Confessions of a Political Animal

July 29, 2009

What a load of Phibbs

conservative-homeIn many ways I admire ConservativeHome. It’s an attractive, reasonably open and user-friendly site that does genuinely appear to seek to engage with the Party’s grass-roots activists and supporters.

It has a problem though – serving as it does as a bit of a shop window for the Tories, it does with some regularity highlight to the outside world the more, ahem, interesting points of view and personalities within the Party. You know, the sort any party would want to keep a little under wraps – it’s not a partisan thing, every party has them. However, ConservativeHome sometimes seems to go out of its way to highlight them. Take, for example, the innocuous sounding statement ‘Cllr Harry Phibbs edits ConservativeHome’s Local Government page‘. I don’t know a huge amount about said Cllr Phibbs, but I’m learning – largely through his own teachings. And the more I learn, the more I feel that an equivalent statement would be ‘Margaret Moran MP edits LabourHome’s Probity in Public Life page’.

Cllr Phibbs represents the Ravenscourt Park ward in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, flagship council of the Tory right since they took control in 2006 – tax-cutting, service-slashing, employee-bullying, homeless-bashing. The council’s most recent brush with the media spotlight has surrounded the intriguing views of Leader Stephen Greenhalgh about exactly for whom and where social housing should be provided. Some have intimated that his policies are almost Porter-esque. The Animal is saying nothing for fear of the libel courts.

I would hope, however, that even in Hammersmith & Fulham terms Cllr Phibbs would be considered to be 27 stops up the District Line from his ward (Barking, if you can’t be bothered to count). Certainly, he hasn’t been given a position on the council’s Executive. He does rejoice in the title of Chairman of the Value for Money Scrutiny Committee, but in a council where the governing party has a healthy majority, scrutiny positions are a great place to pension off the majority party’s drunken aunts (or equivalent) to. So its no surprise that this is the berth that Cllr Phibbs has been found. Adam Bienkov described him best in a tweet yesterday:

WhiteHarry Phibbs is a man out of his time really. Joseph McCarthy would have loved him.

If the evidence of his articles on ConservativeHome are anything to go by, Cllr Phibbs really does see a red under every bed. One of his latest missives, entitled ‘Livingstone’s pernicious “equality” agenda is still in place at City Hall’ is an excellent example of the genre. In it, he manages to accuse some of the most right-leaning members of Boris Johnson’s administration of being little better than Trojan Horses for neo-communism. It really is worth a read, just to try to understand the mindset of some of our future overlords.

Having professed his undying love for Boris Johnson at every level, including the ‘aesthetic’, Phibbs decries the continuation in City Hall of what he describes as

Ken Livingstone’s ideology of quotas, interest groups, thought crime and racial separatism.

As evidence of this, he points to a draft of Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes’ Equalities Strategy, due for final publication tomorrow.

The draft has promised a commitment to “eliminating institutional discrimination”, which includes “unwitting prejudice.” It states that Mayoral appointees will “reflect the diversity of London.”  It promises “responsible procurement”.

OK, so that’s a bit buzz-wordy and many would doubt Johnson’s genuine commitment to any of the above (‘Mayoral appointees reflecting the diversity of London’ – just as long as it isn’t gender diversity), but is any of it objectionable to any one who has had any contact with the modern world? Well, yes, if you are Harry Phibbs. He asks

What is the “right level of representation” for ethnic groups in the workforce?

going on later to note that the LDA’s Race Equality Plan 2005-08 which

sets targets for ‘BAME’ employment within the LDA and GLA, usually at around 25%. This hasn’t been updated yet under the new administration, and as far as I know, there has been no public discussion about the direction it will go in.

Now, considering that according to the 2001 census, the ‘non-white British’ classification represents 38.8% of London’s population, 25% BAMErepresentation seems a pretty realistic target. An organisation with a London-wide catchment that is recruiting at much below that level is going to be one where most Londoners are going to walk through the doors and notice that the workforce looks a bit odd. I assume that Cllr Phibbs and I would agree that merit and ability is pretty much evenly spread across racial groups, so if a large organisation isn’t recruiting at something approaching the 25% level, there is almost certainly some kind of internal reason. I couldn’t speculate myself as to what those might be, but perhaps Cllr Phibbs, as a member of a council with just two elected members (out of 46) from a visible ethnic minority – both Labour councillors, incidentally – representing a borough with over a BME population of over 20%, might care to enlighten us. Could it be ‘unwitting prejudice’? No, for this exists not in Phibbs-world.

