Fools

Apologies for the absence. Things will get back to normal shortly and I'll soon be replying to the emails which are piling up too. Honest.

In the meantime, I couldn't help but notice a completely pointless bit of nonsense in a local Labour election leaflet (it's not my own constituency but a nearby one). It's one of those classic "local people" things.

Here's the relevant bit of the leaflet.


James "I'm keen to know what local people would like done" Noble has quoted two "local people" on his leaflet. Can you guess what's coming next?

The first supporter, Bridget "James Noble is committed to the people of West Aberdeenshire" O'Hare is, yes, a Scottish Labour Party candidate in the council elections.

The second supporter, Ricky "I know James is on my side on the issues that matter to me" Simpson is, yes, also a Scottish Labour Party candidate in the local elections.

There is no mention of this on the leaflet. Both stooges are presented in a way which suggests that they are local people (true) and unaffiliated supporters of Mr Noble (false).

It wasn't hard to find out the truth though; both of the above links were found via James's website. But as Mr Noble no doubt knows as well as I, almost no-one who sees the leaflet will bother to check out the website so the illusion that these are just interested local people with no party political affiliations will stand up reasonably well.

Who are the fools really? Us or them?

By the way, this is completely pointless because James doesn't have the slightest chance of being elected as the 2003 result clearly demonstrates. Mr Noble appears to be honing his ability to mislead the public purely as an investment in his future political career. After all, if it worked so well for Blair...

Selective "Outrage"

For those not aware of it, Tim posted about the hypocrisy of one PragueTory on Friday and there's a follow up here. Dear oh dear.

So, when is beyond the pale not beyond the pale? Personally, I'd say that unjustifiably smearing someone as a paedophile actually is beyond the pale in all cases. PT appears to think differently. I've been waiting all weekend for an explanation as to why this is but no answer was forthcoming.

So, here's a short post dedicated to PT (and one of his commenters).

Another Rightie Goes Beyond the Pale

The Right definitely dominate when the blogosphere comes to posting things that are completely beyond the pale. And it seems like the material is coming thicker (pun intended) and faster than ever.

"Guido Fawkes" (who has boasted of his use of illegal tax evasion strategies) wrote that Mark Oaten was "a slaphead who most mothers would feel uneasy seeing near a playground". This comment was made last year.

Remarkably "Guido" is allowing his comment to stand.

There can be no doubt that the left occupy the erudite, blogging high-ground while the right prefer the low swamp of attack and innuendo

Right?

No, obviously not. Because, you see, I realise that although "the right" has it's fair share of tossers, hypocrites and bastards just like any other group of human beings, it would be unfair on the many decent people of the right to extrapolate that sort of behaviour in this stupid generic way in an attempt to gain partisan political advantage. It would be misleading, dishonest and well, just not very nice.

That obviously isn't a concern shared by everyone though.

"Blog Wars"

"Guido" has agreed to give an interview to Sunny at Pickled Politics. He wants a "fair hearing" apparently. Now there's an irony of genuinely monumental proportions. Fair play to Sunny for offering Paul something which Paul himself never considers offering to others. Likewise Tim and Justin and others.

Given his own attitude towards such things, it will be interesting to hear Paul explain why he threw a hissy fit and threatened to take everyone to court yesterday. Whatever happened to "If you don't like it, don't read it"?

Meanwhile, Iain has decided that playing the victim card is the way to go after all. How very noble...

I didn't highlight this before, but here's a further titbit about Iain which might explain a little more about the reason why he's become involved in the "blog war". After my post on his refusal to answer my questions on Nicholas Boles, Policy Exchange and a certain party political issue - a genuine attempt to ask questions on matters of fact - Iain turned up in the comments to my post to say this:

nice to see you have deleted my comment I left last night.

I've checked and the comment was definitely left by someone signed in using Iain's blogger account. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that it was Iain. As I said at the time, I did no such thing. Iain did not respond again however; he was happy to just leave his allegation hanging there.

Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. The first is that Iain made a spurious accusation against me in an attempt to deflect attention and/or make me look bad.

The second is that Blogger somehow lost Iain's comment. Since I switched from Haloscan to Blogger comments, no-one has ever made a complaint about a missing comment before and I'm not aware of this being a problem for Blogger users. Nevertheless, the possibility cannot be ruled out completely.

