@pippatips facing legal action from Pippa Middleton

Someone is sore about being outsold by their parody.

The creators of the @pippatips Twitter account are facing legal action from Pippa Middleton, according to the Independent. The account, which parodies Pippa Middleton's terrible party book Celebrate with helpful advice like "smoke can be sign of a new pope or that something is on fire", "beat stress by not worrying about stuff" and "remember to write 2013 instead of 2012 now it's no longer 2012", led to a book being published in June this year.

When One is Expecting: A Posh Person's Guide to Pregnancy and Parenting isn't doing too badly – in fact, it's outselling Pippa's own book on, coming in at a respectable #961 in the charts compared to #3,370 for Celebrate – which might be what prompted Harbottle & Lewis to take action. According to the Indy, they've written to the book's publishers to demand that @pippatips be deleted.

At the time of writing, the account is still there – although it's been dormant of late, not tweeting since 14 June – and the new burst of publicity might do the book a world of good. Getting it back in the front of people's minds just as Babygeddon is about to hit… you couldn't get for a better Streisand Effect than that if you tried, could you?

Still, in case they get their wish, here are my favourite Pippa tips, archived for posterity:


Sad news: realPippa probably is outselling fakePippa by around 200 times, according to @iucounu who looked up the numbers on Bookscan, the main database for book sales in the UK. That means that fakePippa is getting more of her sales from Amazon, while realPippa is doing much better in physical bookshops. In a way, that's unsurprising: in bookstores, Celebrate isn't right next to a bunch of one-star reviews; and a book launched from a twitter account was always going to do well in an online bookshop.

But it does make realPippa's nastygram just that bit more vindictive.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbott and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.