BREAKING NEWS: Blair and Brown didn't get along that well

I'm amazed that this constitutes news:

The Labour Party's two most senior figures have denied a "brutal" plot to destroy Tony Blair after the 2005 election, as a probe was launched into leaked documents.

The Daily Telegraph claims Ed Balls , as well as Labour leader Ed Miliband , began scheming to divide their party within weeks of the general election.

Really? How amazing. I mean, the Labour party civil war wasn't mentioned at all in the period after 2005 (or, indeed, before it). Everyone always thought that the relationship between Blair and Brown was hunky-dory, didn't they?

Of course, Miliband Minor (sort of) and Balls are on hand to deny the story:

Mr Miliband told Sky News: "I think what you are seeing is an overhyped version of ancient history.

"Frankly, the era of Blair and Brown is over. This generation of politicians is not going to repeat the mistakes of Blair and Brown."

Mr Balls told Sky News: "The fact that the first time I knew that they'd been taken was last night when they appeared in the Daily Telegraph I think shows that I didn't think this file, these documents were of great significance.

"The last time I saw them was when they were on my desk in the department before the general election.

"I don't know how they've been taken. I'm glad that's now being investigated.

"But the idea that these documents show that there was a plot or an attempt to remove Tony Blair is just not true.

"It's not justified either by the documents themselves, or by what was actually happening at the time."

The phrase "but they would say that, wouldn't they?" has seldom been more pertinent. Although I do like the fact that Miliband Minor stops short of fully denying the allegations. A brush-off is not the same as a denial...

Conservative Party chairman Michael Fallon MP said the leak showed Mr Balls could "not be trusted".

"First he denied this at the time, [but] now we know it's true," he said.

"It shows he's completely unsuited to be a serious figure in government. He simply couldn't be trusted, for example to plot against his current leader Ed Miliband."

Fuck-a-duck we've got an intellectual giant here. Ed Balls unfit to be a serious figure in government - who'd have thought it? And the fact that he can't be trusted is an absolute revelation.

Miliband Minor is right (a phrase I seldom, if ever, use) when he says that this is "ancient history". Honest to God, the Blair/Brown feud got boring while those fuckers were still running the country. It is beyond boring now. And anyone who needs evidence beyond that of their own eyes and ears that both of the Eds are wankers utterly unfit for high office is hopelessly naive.

Re: The Royal Wedding

Really don’t care about it. In fact, just thinking about those two smug shites getting married with the nation (and many parts of the world) looking on winds me up. A lot.

So I wish everyone who, like me, is trying to avoid the Royal Wedding the very best of luck today. Avoiding it will be really tough, but I hope you can at least minimise your exposure to it. And all I would ask is that someone wakes me up when it is all over. Preferably by talking about something else than the wedding of two people I hold in total contempt.

Bears, Woods, etc.

From the BBC:

More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

In other news, bears definitely defecate in the woods and the Pope is of a Catholic persuasion.

Seems almost tedious to point out that a substantial part of the funding that keeps the Labour Party afloat comes from the unions. It also seems tedious to point out that the unions are an interest group, just like those organisations that exist in the City of London. And it seems beyond boring to suggest that just because a political party takes money from a certain area of British society doesn't mean that they are beholden to every misconceived whim of said area of British society.

Instead, I'd just like to point out that anyone who finds this news surprising or, indeed, new, is fucking stupid.

The Guardian on Coulson

Of course, The Guardian was going to milk the Coulson resignation for all it was worth; it is what they do as basic Labour propagandists. There is something faintly humorous in the fact that a story that broke yesterday is still at the top of their website, while the breaking news of Brian Cowen's resignation is at Number Three. What also amuses me is that their current story is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy - the story will continue to run and run, the paper says - at the same time as making it run and run by giving it a level of attention that it frankly does not deserve.

But what is the true icing on the cake for me is the fact that the paper is so desperate to breathe further life into the story that they are quoting one Alistair Campbell. Yes, that Alistair Campbell - he of the dodgy dossier fame, and the apparent inspiration for Malcom Tucker. Campbell should know about scandal; what he managed to "achieve" while doing communications at Number 10 far exceed anything Coulson did, or is likely to do in the whole course of his life. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Coulson would have to start a war in order to be as damaging as Campbell.

