Friday, 7 January 2011

Will Andrew Gilligan now admit he was wrong?

Andrew Gilligan writing last year in a post lovingly titled "New Tory policy: Boris Johnson to walk on water"

"The new Tory proposals to give greater power over the River Thames to Boris Johnson are a useful step forward in a campaign that I and the think-tank Policy Exchange have helped wage to make the river a genuine public transport highway...

I smiled to myself a few months ago when a rival, Labour blogger with a reliable record of not knowing very much announced that Policy Exchange’s river report had “sunk at a rate of knots"

And so did I smile to myself when my original post turned out to be 100% on the money after all.

As I've written before and as Gilligan acknowledges today, Boris has followed almost none of the recommendations made in his original dodgy dossier.

Perhaps now Andrew would like to congratulate me on my foresight?

On a side note, last year I emailed Gilligan and his editor explaining that contrary to his claim above, I am not and have never been a member or blogger for the Labour party.

Needless to say I didn't get a reply or correction and the former journalist of the year went on to write a second post repeating the same lie instead.

Dishonest yes. But given what else I have discovered Gilligan doing in the past I shouldn't really have been too surprised.


-Update- This post has now been included at number 480 in John Rentoul's series of "Questions to Which the Answer is No."

3 comments:

Andrew Gilligan said...

Let's put it this way Adam. You were wrong at the time - as you usually are. There were signs of progress. But you're right eleven months later.

AdamB said...

Right. So I was wrong when you disagreed with my analysis of Boris's position, but right now that you agree with it?

That's tortuous even for you.

Tom said...

The sheer cheek of Gilligan - the one of the world's least accurate reporters - to criticise others continues to astound me. On top of the errors, of which he is so famed, he is so partisan as to make his witterings utterly irrelevant.