Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

5 comments from readers

knave
06 September 2008 at 06:49

.

1. Did we solicit the article or did Charles Clarke come to the NS?

We had a long-standing request with Mr Clarke for a piece about Labour's travails and he chose this moment to accept our offer. I shouldn't imagine his timing was accidental.

”Perhaps the fact that the Alton inspired Cowley has taken over the editorship. Alton loves Blair and Cameron.”

2. As the New Statesman is often seen as the "house journal" of the Brownites, is this a case of Clarke planting his tanks on the Prime Minister's lawn?

Probably. But this characterisation of the NS is inaccurate. We are fiercely independent.

”Ha, Ha. The NS is Brownite. Show me ONE article that is complimentary to Brown or the Labour party by either yourself or the NS. The NS is just a soft version of the Spectator. Pilger and Howe are just window dressing and their time at the new NS will be limited.”

3. Were you surprised by the reaction to the piece?

When we received the article we realised that phrases like "utter destruction" and "destined for disaster" made it a hot property. But we were taken aback by the scale of the reaction considering the know hostility between Clarke and Brown.

”I think you are telling the truth on this point.”

4. What is your view of Clarke's actions?

His analysis of the uses and abuses of "Blairism" is sound. His description of the mood of the party is pretty accurate. But I would like to know what he means when he says that he and and others will not "permit" the disaster to happen. It also confirms we in my belief that Clarke and others who were sceptical about a Brown premiership should have put up a candidate last year.

“Why are you bothered, as the poster boy for the Tories ( the Spectator, Iain dale and central office have been saying lovely things about you). To you the situation is perfect”

5. Is this a sign that the New Statesman has abandoned the Prime Minister?

We will maintain our position of independence and report the situation as it is. In my time at the magazine we have never been unquestioning cheerleaders for Brown. My own views on the situation are expressed in my column in this week's New Statesman.

“Ha,ha I agree the NS has NEVER supported Brown and Martin your loyalties lie in the direction of Gladstonian/Thatcherite/Cameron free market liberalism.

Your motto Martin should simply be.

Only one deception is possible in the infinite sense, is self-deception”

Martin Bright
08 September 2008 at 11:13

knave

Your conspiracy theories raise a smile, but Jason does not take over as editor until next month. But then the Gladstonian putsch will kick in big-time. [Bright strokes Persian (sorry Zionist) cat throws head back and laughs]

knave
08 September 2008 at 17:14

Martin

When have I accused you of been a Zionist in any post.

Why are you using the Islam and Isreal card when the issue is about the Labour party and it’s direction. Marty you seem to deflect critism from your economic beliefs by insisting your critics are either the mullahs or their supporters.

When most of us don’t trust you because of your Thatcherism and dishonesty.

Also Marty I haven’t got you down as a Blofeld character, more the minion messenger boy that usually ends up in the Piranha tank

madasafish
08 September 2008 at 17:26

What is the fuss about?

I really do not understand.

Charles Clarke said in 2006 that Gordon Brown would be useless as Leader.

Opinion polls at the same time said the same.

So why is anyone surprised?

( I realise Labour supporters do not believe in Personality Politics but the message of both Clarke and polls was unmistakable).

So I view the fuss made - including the noises made by Guardian writers who supported Brown - as the baying of a mob who believed they were going to see an execution when all the advertisements said "a long and boring death"

So it's either stupidity, anger at being so stupid or rank hypocrisy.

For all the Guardian writers who MUST have seen all the evidence, it is hypocrisy and the pain of being made to look idiots. (again)

Gordon does not disappoint.:-)

Morgan097
08 September 2008 at 20:44

knave,

K: Also Marty I haven’t got you down as a Blofeld character, more the minion messenger boy that usually ends up in the piranha tank

M: Too late, knave; though probably not "minion messenger boy" material, this blog already serves as his metaphorical "piranha tank." And such base Fleming references are unlikely to secure you that cherished night of bliss with Shirley Eaton's look-alike granddaughter, either.