So now the pundits are talking more shit

Well,
The 2 leaders got together and welcomed the country to the new alliance.

And what did the pundits do?
Well, the most of them who were on the spot gave their 'expert' view - "trouble ahead, DC was excited and welcoming, while NC was reserved, severe and guarded".  then they got the body langoes in, who tried to cook up some more conspiracy sauce by reading NC as subliminally en garde.
I can't believe journalists can be so crap at their job.

Why not read it another way...
The Liberal Democrats are the minority partner, with voters who really didn't want to vote for conservative policies (so we are told by the same journoes I don't trust, but let's use their own novella to break down their latest theory).  So for public's sake, would it make sense for their leader to appear to be guarding the interests of those who aren't tory sympathisers?  Yes?  Remember, we have the party members and organisation who have all approved the move.

The Conservatives for their part really need the majority to form a government, and also have their own party grumblers who would rather see Francis Urquhart wearing the crown than David Cameron, so shouldn't it make sense that a successful coalition in government with a (Centre Left??) party would strengthen reform of the tories away from the peasant, er pheasant, baggers who regard cemeteries as prime real estate giveaways to business allies, and arms deals as inheritance for their children?
And let's not forget that nice excited David does have scary Michael Howard back in cabinet.

Its funny, no matter how often the journoes call it wrong, they still want to be tabloid king makers and keep writing the script until finally they make us believe their storyline.  Could it really have ben the same journalists 'ramping up' bigot-gate, who then Mills and Booned Gordon Brown's farewell scene as he resigned?

I can't help feeling that journalism in this country is more interested in keeping us all badly informed and stupid, than anything else.

When is a bigot a baddie-boo? When a journo is a piggie-wig

Gordon Goofed!! And called a much to say local lady a bigot in private, thinking the microphone was off.

The media have danced on this like its the bacchanale of lesbos with no tomorrow in the summer of 1968 after an lsd/viagra cocktail accidentally got into all the water, er no, these are journoes, alcohol supply...

COME ON!! Let's stop being patronised.

If you listen to the poor man, he wasn't rabid, he didn't call the woman a 'northern bitch', or witch for that matter, or even a bastard like John Major did, he called her a bigot.


And what is a bigot?  Someone with entrenched prejudiced ideas that won't be moved by reason, nothing worse.
Is this bad language to use? No.
Was it complementary? No.
Was he right? I don't know, I don't think so judging by what I heard.
Was it said in private? Yes.
Was it said by someone under pressure of a tight schedule, judging the encounter a mistake, and putting it in the light of it should never have happened, when he is fighting for his job, and his beliefs, and disagreed with the person? Yes.
Is it understandable, have we ever done anything like that?  don't you fucking lie and say no, because then I know you will have done worse.

The journoes with their cynical mockery and band wagon jumping king making pride most certainly will have done much worse.

I am not defending Labour, or joining sides, or being contrary.  I just think the baying crowd need to pipe down and stop their hypocrisy.

Any way, now, I beleive the good lady socialist is about to make a lot of money from the gaffe, so maybe thanks are in order...