Harriet 'Hattie' Harman is an ambitious and well-connected woman.

She's wormed her way to the top of the dung-heap that is New Labour, and is to be the 'face' of the party for the already-started 2010 election campaign.

And with her smug, patronising, well-fed face, she seems ideal for the role.

Doubtless she'll be deploying every weapon in Labour's nasty little armory to smear the opposition, to lie about others' intentions.

One of the weapons already wheeled onto the battlefield has been the clumsy and unsubtle 'class war' approach: you know, the one that says that because some Tory politicians were born to parents wealthy enough to send them to private schools, we should all vote Labour. That one.

In spite of being educated at one of the very finest private schools herself, Hattie has clearly been itching to deploy this desperate piece of spin, and yesterday, when Boris Johnson announced fare increases for public transport in London, she saw her chance.

Ms. Harperson, writing in last night's Evening Standard, claimed - with a straight face - that these increases were:

"..Fare increases for hard-working Londoners, tax cuts for the richest"

Oh really? Fucking really? Notice how the 'hard working' phrase is slipped in there. Presumably the lazy Londoners will be allowed to pay reduced fare, will they Hattie? Or is that just a little dog whistle, a little coded message for us?

And what about the 'tax cuts for the richest', Harriet? Do you mean Johnson's decison not to charge 4x4's extra on the Congestion Charge? Is that your idea of a tax cut for 'the richest' then?

Anyone that drives a 4x4 is among 'the richest', and anyone that rides on a bus is a 'hardworking Londoner', are they?

Oooh, thanks for making the politics of envy so very, very simple Harriet.

Are you a 'hardworking Londoner', Hattie? When did you last ride on a bus? (Although of course, you might have to soon, if you actually get the driving ban you so richly deserve for crashing a car while using illegally a mobile phone, eh?)

And, then of course, Hattie spins further, further, higher, higher and states that:

"What [Johnson] does in squeezing the London farepayer today is what Cameron plans for the country were he to win the general election."

Oh for fuck's sake. Desperate, Hattie? How did you get that idea, sweetheart?

"The reason for the fare increases is Johnson and his disastrous Tory priorities.."

Oh, is it? Is it fucking really, Hattie?

So it's not because the newt-fancying piss-head pinko Ken Livingstone pissed millions up the wall while Blair ignored him, then?

It's not because of the monstrous fuck-ups in the PPP scheme a couple of years ago, then?

As the Standard's own editorial points out:

"..the collapse of the failed Metronet consortium in 2007, part of the PPP scheme, has put huge pressure on Transport for London finances. And the architect of PPP was Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor"

 
Oh. Oh dear, Harriet. Did you know that, love? Of course you fucking did.

You just thought the we'd be too stupid to rememember that, and that we'd swallow your little 'Boris is a wicked toff' spin without question.

The Standard editorial concludes with a little reminder for hypocritical Hattie:

"Ms Harman should examine Labour's own record on London's transport system before attacking Boris"

That's quite a polite message to 'Ms Harman' ; CF has an alternative, pithier version:

Shut the fuck up, you silly bitch.

_

Cripes! Boris 'BoJo' Johnson is in trouble again, according to the Guardian.

Apparently, ecstatic that the Sun had switched to the Tories a couple of weeks ago, BoJo exuberantly 'twittered':

"The Sun has got his hat on, hip hip hip hip hooray"

Pretty harmless, you might think. Childish, but no lives lost. Mild case of tosser, but he may well recover.

But no.

Not to those sad, pointless fuckwits whose entire empty lives are defined by their hatred of 'The Tories', 'Old Etonians' and especially Boris himself, a Tory Old Etonian.

One of them decided to - anonymously, of course - complain. Or rather 'A complaint was lodged', as these po-faced nasties like to put it. The complaint was 'referred to the GLA panel'

The committee 'decided not to take the matter further' and (here comes the science tedious part):

".. opted for a letter of guidance from City Hall's deputy chief executive, Jeff Jacobs, to the mayor highlighting the clause that stipulates that "when using or authorising the use by others of the resources by your authority, ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes"

Blah Blah. Boris got a bollocking for wasting time on Twitter.

The Grauniad, always happy to spread bad news, as long as it involves a Tory, headlined this as:

"Johnson receives formal warning after using Twitter for party purposes"

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence, Kerry McCarthy, @kerrymp as she is (for a couple more months) known, Labours official 'Twitter Csar', has had a lot of harmless fun on Twitter.

Hilarious career Geordie and professional randomer Ross Noble encouraged his mindless 'followers' to Tweet @kerrymp some questions. And the game girl didn't back down:

"The Bristol East MP announced she would try to reply to as many of the tweets as possible, and over six hours answered more than 100 questions.

"Asked if she would wear a gorilla suit to parliament, she replied: "I don't think it's expressly forbidden, I could give it a try?"

Oh, what larks!

But hang on, Guardian. Isn't there a teeny, tiny contrast in the reaction we're 'supposed' to have to these two stories?

Boris is abusing and squandering resources with his single tweet, whereas Kerry is just such huge fun with her 100+ tweets.

Very slight whiff of hyprocrisy there? Perhaps?

And what's even odder? What highlights the tiny imbalance? These two stories are not just in the same paper, not just on the same day, not just on the same page, but both in the same fucking piece. This piece.

Irony? Lost on the Guardian.

_

Professional whinger and living embodiment of the word 'bitterness', Ken 'Red Ken' Livingstone, has had a little strop because Boris Johnson has just appeared on the soap opera and rape 'n' abortion misery festival that is Eastenders.

Apparently, poor Ken was not allowed to have his turn when he was Mayor, even though he pleaded with them not once but twice. Ken Livingstone? Cynical self-publicist? Who'd have thought?

So that's not very 'fair', is it? Boris is asked to appear, whereas Ken was rejected. Ken's not happy:

""There has obviously been a Damascene conversion here ... There is no reason why the BBC should not give the mayor a cameo appearance; I just wish they would do it for everybody, not just their chosen favourites."

Their chosen favourites? What the fuck? Bitter much, you newt-fancying arse?

Little Kenny's also been blubbing to the Guardian, who would usually agree that Blue Boris should have been denied the oxygen of publicity. In a piece hilariously sub-headlined "They never let me be on it, says Ken Livingston", his moans are reproduced.


Ken's first bid for soap opera stardom was when he was leader of the Greater London council and

"wanted to plug his campaign against Tory plans to scrap the London-wide body"

Ah. So you wanted to go onto a soap opera to publicise an anti-Tory political campaign then? And they didn't let you. Not exactly a huge surprise, is it?

So did you learn your lesson, and tone things down for your second attempt for tea-time fame? This time, as mayor:

"he asked highlight a recycling campaign but was turned down, he said, on the grounds that it was "too political"."

So no. No you didn't.

Can you spot the difference, Ken? Boris is a clever sod, who has perfected his affable, bumbling fool schtick, and become quite the media personality. No wonder they wanted him.

Whereas you, Ken, are a tedious, moaning git with an irritiating nasal voice, who just wanted to 'go on the telly' to push your nasty leftie agenda.

No wonder they didn't want you.


_