Ah, Liberal Conspiracy, where you can tell the headline is a lie before you even read the story…

The title of this article is arguably libel, Sunny, you should probably change it. Maybe to MP From Pro-Privatisation Party Speaks in Favour of Privatisation Shocker.

She is clearly saying she doesn’t trust any government – it could hardly be more explicit she means it should be privatised, not that the Tories won’t deliver.

meh – small government nut does as small government nut does

On Any Questions Nadine Dorries gave her favourite story about how nasty PCTs are because they do not give her constituents the quack remedies that they demand. She uses this to justify GP commissioning consortia because she says that people will be able to demand whatever treatment they like and the GP will have to deliver it.

She is deluded.

In fact rationing will get worse because NICE is being neutered so you cannot (as now) demand the PCT pays for a treatment because NICE has approved it (on clinical evidence grounds). GP consortia will decide what treatments are available, and this is likely to restrict the range of treatments rather than extend it (clue: 4% cuts every year for five years). Since under the Bill your GP will have the responsibility “to align the clinical decisions with the financial consequences” you will not know if your GP is making a clinical or financial decision. At the moment, because GPs do not handle the finances, they only make clinical decisions.

@ 5 Tim J

“Sunny, are you putting quotation marks around things that people didn’t actually say again? ”

As far as I understand it, the rule is that it’s wrong for politicians to lie but Sunny can just make shit about and spread damaging lies about individuals and that’s cool… oh, and anyone who points out the problem with that is a troll, obviously.

This site really is just the left/liberal version of the Daily Mail at times.

The title of this article is arguably libel, Sunny, you should probably change it

You guys are really slow huh? The implication is the same – if she says she doesn’t expect any govt to deliver a service, that includes the Tories. So she doesn’t expect her own govt to deliver on the NHS. Please stop whining about headlines like little boys. Its getting annoying.

@ Sunny

“You guys are really slow huh? ”

The fact that you don’t know the difference between quotation and interpretation is a problem with you, not a problem with me. You can’t intepret someone’s words and then pretend it’s a direct quote – well, you can, as you just did it, but it’s dishonest and libellous.

“Please stop whining about headlines…”

The headlines on this site are frequently inaccurate, and often seem to be deliberate lies. If you stop writing dishonest headlines people will stop pointing out that they are dishonest, which is presumably what you mean by “whining”.

“…like little boys. Its getting annoying.”

Blah blah blah Sunny can’t defend his position blah blah blah Sunny uses playground insults instead blah blah blah par for the course.

I assume that LC is a rarity in that the editor is often the biggest troll on the thread.

Sunny, the point that you seem wilfully blind to is that what is within quote marks is what someone is supposed to have said, not what Sunny Hundal invented.

“small government nut ”

She’s quite in favour of big government when it comes to women’s bodies, the content of what teachers and schools may tell their pupils, or any form of behaviour that she would regard as sinfull.

as you just did it, but it’s dishonest and libellous.

Why not read up on libel first?
and often seem to be deliberate lies.
this is libellous.

You know, I can’t be arsed to detract his thread into a conversation about the title again. Dorries said: “I don’t actually trust any government to… to deliver any service, particulary one as big as the NHS” – that is the same as saying I don’t expect the Tories to deliver on the NHS. Newspapers do this all the time, please do look it up.
But just to satisfy the whining I’ve taken the quotes off. But it means the same thing *sob*

@ 10 Sunny

“Why not read up on libel first?”

If you have information about why spreading damaging lies about people isn’t libel, please share.

“this is libellous”

No, it’s only libel if it’s not true. What I wrote is called “criticism”. I think you’re the one who needs to do some background reading.

Dorries said: “I don’t actually trust any government to… to deliver any service, particulary one as big as the NHS” – that is the same as saying I don’t expect the Tories to deliver on the NHS.

It isn’t.

@ 10 Sunny

“You know, I can’t be arsed to detract his thread into a conversation about the title again.”

Funny how that keeps happening, isn’t it? Also funny that you claim you can’t be bother and then go on to talk about the title…

“Dorries said: “I don’t actually trust any government to… to deliver any service, particulary one as big as the NHS” – that is the same as saying I don’t expect the Tories to deliver on the NHS. Newspapers do this all the time, please do look it up.”

Three points:

1) Newspapers do use misquotes, but are generally sensible to do so in a way that the originator will not object to.

2) When trying to bend what someone says in a way that they WILL object to, papers instead use direct quotes, but out of context. This can still get you sued.

3) The fact that newspapers are dishonest does not mean it’s cool for you to act the same way.

A Tory MP directly criticising her party is a better story than a Tory MP critiquing governments in general. Or would be a better story had it actually happened.

As a sidenote, deleting comments is less effective if comments are left that quote them. I’d also be interested to see which of the commenting guidelines I’m supposed to have infringed.

“As a sidenote, deleting comments is less effective if comments are left that quote them. ”

Ah, so he’s moved on from personal attacks to just deleting criticism. And he calls US little boys…

“Why not read up on libel first?”

While I bow to your undoubted legal expertise Sunny, there is no question but that stating or implying that someone said something specific, when in fact that person said something different can be defamatory. See Underhill v. Corser.

“I can’t be arsed to detract his thread into a conversation about the title again”

Agreed. Its done now. Discuss the issue; are governments of any colour capable of delivering a health service.