Iain, however, certainly did rule out that possibility. He made a specific and unqualified allegation against me which was entirely false. When challenged, he didn't withdraw it or offer an apology; he let it stand. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect from someone who says they like blogging because it enables conversation. At best, Iain has made an ill-advised claim in the heat of the moment which he now ought to withdraw. At worst, he has deliberately attempted to smear me.

I'm not really a fan of the victim card myself but I'd ask you to consider what chance I'd have of getting Iain to retract his spurious accusation.

Again, I must stress that for me, this whole issue is only coincidentally related to left and right. What I'm currently attempting to do is point out the ways in which two of the U.K.'s most prominent bloggers behave.

It'd be nice to think that these two people, underneath it all, are human beings who might now be reflecting on the way they treat other people on the interwebs. At this stage, however, and particularly in light of Iain's post today, I have to say that that doesn't look likely.

Update

More reactions to Iain's latest post.

Bloggerheads: Iain Dale plays the victim... again

Ministry of Truth: Open Letter to Iain Dale

Obsolete: Ceasefire?

Tygerland: Iain's Wet Rebuttal

Guardian: How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish

Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, reminded the committee that "the subject of today's hearing is the CPA's use and accounting for funds belonging to the Iraqi people held in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq. These are not appropriated American funds. They are Iraqi funds. I believe the CPA discharged its responsibilities to manage these Iraqi funds on behalf of the Iraqi people."

Bremer's financial adviser, retired Admiral David Oliver, is even more direct. The memorandum quotes an interview with the BBC World Service. Asked what had happened to the $8.8bn he replied: "I have no idea. I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it's important."

Q: "But the fact is billions of dollars have disappeared without trace."

Oliver: "Of their money. Billions of dollars of their money, yeah I understand. I'm saying what difference does it make?"

Tim at Bloggerheads has been trying to ask Iain Dale some questions this week. I've had a wee go too.

A brief summary of the state of play so far.

Iain Dale made a film claiming that the Smith Institute, which operates as an independent charity, is too close to Gordon Brown.

Iain Dale is a trustee of right centre think tank Policy Exchange.

Policy Exchange, which operates as an independent charity, looks to be just a bit close to David Cameron.

Questions were asked about this.

Iain's response has been most informative. New Labour trolls? Oh dear.

The Long Goodbye, Part 94

The captain is merrily steering the ship directly towards an enormous iceberg, every alarm on board is flashing in that way that really alarming alarms do, and the crew are still busy discussing the finer points of a smooth and orderly transition.

Those of a sensitive disposition may want to look away now.

New Labour's reaction to the arrest of Ruth Turner has been quite something. These are the very same people who constantly argue that the police should be trusted with more summary powers.

Ruth Turner was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. It's an imprisonable offence. As such, the police had the right to take a sample of her DNA and store a record of it on their DNA database. Because of the arrest, the police now have the authority store her DNA on the database permanently even if she is never charged with any offence.

I wonder if they did?

The Legacy

Ruth Turner, Blair's Director of Government relations, has been arrested.

She was questioned over honours allegations and suspicion of perverting the course of justice. She has issued a statement denying any wrongdoing.

Interesting.

Whatever happens with this, it amazes me that there are still so many Labour MPs and activists prepared to let Blair depart "with dignity". Faced with distrusted, disliked and laughably inept Tory opposition during his entire time in office, Blair has still, almost single-handedly, managed to totally destroyed Labour's reputation. That's quite a feat.

Those who continue to support him are only making it even more likely that the whole Party will go down with his sinking ship. There are signs that self-interest has finally started to motivate them in ways that mere principles never could but it may very well already be too late.

Blair is in trouble if even John "dodgy dossier" Scarlett won't back him up. Stinky.

Remember when Blair approved the sale of a hugely expensive BAE Systems military air traffic control system to Tanzania despite the fact that Tanzania had almost no military aircraft? The SFO has discovered that BAE paid a middleman a $12 million "commission" to grease the wheels of that transaction. I wonder how Lord Falconer will quash that investigation?

And what's this? Remember Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate Blair helped out with various deals after he donated £125,000 to the Labour Party? You know, the man Blair claimed he helped because he was the owner of a British company despite the fact that the company in question was actually registered in the Dutch Antilles? Well, he now intends to donate £2 million to the Labour Party. Well I never.

Do you think Polly still as a few of her nosepegs handy? The stench is getting to be almost unbearable.