Spot on.

I have a hope - probably a naive and forlorn one - that a 'Nixon goes to China' type dynamic might arise between a Cameron government and News International and the pernicious impact they have on our politics will be diminished or marginalised a bit.

Even in power Blair & Campbell remained too terrified of Murdoch’s power to properly challenge the press.

I agree, the story yesterday was totally spiteful. I'm no great fan of the PM, but the net result of the article was that I felt genuinely sorry for the guy.

It's one thing a newspaper taking a pop at a politician, I guess it's an occupational hazard, but the Sun have gone way OTT.

yes bob. i was prepared to give brown the b of the d over this. but have you listened to - or read - the newly-released phone transcript? 13 minutes of a stuttering, stonewalling, self-denying politician being righteously, emotively and accurately kebbabed time and time again by a grieving, well-informed service mum.

it is hard to listen to without wondering how such a weaselly, boorish and socially inept man could have risen to the highest office in the land. and then demeaned it so thoroughly.

have a pop at the sun all you like. your party was more than happy to accept the murdoch patronage while it lasted. now the boot's on the other foot and the whole tawdry, masochistic endgame must play itself out with regrettable and wholly avoidable episodes like this.

Jules defending Murdoch's comic. Why am I not surprised? Speaking for myself, I think it is, and always has been since the slimy Murdoch took it over, an evil piece of crap.

I think it's interesting though when politicians are confronted with ordinary folk, rather than each other. Blair being skewered by that woman at a Birmingham Hospital was great fun, and watching Thatcher squirming in her seeds as she was roasted alive by a housewife over the sinking of the Belgrano and the murder of the Argentinian sailors was absolutely priceless.

But I assume he rose to high office by being elected by the voters in his constituency, and supported by his colleagues in the Parliamentary Party. Tell us Jules... which high office have you risen to? Perhaps you are so, what was it, weaselly, boorish and socially inept that no-one elected you at all. Just a thought.

I'm disappointed with your contention that "grammar and spelling are not that important". On a political blog, maybe not - in a letter of condolence from the Prime Minister one should expect a great deal better. The "awww, at least he tried" attitude just isn't good enough given the seriousness of what's under discussion.

I don't read the Sun and I don't defend their article but I don't think for one minute that Gordon Brown gives a jot for the dead soldiers or their families. They are not his constituency. I expect one of his aides said it would be 'good for business' to write to the families. To him it was just a chore to get out of the way before getting on to the important business of state. Yes, someone should have checked but to think it all right to send off a letter with the name of the dead soldier corrected defies common sense. If it had been you writing to your constituents you would have started again, and no doubt asked your better half for her opinion anyway.

i'm not defending the sun bob. merely drawing your attention to an unedifying, unedited transcript published in it today.

what i love about labour politicos is that when confronted with fair and trenchant criticism, they resort to sarcasm rather than hold their hands-up. it's also interesting to see that you regard a justifiable, hard-nosed military decision to neutralise a potential operational threat during a war as "murder." very revealing. explains a lot about labour's profoundly uncomfortable ideological relationship with the JCS and the armed services.

i work in the private sector old hoss. i'm a voter, tax-payer and a wealth-generator - as opposed to an overhead like you. i can criticise all i like: if you don't like it, block me out.

ifabloke, I suspect you are in danger of ascribing your own tawdry values to others, but that's your right. I don't get anyone to check my correspondence, and if I did I would probably not see it as a personal letter. But as I said in the original post, it probably would have avoided the opportunity for Mrs Janes and the Sun to exploit the situation. Perhaps the sort of memo Jules Wright craves will be the victory the Sun achieves with their muckraking.

Your comments about the killing of over 300 Argentinian sailors, sailing outside and away from the exclusion zone laid down by the British, is also very revealing of your "Gotcha" mentality. And actually, Jules, I vote, pay tax and have generated wealth in the private sector and these days in the public sector. But one day, when you become 'an overhead' I have every confidence that you will receive all the benefits of a society (Oh no, of course, there is no such thing as society) which doesn't regard human beings as 'overheads'. And you can criticise all you like, but those that can only carp from the sidelines never change anything.

What reveals most of all about you is that you think "stuttering, stonewalling, self-denying weaselly, boorish and socially inept are "fair criticism". Says more about Jules Wright than it does about Brown.