Then we move forward to slur by association.

The Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse, leads on policing and helped set up the Met’s Race and Faith Inquiry, which will be published in September. It is chaired by Cindy Butts, the independent member of the MPA. An old mate of Lee Jasper’s (they are friends on Facebook still). Previously she was a researcher for two Labour MPs, Clive Soley and Melanie Johnson. The panel itself seems rather one-sided.

Friends on Facebook, indeed! Now apart from the slight issue of freedom of association, particularly with individuals such as Mr Jasper who have been cleared of any serious wrong-doing by God knows how many investigations, my understanding of the status of ‘friends’ on Facebook was that such relationships were not of the same status as real life friends (excuse me if I’ve got this wrong – the Animal doesn’t really do this MyFaceBo thingy). I know councillors who have councillors from other parties as ‘Friends’. Does that mean they’re about to defect? I dread to imagine what recruitment processes will look like when Cllr Phibs rules the world – presumably full background checks on everyone you’ve ever followed on Twitter will be in order.

And then the ‘rather one-sided’ panel. Its hard to work out what Cllr Phibbs means by this, unless perhaps, he is referring to the shocking fact that three of the four members of a panel examining racism in the Met are…black! And the other member is a lawyer who defended Deborah Lipstadt against David Irving. Perhaps Phibbs has a point – this panel is very open to the serious charge of being potentially biased in favour of anti-racism.

It’s when Cllr Phibbs goes on to try to present ex-Policy Exchange Director Anthony Browne as some kind of stalking horse for multiculturalism and ‘political correctness’ that we realise he has sunk to the level of self-parody. To round it all off, Phibbs get on one of his favourite hobby horses: the GLA’s diversity officers. Johnson has, in his eyes, committed an unpardonable sin in not sacking them all tout suite- the possibility that on being elected Boris Johnson may have found that these officers are in fact valuable and useful being unthinkable. Given that the eleven officers are identifiable individuals, Phibbs appears to sail mighty close to libel when he writes that

they are ideologues, not professional functionaries.

Of course, the great thing about people like Phibbs is that we can rely on other elements of the rightist commenteriat, both professional and amateur, will go out of their way to prove themselves even more unpleasant than the original writer. Below Phibbs’ piece (and I do hope, for the good of the country, that these writers are not Conservative Party members), we get some very choice views. Lindsay Jenkins, who apparently has written books under the understated titles The Last Days of Britain; The Final Betrayal and Britain Held Hostage (with dramatic new foreword by Frederick Forsyth!) asks us:

How much do the 11 diversity officers and their dancing attendants [a dancing attendant? I never got one of them at the GLA, goddammit] cost us?

And whatever that sum is, let us double it and then some because we the taxpayers are not getting the best person for the job we are getting skin pigmentation first and foremost.

Nice. Meanwhile, the delightful ‘john in cheshire’ (poor Cheshire) engages in reasoned debate with a commenter named Marjorie Bayliss who gently suggested that the lot of women had improved since the 1950s.

You silly bitch

he opines. There’s plenty more where that came from, leading up to some impressive conclusions.

Men are inherently better than women and white men are at the apex.

Given he’s such a reasoned chap, I wonder if anything makes ‘john in cheshire’ unhappy? Ah, good, he’s going to tell us.

You and your womankind, and the socialists and the muslims of this world make me sick.

If that’s physically sick, Cheshire County Council is going to need to invest in some brooms to clear up the vomit that ensues when ‘john’ meets somewhat more than half the nation’s population. An interesting experiment might be to place this individualal in a closed room with a female Muslim socialist and to record the outcome. Thankfully there are a few more reasoned commentators. Patrick Ratnaraja writes:

The Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes is doing a fantastic job with all communities. One must accept that Lodon is a diverse City. Reading comments on this website really makes me think why I am still a Conservative. I would rather be a member of the BNP as I cannot see any difference.

Hmm. No further comment.

