Comments on: Fab 5: Monday 22 February 2010

By: John77

John77 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:10:42 +0000

Thanks for correction.
Tom misread ConHome original post because Tim Montgomerie was focused on the low figures for International Development, which was his personal preference. Both are understandable and forgiveable. If you read all of it you will see that they were not given a menu (hence the large number choosing Education and none choosing “Children Schools and Families”) but asked what job they should like. Tom also moaned about the lack of enthusiasm for Secretary of State for Scotland, failing to notice that there were zero scores for Wales and Northern Ireland, which weren’t mentioned.
This explanation is for your information – it doesn’t need publication

By: Alex Baker

Alex Baker — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:11:03 +0000

Thanks John77. Have amended the point about Shadow Cabinet/ Tory PPCs. From the ConHome original post, it is unclear if they were offered Chancellor and Justice Secretary…

By: John77

John77 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:04:39 +0000

You have misread Tom who misread the original post – the lack of demand (among Tory PPCs) was worst for Chancellor of the Exchequer and Justice Secretary!
Now if it had been the Shadow Cabinet that would have been a better story!