Orwell Prize Shortlist Announcement

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-shortlist-2012-announcement-and-debate/

This year I was not invited to the Orwell Prize Longlist or Shortlist annoucements.  This year the Administrator of the Prize is katriona.lewis@mediastandardstrust.org a woman, rather than Gavin Freeguard, a man.

This year there was no attempt even to appear impartial, for both the blogging judges had known Labour Party connections.

How very sad then that the only prize for political writing that you may have heard of has been contaminated and corrupted by extremist PC liberal feminism and its insufferable smugness, self-righteousness and inability to accept any other view than its own distorted view of the world.   

Why the Liberal Left conspire to ignore me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Imagine, if you will, a middle-aged and obese Liberal Empress processing down Whitehall naked.

Imagine this woman as a large liberal empress proceeding down Whitehall ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/feb/05/lucian-freud-portraits-review

Imagine, that the entire Liberal Establishment (and this includes the Orwell Prize) already know I am on my way to tell the imbecilic crowds who have turned out in force to wave their stupid little liberal flags that the Empress is wearing precisely NOTHING.

They will probably want to shoot me on sight.  

The odds on my making the longlist for the Orwell Prize for blogging lengthen

Uh oh.  I have discovered today that

@GavinFreeguard   http://twitter.com/#!/GavinFreeguard who administers the  @TheOrwellPrize  http://twitter.com/#!/TheOrwellPrize have blocked me from following their tweets as well as @suzanne_moore  http://twitter.com/#!/suzanne_moore who is this year's judge for blogging.  

At least @hopisen  http://twitter.com/#!/hopisen the other judge, is keeping up the appearance of being impartial and has not been so unfriendly as to block me.      

At this rate, I shall expect to be completely marginalised and probably not even invited to the longlist announcement at http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-longlist-2012-announcement/

Those of you think you might like to attend should click on the link above so that you get an invitation to this event.  I hope to meet you there.  If they do not invite me then you may still wish to go, get together for a drink and make your views known about my absence at the event and longlist. 

Perhaps I should not have antagonised the judges and the Orwell Prize people by daring to question the impartiality of Suzanne Moore because she blocked me from following her tweets.   

But then they were never going to give it to me, were they, even if I had made no complaint about the possibility of the two judges with Labour connections being biased against someone with my views.   

Perhaps I will win the Woolfson Prize, which would be a consolation indeed.   

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2012/01/my-submission-for-2012-wolfson-prize.html

What a shame, because I do feel that the values of the Orwell Prize listed at http://theorwellprize.co.uk/the-orwell-prize/how-to-enter/values/ embody the purpose of my political writing completely, even if I do say so myself.

It is because I so obviously satisfy those requirements that means I will never be allowed a look-in by the stale  representatives of the Liberal Left whose smug liberal values infuse and corrupt the entire British literary and political establishment.

If they award it to some gay Conservative this year or the political equivalent thereof, we will know.

We will know that a fish rots from the head down and that the so-called liberal values of this liberal cabal do not extend to entertaining any ideas and views from anyone who does not share their assumptions and worship the same sacred cows as they.

If I do not get it for myself, I still want it not to be given to some jumped-up liberal copper, a social worker,  carer, pink and fluffy civilly-partnered vegetarian homosexual or the next Johann Hari.  If they give it anyone other than someone with views that are recognisably "right-wing" then we will know the extent and depth of their corruption.

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/the-orwell-prize/about-the-prize/governance/

• Bill Hamilton (chair) Literary agent and literary executor of the Orwell Estate at A. M. Heath, Orwell Trustee
• Richard Blair Son of George Orwell, Orwell Trustee
• Meg Russell Reader in British and Comparative Politics and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit at UCL, Political Quarterly board member
• Albert Scardino Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Media Standards Trust board member
• Jean Seaton Professor of Media History at the University of Westminster, Director of the Orwell Prize, Political Quarterly board member and Orwell Trustee
• D. J. Taylor Author, Chair of the Orwell Trust
• Tony Wright Former MP for Cannock Chase, Professor of Government and Public Policy at UCL, co-editor of Political Quarterly

Sir David Bell stepped down as chair upon his appointment to the Leveson Inquiry.

The Prize is currently administered by the Media Standards Trust on behalf of the Council.