And there’s just as much ‘fun’ to be had in the professional commenteriat as well. Ed West ‘writes’ in the Telegraph under the considered headline ‘Why has Boris failed to reject Ken’s legacy of ‘diversity officers’ and race politics?‘. I say ‘writes’ because of the 623 words in the article, 392 are a direct copy and paste from Phibbs – I do wish I was paid to press Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v. West seems to share Phibbs’ Facebook hang up:

Why? Why? WHY? No “old mate of Lee Jasper’s” should still be in City Hall. None of Jasper’s Facebook friends, none of his tennis partners, no women he’s flirted with or comrades he’s gone on fact-finding junkets with should still be there.

A point of factual accuracy first – Cindy Butts isn’t ‘in City Hall’, but is an independent member of the MPA. More importantly, the key word there is ‘independent’ – attempting to remove an independent member of the MPA, appointed through a public recruitment process for a four year term, would be a gross breach of office by the Mayor, whatever the reason. If the justification was simply that she happens to know Lee Jasper, Boris’ feet wouldn’t touch the ground before they reached an employment tribunal.

Then West moves on to attempt to postulate that the 2008 London election results demonstrate that London is becoming an

American-style racially divided city, thanks to runaway immigration and white flight, and in those sorts of societies people vote for their tribal party.

For a columnist who goes on to decry ‘identity politics’ to talk about ‘tribal parties’ is an irony of the highest order, leaving aside the lack of evidence for ‘white flight’ in London (As this GLA publication shows, a growth in ethnic diversity rather than ghettoisation is prevalent across all of London, including the outer boroughs). As Phibbs et al keep telling us, socio-economics are a better guage that race. In this case they are right – demographic movements towards outer London relate far more to people who attain some level of wealth chosing to move outwards, regardless of ethnicity. The defiantly outer London Borough of Harrow is a prime example of this, with a majority BME population. The claim that London is dividing along racial lines is a favourite of sections of the right (normally using it to claim that these divisions are fostered by the anti-racist left), despite the lack of any genuine evidence to back it up.

Which brings us to West’s peroration.

For the Conservatives to cooperate with black racial identity politics is suicide, because the sort of black voters who believe their problems are down to racism and lack of taxpayer’s money, and not fatherlessness and a culture of violence and ignorance, are not going to vote Conservative.

No, Ed. The reason the majority of black people in this country (and a large number of white people as well) are not going to vote Conservative is because the Party is supported by people who engage in sweeping statements about cultures ‘of violence and ignorance’ in relation to entire ethnic groups and who refuse to accept that racism has played even the teeniest little part in the position of ethnic minorities in Britain today.

West is depressing and unpleasant. But hey, look on the bright side, Phibbs is just funny (unless you live in Hammersmith, of course). And if I can say one good thing about the current administration in City Hall, it’s that Cllr Harry Phibbs has very little influence over it. Which means we can look forward to more unintentionally hilarious headbanging from the honourable member for Ravenscourt Park for some while yet.

13 Comments »

  1. I may be depressing but I’m not unpleasant. Ken Livingstone and his regime promoted race-based politics and the result is an increasingly race-based politics in the capital. Throwing money at projects aimed at young black men, rather than tackling the cultural malaise in black culture (‘violence and ignorance’) in a grown-up way doesn’t promote diversity but division.

    Your link about ‘white flight’ doesn’t work – but it’s a fact. I’ve always acknowledged that the term is misleading, hence the inverted commas, because it also includes middle class Asian and black Britons, especially among Indian-Britons (in Harrow), but white Britons do leave London in large numbers every year.
    *rant over*
    Ed West

    Comment by Ed West — July 29, 2009 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

    • Link hopefully now working – thanks for pointing that out. And I’m sure you’re not unpleasant really – just the implications of what you have written are, for me at least, rather troubling.

      I think there is a world of difference between politics that accept the reality of race – and also seek to emphasise what is shared as a city regardless of ethnicity, which I believe Livingstone did, and the politics of racial divisions. There are certainly some on the extreme left who are almost as guilty as those on the extreme right of stirring the politics of division, but they haven’t ever got anywhere near the levers of power in this city or country. Taking the first path doesn’t mean that you don’t acknowledge that specific problems in specific communities don’t require tailored action – in regards to young black males, Johnson recognises this as much as Livingstone (cf his early infatuation with Ray Lewis). There are differences of emphasis, certainly, but the underlying philosophy isn’t all that different. And the idea that there is such a thing as a single ‘black culture’, whether it be marked by violence and ignorance or pacifism and intellectualism, is interesting to say the least. Not being black, I can’t say for certain that it doesn’t exist, but given the non-existence of a corresponding ‘white’ culture, I’d think it highly improbable.

