Quondam Food Writer, Diarist and sketchwriter Matthew Norman has unloaded a full article's worth of bile upon the head of David Miliband in today's Daily Telegraph. In this charming little gobbet, Norman calls Miliband a "sissy", a "mincing paean to metrosexual narcissism" and "castrato" who "sobs into his nosegay".
Nor is this oddly sexualised assault on Mr Miliband new territory for Norman, M. When he isn't trying to popularise the therm "Milibandroid", (which he coined a few years back and recycles on every occassion either Miliband brother hoves into view, perhaps on the assumption that familiarity breeds laughter), Norman has previously asserted that "what David Miliband needs, right now, is a damn good thrashing on his bare bum with a finely honed cane", declared that "Where boysie girls can prosper in combat politics, girly boys cannot". and that he is "coquettish" and his attempts to lead the Labour party were "knicker-flashing" which established, beyond any doubt that "David is a wuss".
Got that, people? David Miliband is not, to food writer Matthew Norman, a Real Man. (Oddly, this last assault of the cojonal-status of Miliband D, was by way of a paen to the greater gonad-posession of his younger borther. Now, I happen to rather like both Miliband brothers, but to be truthful with you, if I had to choose, in the privacy of a pollling booth, which one I associated with swaggering machismo, my pencil would hover over the ballot for an age, before dropping it unmarked into the waiting slot (see, try hard enough, and you can sexualise even the act of not voting).
I know, I know. Mr Norman is intended to be a cheeky political gadfly and pricker of pomposities. I mean, what can you say about a journalist who cannot decide whether David miliband is a disgrace for not serving in the Shadow cabinet, or a disgrace for not departing politics entirely. I know his hyperbole is intended to amuse, provoke and arouse the somnolent readers of the Broadsheets of Britain into some sort of reaction. What's more, as a food writer, I like him. After all, he reviewed Gaby's Deli, when every other London food writer was shamelessly sucking up to that overpriced Jew/LES (deliberate pun) pose fest Mishkin's.
So yes, yes, when it comes to politics. Norman is supposed to be Johann Hari on speed, George Monbiot on crack. a sort of Lefty Letts whose verbal dexterity allow him free reign for the scattering of abuse upon his chosen targets.
But you know what? Letts is just being a dick, and so is Matthew Norman.
What's more, he's being a dick, on command, for money.
There's a term for that, and it's even less complimentary than castrato.
Woah there, cowboy! A little while ago, you wanted to remove political neutrality from television and drown us all in wall-to-wall Glenn Beck.
I don't think Norman (or Letts) should be prevented from being a dick, nor even for being a dick for hire. I just don't like him using accusations of effeminacy and lack of manliness as tools for hilarious mockery, nor think his regular resort to such barbs shold pass without comment for the personal unpleasantness it is.
So I don't quite understand the relevance of your point.
Perhaps the Guardian or Indie could be persuaded to satirise this Telegraph 'fussion journalism' nonsense by getting Polly Toynbee and Steve Richards to do bitchily unpleasant reviews of rightwingers' favourite restaurants.
The Telegraph is an odd paper; it has lots of really quite interesting features and employs many excellent writers but even in its travel, gardening, arts and motoring sections it seems unable to resist taking cheap pot shots at Labour. Do you know if its staff get a few extra shillings for working such wearyingly spiteful stuff into their pieces?
To be fair, Norman has done similar stuff for Indy, though any restraining hand on shoulder has been removed at Telegraph…
Fair? I can't be doing with all this fairness stuff!
One of the first things my mum taught me was that life ain't fair. A jolly useful lesson too….
Out of the two, I would say Ed is considerably more effeminate than David. I think it was Nick Hewer who said Ed was "tall, arrogant, with a weak handshake". I think that pretty much sums both of them up, though just weak would have been a better description.
Anyway, this is what Ed Miliband is up against -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theyre-making-me-look-ridiculous-6432595.html?tw_p=twt
Humiliating for him, really.
Calm down dear
The core accusation stems from the will-he-won`t-he phase, under Brown. It is not true that Purnell resigned to set the balls in motion .He resigned because he had been too busy at soaking the tax payer with his multiple renovation projects . You may recall the big story of the day was not Milliband , it was expenses and Purnell made an astute move given what a greedy parasite he was.
But for David Milliband challenging Brown was always the stupid move , unlike others he had something to lose he was the incumbent and it was only Brown`s sheer awfulness which raised the question
I look back now and wonder if he was stung by the suggestion of cowardice .His campaign was brave , perhaps too brave. He told the Labour Party way too much truth, more than it was ready to hear . Yes he needed a mandate as leader to fight for the centre , but was he also proving something to himself ?
David Milliband was bold and he made a bid to be PM , Ed was content to be importnat in the Labour Party which , to be fair was not an reasonable ambition for him.
What do you think Hopi ? Do you think David was perhaps …um ..impolitic , a bit too dashing and risk taking , at the time of the election ?
But Wallace snr did not challenge Brown. His inate sense of cowardice thought all the Labour MPs would fall in behind him when Brown got himself into trouble. Twice he could have wielded the knife – twice he bottled it. If he had put his whole energy into ridding this country of Gordon Brown, he may have been rewarded at the last election. Instead, he allowed inertia to grip the Labour party – which it still suffers from with his equally turgid brother.
Purnell was a far more attractive proposition than any of the Milibands, and certainly Brown. A party deserves its leaders – and boy, do Labour deserve the Milibands.
To compound matters, Letts also fancies himself as the BBC's next DG.. I think this is merely a new test case for that piece of research which associated the holding of right wing attitudes with being slighly, shall we say, slow. Your take on that, by the way, would be interesting……….