First time comment from me, but i'm not a first time visitor. Nice blog Bob, very enjoyable read!

On Topic:

I agree with you that it's an unacceptable smear that Tom Watson was CC'd onto the e-mails, but personally I don't feel too sorry for him because surely it doesn't make much difference overall? Let me try and explain what i'm getting at:

I mean, Tom Watson is seriously telling everyone that he had absolutely no idea what Damian McBride, one of his best friends, somone who sat on the desk alongside him day in day out, who's job there was considerable overlap with as Tom is a Digital Engagement and Civil Service Minister, was ultimately up to with Derek Draper?

Applying deductive reasoning, that's hard for me and many others to believe Bob.

So from that alone he's implicated in the minds of many people. Incorrectly saying he was CC'd onto the e-mails doesn't really change that does it? Had it not been said, he's still implicated, since it's been said he's still implicated.

So I really don't see the damage myself? If he wasn't already implicated i'd agree that would be one hell of a smear on the poor guy, but since he was already it didn't really change anything?

Cheers Bob!

John, the thing about the smear is actually saying someone was 'in on it' by being cc'd into the e-mails... without a shred of evidence.

We can all speculate as to who may or may not have been involved, but to say it in the national media, which was then picked up by several national newspapers, was a lie and a smear. If I said that Iain Dale, who admits he was a good friend of Derek Conway's, must therefore have known that Conway was fiddling his office expenses by fictitiously claiming for his family members, it would be a lie, and a smear, and I would quite rightly be chastised for it.

Perhaps the worst thing is that Iain, after getting all high and mighty everywhere about smears, does this and doesn't have the grace or courtesy to apologise. Instead he does what you do and surmises guilt by association. well, as I say, you are very vulnerable if that is your rule of thumb.

Anyway, John, thanks for your nice words. Do come back!

Tom Watson has run successful Labour campaigns- he's no fool. I doubt very much had McBride shown Watson his ideas Watson would have thought they were "brilliant"- because anyone with an ounce of common sense would have binned the whole concept as a disaster .If we wish to extend this guilt by association then let's have it for everyone, not when it suits Iain Dale. If you can't prove something you keep your trap shut and you certainly don't place it in the public domain.That applies to McBride and Draper as it does for Dale.

I now notice Dale appears to be taking second hand 'requests' from supporters of other parties about alleged Labour smears.The man has lost the plot completely.

Thanks for the reply Bob!

I agree 100% with you that it was an unacceptable smear on Tom Watson, it's just that as smears go, I don't see it as a particularly damaging one. I mean, they effectively smeared him for something he was already suspected of anyway. So I suppose it was a pointless smear really?

You are also right to advise of being wary of guilt by association. That's why I really only have questions for Tom Watson based on all three elements - friendship, proximity, and overlap of jobs. If he was just his mate I would definitely be prepared to accept he didn't know.

To make it 3 for 3, I also agree with you on Iain Dale. I read Iain's blog daily, but it would only take a new visitor about 3 of his blogposts to conclude that he was prone to jumping to conclusions without waiting for all the information or thinking it through first, hyperbole and indeed smears. He also hasn't had any sort of exclusive for quite some time, which leads him to hold on to the coat tails and exclusives of people like Paul Stains more and more.

Cheers Bob!

From the jaws of victory they have snatched defeat.

Its all very well complaining about bad behaviour, but it doesn't give you the right to behave badly in return.

Mr Dale admits he can't prove that Mr Watson smeared him, but he still carries on regardless on the basis that should know everything that is going on in his own department? has he ever had a proper job? It is impossible for any manager or worker to monitor the activities of their employees/colleagues.

On this basis he not only smears him, but then he hands it over to press for publication. If this is how he treats someone he likes, I would not want to know how he treats someone he hates.

Mr Dale has dug a very big hole for himself by taking Paul Styaines words at face value. If only he knew Carly Simon

For your further delectation Bob, you might want to have a little look at the transcript of a bit of a radio interview with Nadine Dorries today, in which she manages the almost impossible by smearing Damien McBride back, suggesting he (and D Draper?) actually tried to sell the non-stories to the press a while back (as in, for money, I assume).

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that before, have they? (though I'm losing track)

It's about half way through my longish most recent post if you can't be bothered to read it all.

A post truly worthy of the No.1 blogger in Bickerstaffe, methinks. Any post that manages to weave in Nadine Dorries, Nietzsche and the post-structuralists and Tom Harris is special indeed, Paul.

