And another thing…

RIGHT wing bloggers have been banging on for months about “Smeargate”, insisting (and probably believing in their own minds) that what McBride and Draper were up to was somehow typical of the Labour Party.

They’re wrong, of course. What McBride was suggesting was vile and reprehensible and the Labour Party immediately recognised that. Smears are not an acceptable weapon in the political armory.

For weeks now, right wing bloggers have been successfully spreading a smear about the Prime Minister’s health, specifically an unsubstantiated and flatly denied claim that he’s taking prescription painkillers. No-one takes it that seriously. But it is a smear, and no more acceptable than those invented by McBride and Draper just because they’re aimed at a Labour politician instead of a Tory one.

And today, Andrew Marr gave credence to that smear by asking the Prime Minister to deny its truth. Marr will probably justify it by claiming that it’s a matter of public concern.

Except that it’s not; it is a smear invented by the right wing. Marr was no more justified in asking Gordon Brown about it than he would be asking David Cameron when he last used class A drugs. Because that little story has been doing the rounds for a while and as far as I’m aware, it, like the prescription drugs story, is an unsubstantiated smear, and therefore qualifies to be thrown at Cameron when he next faces Marr.

I wonder how many of the Tory bloggers who have applauded Marr’s “courage” this morning would still be praising him then?

UPDATE on Monday at 5.05 pm: On the basis, it seems, that smearing a politician is justified provided you hate him enough personally, a number of commenters are simply using this thread to reiterate the original smear and in more detail. I’m therefore taking the unusual step of closing this thread to further comments.

THERE is a big difference between “attack” and “smear” when it comes to blogs. And there is a difference between smearing and negative campaigning.

Let me make my own position clear: negative campaigning is a necessary and inevitable part of politics. You have to attack your political opponents. For a start, you owe it to the electorate to expose your opponents’ failings. Secondly, if you don’t attack them, they will attack you first.

A lot of guff has been written and spoken in recent weeks about how we have to lift political debate up out of the sewer, and other such plumbing-related metaphors. We’re now in danger of being accused of “smearing” whenever we raise a word of criticism about our opponents. Smeargate has been awful to behold, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater (continuing with those plumbing-related metaphors). 

A commenter contacted me in the last week to point out that in his recent successful presidential campaign, Barack Obama spent more money on negative campaigning than on positive campaigning. That does not mean that he bought advertising space to attack Cindy McCain for her history of drug addiction or to smear Senator McCain for fathering an illegitimate child (the tactics of McCain’s Republican opponents during the presidential primaries in 2000). Had Obama done so, he would have proved himself unworthy of the office he now holds. But he didn’t; he did what all candidates have to do and exposed the weaknesses of his opponent’s policies. And thank goodness he did.

So I think Iain Dale was wrong when he equated the attack blogs A Leaky Chanter and Aneurin Glyndwyr with the late and not-very-lamented Red Rag smear blog.

I genuinely have no idea who set up either site (it wisnae me, in case you’re wondering), but there is clearly a place for blogs which concentrate on the weak spots of their political opponents. A Leaky Chanter has a link to the very funny “Richt Honourable Alex Salmond” Twitterfeed, featuring such memorable updates as “wants a G183 so he can go to big important meetings too. Not fair.”

Most of the stuff on A Leaky Chanter is in the same vein — irreverent, funny and merciless (although I do think it’s completely unfair and unwise to attack Salmond on his expenses — a cheap shot which can be aimed — and will be, no doubt — at any MP of any party. But then, as an MP, I would say that, wouldn’t I?).

The half-hearted attempt by the SNP to add a tartan fringe to Smeargate can be easily dismissed.  SNP MP Angus MacNeil’s claim that A Leaky Chanter is a “Labour-linked blog” is based on nothing more than the fact that it’s on my blogroll! Based on that logic, Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy Thinks, ConservativeHome and Gallifrey One are all “Labour linked” sites…

An “attack blog” is a completely different animal from the kind of smear blog that McBride and Draper were planning to set up. By all means attack your opponents’ policies, but when you attack our families, or invent stuff to attack, you’ve crossed the line. And you’ve exposed yourself for having nothing of substance to attack on. And that means you’ve lost the argument, and deservedly so.

