I’ve been studiously doing my best to ignore the whole Shilpa thing - so we’ve learned that Jade Goody is a pig ignorant chav and that’s news? - on the premise that the best possible response to the whole show is ‘don’t watch and don’t vote - it’ll only encourage the bastards’.

And besides, for sheer entertainment value, there’s far more to be gained from watching the Tim and Guido show (start here and read everything that follows) than anything that C4’s little coterie of ‘no talents’ have to offer, although it is worth noting on the latter that I gather that the poor lass who’s getting picked is the only one in place that actually has a viable career - make of that what you will.

No, as I say, there’s much more fun to be had in watching Tim and Guido go at it - well sort of go at it, as Guido seems to be doing an awful lot of wimping out.

Tim’s been covering a lot of ground in a short space of time, which makes it a bit difficult to find something original to write, but reading through everything perhaps the one thing that most piques my interest is that whole business of Guido being ‘influential’ - in what sense?

That’s the essence of the hype surrounding Guido, that he’s somehow ‘influential’ - he even made one of those tiresome newspaper list of the most ‘influential’ people in the media a short while back (in the low 40s, as I recall) which sound impressive until you looked a bit more closely an noticed that Polly Pot was the winner - but come to think of it, just what can one actually point to in order to say that Guido has actually influenced anything?

To start to unpick that particular question, perhaps its worth taking a quick look at the ‘career’ - if you can call it that - of the blogger that Guido has said he most wishes to emulate, Matt Drudge.

What do we know about Matt Drudge?

He’s the blogger that got the original scoop on the Clinton-Lewinsky story. Yeah. And he’s got pretty much everything Guido seems to aspire to; the ‘media profile’, the contacts, the massive hit counts, his own personal coterie of adoring sycophants and fifth-rate imitators.

But since his break-out story, what has Drudge actually done… err… err… no, I’m fucked if I know as well.

The best you say can about Drudge’s ‘career’ is that its rather like the England career of the footballer, John Barnes. Everone remember’s Barnes’ spectacular goal against Brazil, early on his career, but ask the majority of people what he achieved after that in an England shirt and it’s blank looks all round. John Barnes is forever the guy that scored that brilliant goal against Brazil and then… err… errr.. err…

And then you go back to the whole Clinton-Lewinsky thing and as yourself what that actually achieved?

Well, it did keep a particular small-minded, anal retentive, puritan lawyer, Kenny Starr, in work for a couple of years and several million dollars of congressional expenses after he managed to turn up jack-shit on the thing he should have been investigating; ‘Whitewater’.

But Slick Willie didn’t take a fall in the end, and he wasn’t actually impeached.

[Correction: As Tim has rightly pointed out in comments, Clinton was impeached, in the sense that the trial, itself, is the impeachment, but was not found guilty and removed from office.]

[Note: You see, Guido - that’s how you do it!]

Nor did his successor, Bush the idiot, ride all the way to the White House on the back of America’s moral outrage and a semen-stained black dress. He didn’t beat Clinton, either. He beat the congentially adodyne Al Gore in a election held in a country where incumbent ‘veeps’ failing to successfully step up to the plate when its their ‘turn’ to go for becoming top banana is the rule rather than the exception, and then only thanks to a fair bit of electoral chicanery in a state run by his brother and on the back of biased call by a Fox News pundit who, as I recall, was also something like Dubya’s cousin.

Drudge got his scoop, his name recognition and his army of adoring toadies, but in the grand scheme of things he actually made fuck all difference to anything. His sole contribution to American political culture was a mulri-million dollar sideshow from which we learned that Slick Willie will happily go a blow-job when the opportunity arises.

Big fucking deal.

And if Drudge’s ‘career’ can be likened to that of John Barnes then, sticking with the football analogy, his would-be British imitator, Guido Fawkes can, perhaps, best be likened to Kieron Dyer, a player of whom the pundits all speak well but whose achievements are so nondescript that one cannot think, off hand, exactly what it is he’s ever actually done - at least Barnes had a career highlight.

What is the sum total of Guido’s ‘impact’ on British political culture?

Well he kind of ‘outed’ Mark Oaten a couple of days before the Sunday tabloids got to him, but only by way of a couple of nasty-minded queer-bashing ‘paedo’ gags in a pissed up podcast, and it was still very much the MSM that run the full story and took Oaten down.

And he also managed to name a female Labour MP who had allegedly been shagging Prescott on the side, thereby deflecting the public attention away from the real Prescott story of the time, his meetings with Phil Anschutz and the whole casino deal, thereby ensuring that the public never really got to grips with the question of how a government can claim to be running a fair ‘competititon’ for the single ’super-casino’ licence they have on offer when their own regeneration quango stands to get a hefty kickback on the gaming profits over and above the Treasury’s usual tax rake if, by some miraculous chance, the super-casino does wind-up at the Millennium Dome.

Oh, and a few of his comment box trolls ‘broke’ Defra’s wiki by graffiti-ing a few of the pages.

And that’s what passes for being ‘influential’ these days?

Fuck me, no wonder Jade Goody can make a career out of being Britain’s most high-profile moron, if a couple of forays in Humpty-Dumpster territory and a bit of fucking about with a government wiki is what counts as ‘influence’.

So what’s the big deal with Guido?

A fair amount of the stuff he peddles is leeched off the MSM anyway - I’ve seen him called on at least a couple of occasions for claiming ’scoops’ that have then been shown to have come hot off Press Association newswire, and a fair proportion of his ‘in the know’ rumours have that classic Nostradamus-like quality of being so fucking vague that he can claim to been there first with just about any salicious bit of gossip that worms its way in the mainstream in the following 48 hours to a week.

Most of the time, Guido’s much (self) publicised ‘edge’ over the MSM amounts to no more than being able to beat journos to the punch by being in a position to quickly fire off a few remarks on a story they’ve already got because the journo has to navigate his or her way through the mire of sub-editors and having their article lawyered before it hits the outside world.

So what, exactly, is it about Guido that makes him the ‘Mr Big’ of British blogging in the eyes of the media?

His ego and inexhaustible capacity for self-aggrandisement? His hit counts? His troll fanbase?

From the photo up at Samizdata it sure ain’t his looks - what does this picture say to you (scroll down, it’s with the caption beginning ‘Guido Fawkes reminded us all why we blog…’) if not ‘unemployed former Brookside extra’?

Personally, the answer I think is ‘none of the above’.

What makes Guido such a big deal in the eyes of the press is that out of all the British bloggers who could be considered to have a ‘media profile’; those well-known enough to be read (and sometimes liked to or quoted) by the denizons of the MSM, and for his pretentions of being anti-establishment and of being a ‘political arsonist’ and trying to tear things down, Guido is actually the least threatening of the bunch; and also the blogger most likely to be co-opted into the mainstream and ‘go native’ given a government more to his liking and the right inducements, just like his ‘hero’, Matt Drudge.

When the media says that anyone, let alone a blogger, is ‘influential’, the first question ‘you need to ask is how are you defining influence and in what way are you measuring it’? - which in the media very often means that both the definition and the measure amount of no more than ‘bums on seats’ - ratings, advertising revenues and sales.

If apply that idea to one of the biggest sectors of the MSM; the tabloid press and work on the basis that you can make a fair assessment of ‘influence’ (i.e. what sells newspapers) by what and who most makes the frnot page, then even a cursory glance at The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express will lead to the conclusion that the three most ‘influential’ media figures at the present time are Kate Middleton, Princess Diana (being dead for nearly 10 years is not quite the impediment it might seem, as the dead can’t sue for libel) and Mr A.N. Immigrant of ‘Should-be-everywhere-else-but-here’.

That’s Guido’s market, the place where his ‘influence’ is most keenly noted by the MSM. He deals routinely in the kind of instantly disposable gossipy tittle-tattle that flogs papers on Monday and becomes budgie cage liner by Wednesday.

As far as exercising any other kind of influence; things that help to set and shape real political agendas, Guido’s a nobody because he’s got fuck all to offer but fifth-hand anecdotes about the size of John Prescott’s dick.

Does that mean that because the self-appointed ‘leading light’ of the British blogosphere has precisely fuck all real influence that blogging, itself, is a busted flush - all mouth and only pyjama bottoms?

No. Not at all. It just means that when you come to work up a list of bloggers who have had a genuine influence and what eaxctly they did that was influential, then the name ‘Guido Fawkes’ is nowhere to be seen.