Media Standards Trust board members

• Media Standards Trust website

Orwell Trustees

• D. J. Taylor (chair) Novelist, critic, biographer (author of George Orwell: The Life)
• Richard Blair Son of George Orwell
• Alison Finlay Professor of Medieval English and Icelandic Literature at Birkbeck College
• Bill Hamilton Literary agent at A. M. Heath, literary executor of the Orwell Estate
• Barbara Hardy Professor of English Literature Emeritus at University of London
• Blake Morrison Writer and poet
• Andrew O’Hagan Writer and novelist
• Jean Seaton Professor of Media History at the University of Westminster, Director of the Orwell Prize
• Boyd Tonkin

My submission for the 2012 Orwell Prize for blogging

1. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/02/welfare-reform-ideas-by-claire-khaw.html 
2. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-society-and-bull-shit.html
3. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/03/west-and-emma-woodhouse.html
4. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/04/behaviour-of-bovine-british-voter-who.html
5. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/05/shock-horror-britons-getting-5-more.html
6. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/aphorisms-of-claire-khaw.html
7. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/09/our-traditions-come-from-our-fathers.html
8. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/11/cougars-and-cubs.html
9. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/11/moral-case-for-legalising-brothel.html
10. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-white-working-classes-is-like-man.html

Submitted at 4:57pm on Monday 16 January 2012

Orwell Prize judges for blogging accused of Left Liberal bias - both judges associated with the Labour Party

MESSAGE 1 FROM CLAIRE KHAW  TO ORWELL PRIZE

Monday, 9 January 2012, 16:39
Hi Gavin
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2012/01/orwell-prize-left-wing-cabal-who-are.html
I wish to draw your attention to the blatant hostility shown by Suzanne Moore towards me and would question the wisdom and impartiality of having two such Labour-supporting judges for the Orwell Prize.   

May I suggest that Suzanne be replaced by someone with Eurosceptic views who has previously expressed concern about the institutions of marriage and family as well as immigration?

That would then redress the disgraceful appearance of bias on the part of the Orwell Prize and keep its reputation intact.   

May I in this instance suggest Sir Paul Coleridge.

Regards
Claire Khaw

MESSAGE 2 FROM ORWELL PRIZE TO CLAIRE KHAW
Wednesday, 11 January 2012, 10:24

Hi Claire,

Many thanks for your email.

Our judges are asked to put their political views to one side when judging – there is an injunction to be impartial. They are required to assess the quality of the writing which is put in front of them to judge (guided by the list of Orwell’s ‘Values’ at http://theorwellprize.co.uk/the-orwell-prize/how-to-enter/values/).

We are confident that this year’s judges will judge in this way, as previous ones have done. Previous judges have not been afraid to select winners whose political views differ from their own (the selection of Peter Hitchens by Roger Graef and Peter Kellner is a case in point), and to select judges purely by their politics rather than their ability to do the job would be potentially dangerous.

Best wishes
Gavin

Gavin Freeguard | Deputy Director, The Orwell Prize | Senior Editor, Media Standards Trust

0207 229 5722 | gavin.freeguard@mediastandardstrust.org | 5/7 Vernon Yard | Portobello Road | London W11 2DX

MESSAGE 3 FROM CLAIRE KHAW TO ORWELL PRIZE

Wednesday, 11 January 2012, 13:45

Hi Gavin
Thank you for your message of reassurance, but I do not think you can call any of these bloggers who won the blogging prize as not Left Liberal.  Graeme Archer may be a member of the Conservative Party,  but he is openly gay, which would make him OK for the Liberal Left judges.
   
Blog category
2009 Richard Horton: "NightJack– An English Detective"
2010 Winston Smith (pseudonym): "Working with the Underclass"
2011 Graeme Archer: ConservativeHome

Johann Hari is of course not mentioned because the prize has been withdrawn, but there is no denying that he is a man of the Left.

As you say, "to select judges purely by their politics rather than their ability to do the job would be potentially dangerous" and we are certainly living in dangerous times.

Suzanne Moore has expressed open hostility to me on more than one occasion, because of my views on Feminism and Never Married Mothers.  I understand she is one herself.

Also, both Hopi Sen and Suzanne Moore are associated with the Labour Party.
Is the Orwell Prize comfortable with saying, more or less, in a loud stage whisper:

"Anyone with non-Left Liberal views and who has anything to do with UKIP or the BNP and who questions the current liberal orthodoxy as regards feminism, immigration and the welfare state need not apply"? 