Having followed this sorry business mainly on R4 and partly on-line, including your own worthy blog, it strikes me that we are all getting a bit tied up with who smeared who, who might have been looking over their shoulder when they did, who did or didn't subsequently apologise and to what degree and whether or not it was sincere enough, who...blah, blah, blah...

Shouldn't we, as those who think that having a Labour government is generally better than having the Tories in, be taking a step back to ask why all this smearing is going on especially within our own ranks?

Frankly the likes of Iain Dale and whining Tory MPs like Ms Dorries are fairly irrelevant in the larger scheme of things and the likes of the Sun, Mail, Express will smear with relative impunity regardless of anything we do or say. So let them get on with it.

For Labour flunkies like McBride and Draper it is (and always has been) a reflection of their lack of political distance from the opposition: if you agree with the Tories over many important areas of policy (the war, the economy, privatisation of public services, etc.) then how else can you do them down other than by suggesting that they are personally less worthy of office than your lot? It's all a matter of having your mates in power so they can provide you with a cushy job as a "special advisor" or some such.

On this I believe Peter Oborne's analysis that we are increasingly ruled by a political class who share more interests in common than they do with the rest of the population (and certainly the working classes) is cogent. Liam Murray's attempt to lump him with the "they're all at it" bloke in the pub (referred to by you earlier in your blog) is at best lazy thinking and at worst a smear by association itself.

I'm a first-time commenter too, Bob, a Labour member and a blogger, and I'm not impressed.

Iain Dale made a mistake about Tom Watson: he admits that. In my view, fair enough. To call that a "smear" and a "lie" seems to me itself to be a smear and a lie.

And why do you refer to Nadine Dorries as "Dozy Dorries"? I disagree strongly with her views on abortion, and if you wrote criticising her on that or any other issue, I'd probably applaud you. But simply to insult someone pettily like this is to do as McBride did - to treat political opponents not as people with whom you disagree and debate, sometimes robustly, but instead as wicked enemies to be lied about and insulted.

And by the way, I enjoy Iain Dale's site, and comment there fairly regularly, often as "Head of Legal" - that's the name of my legal blog. Does that make me a "mongrel"? Thanks. Why a "mongrel"? And what's wrong with being a mongrel? Do you realise just how badly it reflects on you to use a word like that as an insult?

I'd like to see more principle and higher standards than this, Bob.

Right! I'm getting so angry about this now.

The official Tory line seems to be to tell us about the layout of No.10 and how close they all work, and then add something like, "now I'm not saying 'X' knew about it because I don't know, I'm just asking people to use common sense". What bloody hypocrites. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows you don't have to actually say something to be actively persuading people to believe it.

Why does it matter if people knew about it? It would be a problem if they were part of a clandestine plot about to explode, but THERE WAS NO PLOT. There was a stupid idea that was binned. Tom Watson may have turned round from his desk and said "don't be an idiot mate" then got on with his work.

The Tories pretend to be outraged but I can't help feeling they are glad this has happened.

Carl, you make some good points. However, even after Iain Dale admitted his 'mistake' he went on to try to justify it by saying Watson must have known, without any evidence to support it, and despite Watson's denial. So... why no apology... that's what people are supposed to do now aren't they?

If you consider calling someone "dozy" the equivalent of suggesting they have a sexually transmitted disease or a relative with a mental health problem, you need to get a sense of perspective. You may consider McBride's actions to be petty, but I suspect you are in a minority.

Mongrel is far too kind a description of some of the morons that trawl Dale and Staines' sites. That doesn't mean everyone is. Again, get some sense of perspective man.

Which CLP are you a member of, Carl?

Your reply to me just isn't serious, Bob, I'm afraid.

First, your final question bears the clear implication that that you don't believe I'm a member of the Labour Party, at least until I satisfy you of the fact under questioning. Why even suspect in the tiniest corner of your mind that I might have lied about that, Bob? Would you like to be able to dismiss me as a "Tory troll"? Brent Central is the answer; but I resent the insinuation of the question. I dare say you'll claim the question was an entirely innocent one.

Frankly, Bob, that approach makes me suspect you of being so aggressively partisan that you are unable to address what people say on the merits, and can respond only in terms of your perception of which "side" they're on. I hope you can prove me wrong on that.

Second, you say I make good points (what were they?) but do not respond seriously to them.

