It occurs to me that there is a serious gap between what the political punditry think the people think or would like to think what people think and what people actually think.
I don't really like Ken Livingstone but I've read his comments and while being badly phrased, they certainly don't merit the slur of Nazi apologist by John Mann yet there seems to be broad agreement that it was ok for him to make that slur.
Seems to me that Livingstone is a handy stick to take the heat off Cameron and the likes of Philip Green. I note that Guardian isn't taking reply comments on its stories regarding this. Could it be that they're are totally out of step with their readership?
So it's all right for Cameron to massively increase arms sales to the Saudi regime that stones women to death for adultery and was linked to 911 when Iraq really wasn't but Ken gets hung out to dry for a few poorly worded comments.