Wednesday, April 29, 2009 

How to tackle the BNP effectively.

Every few years, without fail, there is a scare regarding the possibility of the British National Party making a major breakthrough. By major breakthrough, this generally means winning the odd council seat, putting in an above average performance in an area where racial tension has been running at a high after some particular incident, or not losing their deposit when it comes to contesting seats during a general election. Compared to far right parties in other countries in Europe, some of which either share power, hold substantial seats in their respective parliaments or in the notorious case of 2002 in France, when Jean Marie Le Pen contested the French presidency against Jacques Chirac, come as close to seizing complete control as can be feasibly imagined, our rank of out and proud racists and fascists are a mostly feeble bunch.

This time round, the scare is probably as close to being justified as it has ever been. The BNP, despite having its membership list published online at the end of last year, is finally getting its shit together. Helped along by the economic situation, a backlash against "uncontrolled" immigration which has never been properly explained to the public, let alone the economic and political case argued for, the feeling of victimhood which followed the glee with which the leaked members list was greeted in some quarters, and the old grievances which the party preys upon, namely the immigrants/ethnics are talking all the jobs/houses/women then twists and fabricates further, support for the party seems to be growing exponentially. 800,000 apparently voted for them at the last European elections, while 238,000 crossed their box in the 2006 local elections. According to the email missives which regularly land in my inbox, after I signed up on the BNP website to argue with a knuckledragger who was linking here, BNP supporters have raised £300,000 for the European campaign, enabling them to send a flyer to every home in the country, as well as preparing a backroom staff more associated with the "major" parties. That's still £100,000 less than the Fuhrer himself, Nick Griffin, called for, but is hardly a figure to be sniffed at.

The latest to sound the alarm, as it always seems to be, is a Labour politician, even if Peter Hain has a well-established pedigree when it comes to battling against the far right. He worries that the BNP could win up to six seats at the European elections, which while hardly transforming British politics overnight, would mean that the party could claim up to £2 million in funding from the EU. That sort of money definitely would transform the party. At the moment, the BNP is restricted to running a mainly internet based insurgency: like organisations which, ironically, defend Israel, such as GIYUS, threads and comment pieces dealing with racism or mentioning the party are swiftly set upon, further giving the impression that there is a groundswell of opinion heading the party's way. Emails are sent out asking supporters and members to complain to newspapers which run articles the party decides are either inaccurate or which it simply decides cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged; one recent such campaign against the Independent resulted in the Press Complaints Commission receiving the most ever complaints about a single press article. The latest send out concerned the fear that the News Shopper was about to blame what even the BNP described as "major carnage" in Old Bexley on St George's Day on the party, which naturally, the party assures its subscribers "is utterly ridiculous and completely unfounded". According to this forum thread, the "carnage" occurred outside a known BNP pub, but was between football fans. In the event, the newspaper's article did not place the blame on the BNP.

While Hain is right to be concerned, he ought to know by now that members of the ruling party can only make things worse by writing such articles. Admittedly, the whole tackling the BNP policy is fraught with conundrums: does "no platform" mean that you don't just refuse to argue with them, but also completely deny that they even exist? However, this doesn't apply when it comes to the Labour party, and especially either ministers or former ministers. The example of what not to do was set by Margaret Hodge a couple of years back: don't predict the BNP is about to make a breakthrough, not only because such prophecies can become self-fulfilling, but because they alert the media to the idea, who descend upon said area, and even further potentially alienate the local population, especially if cack-handed idiots start asking whether they think they're racist as they're contemplating voting for the party. All it does is result in further publicity for the party.

The challenge in fighting the BNP has, instead, to be left to the grassroots and those who cannot be linked back directly to the Labour government. While the BNP seems likely to pick up some votes at the European elections from UKIP, whose vote seems likely to collapse, or at least plummet, Labour has to face up to the fact that the most defections will come from their supporters. This is not because, as some right-wingers love to argue, that the BNP is left-wing, and QED that means that fascists are also lefties, but because the BNP more than any of the other parties are prepared to get down and dirty with the actual voters themselves, reassure them that their concerns are not prejudices and that they will fight for them personally rather than the "outsiders". This is politics of the old school, in all senses, and it's what the other parties have increasingly abandoned. The white working class, for various reasons, feels this abandonment most acutely. In fact, the working class as a whole, regardless of colour distinctions, feels much the same. Labour promised them much and has not delivered sufficiently, and now they're the ones suffering the most while the others who benefited have far more resilience. The argument against the BNP then has to be made not just on policy grounds and on exposing their true, still disgustingly racist views, as shown by last week's party leaflet, but on the other facts: that the BNP make for the most part dreadful councillors and politicians, as the record conclusively shows. They also have to be personally argued against: the no platform policy has completely failed, and is now not principled, it's simply cowardly.