I didn't say calling someone dozy was the equivalent of accusing them of having an STD. I did explain what it has in common with such an accusation. And it's obvious to anyone who reads these comments that I don't consider what McBride did "petty". By suggesting I do, you have made a purely hollow debating point, and rather laughably tried to take the moral high ground, quite wrongly and unfairly trying to imply it's me who is minimising smeargate.

On the contrary: you have condemned what McBride did, I accept, and called it "beneath contempt". But you are also trying to partially defend it by means of "what aboutery", pointing to supposed equivalent Tory behaviour and saying things like -

No wonder McBride and Draper thought publishing this crap was perfectly OK, because the Tories have been doing it for years.

Politics will lose respect if politicians indulge in this Punch-and-Judy sort of approach. Raise your sights and raise your game, Bob. That's my plea to you.

I notice you didn't even try to justify your use of the word "mongrels" as an insult. You merely tried to deflect my complaint. So I'm challenging you again to explain (a) why you thought that word the right one to use to describe commenters on other blogs, and (b) what you think is wrong with being a mongrel.

I think my sense of perspective is okay, thanks. I wonder about your sense of respect for people who disagree with you.

It isn't a 'punch and judy' approach. It is about saying that if you are going to try to adopt the moral high ground, you had better be careful about your own standards of behaviour.

Carl, believe me when I say I don't really care whether you are impressed or not... but I make little secret about the fact that this blog is partisan, and if you find that difficult to deal with and want a more evenly balanced approach, perhaps I could respectfully suggest you continue to read that nice Mr Dale's balanced efforts, and completely ignore this blog. It is by no means compulsory for you to come here.

If you think the mildly amusing 'dotty' is a 'wicked insult' I suggest you try to get out more often.

My dictionary includes as the definition of mongrel: an ill-bred man; a man of poor manners or morals. I stand by that.

Carl Gardener wrote: "Would you like to be able to dismiss me as a "Tory troll"?"

Well, troll, definitely. Tory? In as much as one could arguably label Blair and some other "leading" contemporary Labour politicians Tory, fair comment, judging by a quick glance at your blog.

However there are better reasons to dismiss what you say. As Bob says he does take a partisan stance, a class stance rather than simply the narrow support of an electoral political party. But Carl you and the rest of the New Labour Thatcherite apologists on the Westminster gravy train are also partisan (much as you may deny it) - on behalf of another class.

As an alleged "freelance intellectual" and by dint of the priveliged position you have achieved (no doubt meritocratically...*ahem*) you have the luxury of convincing yourself that you are not an ideologue, that you are simply a moral person who carefully weighs the evidence to come to rational conclusions to the benefit of the large majority. Unfortunately due to the class divided nature of our world the vast majority of people do not have this luxury: they are disenfanchised, disposessed, exploited and worse.

You, Carl, on the other hand, are merely dismissed - think yourself lucky! :-)

Bob: when are you going to buy me a pint mate? It's been a long time!

Phew! Those Brent Central meetings must seem like they go on for ever. And on, and on and on.

Honestly, Bob, you've resorted pretty quickly to the "you don't have to come here" line. You're right, of course, and you like me must have better things to do than continue a spat like this. Anyway, I don't like it when blogging gets unpleasant, which is why I originally posted objecting to the way you were writing about others. So I'm not going to go on about this endlessly.

But just a couple of things before I go.

First, your dictionary. I believe you, but you're quoting a reference work so it'd help you, and be good practice, to cite which dictionary it is. None of these online definitions of "mongrel" (which admittedly may well not all be independently compiled) mention the sense you refer to. Nor does my 1979 Collins English Dictionary. What dictionary is the one you're using?

Second, are you saying you remembered that sense of "mongrel" when writing your blogpost, and that you used the word with that precise sense in mind? Unless you are saying that, I think your readers may reasonably conclude you used the word carelessly, without considering whether it's really an appropriate word to use as an insult, and that you're trying to justify your careless use of it after the fact.

Third: if we're going to bring this discussion to a close so I can go away, then please don't misquote me. I didn't say calling Nadine Dorries "Dozy Dorries" (it was "dozy" I objected to in fact, though you're right, I might just as well have objected to your calling her dotty) was a wicked insult. I called it a petty insult. Another petty insult is to tell me I should "get out more often".

