Alistair Carmichael memo leak and inquiry: should he resign?

[Ghostrider]

@ Capeesh: Care to enlighten us as to whether or not you voted in May, and if so who you voted for?

[Capeesh]

I voted for Tavish Scott in the Scottish elections and Danus Skene in the UK elections.

As mentioned further up in the thread I've voted for three different parties in my lifetime which include various different candidates, I'm not a member of any party and will never be, basically I'm a floating voter.

I, along with a very large number of former Lib Dem voters in the UK (they lost 49 seats remember) will be placing my vote elsewhere after seeing their abysmal record in government.

All this of course has no relevance to the fact that Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat.

[paulb]

even i would have voted for tavish but not now. i do feel sorry that tavish became involved but in supporting lying and dishonesty he lost my vote. and yes im a card carrying member of the snp. 

[Urabug]

Tavish has to be commended for supporting Alastair.

 

I also like to think that I would support my fellow coleague when the need should arise, especially over such a trivial matter, really no worse than a minor traffic offence,which has been explotied beyond any imagination. 

 

I would certainly support Tavish, but I do have several issues with some of his past decisions on fishing ect.

 

Who else has the experience (local and parlimentary) to replace Tavish ?

[Ghostrider]

I voted for......Danus Skene in the UK elections.

 

....this of course has no relevance to the fact that Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat.

 

No, of course it doesn't. But you can hardly deny that it places you much nearer the least impartially on the matter end of the scale with a lot of folk, than had you voted differently. Voting as you did, you have more of an axe to grind than for example a Labour voter or a non-voter.

 

Incidentially, lets hypothetically assume for the moment that as you say, "Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat." Care to explain how this alleged grand plan was supposed to work? How was him allegedly publicising the alleged preference for the next UK Government of someone who had never been part of that Government and was not attempting to become part of that Government, supposed to directly increase the chances of him himself retaining his seat, especially when he was not  a member of either of the parties mentioned?

 

Maybe, just maybe, it could have, best scenario cost the SNP a miniscule percentage of the vote nationwide, but need they care, with the size of the chunk of Scotland they had in their pocket already. And in any case, any few put off voting SNP by any alleged preference of their leader of a Tory national Government were hardly likely to switch to voting for the Liberals, also a party more to the right than the SNP, and one with a then current track record of co-operating with the Tories, they'd have heading to some other Socialist outfit.

 

Surely if it was his own ass he was concerned about, discrediting his direct opponent would have been far more productive and far easier to do. Its not like the ammo wasn't sitting there waiting to be used by anyone who felt so inclined.

 

Unless I'm missing something here, possible method you have, but possible motive is severely lacking, all a bit conspiracy theorist, feasible and possible, yes, but completely lacking in robust hard evidence to hold it together.

[Colin]

I suppose, that with (most of) Scotland voting for the SNP en-mass, the local SNP voters feel like they might have been excluded from the "the gang" and might be pretty desperate to win back some favour.

 

Who the hell wants to be part of Scotland anyway?

[JGHR]

but completely lacking in robust hard evidence to hold it together.

As far as I recall you are of the opinion that the accepted safety merits of seat belts in cars and crash helmets for motor cycle riders are also in someway conspiratorial, and consider the claim that smoking is bad for you to be ' completely lacking in robust hard evidence to hold it together' too.

[Capeesh]

Incidentially, lets hypothetically assume for the moment that as you say, "Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat." Care to explain how this alleged grand plan was supposed to work?

Simply by trying to make out his main opponents in the election (the SNP) were lying.

[Ghostrider]

 

but completely lacking in robust hard evidence to hold it together.

As far as I recall you are of the opinion that the accepted safety merits of seat belts in cars and crash helmets for motor cycle riders are also in someway conspiratorial, and consider the claim that smoking is bad for you to be ' completely lacking in robust hard evidence to hold it together' too.

 

 

Nah. Not conspirational per se, rather that any benefits of seat belts and crash helmets are grossly exaggerated by using skewed supporting evidence. In some circumstances they help, but in others they hinder. A seat belt isn't helping you much if you're conscious and uninjured hanging upside down trapped in an overturned car and can't get out while its brewing up, nor your skull being uninjured when you break your neck from whiplash from the added weight of the helmet you're wearing.  Likewise, advice concerning the effects of smoking is being presented as an absolute fact, when plenty of evidence exists proving otherwise. Smoking can be bad for some folk, but plenty more have smoked all their lives, lived long and healthy lives and gone to their graves as the result of something entirely unrelated to smoking.

 

You get plenty drilled in to you by Big Brother's spin machine about the good belts and helmets can do some of the time, and about the harm smoking can do to some folk, but dare mention the exceptions that disproves the accuracy of their advice, and the same spin machine goes full tilt at denying provable facts and discrediting anyone making them.

 

If this thread is about "lies", then it needs to be on a level playing field. Its as much a lie the Government assures you seat belts and helmets will make you safer, or that smoking is bad for you, as it is an alleged lie that Carmichael knew fine well exactly what had been divulged to what paper and by whom, then denied he did.

[Ghostrider]

 

Incidentially, lets hypothetically assume for the moment that as you say, "Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat." Care to explain how this alleged grand plan was supposed to work?

Simply by trying to make out his main opponents in the election (the SNP) were lying.

 

 

How do you figure on the leader of the SNP being his "opponent" in the election, when she wasn't a candidate? And how was letting out what her alleged preference for the next UK Government supposed to translate in to showing her party to be lying?