All this said, the BNP probably won't get those six seats, and if they do they'll only get them because of the European parliament's PR system, the same reason why the Greens will also win seats, and why many who would normally vote for the main three parties will switch their support. The BNP is not about to win parliamentary seats, which really would be a breakthrough. The party will remain one of the least successful relative far-right forces in Europe, and this country will also remain one of the most tolerant, least racist and least prejudiced in Europe. All of that should be remembered before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

4/29/2009 08:21:00 PM | | | links to this post

Monday, May 19, 2008 

Euphemisms and the same old same old.

Just when it doesn't seem that it can get any worse for Labour and Gordon Brown, out comes another a new poll that shows that the collapse in support for the party is continuing. The latest Guardian/ICM poll puts Labour's support at 27%: the lowest since the the poll series began back in 1984, with the Tories in front by 14 points, at 41%. Although it seems unlikely that would be the outcome at the general election, as Labour surely can't go any lower, it still suggests that the days of hoping for that almost mythical hung parliament may well be over: a result on this scale will gave the Tories a landslide akin to that of Labour's in 97. The country has also firmly turned on Brown, with 51% ranking John Major as a better prime minister, with 67% saying the same of Blair.

Some of that must surely be directly related to probably temporary anger about the 10p rate, or the listlessness consuming the government as the Tories look increasingly confident and like they're enjoying themselves for the first time in years. Osborne's response to last week's mini-budget was pure posturing without any real answer, but Cameron's skill at the dispatch box cannot be denied, running rings round Brown, the man who previously smacked down a succession of shadow chancellors, now apparently bereft of any answer other than to repeat the same old "achievements" with promises of how he'll lead us through the economic storm.

It's little wonder this is the case when the best thinking inside the mainstream Labour party is by Peter Hain, who's managed to work out that the party has to appeal to both Labour's "core" and to the "aspirational", rather than either one or the other. The problem is that Labour at the moment is appealing to neither, and has no apparent idea of how to do it. Hain's main points are about how to win back support in Wales, where the party was decimated in the local elections. The answers to that ought to be obvious, based on the reading of the results. Rather than going to the Conservatives, the Labour support either stayed at home, turned to the nationalists, Plaid Cymru, or to left-wing independents that may once have been associated with Labour. They didn't go because Labour wasn't speaking to the "aspirational" among them; they went because they stopped talking to them entirely, taking them for granted just as Hain's former colleagues in the cabinet have for the last 10 years. The 10p rate was the final straw.

What we're using here is euphemisms. It no longer seems politically-correct to refer to the "core" vote as working-class, or to the so-called "aspirational" as the middle classes, because that's what they are, and if anything, the euphemisms are far more patronising than the former labels. Equally meaningless is "progressive", which really deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history. When both Hillary Clinton and David Cameron call themselves "progressive", when neither are in the slightest what was once meant by the term, it's time to abandon it. It's partly because the old terms have become insults, when they shouldn't have. The Sun and others disparagingly decry "Lefties", while some of us who consider ourselves lefties consider "right-wing" to mean much the same. Also guilty are the third-way proselytisers, who tried to tell us that right and left were obsolete, purely because they themselves didn't believe in either but in reality tended to be to the right of what the rest of us still understood as the political spectrum.

I raise these issues because they seem especially pertinent when considering the by-election campaign in Crewe and Cameron's claim for the Tories to be the true new progressives. Despite such revolting apologia from Hopi Sen and others of the usual suspects, the Labour campaign, if it can be called that, targeting the Tory candidate Edward Timpson as a "toff", hounding him with young activists dressed up in tails and top hats, is a sign of the sheer desperation and political bankruptcy of the party in 2008. We might all still quite rightly be obsessed with class in 2008, but to openly and cravenly use your opponent's wealth and upbringing as the main reason for why he shouldn't represent a working-class constituency is to admit that you have nothing else to say or, that if you tried, you'd be haplessly beset by the fact that your arguments would count for nought. It's all well and good to cry that they've done it before or are still doing it, but that's the equivalent of the child excusing his behaviour by saying his friend did it first. The child description is perhaps apt: the Labour smearing and leaflets attacking "Tory-boy Timpson" for his mansion and opposition to foreign workers getting ID cards is petulant and juvenile. The starting point for the Labour fightback ought to have been Cameron's appearance there last week, when he was filmed prevaricating weakly in front of a real person who asked what he would do about the 10p rate. They could say that Labour has now mostly fixed it, and that what the rest of Cameron and the gang are offering is the same old Thatcherism wrapped up in a kinder face, as epitomised by his speech on the economy today.