I'm not so prudish, purist and puritanical as to say there's no place ever for calling people things like "dozy" or "dotty", or for telling people to "get out more". Of course a bit of knockabout is okay up to a point.

But from what I've read here so far you seem pretty ready with insults, Bob, and I don't think it reflects very well on you or your blog.

Ian... It must be your round!

While Bob's looking for his dictionary, I'll point out that (Ian) your comment is entirely about me as a person, accusing me for no good reason of being a troll, and so on. You don't address my criticism of Bob's writing on its merits, or say anything, for instance, in defence of his using the word "mongrel".

Carl, get a bloody life. I've looked at your blog and it is about as much fun as watching paint dry. Did you really give legal advice to Blair and Brown? No wonder they made such a cock-up over Lisbon and Iraq etc. I quite fancied the idea of watching The Damned United, until I read your review. Boring, or what? Are you just here to advertise your site because at the moment the number of people commenting is a big, fat zero.

Jeff, you are right, imagine a night locked up with this bloke.

Ummm...wha...err...oh! I see what's happened here Carl: you mistook me for someone who gives a sh*t about the opinions and feelings of a Tory troll! Easy mistake because I'm actually such a nice guy, right Bob? Bob?? BOB! Someone? Anyone?? *sniff*

However, against my best instincts to not encourage a troll by engaging with their meanderings, allow me to point out that I took issue with your *politics*. I realise that some people (possibly with large egos and salaries to match) take pretty much any form of criticism as personal but I'm afraid I can't help you with that.

Wait a minute though! I think I know someone who can! Yes...and he might even have a little free time on his hands these days and welcome some extra paid work! He's had a spot of bother himself recently I believe so I expect he'll be very empathetic to your situation: http://www.derekdraper.net/home.htm

All personal stuff about me again, Tony, nothing about what I've said in my comments here, or what Bob has said.

No, Ian, it's not political: you're just throwing jibes at me, like calling me a "Tory troll", implying I have a large ego, making a remark about my salary when you know nothing about me, and for some reason I can't understand suggesting there's some similarity between Derek Draper and me - when you're showing with everything you write about me that you're the one who shares with Damian McBride and Derek Draper a taste for making personal attacks and calling it politics.

And you still have nothing to say about Bob's use of the word "mongrel". Nor does Tony Williams.

Is this the best you guys can do?

Carl Gardner wrote: "Blah blah whine blah grizzle whine blah"

Carl I referred to your blog, on which you clearly state your support for the war in Iraq. As one of the defining political events of our time this is sufficient to locate your own political axis: on the wrong side. I'm not inclined to trawl your other turgid ramblings for further evidence that is not required and I'm less inclined to fill up a comrade's blog by quoting it back at you.

As for comparing you to Derek Draper I did no such thing - if you could see beyond your own ego for a second you might of noticed my comment was an attempt at humour. Get over yourself.

Now as I'm sure my ramblings are becoming almost irritating as yours I shall take my own advice and stop replying to your continued trolling. Goodbye Carl, it's been special!

Bye, Ian. Yet again, you had nothing to say about the matters I've raised, but only about me personally. No surprise, that, by now.

Bob, I notice you've had time to post in the last couple of hours, but that you've not yet responded to my questions about that dictionary definition you quoted, unsourced, this morning.

Do you have any answers?

You've posted again, tonight, Bob - but still you don't name the dictionary you claimed defined "mongrel" in the way you set out.

So it looks as though this is the end of the discussion - unless you reply, finally, or else Ian, Jeff, Tony or somebody else comes back simply to make personal remarks about me.

If that is the end, then what are we to conclude about your use of the word "mongrel" and your claim about a dictionary definition supporting its use?

I think the only reasonable conclusion is that, wanting simply to insult people, you used the word carelessly, without considering whether it's an appropriate word to use as an insult, and that you tried to justify your careless use of it after the fact, relying on a "dictionary definition" you are now unable to cite. What to make of that?

You can still come up with the reference, of course: I hope you do. Otherwise, people may have to conclude you made a completely bogus claim to justify your ill-judged insult.

Unless you do come up with the goods, then on the evidence of this thread, my complaint against you is amply made out. Your insulting of others, and as yet unjustified use of the word "mongrel" as an insult, reflect badly on you. The behaviour of your supporters here, who have chosen to respond to me pretty much exclusively with personal insults, also reflects badly on this blog.

As I said before, and am even more justified in saying now, I'd like to see more principle and higher standards on your blog, Bob.