Ooops!

They misspelt coffee.



Via imgur.com

The Vicious Circle of Identity Politics

Yesterday was the culmination of a rather interesting little tale going on the Internet about William Hague, a (male) special advisor and rampant speculation about whether the SpAd got the job because of a secret game of "hide the sausage" behind the back of William Hague's wife.

The end result last night was that the special advisor resigned, and William Hague put out an incredible statement which not only categorically denied any infidelity but also went into some immense detail about his marriage and attempts to have children.

The point I wish to make is a simple one, that being, why does the gender of the alleged (and categorically denied) lover matter anyway? Why is it that William Hague had to come out (no pun intended), and make a statement which contained the sub-text of "I'm not gay"?

Surely, if anything, the statement ought to have only been "I'm not having an affair with my SpAd and they didn't get the job because of a relationship"?

Sure, I understand "why" he felt the need to say what he did. It was necessary to kill the "story", but seriously, the gender of the SpAd wasn't the story, or more correctly, ought not to have been the story.

So why did it become the story? Why is it that a matter of context became the story rather than the matter of substance? Personally, I think the blame lays squarely with the fact that UK politics remain stuck in the past.

What do I mean by that?

Well, the Right, and by that I actually mean the reactionary socially conservative Right rather than the economic and socially liberal Right like Guido Fawkes et al do undoubtedly still have a view of same-sex love that means they recoil in disgust.

Most of Hague's "I'm not gay" statement wasn't for people like me (or Guido), it was for people like them. It was to placate those people out there that vote Tory who still say "he sticks what where!?!? That's disgusting!". Until they all bugger off to the great blue rinse specialist hair salon in the sky it will sadly remain the case.

Meanwhile, the Left, and by that I mean the reactionary "hate all things Right" Left, automatically assume that everyone on the Right is of the previously mentioned group and therefore any mention of same-sex action must contain some latent "homophobia". They complain about this so vocally, that ironically, they make it becomes a relevant part of the story.

It's the vicious circle of identity politics.

Story X is reported with contextual information about sexuality, skin colour, disability. Story X is condemned for discrimination on the ground of reference to specific contextual information. Some people start to get vocal about contextual elements disgusting them. In response they're again condemned for discrimination. Story X continue to grow legs and the contextual elements eventual become a part of the story when really they weren't and the original story is squeezed to the by-line.

Think about it like this. If Hague's SpAd had been female, the story would have been about an alleged "love rat" affair being a factor in employment. Alternatively if Hague's SpAd had a unisex name like Vivian and there was no photo of the two together, it would have still have been about an alleged "love rat" affair being a factor in employment.

Yet the minute it is clear the "other party" in the allegation is the same gender it becomes something else. The vicious circle kicks in and what is relevant becomes irrelevant and what is irrelevant becomes relevant.

It tells us more about us than it does about the story itself.

Lies and more lies everywhere!

First up, I think that the left wing blog Political Scrapbook is by far and away the best leftie bloggers out there today. They're not pious or boring like Sunny Hundal, and crucially they've got a sense of humour. Over the next few years they will undoubtedly be a scooper type blog for "gossip in opposition".

However, bigging up over, that doesn't mean they can't be wrong, such as with their latest post with an "attack video" about David Cameron's statements in the Leaders Debates about pension credits, bus passes and other assorted benefits.

In fairness they're only really repeating a line that others have done on this issue but it's worth pointing out the steaming pile of bullshit in their argument.

The argument goes like this. In the Leaders Debates, Cameron said, in response to Labour leaflets making wild statements about how the evil baby-eating Tories were going to abolish things, that,

“We will keep the pension credit, we’ll keep the winter fuel allowance, we’ll keep the free bus pass. Those leaflets you have been getting from Labour, the letters you have been getting from Labour are pure and simple lies.”

ScrapBook then goes on to note how far from Labour telling lies it was, shock horror, in fact Cameron telling lies, stating,

Free bus passes at 60? Don’t count on it. The pension credit? Chris Grayling wants them “phased out”. Winter fuel payments? Restricted and cut.

Errrr reality check dudes.

1. Cameron says pension credits will be kept. Scrapbook links to a story about how pension credits "could" be phased out over ten years and replaced with an increased and essentially offset state pension. Now, given the use of the word "could" rather than "will", and the fact that ten years means there is a little thing called a "General Election" in between, has a lie by Cameron been exposed? Errrr no. He said the pension credit would remain and it remains.
   