The reason why even that though would be next to impossible though is because it does almost seem as if history is repeating. After Blair became Labour leader after the death of John Smith, he spent the best part of the two years before campaigning for the election began to come across much as Cameron has, as the caring, different new generation of politician prepared to listen, having what Jon Cruddas has referred to as "emotional literacy". This means talking about Britain's "broken society" in much the same way as Labour might have done if out of power, but adding in the same old dog whistles of family breakdown which can be cured if you bribe the middle classes, use of the voluntary sector rather than the state, and believing in society, it's just not the same thing as the state, as if anyone ever said it was. The harsher side of the rhetoric however doesn't filter through: just the vacuousness does. New Labour offered the "new realities and the new paradigm" with the face of Blairism, far kinder than the old nasty Conservatives who said what they meant. Cameron has learned this is the way to do it now, except his vision is to the right of Blair's version.

That's what's so perplexing about the political environment at the moment. We've only just gotten rid of Blair and all he stood for, yet the public apparently wants his heir apparent rather than strange fusty old Gordon. There's no doubt that the public have not yet embraced the Conservatives; what they have embraced is change. Brown hasn't been enough of a change, yet Cameron is no change at all except in the aesthetic department. There's still the best part of two years for this to fully pan out, but if the Conservatives don't win Crewe on Thursday then it will be astonishing. The question will then be whether Brown can survive any further setbacks: at the moment there is no obvious alternative, but defeat in Crewe will only bring the spectre of defeat ever closer, and we all know what they can entail. The sad fact may well be that Labour is already doomed, but it no longer seems impossible that it won't be Brown who'll lead them into that dark night.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Share |

5/19/2008 08:49:00 PM | | | links to this post

Friday, January 11, 2008 

No credibility, but what about dignity?

Oh how he wishes he could.

Extraordinary and incredible are overused adjectives, but they are surely more than valid terms to describe Peter Hain's startling failure to declare more than £100,000 of donations given to his campaign for the Labour deputy leadership. Hain's explanation, that he was in effect too busy to be drawn into such logistical matters as informing the electoral commission of the huge sums given to him by his backers, both in the private sector and unions, is both not a excuse while being a insight into New Labour as a whole. Time and again it has treated with contempt the rules that the rest of us take for granted. It informs us that as well as having rights, we also have responsibilities. How very New Labour that those same responsibilities never seem to apply to them, whether it's waging illegal wars, undermining the very rule of law itself over the SFA investigation into BAE's Saudi slush fund, or detaining foreign "terror suspects" indefinitely without charge.

Like with the Abrahams debacle, as the hours have gone by since the Grauniad broke the sum that Hain had forgotten about on Tuesday, the whole story has only grown murkier and murkier. We now know that some of the money was not given to Hain directly but to a thinktank called the Progressive Policy Forum. This is a thinktank which seems to have done absolutely no thinking whatsoever; it has no website, and one of its trustees, David Underwood, was directly involved in the Hain campaign. It looks incredibly like being a front organisation, the sort which tax evaders set up to direct their profits through a haven. The BBC is now reporting that two of the donors to the thinktank did not know that their money was in fact being used to fund Hain's campaign, although neither has any problem with it being used for that purpose. It looks increasingly likely that this was not any case of forgetting or being distracted, but that if it hadn't been for the Abrahams then this would never have came to light. Why else would a separate organisation have been used to funnel the money through to Hain except to hide its source in case it was found out? As it's turned out, Hain has had to declare those who donated in any case, with it taking over a month for Hain to break the bad news to his benefactors.

You could perhaps accept such largess if Hain had won the contest: in the event, he came second last, just ahead of the ghastly Blairite automaton Hazel Blears. Most of the cash was apparently spent on adverts in the Daily Mirror, and on a mail out to Labour and union members. The message was apparently so inspiring that the majority threw the unsolicited junk straight in the bin and vowed not to vote for the perma-tanned minister who long ago abandoned his previously impeccable credentials. In the eventuality, any who might have thought about voting for Hain instead plumped for Jon Cruddas, who despite voting for the Iraq war was far and away the best candidate, the only one who might just have tempted the otherwise long abandoned belief that Labour might again think about the many and not just the few.