I WAS called by a journalist today who asked about my omission from the invitation list for Derek Draper’s Labour Bloggers’ Breakfasts over the past few months.

“Did you get an invitation?”

“Er, no.”

“Why not?”

“You’ll have to ask Derek that. By the way, you should ask me how I feel about it now.”

“How do you feel about it now?”

“I’m over it.”

I HAD planned to end my self-imposed break from blogging tomorrow rather than today, but events, dear boy, events…

First, I think it’s important that Labour people make clear — and are seen to make clear — that this whole McBride/Draper episode (must we call it “Smeargate”? Really?) is as inexcusable to us as it is to the rest of the world. There is absolutely no point in anyone in the party trying to spin such an odious sequence of events, of trying to suggest that it’s less serious that what the media are trying to make out.

To those comrades who might feel tempted to downplay this episode, to dismiss it simply as “two friends exchanging not-very-serious emails”, I would pose a question: how would Labour have reacted if this smear had been aimed at the partners of Labour politicians and had been perpetrated by a senior civil servant in a Conservative administration? Go on, think about that before trying to dismiss this as a storm in a teacup.

And there’s no point in talking up the question of how these emails found their way into Guido’s possession. Do you imagine for even a moment that the electorate could possibly care less about that? It’s insulting to imagine that this can be turned into a “process” story with Derek Draper’s email account, or Derek himself, portrayed as the “victim”.

Of course, McBride had to go — that was obvious to everyone with an ounce of judgment from the second this story broke. How could No. 10 have even tried to recover from this fiasco while the perpetrator was safely ensconced? Which brings me to my next point: I can understand why the Tories might privately have hoped McBride would survive. After all, what could be more damaging to the government and to the Prime Minister himself than to be seen to endorse such behaviour by taking no action against him? The Tories were handed an enormous propaganda gift this weekend; to have protected McBride’s position in No. 10 would have made it the gift that keeps on giving.

So, yes, I can understand why the Tories would have preferred McBride to remain in post. But what on earth was Draper thinking when he told various media outlets yesterday that he didn’t think McBride should have had to resign?

But this isn’t about positioning or spinning or misdirection or whatever. This is about standards of political activity, standards which have fallen far, far below what is remotely acceptable, especially for someone working at the very heart of government. 

We screwed up, big time. We have no-one — absolutely no-one at all — to blame for this but ourselves. The damage the Labour Party and the government have sustained this last 24 hours has been entirely self-inflicted.

And the people behind this sordid little mess owe everyone named in these emails a very public apology.

BLACKBURN Labour really do know how to entertain, what with their Tory logo malarkey and all manner of what have you since then.

They’ve now succumbed to Dale-esque numerology and have come up with an utterly pointless, though rather entertaining, Top Ten Labour Twitterers, based on the number of followers each entrant has.

I’m there (well, of course I am — do you think I’d be posting this if I weren’t?) at a modest number 8 with 802 followers. But as I have said on many occasions, it’s not size (of your following) that matters, it’s what you Twitter.

Anyhoo, courtesy of Blackburn Labour (I mean, really guys, does Jack know what you get up to at night?), here’s the list:

1: Alastair Campbell 3875 followers
2: Derek Draper 3427 followers
3: Tom Watson MP 2978 followers
4: John Prescott MP 2423 followers
5: “Twitter feed of the UK Labour Party“ 2217 followers
6: David Lammy MP  1312 followers
7: Sadiq Khan MP  954 followers
8: Tom Harris MP  802 followers
9: “The official twitter page of the Labour Party“ 784 followers
10: Luke Pollard PPC  728 followers

AFTER much thought and consideration, I spoke in favour of the Regulation of New Media Bill in the Commons last night.

The essential purpose of the legislation, as Andy Burnham, the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, told the House, is to make sure that new media, like blogs and social networking sites, can’t be used by terrorists (and I accept this is where there will be some disagreement in the blogscape: “terrorists” are defined under Schedule 1 to the Bill as “anyone who pursues a persistent pattern of anti-social or irritating behaviour, such behaviour to be defined as double parking, parking in parent-and-toddler spaces at supermarkets, talking loudly in cinemas or any other activity as defined by the Secretary of State”).

