Fisking Jamie Reed M.P.

I mentioned a few posts ago that the October issue of Labour's "Egremont Today" propaganda sheet, which masquerades as a community newspaper, contained some very dishonest statements about Conservative policies.

I have now seen the November issue and it's worse.

In particular, there is a deeply mendacious article by the MP for Copeland which utterly misrepresents what Conservatives stand for. Parts of it also attempt to stir up class hatred in ways which, if the MP had written in similar terms on race, would not have been far away from risking prosecution under his party's own laws.

So here is a little light fisking of Jamie Reed's offensive and unpleasant propaganda

"We are not all in this together: Copeland comes first."

Helpful of you to make clear in your very title, Jamie, that you have abandoned any pretence that Labour is a party for the whole nation.

"It won't have escaped your attention, but it has become fashionable for certain politicians to talk about cuts, cuts and more cuts."

It hasn't escaped the attention of any intelligent voter that all parties are reluctantly considering whether they may have to make cuts, or that some parties are being much more honest about it than others. And your party is the one which secretly instructed the treasury to plan 10% cuts while some of it's least truthful members, sadly including yourself, are still talking as if you had the ability - never mind the wish, the ability - to sustain the present level of public spending.

"We all know that as a nation we have to balance the books"

We certainly do. Do you consider it is "balancing the books" when one pound in four that the government is spending goes straight onto the national debt, that this debt has doubled in five years and is heading for a trillion pounds on your own government's projections, when the government already has to spend more on paying the interest on that debt than the entire national schools budget, and when this situation will get much worse unless the defecit is reduced?


" - and our economy is in far better shape than the biased news media would have you believe"

There are eight jobseekers in Copeland chasing every job vacancy: I doubt if many of those people would agree with you.

- but a lot of this talk is ignorant, dangerous and wrong.

"Ignorant, dangerous, and wrong" just about sums up your knowledge of Economics - or lack of it.


"Our local economy in Copeland and West Cumbria is based upon public spending - councils, schools, hospitals, police, the nuclear industry: all of this is supported by public spending. In turn, these bodies provide our private sector with the contracts they need to survive. So when David Cameron and George Osborn pledge savage cuts, my immediate thought is always: "How many West Cumbrian jobs do they want to destroy?"

Jamie, if you can produce a date, place, and precise quote in which either David Cameron or George Osborne have ever used the words "savage cuts" to describe a policy they want to implement, or suggested that they would enjoy making savage cuts, I will donate a fiver to a charity or cause of your choice. If you cannot produce such a quote, you should apologise for that statement.


"Let me be absolutely clear on where I stand: I will not allow our local public services, our local economy and the jobs, people and families which this supports to become a victim of the avarice of the bankers who created the global recession we are now in (and hopefully beginning to come out of)."

Sadly not - your rose tinted view of Labour's achievements is running ahead of reality again.

"The Tories would have you believe that the bankers are innocent"

Remind me which government and which Chancellor of the Exchequer created the current regulatory regime which allowed the bankers to make the mistakes which certainly contributed to our current difficulties? It was this Labour government and the chancellor responsible was Gordon Brown.

And actually, the Conservatives don't dispute that some bankers - though not everyone who works in a bank - made serious mistakes. But I certainly hope we would not descend quite as far into the gutter tactics of inciting envy and class hatred which runs through your article.

"and that the world's economic problems have been created by Labour's choice to raise the salaries of nurses, doctors, teachers, police and by employing more people in these jobs than ever before. Utter nonsense."

Your caricature of the tory position is the utter nonsense. I had no problem whatsoever with employing more nurses, doctors, teachers, or police, but for every one of these front line specialists which your government has employed you've taken on two or three administrators, bureacrats, or support staff.

"I will not support any cuts relating to the public services used by the people of Copeland."

My turn to be equally clear. If, disastrously for Britain, your government were re-elected,

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO KEEP THAT PROMISE.