Instead, Hain's "forgetfulness" has just brought the whole dampening down mess over funding back to the fore. Like the Labour party with Abrahams, his campaign seems to have thought it would get away with covering up where the money really came from, although for now none of those who have donated have been so apparently happy to make things worse by contradicting what the Labour party originally said. While the downfall of John Major's government can be linked directly back to Black Wednesday, the sleaze scandals of Jonathan Aitken and Neil Hamilton were final nails in the coffin. Again, at least both of them were out to personally profit from their actions, not just to carry debts which Hain's campaign never needed to have had in the first place. The irony is that Hain is now the head of the department of works and pensions: if someone on benefits, or especially tax credits is overpaid, they don't get off by saying they accidentally spent it by mistake; they're forced into poverty if necessary in paying it back.

Hain has lost any credibility he had left. If he has any dignity remaining, he'll go back on his word and resign as well.

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

1/11/2008 08:50:00 PM | | | links to this post

Monday, December 03, 2007 

Hubris, carelessness and the second death.

Depending on who you believe, Alastair Campbell had a formula concerning the life of a scandal and whether those embroiled within it could survive in their jobs. Again, depending on who you believe, Campbell decided that most could carry on if by either the tenth or fourteenth day since it was first exposed the coverage had almost disappeared. We're now a week and a day into the Abrahams funding scandal, and it shows no signs whatsoever of being about to drop off the front pages.

The Brown camp must have been dreading the Sundays, where the weekly hacks had far more time than their daily counterparts to uncover further intricacies of Labour's dubious funding over the past few years. Things could have been a lot worse, one would think, even though the Mail on Sunday splashed on how Mahmoud Khayami donated to the party a whole day after he been entered on the electoral register, and Abrahams, who seems to be doing his best to be mischievous, noted that there are more senior figures within the party who knew that he was the source of the money coming from at least four different fronts. The situation has also been helped slightly by the whole Gillian Gibbons affair, although the embarrassment that David Miliband himself wasn't able to garner her early release while two Lords were able to might yet bite too. If politics hadn't become so separated in Scotland and England, the scandal which has also engulfed Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, best summed up by Mr Eugenides, would also have hit far harder than it has south of the border.

The one thing that is still beyond belief is that Labour had the best part of two whole days to get its entire story about what happened completely straight, yet it failed comprehensively. The first they heard of what was going to be in the Mail on Sunday was on Saturday evening, and according to Patrick Wintour's Grauniad account it wasn't seen as too serious, but the involvement and resignation of Peter Watt still should have brought home just how damaging the fallout from the latest breach of party funding law was going to be. Yet even by Brown's press conference on Tuesday morning the full account of what occurred had not been constructed, nor has it even been now. To best disarm the ensuing storm, what should have been put into the public domain was a narrative of what had happened, how the party had got it wrong and how it was going to be put right. At the very best it can be said that Labour was leaving the details out so that Lord Whitty could establish them, while at worst the party was and is being blatantly dishonest, a view I more than lean towards.

For instance, how did a man such as Peter Hain just completely forget to register a donation (or indeed, most of his donations, as it now turns out) from none other than Jon Mendelsohn towards his deputy leadership campaign? The inference must be that it was a very convenient transgression. This itself distracts from the real question, which ought to by why and how some of the candidates thought it was necessary to raise such vast sums, in Hain's case £77,000, for what was an internal leadership campaign. Even more startling is that Harriet Harman, the eventual winner, was to hold a Christmas party a final fundraiser this Wednesday to cover the full costs of her campaign, having overspent by a huge margin, despite being told to go begging to Janet Kidd, one of Abrahams' fronts by Chris Leslie, the man who had rejected a donation from the very same Kidd in his role as Brown's leadership campaign co-ordinator.

Brown's last resort to try to regain the initiative has been to dangle the carrot to the Tories of severing the link with the unions once and for all. Perhaps the only major surprise is that it has taken both this long to happen and that the unions have put up with Labour for so many years, through so many broken promises whilst still funding the party up to the hilt. The details of how the political levy will be made "transparent" in Brown's words are unclear: will this mean a limit of £50,000 a year or every member being required to OK the money donated by the union? If it's the former, it will mark the final, full transition of Labour from the party representing the ordinary worker to that of one totally funded by the same corporate, rich individuals as the Tories. This occurred long ago in policy, but the death of Labour in spirit in exchange for the dishonesty of its apparatchiks is fitting, if only as a reminder of the last ten years.

