The Queen’s own Uncle was both a political admirer and a close friend of Hitler, with similar connections to Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) fame. Even amongst those Royals who haven’t demonstrated any public affiliation with fascism, racism is pretty rife. Take Prince Phillip, for instance. He’s well known as a bigot, guilty of racism, sexism and homophobia alike. Aside from his desire to be reincarnated as a “deadly virus” to end the population “problem”, there’s also the question of his sister’s marriage to a SS Colonel and her own son, lovingly named Adolf.

In the event that the BNP were attending a garden party in a community centre, outside a mosque or synagogue, in our streets or anywhere else that ordinary people have some semblance of a claim over, there would be reason to get upset. We can’t, however, no platform the BNP from a place that the vast majority of us will never be invited to enter. The British establishment has a long history of support for fascism (think of the pro-Hitler clubs, dinner parties and fundraisers that occupied large swathes of the upper classes in the 1930s) and there is no greater symbol of the establishment than the British monarchy.

In light of all this, the statement released by Unite Against Fascism is both ridiculous and hysterical:

“The Queen does not just represent Britain but the Commonwealth. Her staff or whoever invited him really need to take a long, hard look at what this day represents – Nick Griffin and racists or multi-culturalism.”

Firstly, it should be fairly obvious to anyone with the slightest inclination towards democracy that the Queen doesn’t represent anyone. She wasn’t elected. We didn’t get to pick her and neither did the people of the Commonwealth. In fact, the Commonwealth is the living descendent of the British Empire, the colonial project which led to the massacre of millions in the name of imperial expansion. No doubt it’s the stuff of Griffin’s dreams. As it happens, even today strong anti-monarchist sentiment is growing  in many corners of the Commonwealth.

Secondly, nothing about Buckingham Palace and Royal soirees has anything to do with “multiculturalism”. Even if we accept the notion of multiculturalism as a valid one – and I don’t – it begs the question: when was the last black monarch? Heck, when was the last non-Christian monarch? The Royals descend from a tiny inbred gene pool of the Royal Families of Europe; they stand for nothing more than historic white Christian privilege.

Refusing to acknowledge these simple truths and clouding the issue with words like “multiculturalism” isn’t helpful. It’s pandering to that particular brand of liberal outrage that isn’t rooted in the real and serious political struggle against fascism and the far right. Perhaps UAF are themselves a tad embarrassed at this statement, given that is has disappeared from just about everywhere.

Let Nick Griffin go to Buckingham Palace. It will discredit the monarchy even further… And it’s the best place for him.

"Look! The poor!"

Zac Goldsmith, the millionaire Tory MP, is currently under fire for his election expenses. His Channel 4 interview with Jon Snow is definitive proof that while money can buy power, it really cannot buy the ability to come across as a reasonable adult instead of a spoilt toddler. The despicable little wretch even had the nerve to call Snow a “charlatan”.

Taking on one of TV’s most beloved news anchors… Not exactly a smart move.

One thing is for sure: with all the attention on Michael Gove’s epic five list fail, Ed Balls is starting to look positively angelic. The Communication Workers Union evidently thinks so.

I can’t believe they’re even focusing on this non-story, however, when there’s so much more happening in the world today. Take one of the most read stories on the BBC website for instance. Is it war, famine or the fragile economic climate? Nope, it’s way bigger that that…

Lucky chickens.

Anyway, no freaky dream has ever struck me as more bizarre than the news that George Galloway is making a musical about Dusty Springfield. You read that correctly. It’s actual news.

In Galloway’s own words, “it will not be just about her musical talent but her whole journey through life, her sexuality. It won’t shirk from any of that.” I wonder if the Catholic former MP will tackle the issue of Springfield’s sexuality with the same sensitivity he reserved for the gay men executed in Iran in 2008 (branded paedophiles by Galloway).

Surely a candidate for the strangest news story of the year?

“In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man.  That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them.  To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.  Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great — the same must apply to other societies.  In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution.”

Nothing like a bit of stereotyping to show that homophobia’s alive and well.

The Royal Family cost every British taxpayer 69p. This is a formal request to the Treasury: can I have my 69p back please?

Luckily for the Royal scroungers, their own expenses are being overshadowed by the Pope’s visit. Now I hate to sound like the Tax Payers’/Dodgers’ Alliance, but is it really a good use of public funds to spend £12 million on hosting a man who covered up child abuse and claimed native South Americans wanted their genocide?

*Googled this. Apparently the Duke of York is a cinema.

David Miliband

The good: Miliband the elder is outspoken about abolishing the charitable status of private schools.
The bad: He’s backed by USDAW, the weakest and most right-wing of the Trade Unions. He’s also a close friend (and alleged crush) of Hillary Clinton. His stated aim is to bring “vision, values and victory” to the Labour Party, rather begging the question of why anyone would back a man guilty of such forced alliteration.
The ugly: Ex-Foreign Secretary.

Verdict: Marxist daddy, Ralph Miliband, is turning in his grave.

Andy Burnham

The good: Burnham pioneered Labour’s idea of a national care service, paid for by what the Tories dubbed a “death tax”. In fact, paying for care once you’re dead is a substantially better idea than struggling to meet the bills whilst living. He’s also big into getting more affordable council housing.
The bad: Unlike Diane Abbot, Burnham actually likes to talk left and is a big fan of the S-word. Trouble is, he hasn’t entirely worked out what it means.
The ugly: Where to begin? Iraq, Trident, ID cards, harsher immigration controls… Burnham supported them all.

Verdict: According to a poll conducted by The Sun, Andy Burnham is the sexiest Member of Parliament. I concur, but unfortunately that’s where his appeal ends.

Diane Abbott

The good: With 22 years in the House of Commons, Abbott has considerably more experience than all the other upstarts. Her role on This Week with Tory ex-big wig Michael Portillo is surprisingly enjoyable (the chemistry between the two is genuine: they once starred together in a school production of Romeo and Juliet, though sadly not in the title roles). Abbott is the only candidate who has opposed both the Afghan and Iraq wars, and taken a firm stance in favour of civil liberties.
The bad: Abbott is widely viewed as a leftie, which is unfortunate for those of us who genuinely deserve the title. When asked on TV if she was the left-wing candidate for Labour leader, Abbot didn’t exactly embrace the label, instead spouting some subjective nonsense about being “progressive”. Sorry, Diane, but that’s exactly what the other four say.
The ugly: This so-called left-winger isn’t for the repeal of the Thatcherite anti-Trade Union laws. Also, she sent her kid to private school after whining about others doing the same.

Verdict: Better than the rest, but that ain’t saying much.

Ed Balls

The good: Trying to find something good to say about Ed Balls is like trying to spy the dark side of the moon. He barely survived the recent General Election, although watching the Tories denied the Brownite scalp they were so desperate for was certainly enjoyable. Balls is a Co-Operative Party MP, which is about the best thing to be said about him.
The bad: He describes himself as “as happy talking to mums and dads as business leaders”. WTF? There are so many things wrong with that sentence.
The ugly: Balls appears to be basing his candidacy on posturing as more anti-immigration than anyone else.

Verdict: Going to come last.

The other Miliband

The good: Not his brother.
The bad: Ed Miliband persists in wearing ties of any colour but red, presumably in an attempt distance himself from his unfortunate choice of older brother. I’m not convinced it’s working. Bizzarely, Ed is backed by both Neil Kinnock and Tony Benn.
The ugly: This Miliband admits Iraq was a mistake… A mistake he gave his support to, mind.

Verdict: Politically speaking, Ed Miliband is a fraction better than his brother, but sadly he’s cursed with all the flair of the colour beige.