I wonder how David Cameron and Andrew Lansley will react to one of their colleagues saying she has no faith in their abilities to deliver services?

If they bothered to respond, which I doubt, they’d probably say something along the lines of “that’s why we’re taking steps to devolve power away from Whitehall and back into the hands of doctors and patients.”

@ 17 Planeshift

“Discuss the issue; are governments of any colour capable of delivering a health service.”

Happy to! Yes, they are. They may be less efficient in terms of return on investment than private organisations, but they’re far better at doing what healthcare is meant to do – i.e. protect people’s health. Private organisations tend to throw people on the woodpile if their health condition is not profitable either by denying service or pricing people out of insurance.

The Tories seem to be aiming at someone pretty callous.

Credit to Sunny for removing the quotation marks but I think CG & UKL had a point.

It is no bad thing to seize on doubts expressed by right wingers, even joke figures with a talent for stretching the truth to fit a particular ideology.
It is important however to be scrupulous when making attributions not least because there is a risk commentators might be accused of similar inaccuracies for which the member for Narnia has made quite a name for herself?

As a final point though, I’m sure Sunny will be along in a minute to direct us all to Charleston v. News Group. You have to read the headline in conjunction with the article.

So, a dishonest and defamatory headline (which this probably still is, a colon having much the same effect as quotation marks) can be remedied if the attached article balances it. Whether this does or not would be a question for a jury. Probably does in my view.

So, merely dishonest without being libellous. There’s a badge to wear with pride.

@10 – “Dorries said: “I don’t actually trust any government to… to deliver any service, particulary one as big as the NHS” – that is the same as saying I don’t expect the Tories to deliver on the NHS.”

No, I don’t think it is.

And IMHO it misses the gaping open goal of pointing out just how split the Tory party is currently on the watering down they have to do to force the bill past the LibDems. Which they have so far done a reasonable job at burying and not letting it into the media as much as it could be, but as time goes on the disconent is building and it could well become a major fiight in the party.

That’s an angle actually strengthened by what she said, not an extremely tenuous interpretation.

planeshift #9

good point. small government fraud instinctive authoritarian half-wit does as ….

it is strange though – the OP makes it sound like it would be reasonable for her to believe that the Conservatives know how to run the NHS well, whereas Labour do not. I’d call that partisan idiocy. Of course either party can screw things up, but really you are a fool if you believe those on your side of the political fence are all super competent whilst the other lot are all inept.

whereas believing that all governments of whatever stripe are ill-suited to running healthcare is, although imho incorrect, a far more respectable position. yet the OP mocks her for holding the latter, calling the former “fair enough”.

but really you are a fool if you believe those on your side of the political fence are all super competent whilst the other lot are all inept.

Have you read blog or twitter comments lately?

Batshit insane tory mad woman..”Now I don’t actually trust any government to deliver any service”

But she is just fine with taking here tax paid for salery, her tax paid for gold plated pension, and her tax paid for expense account., and her tax paid for travelling expenses.

This is the woman who wants Christian family values for everybody else, but it is OK for her to have an affair with a married man.

are governments of any colour capable of delivering a health service.

It depends!

I would like to know the proportion of UK ex-pats who return home for healthcare and in what country they normally live.

So another tory who does not support the NHS, but has not got the guts to say they want to privatise it.

The tories are full of these spineless cowards who will not tell the truth about their hatred for the NHS.

But tory voters are not the brightest. Look at the tory twat who got arrested for yesterday. He has already had support from his voters, yet they don’t know if he is guilty or not.

In tory land anything is acceptable, unless you are pro Europe.

@ 23 Luis

“Of course either party can screw things up, but really you are a fool if you believe those on your side of the political fence are all super competent whilst the other lot are all inept. ”

Good point, that. It’s dangerous thinking, too… you could convince yourself that you don’t need to make tough decisions because once you’re in power you can have your cake and eat it. I sometime wonder if politicians every buy their own claims that they can save bajillions of pounds by making effeciency savings while not cutting services.

“but really you are a fool if you believe those on your side of the political fence are all super competent whilst the other lot are all inept.”

There is no more tribal force in UK politics than the tory party.

I listened to it and she got the first question wrong, she mixed up BahrainF1 and the Olympics proving she doesn’t listen and is probably stupid

”But tory voters are not the brightest”

They are pretty low IQ for sure; a bunch of old ladies with money and thugs who run building companies and brag about their daughters going to private school.

@23 There are incompetent dolts in all parties, but parties which believe government shouldn’t be trusted to run things tend to form the sort of government that shouldn’t be trusted to run things.

And thanks to all the cretins who voted against changing the electoral system, Nadine Dorries will be an MP forever. Well done.

@ 32:

Oh I don’t know, a healthy scepticism as to your own ability to run things isn’t too bad a quality to have in a government.

@ 33:

Yes, because the voting system should be geared towards ensuring that only people you like can get elected. *rolls eyes*

@34 But a healthy level of scepticism would consist of admitting that you _might_ balls it up, not believing and proclaiming that you’re utterly incapable of doing the job properly. Would you hire somebody for any other position if they stated that in their interview?

As for the voting system: Dorries was elected by an outright majority, and would almost certainly have won under _any_ electoral system. However, that’s no excuse for your ridiculous swipe at Chris.