"Cheriegate" (ew)

To answer the questions:
1)Yes
2) Not really
3) Yes, only a few though
4) I think it might be something to do with a lack of imagination and Watergate.
5) Nothing.
6) Boris Johnston is pretty dim too. Malcolm rifkind has never impressed me with his computah-like bonce neither.

Pete: "stupid people tend not to have so much money after all": have you never heard of the aristocracy? Why do you think they need special schools?

Clearly CB knew Foster was an ex-crook. Most of us wouldn't deal with him on that basis, but somehow she still did, poss out of misplaced loyalty to friend, although I find this difficult to swallow. However when Downing Street issue the denial that CB had used Foster what did they know? Nothing? That Foster was used but didn't know he was dodgy? Did CB tell them that she didn't use Foster? We ought to know.

With regards to CB knowing he was a conman, merely by the fact that the knock down prices he got the flats for she should have guessed he was a bit dodgy. I'm not going to expect that she spent much of the early eighties watching That's Life! though.

In the end what has Cherie Blair done wrong. Has she broken the law? No. Has she used her position for undue influence, possibly attempted to though even that is a little bit tenuous - and anyway it didn't work. Has she lied to the press - yes - and in the end that is all the media care about.

(And Five Live callers Dr C have the memory span of goldfish and the outrage factor of Mary Whitehouse).

either it's sinister or it's silly, but actually it can't be both (to be honest i wd say it's neither, unless you argue that any contact evah with an estate agent lays you open to the same charges, that you must be evil and conniving if you don't get screwed, and a fat-headed mark if you do)

the secret headline that the country is reading and enjoying here is "HAHA even the prime minister can't buy property w/o being fucked over by the middle-men"

"I'm Into CB!"

vines acknowledged that current bbc practice seemed very tame and managed and "non-partisan" by comparison with that: what he didn't talk about wz the degree to which scornful respectlessness has become a lame mainstream norm in the news-media, unleashed — as here — when there's someone to bully, basically, and how counterproductive (on its own terms) this may have become as an approach

the other half of the mainstream norm is sententious toadying: for a map of how closely linked they are, look at coverage of the royal family, which can switch from one to the other during the course of a single four-letter word (ie the word "ma'am" as used by the sun)

2. no

3. no

4. it's closely associated with lameness.

5. don't care. don't care. don't care.

Well, I haven't been following it that closely, but isn't the problem something to do with Cherie fixing it so the fraudster didn't get deported? Which is quite serious when everyone else gets deported all the time, etc, etc.

Denis Thatcher never cavorted with conmen.

krishnan gurumurti wz all "dude you guys are all over the place on this" to david davies, and on Five la bella kirsty set the bidding at "this is all abt hatred of women, isn't it?" and opened w.the woman on the panel who said "it's the daily mail as per bonkers usual they ph34r women deeply"

I think it all boils down to the fact that the mail is a nasty little misogynistic organ, scandalised by the fact that the prime minister's wife is a strong independent woman near the top of her profession who earns far more than her husband.

(Actually I'm not sure abt the new age loonies bit - I don't think they're madder than anyone else, the Christianity is perhaps an issue but not one the Mail wants to broach.)

I've only read about it in the "Guardian" and seen hysterickal headlines in trash tabloids when in the newsagents.

2. Is it interesting?

Not really. Both in terms of the story itself, andthe deranged tabloid press & dail wail, it's all totally sadly inevitable & deja-vu-ish. It makes me feel a bit sad and old.

3. Do you think a single voter in the country gives a fuck about it as opposed to the fire strike, Iraq, the economy, crime, anything else?

Probably lots of people find it interesting. Lots of people are quite stupid it sometimes seems.

4. Why oh why do people stick the suffix "-gate" onto everything possible?

Because they are lazy and stupid, and they think it's clever. Possibly there are a lot of newsprint journalists who are not really up to the job, and they are only there b/c of nepotism etc, I dunno. Possibly there are too many newspapers.

5. What if anything will happen?

I think probably nothing. People are already pretty disenfranchised-feeling abt the politickal process in UK. Perhaps the majority ov folx will just be like oh well.... and go on w/their lives. I wish things were better than this really.

I'm still upset about that train taking so long from Gatwick to Reading in July.

The press reaction has been fascinating with The Sun, and especially The Times, buying whatever Alistair Campbell’s line is (prob. under orders of Murdoch) and at times have been left looking extremely naïve. Piers Morgan personnel vendetta with CB has placed the Mirror in an unaccustomed role as fierce critic. The power and influence of Campbell troubles me, hauling Mandelson back for advice shows how desperate TB is. The whole affair has been embarrassing, damaging, and however trivial purchasing a couple of flats in Bristol may seem I suspect historians of the Blair government may find it a turning point. Gordon Brown will be smiling.

If the equivalent of Ecclestone surfaced now it would fatally wound the government and Blair's reputation.