
And it would appear that when Jamie says "My house, my rules" he means that his opponents don't need to waste their time posting even friendly comments.
The day after Jamie set up his blog I posted a comment (under my real name, of course) along the lines of
"A friendly bipartisan welcome to the newest political blog in Copeland from the oldest one."
Life is far too short for me to get particularly worked up about the fact that Jamie or one of his staff blocked it. But if he's scared of comments like that, he's not going to get much real debate on his blog.
Comments
Hello Mr Reed,
Just testing to see if you allow Tories to blogg on your website. Describing Mr Cameron as a ‘Quisling’ of the anti nuclear proponents and climate change deniers of his own party was not very smart was it? Nor was your remark in the intervention in January’s debate on climate change which drew this response from Greg Clarke:
“I have been disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s recent interventions on this matter. I have followed his speeches over the years, and he has recognised the importance that his constituents and people in his region place on certainty and continuity of policy. However, just in the past few debates he has taken a partisan approach to these issues that is against his constituents’ interests. In the interests of their employment, he ought to reflect on the signals that he gives.”
Mr Reed, Conservatives are going to form the next Government and Mr Cameron will be PM. If you truly want investment in this area, such remarks towards the people who are going to form the next Government are unwise to say the least.
Conservatives are not anti-nuclear, as you have alleged on many occasions. True there are some members who hold personal views that are not party policy, but are there not anti-nuclear politicians in you own ranks? Do the views of Michael Meacher and Elliot Morley make Labour’s commitment dubious? These were not just advisors, like Zak Goldsmith, but Environment and Energy Ministers respectively. This puts Labour in a poor position when accusing Tories of being anti-nuclear. The Labour Party has a history of being anti-nuclear. The pro-nuclear stance was only adopted after Labour had been in power for ten years and the country was faced with potential power black outs. Ten years of inaction.
Now it is time to move on. We are where we are now and the crisis has to be faced, as it exists. Therefore a bipartisan stance, with less of the personal attacks is in the national interest.
It is also high time you had a public meeting with regard to the proposed new build at Kirksanton and Braystones.
Lets see if he allows Tories into his blogg-sphere or are we too weird?
My question has been answered.
Jamie Reed or his moderator, possibly Carl Carter does not allow Tories to blog on his website.
I put my testing blog on "Weirdness" on Friday. It came up waiting to be moderated. It stayed like that until at least Saturday morning. When I checked if it had been approved, early Sunday afternoon it had disappeared.
Quite frankly I cannot see the point of setting up a political blog if you are not going to allow debate i.e. allowing anything as long as it is not abusive, racist sexist, homophobic or potentially libellous. Clearly Jamie Reed cannot cope with the competition.
Therefore I can conclude that oldest Copeland political blog is therefore far superior to the youngest Copeland blog.
Like you Chris I am not going to lose sleep over it. I have satisfied my curiousity and other Conservatives have been alerted not waste their time.
A Tory with a conscience. It surprises him!
Before criticising Andrew Marr for the figures relating to deaths caused by the Iraq war, may I suggest that he and Alistair Campbell may be looking at different sources of statistical evidence, collected using different methods over a variety of time scales.
It is difficult to be precise about the number of deaths in Iraq, though deaths amongst coalition forces are more easily determined. In Iraq sources using different definitions arrive at varying numbers. In some cases the arrival at the calculation is indeterminate. Some of the figures may not incorporate all the deaths that occurred as a result of the insurgency that followed the complete breakdown of law and order after the invasion.
The Iraq Family Health Survey put the figure of violent deaths at 151,000 occurring between March 2003 and June 2006. These were published in the World Health Organisations Journal of medicine. However, this was taken from a study of 9,345 households in the above period.
The Lancet Survey puts the figure at 601,027 out of 654,965 excess deaths (nearer Andrew Marr’s figure) for the period March 2003- June 2006. The figures are inclusive of the figures that were consequential of the subsequent occupation. They are estimates based on the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation and include combatants and non-combatants and those who died due to lawlessness, poor health care and filthy water etc due to the breakdown of the country’s infrastructure.
Opinion Research Business survey gives a figure of 1,033,000 over the time span of March 2003 and August 2007. Associated press has 110,600 violent deaths occurring between March 2003 and December 2009. The Iraq Body Count has 94,902 – 103,549 violent civilian deaths up to December 2009.
One can dispute the figures and methodology for collecting, collating and interpreting the data, but one cannot down play down the disastrous consequences the war has had on Iraqi civilians. What has come out of the Chilcot Inquiry is that the war was badly planned. I have always been of the opinion that it was illegal in that the second UN resolution was required to back up Resolution 1441. Elizabeth Wilmhurst, Sir Michael Wood and the team of international lawyers had their advice ignored, because Tony Blair was going to back Bush come what may, in is characteristic narcissistic grandiose manner.
Blair engaged this country in a war of aggression and there could well be a case for putting him on trial in the Hague, for doing so. Rather than quibbling over the statistical evidence of the number of Iraqi civilians unlawfully killed, perhaps Alistair Campbell should focus on giving their families justice. Whilst truth and accuracy is important in data collection, in this instance it only serves as a distraction from the real issue. A war of aggression has been waged by Britain. Cabinet Government broke down and Britain had came close to presidential style Government. A tyranny that become unchecked.
If you attempt to access it by the link or google up the website. It starts to load it and produces a blank page. Has he given up on his blog or does he think Tories carry a virus? Interested in knowing what other people experience.