Friday, 16 July 2010

Lack of Zac Answering Hack

I have spent a lot of time in Richmond Park and Kingston North, being a Kingston graduate I actually did a training run around the Park for a start.

Of course at the local MP recently became the billionaire Zac Goldsmith. He has questions to answer about his expenses in the 23 days before the campaign. So he came into Channel 4 News studio to answer those questions. It appears that he spend all this time merely asking why he wasn't allowed in to the studio earlier. Not getting on to the questions that are the height of the issue.

It is absolutely car crash TV. It is the absolute avoidance of the issue. It is a sham there clearly is something there to hide because he spends so much time talking over Jon Snow. The fact is that he doesn't even know the difference between the long and the short campaign.

BTW standard across the country for council and general election campaigns on the same day is two sided posters one side for the GE candidate one for the council candidate.

Also the jackets are a capital cost brought in for this campaign. Yes if they get used in further campaigns there is a usage cost entailed, but that is for future campaigns and only if said items get used (for example Corex posters). All of that is very clear in the guidelines and only becomes complicated when people try to hide election costs.

See also Alex Folkes asks some pertinent questions about the rants about re-use.

As for the Trikes apparently "they cost 2p a mile, they can take passengers, carry leaflets and they are surprisingly fast." They were also embossed in Back Zac and Tory. How do I know? Zac told us here. So surely if they are doing all that there has to be some cost involved not none.
Also if they are so good at delivering leaflets it seems a shame that so many were wasted doing away all the greeness of their use.


  1. I agree it was a pretty bad interview. He did not come across very well at all by trying to hector Jon Snow. But he also has a point, when he finally made it, that you cannot factor everything into your election campaign or you would wipe it out. He also has a fair point when he says a prominent Lib Dem blogger said that if he is guilty they are all guilty, including I assume a number of Lib Dems. Are any lib Dems being investigated by Channel Four or at all over anything similar?

    I’m assuming this is not just sour grapes because Mr Goldsmith took Richmond from the Lib Dems is it? I thought you were all in it together now that there is a cosy coalition going on.

    Are you so sure that your own front lawn is so clean before pointing out the dog mess on your neighbours? I recollect the Lib Dems accepting a huge donation from a convicted fraudster and refusing to pay it back. Wasn’t that your biggest single donation ever? Anything to say on that? Or are you just going to tell me that, that has been discussed before and therefore need not come into this discussion. A very convenient ploy when you have your own mess to sweep under the carpet.

  2. You really are desperate if you are referring to Michael Brown again !

    To be clear, the Electoral Commission said the Lib Dems did everything by the book. If Zac Goldsmith can say the same, then he'll be okay surely ?

  3. Stephen, I am sure I put a comment here in answer to Norfolk Blogger, but it does not seem to have come up. Is there a reason for that?

    If you don't give me an answer or don't put this comment up either. I will assume that you do not want comments and refrain from doing so in the future.

  4. I have never disallowed any of your comments. I haven't see anything in response to NB, if you'd like to resend it I will of course publish it.

  5. My apologies Stephen it must have been a ghost in the machine that sometimes happens with comments moderation. My apologies also to Norfolk Blogger, I’m afraid I can’t remember what I said, so we will just have to leave it at that!