2. Cameron says he will keep free bus passes. Scrapbook links to an article about how the qualifying age for free bus passes is likely to increase to 65 - a bit like the retirement age funnily enough. So did Cameron lie? Errr no. The free bus pass will remain.
   
3. Cameron says that the winter fuel payment will remain. Scrapbook links to the story that the winter fuel payment will be given later than 60 (like the bus pass and in line with the rising retirement age). So, did Cameron lie? Errrr no. The winter fuel payment is being kept.
   

Now, don't get me wrong. lefties are well within their rights to be annoyed by changes to these things. Although it's worth noting that not once have I seen them acknowledge that if we're all going to be working for longer and becoming pensioners later, then qualification ages for pensioners benefits are going to rise too.*

But seriously, if you're going to quote Cameron and then link to evidence of lies, at least ensure that the stories you link to do actually contradict what was said. Otherwise you'll just look silly.

* I bet if qualification ages didn't rise the attack would be that money was being given to those in work at the expense of elderly genuine pensioners who need it most. Such is the utter bullshit of political rhetoric.

A Journey: The Rules to Remember

I've posted the following list before, but seeing as everyone on Twitter and blogs is wetting themselves with excitement over Blair's memoirs (my copy is apparently coming today sometime) I would like to remind everyone once again of Sir Humphrey Appleby's rule on the six possible realities that Blair's memoirs reveal. These are:

1. What happened.
2. What he believed happened.
3. What he would have liked to have happened.
4. What he wants to believe happened.
5. What he wants other people to believe happened.
6. What he wants other people to believe he believed happened.

I'm sure there will be much column space dedicated to these over the coming days, and then we can sit and wait for Gordon Brown to write his and hit back.

Why is David Miliband my "best match"?

Slightly confused by my Vote Match results.How can I have an equal score for the MiliTicket but get one recommended above the other?

Personally, what I find most odd is that the frontrunners are wonks from a deeply political family with about as much experience of the normal world as an ant born on the International Space Station.

Jon Cruddas should've run for the leadership in my view. As much as Ed Miliband's team like to suggest he "speaks human", the difference with Cruddas is that he "speaks normal", and that would appeal to voters far more than I think many realise.

Quote of the Day: Blair on fox hunting

Asked if banning fox hunting was a mistake, Blair tells the Guardian,

"I think yes on balance it was in the end. Its not that I particularly like hunting or have ever engaged in it or would. I didn't quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life.... [it's] not one of my finest policy moments".

Bet that will piss off a lot of Labour people who have foolishly convinced themselves that fox hunting is something that only posh upper-class toffs do/did.

EXCLUSIVE: First peek at NHS Direct replacement service

Admit it, you know we all do it.

NHS Direct costs £5 million per phone?

Well, according to David Prescott it does anyway. His Save NHS Direct campaign (that's the campaign against the previous Labour Government's policy incidentally), says,

Hmm only 24 phones at a cost of £123m.. no wonder Lansley thinks it's costly!

In all seriousness though, it is rather amusing to see Labour people falling over themselves to "save" something that for all intent and purpose appears to be having a name change and errrr was actually their policy when they were in Government.

Opposition for opposition sake.

Hat Tip: A reader.

Now we're cooking on.... errr honeycombs?

Dear Sunny Hundal and Will Straw.....

Gents

I can't help but notice you both took Mark Pack's post yesterday about Matthew Elliott from the "No 2 AV" campaign purchasing the domain "yes2av.org" and have turned it into panty-wetting and girly "dirty tricks" hyperbolic bullshit story of the kind that you both often rail against.

I simply ask, where were the shrieks of "dirty tricks" when the Labour Party quite sensibly registered, and continues to host cameronsconservatives.co.uk? Why no crying foul at the fact that Clifford Singer, again sensibly and cleverly owns taxpayeralliance.org? I doubt Sunny is "looking at whether this breaks any rules".

Or how about Clifford's other site, again very clever, mydavidcameron.com? Did you fill the proverbial nappy Will at that terrible bit of General Election "dirty tricks"? Of course you didn't, you linked it, as did you Sunny and there was no question of complaining about "domain squatting" on someone's name.

Don't you realise that talking about "dirty tricks" when all that's happened is something you've happily promoted from your own side, sort of makes you look like a couple of sanctimonious tits?

It makes perfect sense for the No campaign to register domains that might be useful for it to slate the Yes campaign, just like it made sense for Clifford and Labour to do what they did.

I guess what I'm trying to say gents, and I say this with an immense amount of love, hugs and kisses, is.......... grow the fuck up.

All the best

Phil aka Dizzy
xxx