Does that have echoes of "Blacks and Irish need not apply" - signs that I have read were once displayed outside B&Bs in this country?

May I suggest that at least the appearance of impartiality be given this year to avoid the Orwell Prize falling into disrepute, and another judge with openly Conservative, traditional and Eurosceptic views be chosen, especially if they have expressed concern about immigration and wish to decriminalise fox-hunting.

I have already suggested Sir Paul Coleridge.  

Roger Scruton, Peter Hitchens, Abhijit Pandya, Melanie Phillips, A N Wilson and Theodore Dalrymple come to mind.  

It is in my view even more important that the blogging prize be impartial because, while people may wonder why prominent Conservative journalists they regularly read and respect never win the Orwell Prize, they will tend  not to care about an unknown whom they  have never heard of and who will never be heard of if Suzanne Moore gets her way.   

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes
Claire Khaw

Values
What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make political writing into an art.


My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing. But I could not do the work of writing a book, or even a long magazine article, if it were not also an aesthetic experience…. So long as I remain alive and well I shall continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take a pleasure in solid objects and scraps of useless information.


George Orwell, Why I Write


Orwell was a self-conscious writer: he cared not only about what he wrote, but how he wrote it. His assessment of what makes for good writing – and bad writing – is as relevant to writing and journalism today as it was when he was writing, and as such, should underpin the Prizes awarded in his name.


‘Political’ is defined in the widest sense; as Orwell wrote in ‘Politics and the English Language’:


In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.


Entries should show:


Political purpose


Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after (Why I Write)


Clarity


Good prose is like a windowpane (Why I Write)


Intellectual courage


Intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face… If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear (Proposed Preface to Animal Farm)


When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink (Politics and the English Language)


Freedom of the intellect means the freedom to report what one has seen, heard, and felt, and not to be obliged to fabricate imaginary facts and feelings (The Prevention of Literature)


Critical thought


To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment (Proposed Preface to Animal Farm)


Artful writing


Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (Why I Write)


Entries should avoid:


staleness of imagery… [and] lack of precision… by using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself (Politics and the English Language)


Above all, entries should share Orwell’s ambition:


to make political writing into an art. 

Orwell Prize a left-wing cabal who are not even bothering to keep up the appearance of impartiality this year

I don't know why I didn't complain earlier because I  had noticed before that the 2012 judges for the Orwell Prize for blogging are both of the Left.  That was  probably because I already knew years ago that the Orwell Prize was just a Left Liberal cabal.

Nobody cares about someone they have never heard of and no unknown anti-feminist anti-liberal blogger will ever become known if the Orwell Prize for blogging judges conspire to ignore and censor them.   Notice they have never ever awarded the blogging prize to a right-wing blogger.

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/news/orwell-prize-2012-announces-judges-opens-for-entries/

The Orwell Prize:

is regarded as the pre-eminent British prize for political writing.  In each case, the winner is the short-listed entry which comes closest to George Orwell's own ambition to 'make political writing into an art'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell_Prize but it should be noted that a Liberal Left cabal have now made it their own so that they can now arrogantly and corruptly dictate the terms of political discourse.  This year, they are not even attempting to seem impartial.

HOPI SEN

I started work for the Labour party as the Northern region press officer in 2000. After the 2001 election I moved to Party HQ, before becoming the head of campaigns at the Parliamentary Labour Party.

http://hopisen.com/about/

SUZANNE MOORE

http://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=http://madamearcati.blogspot.com/2010/05/suzanne-moore-expelled-from-labour.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Moore

She blocked me from following her tweets a while back.

There is therefore no attempt this year at even attempting to appear impartial.

Today, Suzanne tweeted at https://twitter.com/#!/suzanne_moore:

suzanne_moore suzanne moore
@gabyhinsliff @LouiseMensch @WeAreBrightBlue just to let you know have encountered Claire Khaw before. She is BNP. Block.

suzanne_moore suzanne moore
@
@LouiseMensch @gabyhinsliff @WeAreBrightBlue god she is persistent. Agent for BNP in Tower Hamlets.

I don't think I will be chosen this year, however well I have turned "political writing into an art", do you?

By the way, Suzanne, there is no point deleting your tweets, because I have already forwarded the screenshot to Gavin Freegard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

A description of Modern Liberals by Robert Henderson:

The unpleasant truth (for liberals) is that modern liberals, far from being interested in truth and fairness and  treating all human beings alike, are just like every other human being: they favour those they approve of and attack those they deem beyond the Pale.  In fact, liberals today are more likely to behave viciously towards those of whom they disapprove than the general run of Britons because they are rigid ideologues and like all ideologues they carry their beliefs to any length of sinister absurdity.

Voice of Reason did not make longlist of Orwell Prize 2011 - no surprises there

One of the judges, David Allen Green who calls himself a liberal http://theorwellprize.co.uk/shortlists/david-allen-green/ helpfully admitted during his talk that the Orwell Prize favours the Left of Centre.

Richard Horton, the other judge, mentioned the horror of having to read blogs that he thought people had a right to write but which he thought he had a right not to read.   I asked if he had any particular blogs in mind when he said that hoping that he would mention http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/ and http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/, but did not get the answer I hoped for.

Below are the 5 Voice of Reason posts I submitted.


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/07/raoul-moat-has-too-many-friend-requests.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/06/should-and-ought-must-and-should.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/07/muslims-once-prayed-in-direction-of.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/01/let-us-call-unique-and-supreme-deity.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/08/international-marxism-and-national.html


Below are the 5 Battlefield of Love posts I submitted.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/11/engagement-of-prince-william-and.html
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/05/official-marriage-strike-by-men.html
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/09/single-mothers-cancer-of-society.html
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/10/exploding-myth-of-multiple-orgasm.html

Below are the blogs that were entered for the Prize.

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/the-orwell-prize/how-to-enter/entries-2011/blog-prize-2011/

http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-longlist-2011-announcement-and-debate/

Spoke to Dan Hodges who was on the Orwell Prize longlist with http://labour-uncut.co.uk/ (which seems to be a digest of the blog posts of Labour bloggers)  who was wearing a pretty floral shirt. He had a kind of androgynous David Bowie face (ie good bone structure) and I thought he looked like he could have been the Transgender blogger who was also on the longlist.  He took it quite well and introduced me to Juliet Jacques of http://theorwellprize.co.uk/longlists/juliet-jacques/ who looked more the part now that I had had a closer look at shim.  I also spoke with another transgender blogger with startling red hair in the Territorial Army (now gender neutral I was told by shim) who did not make the longlist.  I suggested that men now want to become women because it is harder to be men and women are now more powerful.

Met John Chubb who did not make the longlist with his http://adlibynct.blogspot.com/ networking and giving his cards out.  "Positive Deviancy" is mentioned on it, which I rather like the sound of.


I also met Dominic Cavendish of the Telegraph, carrying a Waterstones carrier bag.  


Madam Miaow (who made the shorlist last year with http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/) came over to commiserate with my failure to make the longlist. I said I would actually be more surprised to be on the longlist than off. While she did not agree with me on most things, one thing she did agree with me about was that it was wrong to bomb Libya, and we had a pleasant chat.  While she did not agree with me on most things, one thing she did agree with me about was that it was wrong to bomb Libya, and was aware of my Colonel Gaddafi Support Group mentioned at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8357620/BNP-members-pro-Gaddafi-Facebook-group-snares-politicians.html 

It was probably not the time to mention to her that there is talk that I may be the 2012 BNP London mayoral candidate so I said nothing, in case it all comes to naught.

I suggested to David Allen Green that there should perhaps be an Orwell Prize for Tweeting.    I have written to the very pleasant and polite Gavin Freeguard and hope they adopt my idea.   (What they should do is have Tweeters enter themselves and then vote for the best Tweeter, but it cannot be for themselves.)

An Orwell Festival in Letchworth in Hertfordshire is taking place from 9th to 18th September 2011.  Details to be announced in April.   http://georgeorwellfestival.org/ 

My evening at the Orwell Prize and Electoral Reform

To Church House http://www.churchhouseconf.co.uk/ for the Orwell Prize award. I did not even make the longlist but it was very kind of Gavin Freeguard to invite me.

It was held in the Assembly Room http://www.churchhouseconf.co.uk/rooms/assembly_hall - resplendently round.