Okay, this is matter of opinion, far from an exhaustive list, and you’re all free to disagree and suggest your own alternatives, but a quick list of the bloggers (and actions) that I see as having had some measure of real influence over the last couple of years, during which time blogging has taken off, would have to include.

Tim Worstall - His tip-off to the MSM about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform bill got that whole story going (and for getting a rise out of Polly Pot and getting called a ‘pendant’)

Tim Ireland - For both the Backing Blair campaign and his Parliament Square Carol Concerts.

Rachel North - Who more than anyone else I can think of has put a human face on the London bombings and, in doing so simply by being herself and speaking openly and honestly, has done more to expose and bring home the falsity of the government’s denial of a full inquiry and their efforts to make political capital out of the bombings than anyone else I can think of.

Public Sector ‘Work Bloggers’ - too many to mention by name but certainly include Random Acts of Reality, PC Copperfield and Dr Crippen, for breaking down the bureaucratic curtain and giving people an insight into what real goes on in our public services.

The Anti-ID campaign - a collective effort which includes bloggers, the IT press (especially The Register) and, of course, No2ID and which has had a clear and measurable impact. Three to four years ago, when this all started, the government were claiming 80% support for ID cards off the back of opinion polls taken at a time when most people simply didn;t understand either the technology or the issues - today, they’re still claiming 80% support off the back of the same 3-4 year old polls and daren’t commission any new research because the know that public support has nosedived due to the efforts of campaigners to inform and educate the public and take forward the debate the government didn’t want.

Factor in the small victories - everything the semi-regular whinging from newspaper columnists about bloggers invading their ‘patch’ to catching The Sun in a lie and forcing an apology, and bloggers are exerting an influence - not an obvious one, perhaps, but still one that does have an impact on both political and media agendas.

And before anyone points out the obvious, no I haven’t forgotten Scott Burgess’ outing of Dilpazier Aslam, but that belongs in category all of its own and had a different kind of influence - it didn’t shape any agendas or change any perceptions, but what it did show is that in the right circumstances bloggers can do the investigative stuff and well as pyjama-clad op-eds very effectively and do need to be taken seriously if the story stands up rather than being dismissed as a bunch of amateurs.

(I’ve not littered my list with links, btw, simply because you should have no trouble at all finding any of the bloggers listed above, most of whom are in my blogroll anyway).

And no, I also haven’t forgotten Sunny Hundal and his ‘New Generation Network’ project either or even the Euston Manifesto - it’s just that bit to soon to assess the impact of either and do it fairly.

Where’s Guido in all of that? Having his usual comments box love-in with his pet trolls and sock puppets.

In fact the real irony about Guido’s ‘influence’ is that his biggest ’score’ to date - the Prescott ‘Cider with Rosie’ story not only had absolutely fuck all in the way of any real impact or influence but actually deflected media attention aware from the other Prescott story running at the time, the Casino deal, sufficiently to ensure that neither story ended up really going anywhere, because the media ended up obsessing over precisely the wrong things in order to flog a bit more chip-paper of the future.

Having said all that, I don’t quite share Tim’s concerns about Guido posing a danger to the development of the blogosphere - not that I blame Tim for calling Guido out, someone had to before they have to widen the lobby corridors at Westminster to accomodate Guido’s ego - largely because for all the hype, I don’t really see him as being all that important and if anyone does end up getting ‘burned’ by the establishment or the MSM then it’ll most likely be Guido anyway - it’s only a matter of time before someone, probably the MSM itself, will tire of his antics and either start firing back at him or, worse still, ignore him.

Like most of the gossip he peddles, he’s an innately disposable commodity, a pot noodle blogger, the kind that seems ‘tasty’ enough to begin with but soon proves so unsatisfying that you wonder why you didn’t just flush it down the bog straight away and cut out the middle man; not so much destined for greatness as destined to join the has-beens and never-will-bes on Celebrity (Z-list) Big Brother - that’s if the current bunch of twats don’t succeed in killing the whole shebang anyway.

Give it time and it won’t be too long before Guido Fawkes: Arch-Media Whore becomes Guido Fawkes: Didn’t he use to be a blogger?

15 Comments »

Allergies. Lots of have them and I think I’ve finally discovered mine - I’m bullshit intolerate.

Take, for example. Tony Blair’s reaction to the this week’s poll that indicated pretty widespread. support for an English Parliament.

Tony Blair has said that setting up a separate English parliament would be “unworkable” and “unnecessary”.

Unnecessary? Well fair enough, that’s a matter of opinion.

Unworkable? Now that’s complete bullshit.

Whatever you actually think of the idea of an English Parliament, the one thing the idea isn’t is ‘unworkable’. It would require some very substantial consitutional changes, true, but there is at least one perfectly sound model that could be used that would allow for the creation of such a Parliament: Federalism.

Now, if Tony think federalism is unworkable, then perhaps he mention that to his mate George, next time he sees him, because the Americans have been using a federal model of government for more than 200 years and they seem to think it works.

All Tony has done here is try to redfine ‘unworkable’ to mean ‘I don’t like the idea and I don’t want to talk about it’ - which is bullshit.

Same BBC article, more bullshit - this time from Oliver Heald of the Tories.

Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary Oliver Heald said: “We welcome the results of the Newsnight poll showing strong support for continuation of the Union throughout Great Britain.

“But this does highlight the need for a constructive unionist response… so giving English MPs a greater say over purely English matters.”

EVOEM (English votes on English Matters) is unworkable because under our present system of government there is no effective separation between the Executive and the Legislature and but for the Private Members’ Ballot and quirky stuff like 10 minute rule bills, which rarely go anywhere, its only the Executive (actually, strictly speaking only the Prime Minister) that has the authority to introduce legislation into Parliament.

So, under EVOEM, it would be quite possible to have a government that is in the majority on UK matters but only because of its Scottish (and perhaps Welsh) MPs, but in the minority on purely English matters, however, even though the opposition holds the majority on English matters, they would still not gain the right to introduce legislation as only the UK government can do that, leaving us with a Parliament capable of doing precisely fuck all.

EVOEM is a dumb idea, one that ‘makes sense’ only if you’re a half-baked opportunstic twat - its bullshit.

Elsewhere, David Milliband in majoring in non-sequiteurs:

After the terrible drought in Australia, Malaysia is now being hit by record floods. It will be interesting to see how the independent report commissioned by the Government into the impact of climate change on Malaysia assesses the prospects (led by Professor Fredolin Tangang).  It is relevant that nearly 20% of greenhouse gases are estimated to come from deforestation, and Malaysia has significant forests of its own.

Ah, so its deforestation, greenhouse gases and climate change that’s causing the drought in Australia and the floods in Malaysia?

No, we’re actually in the middle of an El Nino, at least until the spring - so this shit would all be pretty much happening anyway.

It’s just a bit more bullshit.

I had to read this one a couple of times, just to be sure that its not a bid of bad satire…

Who does he think he is? We must ask this question, because it’s the kind of question that would be asked if a 45-year-old female political neophyte declared, as Barack Obama did today, that she was taking the initial steps toward a presidential bid. In fact, the public wouldn’t get the chance to ask it of a 45-year-old woman with barely two years of national political experience, because, unlike Obama, the media would never take her seriously and we would rarely, if ever, hear her name.

Some say we should celebrate the candidacy of a minority. Yes, we should. But we weren’t interested in doing that when former US Senator Carol Moseley Braun ran in 2004. Like Obama, Braun was launched onto the national scene with a stirring and powerful speech - in her case, to the 1992 Democratic party convention. In fact, the parallels are astonishing: she is also African-American, also graduated from an elite law school and in 1992 won election to hold the very same Senate seat that Obama now occupies. But that’s where the similarities end. Braun served as a federal prosecutor before entering politics and, after a full six-year term in the Senate, she went on to serve as a US ambassador. Yet, despite an endorsement from the National Organization of Women, the media and political pundits never took her seriously. I recall being excited about her candidacy, only to find in every article that mentioned her an undercurrent of “who does she think she is?” At the age of 57, her campaign never caught fire…

…We must ask this question, “who does he think he is?” because there are 14 female US senators more qualified than Obama, one of whom is currently millions ahead in fundraising and has a double-digit lead in the polls. If Hillary Clinton were a man, her gravitas, formidable fundraising ability and giant presence in the party would dwarf his bid. Yet the media rushes - no, tramples - to fawn over a young man with far less life experience, less national political experience and less business experience.

Yes, how dare you run for President, you bastard - you’re a man and an under-represented fucking minority, and as a woman I demand that its our turn to be the under-represented minority with a candidate at this next election.

That’s Lisa Nuss, who’s profile says that she’s “an attorney and writer based in San Francisco, who attempts to write humorously on the topic of women and power.” which explains why it took me a couple of reads through to realise that she isn’t taking the piss.

David A Bell is the Andrew W Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland and the the author, most recently, of The First Total War, which discusses the birth of modern attitudes about warfare in the late 18th century - yep that is a barely edited cut and paste job from the Groan.

David A Bell writes articles that compare late 18th century with the modern day in ways that are historically rather misleading, like this one, which appears in his article on CiF

In 1790, France’s new revolutionary government went so far as to issue what has been called a “Declaration of Peace to the World”. But soon afterwards, France declared war on Austria, starting a conflict that would drag in all of Europe’s major powers and continue, with only short interruptions, until France’s final defeat in 1815.

Yes, France did declare war Austria in 1792, but only to give the Austrians, under the Duke of Brunswick, and excuse to invade France.

Confused? Let me explain.

Quick history lesson on the French Revolution.

End of 1791, France is being run by the Estates General and King Louis XVI is under what amounts to house arrest in Paris having been caught trying to sneak out of the coutry by a postman - no, I’m not making this up - because he’s got completely pissed off with having to share power with a bunch of disrespectful proles and figures that he might just his old job back (without having to deal with the proles) if he can hook up with the big fuck-off Austrian army that’s been marching up and on France’s borders making all manner of threatening noises for about the last 12 months.

Remember Louis’ wife, Marie-Antoinette was an Austrian royal.

Meanwhile, in the Estates General, the Feulliers (constitutional monarchists) and Girondins are starting to seriously shit themselves over the growing power of the Jacobins and their shit-kicking foot soliders, the sans-cullottes, and just about everyone is crapping themselves over the Austrians apart from Danton, who’s partying like its about to go out of fashion.
So, the King and his oppos come up with a cunning plan.

1. France declares war on Austria.

2. France’s few halfway decent generals and professional soldiers switch sides and hook up with Brunswick, his Austrians and a bunch of Prussians who’ve recently joined the party.

3. Austria kicks France’s arse, gets shot of the Jacobins and then puts Louis back on the throne.

Problem solved.

Except that the Austrians get complacent by thinking that kicking the shit of a bunch of French proles will be a piece of piss, because they all run away when the shooting match kicks off, until the Battle of Valmy, when the proles do the unexpected and don’t run away - at which point the Austrians and their mates think ‘fuck this for a game of soldiers’ and go home.

This leaves the Jacobins running the show in Paris, and a quick kingly execution, a new national anthem and a purge or two later and we’re all set for the Terror.

Bell is peddling the classic modern myth of the French Revolution, in which the Jacobins are presented as bunch of 18th Century Freddy Kruegers, when in fact things were all rather more complicated - the Jacobins didn’t actually take power until 1793 - yes, Dickens did get the year wrong in a Tale of Two Cities - and France’s declaration of war on Austria had next to fuck all to do the Jacobins - some of them actually voted against the declaration of war - and was all contrived as a stitch up to put Louis back on the French throne, which is why the Brunswick Declaration, made just before the Austrian invasion of France states that his aim was:

“to put an end to the anarchy in the interior of France, to check the attacks upon the throne and the altar, to reestablish the legal power, to restore to the king the security and the liberty of which he is now deprived and to place him in a position to exercise once more the legitimate authority which belongs to him.”

The wikipedia article on Brunswick also notes that ‘the manifesto threatened the French public with instant punishment should they resist the Imperial and Prussian armies, or the reinstatement of the monarchy.’

Instant punishment, in this case, meant summary execution of anyone who fought back or generally managed to piss Brunswick off, up to and including the entire population of Paris, except for the King’s oppos - or at least the ones that Jacobins didn’t manage to execute before they got there.

The modern equivalent of France’s declaration of war in 1792 would be America declaring war on Iraq in 2003 and then ringing Saddam up to ask if he wouldn’t mind invading Florida so the Yanks could avoid all that messy business with the UN and get right on with bombing the shit out of Baghdad, which rather makes all that stuff with dodgy dossiers look a bit amateurish.

Yes, even historians talk bullshit when it comes to the French Revolution.

No Comments »