Your government is spending massively beyond the country's means, and the massive debts you are building up will take decades to pay off. In the meantime, billions will have to be spent to pay the interest on the money you are currently borrowing. And the longer it is left to cut the defecit, the worse the correction will have to be when somebody finally makes it.

I don't like the idea of painful cuts any more than you do, but the idea that your government would have the money to pay for all the promises you are currently making is pure fantasy.

If you believe you could possibly deliver the promises you are currently making, you are not intelligent enough to be a good MP. If you know that you are offering false hope to the residents of Copeland, you are not honest enough to be a good MP.


"It is only now that we are starting to receive the public investment we need and deserve and the Energy Coast plan is delivering unprecedented levels of public money into our community. In balancing the books, the government is right to examine every government department to see where money can be saved. But government must also look at which areas of the country require the most investment – this is clearly not the south of England and public spending must be maintained in areas like West Cumbria. We are not as George Osborn claims "in this together". I never saw the multi million pound city bonuses which fuelled this crisis being shared out in Egremont and Cleator Moor... "

Here we go again, more class hatred. The bonus payments made to City people probably postponed the recession more than once, and I suspect you'll find that a certain number of city people bought second homes in Cumbria and actually did boost the economy of the county. What touched off the crisis was lending to people who didn't have the ability to pay the loans back.

"The Conservatives have said that they want to slash public spending. In Parliament they voted against the public investments for the new West Cumberland Hospital, the new Westlakes Academy, the other educational investments in our local schools, our universities, the new health centre in Cleator Moor and the rebuilding of cottage hospitals in Millom and Keswick. They also voted against fetching these investments forward."

Completely mendacious. Conservative MPs campaigned for more investment in cottage hospitals like Millom Community Hospital and the Mary H. in Keswick when the Labour government was considering closing scores of them. Conservative policy has supported, not opposed, investment in front line hospital services. No Conservative in parliament has ever moved a specific amendment to take these items out of a budget and if anyone did it would not have Conservative support.

"On top of this, they have said they want to cut public spending across the board by 10%, in addition to taking £4 billion out of the schools budgets."

Rubbish.

First, the Conservatives have stated in the most specific terms that two areas - health in particular - will be protected in real terms, so to suggest that we wanted to cut everything by 10% across the board is not true.

The 10% figure was taken from an interview in which the Conservative health spokesman was talking not about our own party's plans, but about Labour ones. He pointed out that when you allow for inflation and the interest on the extra debt money Labour is borrowing, Labour's own spending plans would represent a 7% cut over the next parliament in the money available for spending departments in real terms.

He added that if you protect Health, which the Conservatives have promised to do and Labour may also do, the average cut over all other departments is 10%.

And 10% cuts is the figure which Labour was planning for in a leaked treasury document.


"This isn’t morally right and it’s not right for the people of Copeland and West Cumbria."

Interesting to read that you think Labour's policies are neither morally right or right for the people of Copeland.

"Its absolutely clear that the Tories' public spending cuts would entirely undermine the basis of our local economy. The limited impact of the recession in our part of the world is entirely down to public spending – all of which the Tories oppose.
The months ahead will be tough and we must balance the books, but not at the expense of the people of West Cumbria."

That's twice you've admitted that Britain needs to balance the books, but you have not mentioned one single concrete proposal for how Labour would do this.

"For me, the fortunes of Copeland will always come first. We need to maintain investment in health, education, policing and the nuclear industry – these investments are transforming our area and I will always work to protect them. Its now absolutely clear that only Labour will deliver this; the Tories won't."

The Conservatives are equally committed to investment in health, on which we have promised to match Labour spending, and in nuclear power. Labour cannot deliver on their promises, because if they tried to do everything they have promised without economies elsewhere they will finish what they have already come far too close to doing - bankrupting Britain.

Comments

Jane said…
The real dividing line in Britain is now between honesty and dishonesty and not between Labour investment and Tory cuts. (George Osborne The Times June 2009.) It is blatant that Britain’s fiscal mess is Augean. Voters know that spending cuts are inevitable, with a budget deficit of £175 billion in the financial year to March (124% of GDP.). It is now payback time. Whoever is in power has to fact this harsh fact.

Jamie Reed MP echoing Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is showing unwillingness to confront the reality of future spending cuts. Whilst this is intellectually fatal for the Labour Party it is courting economic disaster for the country.

What is disturbing is that Labour are promising everything they believe people want to hear, in the full knowledge that they will not be required to deliver. Expensive projects are being rushed through and contracts signed in a panic. What is worrying is that when it comes to the crunch the money will not be in the kitty to deliver on obligations founded on pie in the sky dreams. Simultaneously Labour MPs like Jamie Reed are now only concerned with saving as many seats in Parliament, as possible, because they fear for their careers. Maximising the number who will be content to sit on the opposition benches and jeer. That is the real reason for resorting to this sort of gutter press intellectual deceit that is published the ‘Egremont Today’ rag paper. The country and the people no longer matter.

The big discussion in British politics now and for the foreseeable future, as George Osborne clearly argues, is for the intellectually honest and courageous to confront the debt crisis and deliver quality public services when spending is tight. Jamie Reed has followed Gordon Brown to the sidelines of this debate. Labour’ dishonesty has led this country to the brink of bankruptcy.

This is not the return of the 'nasty party.' The Conservatives are brave and honest enough to face this reality for the sake of the country and the people. Stop insulting our intelligence Mr Reed.
Anonymous said…
Ever since Jamie came out with that rubbish about being a Jedi, it's been obvious he was never fit for office and is out of his depth. Labour thinks it owns West Cumbria anyway and it's time they were taught a lesson. Mr Whiteside is the clear alternative from what I've seen on here!
Jane said…
Thank your anonymous. It is time to end the spin and and reclaim our language from 'double-speak'. Yes Labour thinks it owns West Cumbria. It is time for change here.
Caryl Ireland said…
Chris, as Assistant Editor, and soon to be Editor of Egremont Today I feel I should address your comments that ET is masquerading as a community newspaper We are delighted that you take such a keen interest in our small publication (circulation 10,300 and rising!) and if you look through it again (as I’m sure you will) count how many political articles there are then compare that to how many ‘community’ based articles are featured.
I’m not sure where the ‘masquerading’ comes from, we clearly state on the front page ‘Labour’s Voice in Egremont & District’, albeit in small writing, but that reflects the amount of political content in relation to the focus on our community.
As for ET being ‘Labour’s propaganda sheet’ perhaps you would turn to page 6 of your latest edition ( December) and explain how that works when we are more than happy to publish the contact details for ALL councillors regardless of their political persuasion. Why do we do that? – Because our community ask us to and that is who we take our orders from!
In the past year alone we have featured, often month after month former Mayor Keith Hitchin who was always a delight to talk to and a real gentleman. Correct me if I’m wrong Chris but isn’t Keith a member of the Conservative Party?
What can say – Labour’s attempts at so called propaganda are pathetic. Perhaps we should try harder!

As for Jamie’s article being about class hatred I am stunned, surely any politician who is representing ordinary working class people like myself should be striving for fairness for all and willing to question the wealth, and often greed of a minority, but as you proudly say, that minority bring much needed income to our area when they buy holiday homes here. I know from bitter experience that provides little comfort to those living in West Cumbria, especially more rural parts when they can no longer afford to buy homes in the area where they live and work because prices have been driven up so high by our generously overpaid city dwelling cousins in dire need of a second or third home!

Finally a response to the comment made by ‘Anonymous’ that Labour think they own West Cumbria. Is it not more the case that West Cumbria has taken ownership of Labour – that Labour belongs to West Cumbria?
Jane said…
Caryl Ireland. I am afraid your newspaper has continuously published misleading if not outright untruths about Conservative policy, much of which has emanated from Jamie Reed MP.

Conservatives, nationally and locally have not voted against the West Cumbria Hospital nor are they anti-NHS. Local Conservatives from the outset joined the ‘Save our Services’ campaign when the cottage hospitals were threatened with closure. Jamie Reed cannot boast the same level of consistency on this issue.

Conservatives are not anti-nuclear. New build at Sellafield is supported, along with the development of the ‘Energy Coast.’ Regarding Kirksanton and Braystones, the views of the local residents are of utmost importance during the consultation period for the planning application.

There are also undercurrents of inverted snobbery with linguistic inferences of class war. The economic problems face the nation and together as a nation they have to be confronted. That is not the Conservatives not respecting the interests of the working class, but a matter of social inclusion. There is nothing wrong with privilege. A child does not choose its social class, its parents or its school. It is as David Cameron so aptly put it, “what you do with that privilege.” A progressive socially aware Conservative can serve the needs of the most vulnerable and underprivileged in our society.

As I have not had an opportunity to comment publicly. I will now raise an objection to one of your flyers that went out under the ‘Egremont Today’ title, in the St. Bees and Egremont District during the County Council election. As a candidate standing for a political party I would expect people to raise issues with regard to the policies of the party of which I am a member. In fact I would welcome a rational intelligent argument. However the flyer did not take issue with Conservative policy, but suggested that I could not be a serious candidate because I do not drive and that I was just a paper candidate with no commitment as a consequence. Like most good lies it did have an element of truth in it. I do not drive and Cllr. Southward knew it, but to suggest that I cannot be a committed councillor, serving my residents, because I do not drive was untruthfully and outright offensive. I get around on public transport and am completely competent with handling emails, telephones and mobiles. Is this not as discriminatory as saying someone cannot be a councillor because they are black or have a disability. I also have to add that Gordon Brown does not drive. Perhaps a little less of the dirty politics and some proper debate on the issues is in order or has the Labour Party sunk so low into desperation and despair that it is incapable of proper intellectual debate. Scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Thank you at least for acknowledging that Keith Hitchen is a ‘gentleman’. He is truly bipartisan in his local politics and was consequently an excellent mayor. Whilst Egremont Today and related publications from its press do have community content, it still stands that it only represents Labours’ perspective on events. I do not see the views of Conservative activists in the community represented. I do not see evidence of debate or any acknowledgement that Conservatives are part of the community. Just be honest and call a spade a spade. ‘Egremont Today’ is a propaganda sheet published by Labours’ Ministry of Truth.’
Anonymous said…
I find it beyond remarkable - not to mention amusing - that any Conservative supporter can refer to a something as "a propaganda sheet masquerading as a newspaper".

To prove the lack of bias of any Conservative voter commenting on this blog, can any of you link me to a similar attack you've made on the Daily Mail, or the vast majority of British newspapers that promote your favoured party nationally?

Yes, Egremont-Today is a Labour supporting newspaper. To the best of my knowledge, that is openly declared on the actual header of the newspaper itself, with the words "Labour's voice in Egremont & District", so it could hardly be mistaken for anything else.

If Conservative supporters disapprove of Egremont-Today, they are surely advised not to simply complain about it but to compete against it. Something I recollect they did once try with a publication known as "Castle Crack" which was as unsuccessful as it was short-lived.
Chris Whiteside said…
I think Jane's response deals with the points made by Caryl.

"Anonymous" appears not to have noticed that the Daily Mail is one of the supposedly right-wing newspapers which supported Tony Blair at recent elections. He or she might also like to note to ntoe that Egremont Today's own deputy editor (and soon to be editor) admitted on this thread that the words "Labour's voice in Egremont and District" are in "small writing."

I don't have a problem with Egremont Today putting out positive Labour policies. But when they make personal attacks on Conservative candidates, as they did against Jane, or make untrue statements about Conservative policies, as they have done in almost every recent issue (particularly, but not exclusively, in Jamie Reed's column) I have the right to respond and will continue to do so.
Caryl said…
Jane, I am very taken aback by your allegations against Egremont Today which claim that we printed some election material that in your words stated – ‘that I could not be a serious candidate because I do not drive’.
I personally would feel very unhappy about printing such ludicrous comments, especially if it was said under the name of Egremont Today.
I am very concerned about this matter and would greatly appreciate you getting in touch with me through ET and showing me the flyer that you mentioned (if you still have it).
We do, for legal reason keep copies of everything we print for a period of time and Peter Watson is at present tracking down these items. If you have them to hand it could save time.

If we did print anything that suggests being unable to drive inhibits a person from doing a job as a councillor then we will, of course print a full apology.
In fact Peter, a councillor for many years is unable to drive or ride a bike and it has no bearing on his ability to represent others!
I for one (you can be assured Jane) am not a fan of dirty politics and whilst out canvassing (for the 1st time) during the last local elections I even told voters that if they couldn’t vote for Labour, then to vote Conservative rather than BNP.
I know for a fact that Conservative canvassers were saying the same thing.
I was proud that we could put our differences aside and unite against the threat of the BNP. It was this threat that has made me get involved with local politics and although I have limited knowledge and experience in that area I am willing to stand up and fight for a fairer and better Britain for all who want to live here.

I have met you only once Jane, very briefly at the count in the Civic Hall and you were very kind to me and offered me headache pills which I was very grateful for. I have no reason to think you are anything other than a caring and motivated lady and I am sure that when you have the chance to stand in an election in your own area where you will be better known you will be more successful.

Of course ET supports the Labour Party - that is stated quite clearly on the front page, there is no trickery involved but the vast majority of our space is dedicated to community based features.
Every month I meet and interview many people. I neither know what their political persuasion is nor indeed care. My only concern is for the story that they wish to share with me and all the other interested members of our community.
Caryl Ireland said…
Jane, In response to the very public allegation you have made against Egremont Today and because you have failed to contact us with your ‘proof’ so we can sort this out in private I am forced to publish the original election material that you referred to.
This is what we said about you:

"The Conservative candidate lives in Millom, and in the whole of her election address produces no first hand knowledge of the people of our town. She has twice contested seats on Millom Town Council and has been rejected by those who know her. She comes to Egremont hidden by anonymity and trusting that Conservatives will vote for anything in Blue. She appears not to know that the deplorable state of our roads is due to cuts in expenditure by the Conservative dominated administration over the past 8 years, made worse by the decision by East Cumbrian Conservatives and Lib Dems to protect their own roads while exposing West Cumbria to the most savage cuts.

I am totally bemused at how this, in any way could be twisted into us saying you are unfit to be a councillor because you can not drive.

Just for good measure I am including the last but one sentence of Peter Watson’s election address:

“The fact that he cannot drive means that if he is elected he will certainly get to meetings by train, or by car sharing, instead of claiming mileage.”

As this whole debacle was forced, by yourself into the public arena then I think a public apology to Egremont Today would be the most fitting end to it.
I will make one apology myself Jane, when I wrote my previous blog entry I made reference that if you were to stand in your own area where you were better known you would be more successful – after re-reading the election material above I can see that was not the case. I was unaware of your previous attempts at the time.
Jane said…
Caryl Ireland.I had not seen the flyer, but some residents in St. Bees informed me that they had received a personal flyer that had attacked me personally. The candidate had also been knocking on doors telling residents that I was just a paper candidate because I could not drive and was not serious about serving their community. People who I had no reason to believe were being insincere told me. I admit I cannot prove this was said, but I believe it was said. The rest lies with Cllr. Southward’s conscience! Whilst one has to be sceptical of what one hears, it made sense because Cllr. Southward knew I could not drive, as I once worked with him as a Trustee of an organisation I do not wish to mention here on the basis of it being a non-party political body. The people in St. Bees could not have known that particular piece of information about me.