The Director of the Orwell Prize - the very charming and enthusiastic Jean Seaton spotted me and dragged me by the arm to meet Richard Blair - Orwell's son - who was surrounded by a gaggle of young and pretty Oriental girlies. Jean introduced me as Madam Miaow, an egregious leftist blogger http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/ who actually made it to the shortlist, who has a very depraved-looking male companion whom I know has denounced me on Suzanne Moore's walls.

I did eventually correct this case of mistaken identity, and proceeded to discuss self-censorship in China with one of the brighter and prettier Chinese girls with whom Richard was surrounded. It turned out she was studying journalism and she said self-censorship was the order of the day. I said there was much self-censorship here too but did not have a chance to launch into a lecture about the evils of single mummery which even the Mail now does not quite dare to condemn - probably because they make up half its readership?

We did however discuss the duties of being a literary executor and the fact that the EU harmonised copyright laws upwards to 70 years, which gave him an extra 20 years of value from the Orwell Estate. Richard also mentioned that he was adopted and told the story of how his father was shot in the throat when I started talking about putting one's head above the parapet ....

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/soldiers/george-orwell-shot.html

I then spoke to Peter Kellner the psephologist who founded YouGov. (I took him to task for not automatically sending out cheques for £50 when those polled have answered enough questions to earn this.) John Tusa joined us later but I cannot remember what was said between us. Saw Jonathan Dimbleby nearby but did not speak to him.

Oona King was there looking improbably young and pretty in jeans and a denim jacket. She was one of the blog judges who did not put me on the longlist, but I smiled at her anyway. She either blanked me or did not notice me. In any case she is not accepting any of my Facebook friendship requests on Facebook and neither is Rushanara Ali (now MP for Bethnal Green & Bow), though she has seen fit to accept Jeffrey Marshall's.

Although Jeffrey and I are not an item, I do feel rather left out in the cold, as if my spouse had been invited to the neighbour's barbecue but not me.

It is a bit of a blow sometimes to realise that one is perhaps less popular than a BNP activist, and then to realise that one has in fact become a BNP activist and that such comparisons are now redundant.

The Prizes were then announced.

Low groans could be heard amidst the applause but I hoped I made up for it by whooping and cheering as loudly as I could when Peter Hitchens was announced as winner of the Journalism Prize. I managed to locate him in order to congratulate him only to see him bent forward and Tweeting, I initially supposed, but it turned out that he was only sending a text to the missus back home that he had won.

There I also saw Francis Wheen, my Facebook friend, whom I had also met many years ago at the Academy Club when it was in a Beak Street basement, in the good old days when Auberon Waugh ran it as Editor of the Literary Review.  We even travelled back on the same train after attending his funeral. 

Francis identified me as "the BNP person", which was quite gratifying, I suppose. Apparently, his status updates were going mad when I announced my membership of the party and the fact that I was Election Agent to Jeffrey Marshall, the BNP candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow.

John E Strafford the Angry Old Conservative who campaigns for Conservative Democracy at http://www.btinternet.com/~johnstrafford/ was also there. Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to speak to him. It would have been good to propose a campaign on party democracy, which is tragically absent from the Conservative Party. (This may even explain why so many of its leaders after the Iron Lady have been so rubbish. The leader I have in mind for this one-party state is Lord Mandelson - the man I hope will one day be my lord and master. Lady Mandelson has such a ring to it, does it not, Dear Reader? I have consulted the stars and they say "You might as well give it a go if you're so set on him. You'll only ignore us anyway if we tell you you're not really his type.")

On the subject of Conservative Democracy, John says:

"The Conservative Party does not have One Person, One Vote. The constitution can only be changed by an electoral college whch consists of MPs in one part and members of the National Convention (mainly constituency chairmen) in the other. It is wholly undemocratic."

The new BNP constitution is now even more undemocratic than the previous one, but much much longer at http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=constitution-british-national-party

Indeed, if the present Chairman were to be in the peculiar position of wishing to challenge himself for the leadership, I can imagine that he would be hard put to jump through all the hoops that the constitution requires any challenger to do.

As for changing the constitution itself, anyone who wishes to do this would have to submit this proposal to the Chairman who would at his discretion allow it to be put forward, or not.

In other words, it is sewn up and stitched up to favour the incumbent.

I am pretty sure the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party was a lot more democratic than this, even in Mao's time. The trouble for them was that no one enforced the rules (which were apparently quite fair) when dissidents were being beaten, exiled or imprisoned.