[Capeesh]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incidentially, lets hypothetically assume for the moment that as you say, "Alistair Carmichael used dirty tricks, smears and told porkies to us in an election to hold on to his seat." Care to explain how this alleged grand plan was supposed to work?

 

Simply by trying to make out his main opponents in the election (the SNP) were lying.

 

How do you figure on the leader of the SNP being his "opponent" in the election, when she wasn't a candidate? And how was letting out what her alleged preference for the next UK Government supposed to translate in to showing her party to be lying?

The SNP were his main opponents in the election.

The SNP were running a campaign of very strong opposition to Tory policies also stressing their willingness to form a progressive alliance with other parties opposed to the Tories.

The First Minister is also quoted as saying before the election that "The SNP will never put the Tories into government"

The dodgy memo (which Alistair Carmichael later admitted was "incorrect" in a grovelling apology to the First minister and the French ambassador) was a blatant attempt to insinuate the SNP were lying about their opposition to the Tories.

[Ghostrider]

The SNP were his main opponents in the election.

 

 

The O&S SNP candidate was appearing to be nis main opponent. Slightly different thing.

 

The SNP were running a campaign of very strong opposition to Tory policies also stressing their willingness to form a progressive alliance with other parties opposed to the Tories.

The First Minister is also quoted as saying before the election that "The SNP will never put the Tories into government"

 

I won't argue, I wasn't following the SNP's policies that closely to be able to remember what their exact stance was, as they'd never made it on to my radar as a potential to vote for for other reasons. Plus the fact that I've always seen a vote for the SNP as a wasted vote if you didn't support Scottish independence, as they have no real clout with the other countries in the union in the way national parties do, and even if every constituency in Scotland returned an SNP MP, the net effect on how Westminster behaved would be negligible unless for independence demands.

 

The SNP were his main opponents in the election.The dodgy memo (which Alistair Carmichael later admitted was "incorrect" in a grovelling apology to the First minister and the French ambassador) was a blatant attempt to insinuate the SNP were lying about their opposition to the Tories.

 

Let me get this straight, assuming for the moment that Carmichael actually did willfully and intentionally "leak" this note, in full knowledge of its exact contents and their status. You're expecting me to believe that a large proportion of the electorate were going to swallow hook, line and sinker a story that was notes taken by some minion about what they'd been told by some other minion who had eavesdropped on a conversation in a foreign language, rather than what they were being told from the horse's mouth. Is the general public really that naive and stupid, especially during an election cmpign. Especially when by all accounts neither party concerned could stand the sight of each other - slagging each other off, attempting to destroy each others credibility was the name of the game, it was expected from both sides.

 

I was seriously amazed when anybody took the original story seriously, it had all the appearance of a joke (albeit perhaps not a very good or well advised one, but a joke nontheless), a standard piece of election campaign bullturdtery. Barely worthty of a "Yeah, right, ha ha ha" before being forgotten. I still think it was done as a joke, and I'm just amazed that so many folk seem to have taken it in all seriousness, when it had no obvious credibility whatsoever.

 

That said, it doesn't really answer why an attempt to discredit the SNP was supposed to assist Carmichael personally in retaining his seat. The Liberal majority in O&S has more to do with party loyalty than anything else, and from past performance the only way thats been seen to put a strain on that loyalty is to field a locally known/resident candidate for a different party. I would argue that Carmichael's majority was reduced in the way it was on account of exctly that, Skene being known and residing locally, not the party he chose to stand for, and that he'd have succeeded in achieving broadly similar results had he stood locally for any other party as well, and I'd hazard a guess that Carmichael knew that was the likely outcome. So I'm still not seeing how a little bomb under the SNP nationally was supposed to make any meaningful difference to Carmichael's personal fortunes, and why, if that was his goal, did he not concentrate on his direct opponent instead, where there is little doubt significant inroads could have been made to his personal benefit.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Ghostrider

[Capeesh]

^^ I agree the smear and leak were pathetic it all fell apart within hours of its release, the news was full of angry French diplomats being unusually undiplomatic vehemently denying saying what they were being accused of saying.

The leak and smear aren't the only reason some people are annoyed, it was the attempted cover up, he denied all knowledge of the leak, knowing fine well he had sanctioned its release. Thats where the main dishonesty is, he deliberately misled the electorate in an election.

[George.]

Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary?

 

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/why-has-disgraced-mp-alistair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+ScotGoesPop+(SCOT+goes+POP!)

 

And have the LibDim's been overtaken by Baroness's?

[Ghostrider]

The leak and smear aren't the only reason some people are annoyed, it was the attempted cover up, he denied all knowledge of the leak, knowing fine well he had sanctioned its release. Thats where the main dishonesty is, he deliberately misled the electorate in an election.

 

That's all fine and well, but where's the smoking gun?

 

As top of the totem in the Scottish Office at the time the leak occured, the buck obviously ultimately stopped with him, and he's acknowledged that. However, where is the proof that at the time he denied any knowledge of the leak, that he knew it originated from his office? Certainly he should have known, but where is the proof he actually did? You can accuse him of incompetence for the former, but you need proof to accuse him of the latter and dishonesty, which I've not seen anyplace yet. Just saying he had to have known isn't good enough, you need to prove he did know for a "dishonesty" charge to stand up.

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Ghostrider