Can control freak Cameron be trusted?

[Expounder]

What with his proposed 55% majority of MPs needed to dissolve parliament and his latest scam trying to interfere with the Question Time programme. Cameron is in danger of becoming a control freak PM.

Downing Street was accused by Question Time executive editor of unprecedented attempt to interfere with the show. I think being in charge is going to his head.

Details in the link:

No10 in Question Time panel row - mirror.co.uk

[Major Sinic]

What with his proposed 55% majority of MPs needed to dissolve parliament and his latest scam trying to interfere with the Question Time programme. Cameron is in danger of becoming a control freak PM.

Downing Street was accused by Question Time executive editor of unprecedented attempt to interfere with the show. I think being in charge is going to his head.

Details in the link:

No10 in Question Time panel row - mirror.co.uk

To some Alistair Campbell, the unelected puppet master of the Labour Party, is potentially a greater threat to social harmony than Nick Griffin. I didn't notice Brown being accused of control freakery when no-one from Labour was willing to appear on Questiontime if Griffin was on the panel, until Straw capitulated at the last moment.

It may be the prerogative of the BBC to choose the balance of the programme. It is also the right of the government, or opposition, to disagree and not participate.

[Expounder]

To some Alistair Campbell, the unelected puppet master of the Labour Party, is potentially a greater threat to social harmony than Nick Griffin. I didn't notice Brown being accused of control freakery when no-one from Labour was willing to appear on Questiontime if Griffin was on the panel, until Straw capitulated at the last moment.

It may be the prerogative of the BBC to choose the balance of the programme. It is also the right of the government, or opposition, to disagree and not participate.

To compare the two instances is parsimonious rubbish. Up until the time Griffin was invited on QT it was Labours policy not to share a platform with the Neo Fascist BNP. Labour objected to Griffin's presence on QT but gave way in light of the importance of the broadcast and that others were also on the panel. To compare Griffin with Campbell to score a point reveals a malevolent mind.

[ryoden]

Brown, Cameron, Labour, Conservative; it doesnt matter, they are in politics to be in control, so it doesnt surprise me that they try to control any aspect they can.

As has already been stated Labour did exactly the same thing, the reasons may have been different but essentially they for whatever reason didn't want to field a minister while another particular individual was present. I see no difference.

[Major Sinic]

To compare the two instances is parsimonious rubbish. Up until the time Griffin was invited on QT it was Labours policy not to share a platform with the Neo Fascist BNP. Labour objected to Griffin's presence on QT but gave way in light of the importance of the broadcast and that others were also on the panel. To compare Griffin with Campbell to score a point reveals a malevolent mind.

Do check the definitions of the words you use Old Chap! Parsimonious means meanness with money. I might be, but it is not remotely relevant to my comparison with two similar situations. The Prime Minister leading the Liberal Conservative Coalition obviously felt that his ministers had greater priorities than to share the platform with an unelected, dishonest and disreputable member of the Labour Party; and one who is not even a junior back bench MP. Malevolent mind? Well your view would no doubt apply to a large slice of the electorate. Most would agree with me that it is a non-story, a storm in a tea cup.

[Expounder]

Do check the definitions of the words you use Old Chap! Parsimonious means meanness with money. I might be, but it is not remotely relevant to my comparison with two similar situations.

It was the meanness and niggardy part of your personality that comes over to me that I was refering to, you academic pedantic. Are you suggesting I'm an uneducated Oik.

The Prime Minister leading the Liberal Conservative Coalition obviously felt that his ministers had greater priorities than to share the platform with an unelected, dishonest and disreputable member of the Labour Party; and one who is not even a junior back bench MP.

How many Tory supporting lying grubby journalistic hacks have decent Labour panelists have had to endure on QT. Trying to ban Campbell to protect David Laws to give him an easy ride smacks of cowardice and manipulation. Laws should have worn brown trousers and faced the music.
David Laws in £40,000 home expenses scandal - mirror.co.uk

Malevolent mind? Well your view would no doubt apply to a large slice of the electorate. Most would agree with me that it is a non-story, a storm in a tea cup.

I don't see it panning out that way when the QT is aired. There's a large slice of the electorate who wouldn't agree with you and will see it a political interference in an independent BBC. Cameron's Big bully boob No1, no doubt the BBC will suffer for it's impartiality when Cameroon meets control freak Richard Murdoch to oversee the break up of the BBC.