It is quite telling that the Chinese are very proud of their constitution and have it displayed online, in English, for the world to see, while the Conservative Party locks theirs away the way Mr Rochester locked up his mad wife. (I had to ask CCHQ six times before they would send the Tory Party constitution to me.)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738.htm

Mutinous murmurs from BNP activists are being heard everywhere online, it seems. There is even a conspiracy theory that the Chairman wants the party small and unsuccessful because that would make the membership easier to control. While middle class support and talent is being sought, there are certain elements in the party in senior positions who do not want competition from talented newcomers, it has been suggested.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/76710-challenge-bnp-leadership-virtually-impossible.html

My hope is that the finest legal minds in the country will examine the fairness of the rules of both the Conservative Party and BNP constitution. When the model constitution for a party is finally ready we can then proceed to an official one-party state, which is to my mind the most rational form of government. We can see that it has done the Chinese no harm at all, apart from a few moaners and whingers, for whom there can be no pleasing.

Electoral reform is nothing if individual party constitutions make members the mere instruments and creatures of the party leader.

It would in fact serve the present incumbents and those they govern better than the mess we have now if there was only one political party to join and that differences are always resolved intra-party rather than inter-party.

I would be happy to explain further if people would just ask me intelligent questions instead of running away at the mention of a one-party state.

I should also mention the lovely Italian meal I had with the Mail's dark and mysterious Moscow correspondent at Il Posto near Victoria Station. http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/restaurants/il-posto-info-8473.html The seafood risotto was absolutely delicious and is just as good now if not better. I am so glad I got the waiter to doggy bag it!

Madame Marcati, Suzanne Moore, Rod Liddle and Claire Khaw - Orwell Prize blogger Aspirant

KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pr4c0#synopsis

http://madamearcati.blogspot.com/2010/01/rod-liddle-and-suzanne-moore-fight-it.html

http://www.anorak.co.uk/236651/media/rod-liddle-and-suzanne-moore-row-over-independent-editors-job-on-facebook.html

Private Eye No 1253, 8-21 January 2010 - Street of Shame

While hacks on the Independent cannot fail to notice the fractious relationship between editor Roger Alton and is deputy Ian Birrell, who seem to have different editorial agendas, the truth is that neither will be decisive in shaping the future direction of the paper.

Instead, hacks keen to work out what they'll be doing this year should be looking to two other men: Alexander Lebedev and Matthew Freud.

Ailing Independent boss Simon Kelner has spent more than 18 months negotiating the sale of the Independent to Lebedev - who may or may not turn it into a freesheet like his other purchase, the London Evening Standard. They will find out soon enough, since the sale is scheduled for completion by mid-February.

Meanwhile, Kelner's long-standing buddy Matthew Freud, has handed over a room in his own offices for the clandestine redesign of the paper that will debut early this year. So close to the action is Freud's PR team that one member, Claire Curran, has ever been known to attend meetings of the paper's executive board. If all goes to plan, the redesign will be accompanied by a major advertising push; but given that the paper is being guided by a PR firm and is about to be purchased by a former KGB agent, it is safe to assume the new campaign is unlikely to reprise the paper's old shout line: "The Independent: It is, Are You?"

Private Eye No 1254, 22 January-4 February 2010 - Street of Shame

Frenzied ululations in the blogosphere and Twitterland at the news that Rod Liddle's buttocks may fill the editor's chair if Alexander Lebedev buys the Independent. By last Friday almost 4,000 people had signed up for the Facebook group "If Rod Liddle becomes editor of the Independent, I will not buy it again".

How many Tweets and Facebook groups are there expressing similar shock at the prospect of the venerable Indie being owned and controlled by a man from the KGB? Er, none.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Lebedev may install Indie features executive Adam Leigh as Liddle's deputy. Leigh's most obvious qualification for the job is that his uncle is Indie supremo Simon Kelner, but the Guardian omits to mention this. It claims instead that "his appointment could mollify Independent journalists worried that the potential appointment of Liddle could overturn the paper's liberal values".

This surprises some hacks who have worked under Leigh. "Mollify?" one mutters. "Liberal values? The man's a craven philistine and an appalling bully. A worse bully than Max Hastings. At least with Max there was usually a reason why he was angry. With Adam it was just insecurity, always second-guessing what his uncle would want. "

What his uncle now wants is Rod Liddle. Could even Leigh have second-guessed that?