I had made several attempts to obtain the flyer, but people had thrown it out. I did feel some inclination towards making an apology on the basis that what I said was based on hearsay from St. Bees residents. They linked what they heard with what they had read.

It goes against my strict academic training not to say anything without proof. I almost apologised last night for making the statement, but decided to hold off. However the people I spoke to gave me no indication of being of being dishonest. What they said they could not have known without Cllr. Southward’s information. I regret that on acquaintance with him I would not put this beyond his character, to say what he did.

If I must apologise it is because I showed the human weakness of filling gaps. Clearly I was wrong that this went in the flyer. I do appreciate you having done what other folks have not been able to do and that is to quote it to me.

Do you not think it is still rather personal it casts aspersions on my character? Anonymous, sneaky, rejected in Millom! Could it not be seen that my current lack of success in Millom, as another candidate longer established in the community, better known (perhaps more deserving in terms of time served) beat me to the post? One has to earn the respect of the people it does not come by right of family connection or act of God. I regret I cannot apologise. I had good reason to believe I was personally smeared.

I apologise for letting emotions cloud my intellectual judgment. I showed the human weakness of filling gaps. I admit that what I honestly believed was circulated was incorrect, with regard to the publication in Egremont Today. I have learned a lesson to stiffen my middle class upper-lip, it clearly is a bit limp.

‘Egremont Today’ cannot be held responsible for words uttered and dispersed into the ether. I would have apologised had the tone of the leaflet not been so personal.

I withdraw nothing with regard to Jamie Reed’s allegations that Conservatives do not support the NHS or are anti nuclear. Completely incorrect.

In the meantime I hope we can let this pass and look at the bigger picture. The interests of the people of West Cumbria are paramount. There is going to be a change of Government and our local duty is to see that the interests of all people are met.

Cross party working on issues that benefit the community must rise above the personal politics.
Jane said…
Caryl. The deplorable state of our roads is due to the downgrading of the main roads in this area by Labour. The County Council has therefore had to carry the burden of the cost. I seem to remember local opinion was totally ignored on this matter. The County Council (briefly controlled by Labour) has not the resources to deal with this situation.

The road around Millom are even worse. This is hardly a problem created by the Conservatives.
Jane said…
Caryl. Lighten up. It is good to have a good debate on this blog. Usually you get 'Anonymous' saying "boring." This is a great political blog and it lets you say more than 500 words. It deserves a little more conversation.
Chris Whiteside said…
I came back to this yesterday, after a day without internet access because one of the bridges which were taken down by flooding in Workington also carried the main broadband cables for West Cumbria. Consequently I read the last few posts just after reading confirmtion that PC Bill Barker from Egremont had given his life for others while responding to an emergency call.

That rather puts our political differences into context and I am not going to write the response which I would otherwise have made to some of the things said upthread.

I will only say that Jane's apology does her credit. Everyone makes mistakes, but political debate in Copeland would be more mature and constructive if more people who make mistaken allegations were willing to correct them and apologise (preferably without having to be ordered to do so by the Standards Panel.)
Jane said…
Thank you Chris. My broadband was also down as it comes via Workington. Just got it back today.

My thoughts and prayers this weekend are with PC Barker RIP, his widow, four children, family and friends. He died doing his duty. It is times like this that remind us how petty arguments of all kinds can be.

My husband and I had booked a weekend away in Appleby to celebrate my birthday, which coincidently I shared with PC Barker. We had to cancel because the roads were blocked. This was a minor inconvenience. I lived to celebrate my birthday and PC Barker's family instead of having a party are in mourning. This knocks all woes into a cocked hat.

Condolences to PC Barkers family and friends.

Popular posts from this blog

Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria

Quotes of the day 19th August 2020

Quote of the day 24th July 2020