As both Dave and Chris have said, this wasn't supposed to happen, but this can't purely be blamed on the Blair era. Brown might not have known about the donations, but he did appoint Mendelsohn who will famously be known for being "concerned" about Abrahams' funding, but not enough to do anything about it prior to the story being exposed. He has completely failed to make good on his promise for "change" while the mendacity of Blair was never punctured. We do need as Chris argues the resurrection of mass politics, but who with? Labour has never been more of a busted flush. Do we help build the Greens or go somewhere else? Fact is, we simply don't know, and what's more, we won't. Being disaffected is much easier than starting again.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

12/03/2007 09:13:00 PM | | | links to this post

Saturday, February 17, 2007 

Scum-watch: That Peter Hain, he ought to be strung up, it's the only language he understands...

You wouldn't really think that the Labour deputy leadership contest would interest the Scum much. It's a mostly worthless ceremonial position which would probably be better off being abolished than continued with, or at the very least merged into the Labour chairman role. The reason for the Scum's sudden surge of angst has been that Peter Hain, the bouffant perma-tanned Northern Ireland and Wales secretary has been rather shamelessly touting around for support by brandishing his "leftist" credentials, the very same credentials which he has spent the last few years keeping under wraps while supporting such traditional Labour values as bombing foreign countries back to the stone age, introducing top-up fees and promoting foundation hospitals.

There's nothing quite like a shameless lefty to make the Sun's blood boil, but their decision to support Alan Johnson, the not quite Blairite who was briefly heralded last year by the Blairites as being the "stop Gordon" candidate, is just as ignorant. It marks the Sun's trajectory from being hardline Thatcherite to being hardline Blairite. Blair, the man without a legacy apart from Iraq, has been so feted by the Sun that it makes you wonder whether there isn't some kind of Faustian pact between Tony 'n' Rupe. Rumours abound that Murdoch has already bought the rights to Blair's memoirs, but even that doesn't come close to explaining why the Scum is so obsessed with protecting Blair and his acolytes. Anyway, let's have a giggle at the Sun's reasoning:

FORMER postie Alan Johnson today wins The Sun’s backing to be Labour’s next deputy leader — to stop Peter Hain’s bid for the job.

Education Secretary Mr Johnson is front-runner to become Gordon Brown’s No 2.

Rival Mr Hain lurched further to the left last night when he was supported by militant train drivers.

Aslef endorsed the Ulster Secretary after more pandering to the trade unions and US-hating lefties.

Their move confirms Mr Hain as the champion of Labour’s dinosaurs.

Aslef has a long history as one of the nation’s most hated unions. It has brought misery to millions of train passengers with strikes and go-slows.


From stopping Brown to stopping Hain, Johnson might wonder just what sort of poisoned chalice is being handed him. As for Aslef bringing misery to millions of train passengers, isn't that the job of the rail franchisees, not to mention this government's continuation and expansion of the ludicrous and failed privatisation? Some on the left might reasonably retort that Johnson has lurched further to the right now that he's being supported by the Scum.

Mr Johnson, 56, is now odds-on to become deputy leader by the summer.

He will make a keynote speech in Glasgow today declaring himself as moderniser — not a throwback to the Seventies.

He will promise “renewal not reversal” in a two- fingered gesture to lefties who want to turn the clocks back to the days of union power.


Renewal not reversal sounds an awful lot like forward not back, the brilliant slogan which so exemplified the vacuousness of New Labour. Whether Johnson is odds on is also debatable - The Daily last September gave Peter Hain odds of 2/1, with Johnson on 3/1. This was before the Jon Cruddas surge - Paul Linford's summary of bloggers' support shows that Cruddas' is overwhelmingly the most favoured, and it seems likely that his appeal to the grassroots will mean that he'll be a candidate to be reckoned with, even if Lenin doesn't much like him.

Twice-married Mr Johnson will spell out how he rose to the top from humble beginnings.

He came from a broken home where his dad walked out and his mum died when he was 12.

He was brought up by his elder sister and started shelf-stacking when he quit his school in Chelsea.

He quit when he was offered a promotion at the supermarket without a pay rise. He became a postman at 18 and joined the Communication Workers Union, rising to the top to become general secretary.

During his post career he delivered to Dorneywood — the grace-and-favour mansion where deputy leader John Prescott was snapped playing croquet.

Today he will say his life is an example of the Britain he wants to see — with no barriers to success.