      In your article you said that ‘white flight’ existed to outer London, which the figures suggest isn’t the case. There were only ten wards in London which saw decreased ethnic diversity in the 1991-2001 period. I’d be surprised if similar figures don’t re-occur for the current census period. You seem to have moved the goal posts a bit above, saying that the flight is out of London. This may be true – I don’t have the figures, but it doesn’t really create racial politics in London. What I do know is that the demographic structure of London sees a net gain of population amongst young adults who arrive in the city as a result of the educational and employment opportunities available to them, with a net loss in older age groups. I would suggest that this is simply a counter-swing to the net gain amongst the under 30s, with older people dispersing across the country (and indeed the world) as they complete their education and training and/or as a wider range of employment possibilities become available to them. I’m not aware of any empirical evidence that points to anything more ‘flighty’ than that.

      Comment by Political Animal — July 29, 2009 @ 10:33 pm | Reply

  2. In Boriswatch Theory of Boris terms this is another salvo in the permanent state of war between the borough Tories (like Barnes) and the Central Office/Policy Exchange loonies, who I strongly suspect are some kind of infiltration into the party. They’re not exactly your classic Tory and people like Andrew Gilligan support them (and it’s noteworthy that Phibber’s Interests Register lists his profession as ‘Journalist’ and directorships as ‘Associated Newspapers’ – it really is a kind of takeover of the Tories by the worst kind of rightwing newspaper polemicists, straight out of the 80s FCS and boosted by the Fawkes/Dale propaganda effort (Dale and PX are, of course, very matey).

    The key thing is that the CCO/PX lot are always, always, always incompetent by design (see Mirza’s laughable cultural efforts) whereas the borough lot are competent at running boroughs and infighting, if not, obviously, that great at running entire cities. There’s been a strong ‘Boris Isn’t Working’ line coming out of the crowd that basically lost the early power struggles, and obviously Gilligan’s articles about Boris are similarly imploring him to be more beastly to the Reds.

    The main fault line that divides them is that the CCO/PX lot think that spending money to smash up the Reds is cool, as is being beastly to the poor, whereas the borough Tory lot think that the aim of the game is to consolidate power by demonstrating sufficient tight-fisted sourness and being beastly to the poor.

    Comment by Tom — July 29, 2009 @ 8:48 pm | Reply

    • And I think the Boriswatch Theory of Boris is pretty much bang on. Despite the limited set backs to the RCP/CCO/PX contingent in the Boris administration, it is quite scary just how well infiltrated they are into the machinery of the Conservative Party, particularly in terms of candidates in winnable seats come 2010. Some one in that lot has been studying some books on the Militant Tendency, I reckon. I guess we can safely assume that London is a bit of a dress rehersal and that we’ll see this all played out on a much larger stage after the next election. Phibbs will presumably just change the word ‘Boris’ for ‘Dave’ and ‘Livingstone’ for ‘Brown’ and republish his articles all over again some time in 2011.

      It is interesting how (admittedly from a sample of two) the Mayor of London as a figure is seen as a vehicle for shadowy political groupings of which the Mayor themself is not a member – Boris and the RCP/PX mob, Livingstone and Socialist Action. Of course, the key difference is that SA tended to be highly competent by design!

      Comment by Political Animal — July 29, 2009 @ 10:56 pm | Reply

      • “Some one in that lot has been studying some books on the Militant Tendency, I reckon”

        Funnily enough, I came up with the phrase ‘Boris’s Bilious Tendency’ only yesterday, to describe Munira Mirza. The only thing this crowd is good at is organising political backstabbings, of course – put in a real world situation and they flounder, as we’ve seen with her laughable cultural activities (which, if Livingstone had blown 150,000+ on, would have had Gilligan frothing all over the Standard front page about funnelling public money to personal pet causes for a tiny elite). It’s perhaps not surprising that with the Labour Party inoculated against the hard left since Kinnock days that the Tories seemed like the soft touch – they weren’t expecting an attack from behind until it was too late.