No doubt The Guardian will continue to run with this story until there is nothing left other than constant repetition of what is already known and what no-one cares about anymore. Hell, the world could end tomorrow and they would still be banging on about how this looks bad for Cameron. It's what they do, and it also why their paper is often so tedious and struggles to make any real money these days.

Modern British Politics: Gossip

So, what have we found out about politics today?

1. Tony Blair didn't get on with Gordon Brown: No, really? Blair and Brown didn't like each other? Fuck-a-duck that is news, isn't it? Except it actually isn't. Because we've known about this for the best part of the decade - Blair's confirmation of his difficult relationship with Brown proves nothing other than what we already knew.

And it isn't just about the lack of novelty - there's another reason why it is largely irrelevant for the future - neither Blair nor Brown represent the future of politics in our country. Neither of them will ever be Prime Minister - or even a high-powered elected politician - again. This is just watching a soap opera that has gone well past its prime.

2. Hague's adviser quits: So, someone has been forced from a job because of sly, often borderline homophobic, innuendo. And, as a result of that we've learned of the personal tragedy of the miscarriages that have befallen the Hagues. I can entirely understand why they wanted to keep this private, and I cannot understand why this needed to come into the public sphere. Except that it is a desperate attempt to end what I can see is just groundless speculation abut Hague's private life. Of course they didn't want to reveal this; of course, under the duress of prattling tongues, they had to.

And in the meantime, our politicians get away with continuing to do and say next to nothing about our future as a nation. They get away with having no ambition, no plan and no ideological commitment whatsoever because at the first sign of some titillating, controversial or in any way gossipy, the media works themselves up into a furore about it and we, the consumers, blindly accept it.

So the next time you wonder why Cameron, or Clegg, or whoever gets to be Labour leader, is so shallow, PR-obsessed and light-weight, remember days like these. When all we seem to want form our politicians is to be entertained, like vacuous viewers of the world's slowest, dullest, but most long-running, soap opera. If we want the calibre of our politicians to change, we need to change it. We need to redress the balance between personal and private, and we need to remember that the only meaningful litmus test for our politicians is what they do in power, rather than with their colleagues or in their private lives.

Because this is the truth - the politicians we get we deserve.

Gay, Bi, Straight, Whatever

The weekend just gone seems to have had its share of whispering around the sexual orientation of Cabinet Ministers; Crispin Blunt came out as gay while others have been coyly (or not) asking around the question "is another senior Tory Minister gay?"

The answer all decent people should be giving to that question is, of course, who the fuck cares? Seriously, why does it matter whether or not someone is gay? If they happen to be gay and married, they it will probably be a problem for their spouses and families, but that's it. That's where it stops. It does not matter one jot whether someone is gay, straight, bisexual or any other combination of orientations. At this point I could argue that sexuality is actually something to complex that it defies easy categorisation, but I won't - because it doesn't matter what a politician's sexual orientation is.

Yet it does matter that we allow our media to get away with this speculation and at times, as a nation, let ourselves get swept away by titillating speculation about the private lives of others. And when need to stop. We should hold our politicians to account and viciously attack them when they fail - in their public roles. As long as they are not doing anything illegal in their private lives, they should remain just that - private.

And this isn't just about who politicians are humping or even what gender they prefer to hump. I don't want to hear about their spouses and I certainly don't want to hear about their sodding kids. I don't want know what to see photos of Cameron's new baby, I don't what to know what it is called - hell, I don't even care what gender it is. I want him to run the fucking country, and do so well. I don't expect him to be preening with his new tot like a z-list celebrity milking the profitable teat of Hello magazine.

Because removing the right of our politicians to have a private life creates this expectation that they will share every element of their private lives with us. Which means that those who are vying for high-office in this country are not those most capable of carrying out that office, but rather are the sort of preening narcissistic fucks who revel in the constant exposure of the media limelight. The end result of this obsession with the private lives of our politicians is not a purer breed of political leaders, but rather Tony fucking Blair.

Gay, not gay, undecided, asexual, both; the only suitable answer should be that you really couldn't give a fuck anyway.

Oh, seriously, who fucking cares?

This is the very definition of a private matter. It should not be the top story on the BBC News website. The world is headed to hell in a handcart, and our state broadcaster seems to think that the most important thing happening on this planet right now is the desperate pleading of a randy golfer.

For fuck's sake...

A new Facebook layout has prompted screams of impotent outrage: people are bemoaning the inconvenience of a mildly amended website, groups springing up to demand a change back to the last controversial layout that, for all the world, looks very similar to what we have now.

It is probably one of the reasons why the world is headed to hell in handcart – people don’t notice the reprehensible state we’re in because they are too busy banging on about how it now takes two clicks rather than just one to logout of Facebook.

So let’s get some frickin’ perspective here, people. The extremely limited changes to Facebook are the very definition of a minor irritant – if you’ve even noticed them thus far. If the changes bother you, then just remember in a week’s time you’ll have forgotten what Facebook used to look like, so you may as well get over the changes now. If you really can’t stand the new Facebook, then don’t fucking use it. It’s a free service that no-one is obliged to use – getting worked up about minor changes to the design is utterly futile.

We are all going to die!

Of like, a bad cold or something.

There is nothing the media likes more than whipping up a paranoid storm about some coming apocalypse. Be it terrorists, dirty bombs, suitcase nuclear weapons, war, nuclear war, cyber-terrorism, flesh-eating bugs, serial killers, evil clowns* - whatever the ruddy fuck the end of the world of the moment is, you can bet there is something that is going to come and fuck you up real bad.

Today it is swine flu - presumably a porcine version of that Avian flu thing that never really took off despite the hype. And looking at the coverage in the media, you'd imagine that this swine flu really is going to create the end of everything. Certainly, it has had its moments in Mexico, as the dead there would be able to attest to (if the dead could attest to anything).

Except, it isn't actually that scary:

Symptoms of swine flu in humans appear to be similar to those produced by standard, seasonal flu. These include fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills and fatigue.

Sounds a lot like... well, 'flu to me.

And there is basic stuff that you can do to try to prevent coming down with pig flu. Like this:

It is also important to wash your hands frequently with soap and water to reduce the spread of the virus from your hands to face or to other people and cleaning hard surfaces like door handles frequently using a normal cleaning product.

And in fairness, you should be washing your hands anyway. If you aren't then you are a bit a filth wizard to be honest.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I suspect this will turn out to be a contagious epidemic that bloats column inches with mindless speculation, rather than a contagious epidemic that ends everything. Ignore the shrill tone of a lot of the coverage, and instead look at the worst case scenario. You might get 'flu.

A pisser, but it isn't the end of the world, now, is it?

*Part of me does believe that Obnoxio the Clown will play a role in the End of Days. I don't know why, it is just a nagging feeling. Probably because is represented by a picture of Pennywise the Dancing Clown.

Parky on Goody

I don't think this has ever happened to me before, but I agree absolutely with Michael Parkinson:

"Her death is as sad as the death of any young person but it's not the passing of a martyr or a saint or, God help us, Princess Di... When we clear the media smokescreen from around her death, what we're left with is a woman who came to represent all that's paltry and wretched about Britain today. She was brought up on a sink estate, as a child came to know both drugs and crime, was barely educated, ignorant and puerile. Then she was projected to celebrity by Big Brother and, from that point on, became a media chattel to be manipulated and exploited till the day she died."

And:

"What bothers me is that the media first of all recommended we hate Jade Goody. 'A slapper with a face like a pig'; 'the most hated woman in Britain', remember? And shortly thereafter tried to persuade us to celebrate her."

Finally:

He said Goody was "the perfect victim of our times...brought up in a cesspit of poverty and died to an orchestrated chorus of exploitation".

The only caveat I'd add is that Jade made the choice to be exploited by the media; she lived off it, loved it and revelled in it. She was the perfect partner with the media in the eradication of anything approaching dignity in her life and death.

Fair play to Goody; she took what little talent she had (namely shamelessness) and used it to turn herself into a millionaire and to look after her kids after her death. But the ongoing media spotlight on her death, and the mourning that seems to go all the way up to fucking Downing Street has nothing to do with celebrating Goody's life, but has far more to do with the Great British past time of wallowing in the misery of others and loving a real life soap opera with a tragic end.