It must be quite something for a Sun hack to have to write a hagiography instead of a hatchet job. This is all very interesting, but this doesn't tell us anything other than the fact that he's something of a traditional Labour man. Peter Hain may have had a more stable and privileged upbringing, but he made just as an important political impact through his campaigning against apartheid. (I'm too young to remember the Sun's stance on apartheid, so if anyone would like to inform me, I'd appreciate it.)

PM-in-waiting Mr Brown has refused to endorse any of the challengers but has worked closely with Mr Johnson on education policy. Other candidates include Labour chairman Hazel Blears and constitution minister Harriet Harman.

Ex-No 10 fixer Jon Cruddas is a strong contender but Cabinet veteran Jack Straw has yet to decide on running.


The Sun doesn't see fit to mention Hilary Benn, who is a far stronger contender than Straw, Harman or the ghastly Blears. I have a funny feeling that the more Hazel Blears appears on television, the more people decide not to vote Labour, as you only have to listen to her noxious voice, her mendacious obscurantist reasoning and witness her undying allegiance to her hero, the prime minister, to see that she's about as serious a candidate as Sooty is. In fact, if you put Sooty up in the contest, he'd probably win, let alone beat Blears.

On then to the Scum's leader, more hilarity from which to come shortly:

ALAN Johnson deserves to be Labour’s deputy leader. He embodies the Britain we want to see.

His rise to the top from a humble start is a shining example to all. Mr Johnson has coped with personal tragedy and the rigours of public life.

He was a moderniser in the unions, but isn’t in hock to them. His slogan, renewal not reversal, makes perfect sense.


Makes perfect sense in that it's meaningless, which is what the Sun likes to see in its politics. Anything that isn't meaningless is a threat. His rise to the top may be a shining example, but it's not one that Mr Murdoch believes in. Rather than join in with the festival of philanthropy that media barons like Ted Turner and other billionaires are indulging in, the Dirty Digger is instead giving his children $100m each in share options.

The contrast with shameless Peter Hain could not be more stark. He is anti-American and pro-union, ingredients sure to destroy Britain.

Seeing as Hain has been part of the same Blair government that has in been in total hock to the Bush administration and which has betrayed the unions on a number of occasions, and everything's gone just swell, as evidenced by the Iraq war and the mass waste of public money on PFI and privatisation, then I don't think the Sun has much to worry about.

The rest of the bunch are has-beens. And never-will-bes.

I might end up being wrong, and I don't want to be the next Mystic Mogg, but Jon Cruddas might prove them wrong yet.

Anyway, onto the hilariously hypocritical Sun leader on gun crime:

WHEN David Cameron says society is in deep trouble, it is hard to argue with him.

No it isn't.

Their parents are the products of a disastrous combination of the liberal 1960s and 1970s followed by the “me, me, me” culture of the 1980s and 1990s.

And who more exemplified the "me, me, me" culture of the 80s than the Scum?

The new generation thinks anything goes — and that wealth and fame are life’s only worthwhile aims.

How could they have come to such a conclusion? Why don't we have a look at just some of the stories on the Sun's news page:

Anna Nicole new will mystery

TRAGIC Anna Nicole Smith left all her money to son Daniel — who died last year

From sex kitten to kerbside
IT'S been a tough year for Britney Spears, but how did it all go so wrong?

Dad Mitch on Ms Winehouse

BRITS wild child does NOT have a drink problem - says her doting dad Mitch

Charlotte wants Church wedding

CHARLOTTE Church says she will accept if boyfriend Gavin proposes on birthday

Kerry's rage at f*rting groom
KERRY Katona spent wedding night ALONE — after her new hubby couldn't stop parping

Prices right up your street
A SURVEY of England and Wales' most expensive streets is topped by Chelsea

Kenny Chesney: I'm not gay
RENEE ZELLWEGER'S former husband has hit out at gay rumours about their annulment

Weekend birthday wishes
SEXY socialite Paris Hilton will be having a capital birthday as she parties this weekend

J-Lo’s white lightning
STYLE WATCH Diva dazzles crowds wearing an Oscars-worthy elegant white gown

Jack and Jodi's delicious debut
JACK RYDER and Jodi Albert debut in their very first big-screen movie together

Can you Lind me £23,000?
YOUNG women have average credit card bill of £23k in new trend called 'the Lohan Effect'


No correlation there, obviously.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

2/17/2007 07:09:00 PM | | | links to this post

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Links

Last posts

Archives

Email me
Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates