Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Electing, he's saying you are unelectable.
    Oh ok
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Join Labour :wavingtheflag:
    I was in Labour for years until Fez said I had to be leave all of the other parties to stay. Obviously I was unwilling to comply

    I won't be joining again :lol:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (0.75, -4.0)

    Basically the same as always, though my economics seems to be heading a little leftward recently.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I was in Labour for years until Fez said I had to be leave all of the other parties to stay. Obviously I was unwilling to comply

    I won't be joining again :lol:
    Our door is always open

    Whether that means our door to the gulag or not depends
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Our door is always open

    Whether that means our door to the gulag or not depends
    To be honest, I do not have an enormously high opinion of you guys since my comments on the budget went unanswered. It struck me as incredibly lazy to publish something and make no effort whatsoever to defend it. To be fair, it may be that you do answer all criticisms on your legislation (etc.) usually and I simply am not around enough to see it. Either way, I don't think there would be any good reason for me to join you if I decided to be active again.

    I appreciate the offer though :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    To be honest, I do not have an enormously high opinion of you guys since my comments on the budget went unanswered. It struck me as incredibly lazy to publish something and make no effort whatsoever to defend it. To be fair, it may be that you do answer all criticisms on your legislation (etc.) usually and I simply am not around enough to see it. Either way, I don't think there would be any good reason for me to join you if I decided to be active again.

    I appreciate the offer though :lol:
    Nope, that was pretty standard practice.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    To be honest, I do not have an enormously high opinion of you guys since my comments on the budget went unanswered. It struck me as incredibly lazy to publish something and make no effort whatsoever to defend it. To be fair, it may be that you do answer all criticisms on your legislation (etc.) usually and I simply am not around enough to see it. Either way, I don't think there would be any good reason for me to join you if I decided to be active again.

    I appreciate the offer though :lol:
    We do answer most criticisms, although the member who wrote the Budget and was therefore kind of supposed to do most of the defending is now a Tory.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    We do answer most criticisms, although the member who wrote the Budget and was therefore kind of supposed to do most of the defending is now a Tory.
    Which isn't really an excuse for a failure to defend when the chunks were copied and pasted for last minute statements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Special tour of gulag?
    PROSM
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which isn't really an excuse for a failure to defend when the chunks were copied and pasted for last minute statements
    *from statements that were at that point in the pipeline
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    *from statements that were at that point in the pipeline
    And published unaltered months later.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And published unaltered months later.
    *significantly altered

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    We do answer most criticisms, although the member who wrote the Budget and was therefore kind of supposed to do most of the defending is now a Tory.
    Seems a weak defence. If somebody goes to the effort of writing that much then it speaks very negatively to the culture in the party that said person is then more or less expected to defend it alone. If that is a policy you have in the party these days then fair enough, but I don't think it is a very good one.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    *significantly altered

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Pretty sure you don't get much less altered than referencing the budget for costing and doing exactly what was regularly referred to as unnecessary before later saying that you were wrong.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Seems a weak defence. If somebody goes to the effort of writing that much then it speaks very negatively to the culture in the party that said person is then more or less expected to defend it alone. If that is a policy you have in the party these days then fair enough, but I don't think it is a very good one.
    It's not policy, but it's logical that the person who does most of the writing of an item, particularly a Budget, is the person who takes the foremost role in defending that item, because they are likely to know more about the subject matter than other members, and they will be able to explain better than others why certain things were included in the item and certain others weren't.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pretty sure you don't get much less altered than referencing the budget for costing and doing exactly what was regularly referred to as unnecessary before later saying that you were wrong.
    Pretty sure you don't get much more altered than only using the figures from the budget and not the rest of what was written in the budget about the statement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Pretty sure you don't get much more altered than only using the figures from the budget and not the rest of what was written in the budget about the statement.
    So the same figures are used for two ENTIRELY different things both being asserted as accurate and both ideas sounding about the same. Makes sense...
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    It's not policy, but it's logical that the person who does most of the writing of an item, particularly a Budget, is the person who takes the foremost role in defending that item, because they are likely to know more about the subject matter than other members, and they will be able to explain better than others why certain things were included in the item and certain others weren't.
    Did the party not agree to publish the budget? Is is not, when the author shows clear and obvious disregard for the criticisms being levelled at the budget, incumbent upon the rest of the the party to defend it? If no more than one person is capable of offering justifications for what is included within it why is it being posted at all? I am willing to accept that there was some tacit agreement that he would lead the troops, and that he failed to do so. I'm not willing to accept that those troops were all completely incapable of mustering a defence.

    This was intellectual laziness, plain and simple. I don't think you are creating a more favourable position by implying that nobody else involved was capable of reading the budget and answering the criticisms as best as they were able as that just makes you seem incompetent. Admitting to being incidentally lazy is far less damning than claiming ineptness as a defence. Admit it was handled poorly and move on :dontknow:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Did the party not agree to publish the budget? Is is not, when the author shows clear and obvious disregard for the criticisms being levelled at the budget, incumbent upon the rest of the the party to defend it? If no more than one person is capable of offering justifications for what is included within it why is it being posted at all? I am willing to accept that there was some tacit agreement that he would lead the troops, and that he failed to do so. I'm not willing to accept that those troops were all completely incapable of mustering a defence.

    This was intellectual laziness, plain and simple. I don't think you are creating a more favourable position by implying that nobody else involved was capable of reading the budget and answering the criticisms as best as they were able as that just makes you seem incompetent. Admitting to being incidentally lazy is far less damning than claiming ineptness as a defence. Admit it was handled poorly and move on :dontknow:
    Saying that the budget was poor is an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, you cannot admit to something which is just someone else's opinion.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Saying that the budget was poor is an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, you cannot admit to something which is just someone else's opinion.
    1) I said that the handling of the events that accompanied the budget was poor, not the budget itself. To see my opinions on the budget itself I direct you to my entirely disregarded comments on the original thread....

    2) You can admit it if you believe it. Cranbrook isn't stupid. It is admirable - and indeed perhaps part of the game - to defend essentially indefensible positions in an attempt to maintain a positive image, but what has been offered so far is an incredibly poor justification for how things transpired and he knows that. Sometimes it is better to call a spade a spade.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 28, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.