        Phibbs and I had a run in in the CiF comments a few months back when I pointed out that the idea of a cable car across the Thames was loopy – lo and behold, Boris’s East London River Crossing report also said it was loopy, also concluding that there are two places to build fixed links across the river in the East, which are the ones Livingstone had safeguarded. Boris is therefore constrained by politics into picking the one that Ken wanted to build second (and which has got less of an obvious case) and constrained by the borough Tory desire for tax cuts into not building anything at all but just flapping his arms in front of a camera, which is what the militants have picked up on with their charges of drift and inaction. Basically, there’s not a lot of room to maneouvre, which is why the CCO/PX lot (we really must come up with a snappier title) keep jumping on Boris for not being ‘bold’ enough – the real world keeps getting in the way, and the borough Tories control the purse strings (Malthouse and Milton running two of the four directorates, of course).

        As for ‘white flight’ and ‘ghettoisation’, purlease – the first job interview I had when moving to London was with a lady I was staggered to find was about to move to the country. It’s an age thing – you come to London, buy a small flat, work your backside off, then settle down, sell up and move somewhere where you can get more space for the money, for kids etc. This is more likely, in the real world, to happen to white people *because it requires a certain level of wealth* and therefore the classes most likely to enter into such an arrangement are highly majority white. Nothing more, nothing less – if anything, it’s evidence for continuing inequality of opportunity *and high demand for housing in London from people willing to pay high prices* – if people weren’t still eager to move to London for jobs and opportunites, people wouldn’t be enabled to move out. If you, for example, put huge constraints on immigration, it would stop people being able to move out of the city to follow the path they have decided for themselves. This isn’t Conservatism, it’s intrusive, overwhelming state control, but that’s what the Tory Militant Tendency have no problem with as long as it smashes something Red. Dictating an overmanned bus design no private company would consider suitable is also in this camp, and it’s no surprise to find out who backs it – Policy Exchange and Gilligan were behind the whole thing.

        London is a city where you can turn left and walk through a Turkish area, turn right and walk through an Asian area with Polish shops in, and nobody gives a damn or stops you (they’re more likely to want to sell you something). Our kitchen was put in by a dodgy Moroccan builder who speaks Punjabi because he grew up in Southall to get away from the cultural conservatism back in North Africa (‘they want me to marry some Arab bird with a moustache – fuck that’). My son’s gone through nursery and school with, at the last count, 11 different nationalities, the majority *European*, actually (Irish, Dutch, Portuguese, French, German, Swiss, most with one British parent, plus Aussies and a Canadian). He has his hair cut by an elderly barber of the old school who greets his mates with ‘Salaam’ (Turkish Cypriot, I think). He runs around the playground in the morning playing tag with his mates shouting ‘I’m going to get you, Mohammed’. Meanwhile the older kids are playing British Bulldog or kicking a ball around the streets or playing cricket or baseball on the (council-owned) green outside (I live on a 50s council estate now part rented, part owner occupied). Is it any wonder I want to protect this from the Daily Mail? I don’t have to fight to create a world where people of vastly different backgrounds come together in a shared cultural context united by language and experience and education with adequate facilities provided free of charge for all, I live in it. It’s called London.

        “Livingstone and Socialist Action”

        I’ve met a few of the SA lot. Interesting bunch, and I’ve never yet read a sufficiently unbiased and well-researched analysis of who they are, where they came from and why they escape the usual loony fringe movement problems of being more interested in position within the group and hairsplitting on manifestos than learning the arts of competent administration (see the Boris-sponsored KPMG report on buses which basically says that TfL’s bus operation model is excellent in global terms, never mind the UK). I’ve met Boris too, of course; he refused to look me in the eye. Possibly he can smell comprehensive education a mile off. When we met Ken, my son stole his biscuits.

        Comment by Tom — July 30, 2009 @ 9:27 am

  3. this is another salvo in the permanent state of war between the borough Tories (like Barnes) and the Central Office/Policy Exchange loonies, who I strongly suspect are some kind of infiltration into the party. They’re not exactly your classic Tory and people like Andrew Gilligan support them (and it’s noteworthy that Phibber’s Interests Register lists his profession as ‘Journalist’ and directorships as ‘Associated Newspapers’ – it really is a kind of takeover of the Tories by the worst kind of rightwing newspaper polemicists, straight out of the 80s FCS and boosted by the Fawkes/Dale propaganda effort (Dale and PX are, of course, very matey).