The Bill will also introduce mandatory “politeness and decency” standards (the so-called The Clarkson Rules) which will allow any blog author to be fined if he or she allows any foul language to be used in their comments section. Andy expressed some surprise that this part of the Bill had received the private backing of none other than Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes).

But by far the most controversial part of the Bill is the section that demands that, from April 2010, every British blogger will have to submit each post for official approval. My main concern is with regard to the turnaround time; the whole point of blogging could be rendered meaningless or at least blunted if we’re unable to respond timeously to current events. Andy, however, managed to reassure me and the House that posts will be approved by the new regulatory body, BlogOff, within about 36 hours.

This drew sage nods from Tory blogger Iain Dale who was in the Strangers’ Gallery to watch the debate at first hand. In fact he and I had discussed the Bill earlier in the day after I happened upon him, Derek Draper, Alex Hilton and Tim Ireland having a jovial and relaxed meal together in the Terrace Canteen.

The second reading of the Regulation of New Media Bill was agreed without a vote and surprisingly little comment, either in the mainstream media or in the blogscape.

There will, inevitably, be those who will cry “Big Brother!”, even at such light-touch regulatory measures. But blogging can only benefit and prosper with the official stamp of approval from HMG.

I welcome your comments.

UPDATE at 1.45 pm: Admit it, I had some of you there, didn’t I? Come on, admit it! You know who you are…

GLAD to see that LabourList editor Derek Draper now has his own personal blog. Good news, because it will allow LabourList, which Derek also founded, to be less about Derek’s continuing and ugly feuds with Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale and more about promoting and discussing Labour values.

The catalyst for the launch of his personal blog has been a report in the Guardian Online on Thursday, the day of the official launch of LabourList, casting aspersions on Derek’s professional qualifications.

The only downside of being “accidentally” left off the invitation list for Labour’s bloggers’ breakfast last week (again) is that I missed the shouting match between Derek and The Guardian’s Michael Henke over the aforementioned story. Sounds like it would have been fun. The argument, I mean, not the breakfast.

THOSE who suspected that this blog was nothing more than a Labour put-up job, aimed purely at broadcasting the party line, can rest easy.

Because if this were simply a Labour HQ mouthpiece, surely I would have been invited to Derek Draper’s Labour  blogathon taking place tomorrow?

Alas, I only found out about this prestigious event by reading Iain Dale’s Diary. I discovered the names of those invited to participate by reading Guido. And I found out I was not the only snubbed Labour blogger by reading Chris Paul.

I texted a friend who is on the invitation list, and he texted back to apologise and to say that, although it wasn’t his gig, he would make sure I was invited to future events. I responded in an unseasonably huffy manner: “Don’t bother.”

After all, there is surely some value in not being seen as part of an official Labour-oriented blogging circle, and I don’t think I would take kindly to being “expected” to blog certain subjects if I wasn’t already planning to do so anyway.

Nevertheless, I feel the snub personally. Maybe, after the fake memo, the “Heaven knows we’re miserable now” fiasco and my X-Factor live thread, I’m not considered a “serious” blogger? Ah, who cares – I’ve got my latest Christmas hit to post, plus my favourite all-time James Bond movies to schedule for publication on Christmas Day.

But I’ll bet they’ll regret not having me there when they get to item four on tomorrow’s agenda: “Doctor Who, season four – parallels for Labour’s fourth term”.

So, Christmas quiz time: what’s the most likely reason for a line being put through my name when the list of invitees was being drawn up? Keep it clean, people… 

THE FRINGE meeting on blogging is just about to finish, and it’s been quite encouraging and interesting discussion, once you dispense with all the “empower”, “facilitate” and “grassroots” type language. Derek Draper was very good and very funny. Mark Hanson of LabourHome got a bit of criticism over the leadership poll.

And well-attended, too. A lot of enthusiasm, not just for blogging, but for Labour.