Eventually I was able to track it back to this post by Guido, where the issue was aired oh-so-subtley (without actually using the word “gay” or “affair”), but rather less subtle were the commenters, some of which were very crude. Not particuarly surprising for Guido’s commenters, but still.

The next “relevation” was that in 1995 Hague faced questions about the appointment of another young aide… followed by “ZOMG THEY SHARED A HOTEL ROOM DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN!!1!!elebenty“. Do people really think that two men can’t share a room without having rampant sex? Maybe they were, y’know, just being frugal.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hague is gay beyond malicious tittle-tattle and rumours… and even if he were, who cares? It hardly affects anyone else what he does. The only even potential issue here is if someone was being employed on the taxpayer’s payroll because they were screwing the boss, regardless of gender and sexuality – and there is no more evidence that that’s the case either.

This then spawned a whole load of newspaper articles asking the same questions, with no more thought or evidence behind them. It is reprehensible.

In the end, Guido has forced Christopher Myers, the aide in question to resign – even though he has done nothing wrong. And the Hagues to reveal that they have suffer a number of miscarriages, including one just this summer. But even this has allowed less scrupluous journaliusts to play with more innuendo.

The truth is that William Hague is happily married to Ffion. And even if he were gay, who cares? It’s not our problems and doesn’t affect us in the slightest. Why this there a fascination with MPs being gay? Who cares! It doesn’t affect their ability to do their job and it is a private matter, not a public one. Why do newspapers feel the need to splash relevations like this? Such as Crispin Blunt coming out at 4pm on a Friday – widely believed because a Sunday paper was going to do it for him otherwise. It’s a non-issue.

It does show a certain amount of latent homophobia in society. Hopefully this is something that will change as journalists and some bloggers grow up and realise that sexuality only has anything to do with sexual preferences, and really affects nothing else in life.

Yes, of course it’s a funny fake! What did you expect?

The Tory fund-raising operation is inviting financial backers to join Team 2000, a donors’ group whose members are promised “first-hand” insights into government policy from Mr Cameron…

According to the party website, people donating £2,000 a year qualify for Team 2000. The team is the “principal group of donors who support and market the Party’s policies in Government, by hearing them first-hand from the leader and key Conservative politicians through a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups”. (The Telegraph)

People who choose to donate £2,000 or more get to meet the Party leader (who is now Prime Minister) and other senior Conservatives and hear from them what their plans are. There’s a very signifiant difference between that and this:

Former Labour cabinet ministers were caught in an undercover sting boasting that they had changed Government policy and secured preferential access to ministers for private companies. (Telegraph – March 2010)

One is giving people who donate a certain amount of money a chance to hear Government miniusters speak; the other is getting paid to change government policy and secure preferential access to ministers to try and change government policy. One is part of the standard activity of political fundraising (needed to keep our democracy running); the other is buying a chance to change what government does (an abuse of our democracy).

There is absolutely nothing sleazy or unusual about the Conservative’s arrangement at all. It’s hardly “cash for questions” or “cash for laws“, and neither is it “cash for access” – just a (in my opinion, rather poor) incentive for people to donate large amounts of cash to a political party. The only change that should be made is that these donations should all be made public.

Even despite the fact that my traffic levels is pathetically low (especially when compared to the likes of Iain Dale and Tory Bear) it is still quite a significant number, for no apparent reason:

I just don’t understand why this search term is of interest to anyone, and especially why it has suddenly become of interest to so many people.

Anyone know and want to enlighten me?

UPDATE: Ah, this from Guido explains it. But seriously, have people got nothing better to do than make idle speculation about people’s sexuality? Does it really matter?

She has been identified as Mary Bale, a 45 year-old bank clerk, and has received death threats as the result of her animal cruelty. And whilst I don’t think she should be receiving death threats – that really is going waaay too far – she really doesn’t help herself with her comments:

I don’t know what the fuss is about. It’s just a cat… I did it as a joke because I thought it would be funny. I never thought it would be trapped, I expected it to wriggle out.

How did you expect it to “wriggle out” of an enclosed plastic container? And since when has performing animal cruelty ever been even remotely funny?

They’ve even come up with a sob-story – her father is in hospital critical condition after falling down the stairs last week, damaging his pelvis and vertebrae.

But nothing – nothing – excuses her actions. Throwing a defenceless animal into a wheelie bin is clearly animal cruelty, and I hope the RSPCA prosecutes. She needs to face justice, but not death threats.

David Cameron is only the second Prime Minister in 150 years to have a baby whilst in office, and is expected to take the two weeks paternity leave he is entitled to – meaning that Nick Clegg will remain “holding the fort” for a month in total.

Congratulations to the Cameron family!

What we want now is the babies name and then pictures…

UPDATE: The name has been revealed as Florence Rose Endellion. But still no pictures…

You are walking along a road and are approached by a friendly young cat. Do you:

a) Stroke the cat and go on your way

b) Ignore the cat an go on your way

c) Throw the cat into a wheelie bin

Most of us would do either option a) or b) depending on time and fondness for cats. But one woman decided option c) was the way to go.

The cat – named Lola – was trapped in the bin for 15 hours.

It’s simply cruel and disgusting that anyone would do such a thing, totally unprovoked to a cat. This woman is now wanted by the RSPCA and is the subject of a Facebook manhunt.

Anyone who lives in Coventry, please keep your eye out for this woman. She needs to face justice.

Australia appears to be heading for a hung parliament, with neither of the two main rivals likely to win the 76 seats needed for an outright majority.

ABC Australia is predicting 73 seats for the opposition coalition, 72 for ruling Labor, one for the Greens and four independents.

Just like in Britain in May, the people have spoken… but it looks like no-one knows what they’ve said.

Unlike in Britain, however, there isn’t a third party with enough seats to swing it either way – and, indeed, it is a far closer result than we had as well and so can go either way. Who knows what the next government of Australia will look like?

The public agree and support George Osborne and the coalition government’s spending cuts and necessary tax rise.

Britain now has a credible plan to deal with our record deficit. We must stick by it. To budge from that plan now would risk reigniting the markets’ suspicions that Britain does not have the will to pay her way in the world. I will not take that risk.

Labour screwed up while in office, and the public know this. They are supporting the government’s plans to rectify this because they know that the cuts are essential.

The economy will not – cannot – recover if we continue to have a massive national debt. Taxpayers money must be spent efficiently and effectively; anything else is a waste.