    I am sure you are correct in identifying the ideologically driven factions within the London tories and you are absolutely correct that Phibbs and Hammersmith and Fulham are part of the ‘loony right. However, I think you give Gilligan too much credit for any coherence – see this article from Stephen Cowan’s excellent blog which involves an attack on the Hammermsmith and Fulham Council newspaper which he sees as a propaganda sheet cunningly designed to look like a local newspaper and aimed at putting the local press out of business

    http://thecowanreport.blogspot.com/2009/08/evening-standards-andrew-gilligan.html

    Comment by nibs — August 7, 2009 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  4. Ken Livingstone and his regime promoted race-based politics and the result is an increasingly race-based politics in the capital. Throwing money at projects aimed at young black men, rather than tackling the cultural malaise in black culture (’violence and ignorance’) in a grown-up way doesn’t promote diversity but division.

    So rather than spending money on projects to engage young black kids, what you’re saying is that black culture is inherently violent, isn’t that right? What would you suggest they do to ‘tackle the cultural malaise’ other than telling them to get on their bike? Have you ever talked to a black kid in your life?

    Comment by Sunny — August 7, 2009 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

  5. That comment was at the unpleasant Ed West. Great blog PA.

    Comment by Sunny — August 7, 2009 @ 2:21 pm | Reply

  6. “However, I think you give Gilligan too much credit for any coherence”

    Well, I’ve never accused Gilligoon of coherence (he has his own personal agenda based around threats to journalism and thus the lifestyle of A. Gilligan, which manifests itself partly in repeated attacks and smears against us bloggers), but has also written Livingstone bashing articles based on information from Phibbs fellow borough Tory loony Phil Taylor (who IIRC has business interests in Hammersmith?), worked for Boris at the loony hangout of the Spectator, worked for Associated for many years and is now going over to the Telegraph. Oh, and he co-wrote the original Bendy Jihad manifesto for Policy Exchange. He displays all the misogyny and petty hatred that comes through in the Phibbsian crew, but I don’t think he’s exactly one of them, he supports them because he sees them as the best way to smash up Ken’s legacy in areas such as bendy buses and the congestion charge, for his own psychological reasons.

    Adam Bienkov also points out that Taylor is also a Conservative Home editor. Tim Montgomerie, displaying a keen lack of appreciation of irony, called Barnes ‘childish’ on Twitter today. Montgomerie was 12 when Barnes was first elected to Hillingdon Council.

    Comment by Tom — August 7, 2009 @ 3:53 pm | Reply

    • Yes, I think you are spot on in saying that Gilligan jumped on their bandwagon and offered policy exchange etc them a media mouthpiece through the Evening Standard in order to destroy Livingstone. I think you are also right to hint at psychological roots – it seems that all of this is rooted in the way that Gilligan was treated by Campbell and the New Labour goons who made him a scapegoat to distract attention for the Iraq dodgy dossier and Kelly. Why he chose Livingstone rather than Blair/Brown, I don’t know, though perhaps Victoria Wadley, who was rapidly anti Livingstone and was determined to use the Standard to get rid of him. The fact is that Phibbs and Greenhalgh etc can’t be pleased with an attack on their Council ‘pravda’ offering.

      Comment by nibs — August 7, 2009 @ 9:54 pm | Reply

      • I think any reading of gilligan’s output (and that article about him in the Telegraph in 2004) show him to be a right-wing “attack dog” type, more than willing to find some dirt on left-leaning figures. As seen by his smear campaign at his latest place – greenwich.co.uk – size doesn’t seem to matter, as long as there’s ideological points to win.

        Comment by A different tom — August 10, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

      • Apologies to A different tom and others for delays in approving comments – I have been out of the country and with limited internet access. Some excellent comments all round – many thanks.

        Comment by Political Animal — August 12, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

  7. [...] Councillor Harry Phibbs, not happy with the rebuke, hit back with the paranoid theory that Boris was “oddly preoccupied with seeking to ingratiate themselves” with anti-Boris bloggers like Adam Bienkov and Political Animals. [...]

    Pingback by Liberal Conspiracy » Tories start warring over Boris equality agenda — August 7, 2009 @ 4:18 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: