I don’t know about these accusations, but when you can only attack the person and not the parties policies, it says more about you and the parties/polices you represent.
There’s a difference between tasteless ad-hom attacks - like the clearly antisemitic cartoon - and holding a politician accountable for the words they themselves have said.
It’s hard to hold a politician accountable for the words they themselves said when the article doesn’t even include the words…
He ran multiple fundraisers for the Red Cross (which provides the context) and, since it was the Sun that first raised the story, there’s a good chance that what he said was misquoted, taken out of context, or never was said at all.
He addressed this in his interview on the Today programme this morning - interview starts at 2h16m, this is the first question - he admitted that he shouldn’t have used that word to describe himself in that way.
Is this the biggest or most controversial thing ever? No, of course not, but I do think that there is a pattern of behaviour going back years of Polanski over stating his position and abilities. Other politicians absolutely do this too, and they are at least as bad.
I’ve never seen him claim to be a spokesperson for them and he doesn’t claim to be one in the example in the article. Not saying he didn’t, but if he did then it’s poor journalism not quoting it in the article.
He addressed this in his interview on the Today programme this morning - interview starts at 2h16m, this is the first question - he admitted that he shouldn’t have used that word to describe himself in that way.
I for one am shocked that a self-described populist wouldn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Oof.
