The idea that Jonathan Isaby somehow knows all the bloggers out there on the right in Britain or anywhere else is laughable. None of us know them all. I could reel off a few but I would never pretend that there were no others. Then again, I am not ToryBoy.
It occurred to me that what with one thing and another I did not comment on the only two British political stories of the last few days (unless you consider the His Bloviation, the ArchDruid of Canterbury making a fool of himself a story): election of Nigel Farage as leader of UKIP (reprise) and a judge deciding that Parliamentary candidates are not allowed to tell lies about their rivals for fear of having the election annulled.
OK, let's get the ArchDruid out of the way. Why the Grauniad should think his extraordinarily stupid intervention should be a set-back to Iain Duncan Smith's plans is a mystery. Why should anyone care what His Bloviation says? If he really thinks that the unemployed are that through no fault of their own then surely doing community work will enhance their battered self-esteem rather than sending them into despair. Surely it is not having work that takes away that hope and self-esteem.
Nigel Farage. I don't need to link to the story as it was everywhere. I have made my views clear a while ago: I do not suffer from the widespread Nigelitis but I do think that this is a smart move either for the party or for Mr Farage; they are now seen as being symbiotically linked and unable to do without the other. Mr Farage's performance in Buckingham was lamentable and, while he is an excellent communicator on the media, he falls a good deal short of being a good manager or leader. All we can hope for is that he will not engineer the departure of two of his rivals and that he allows the structures that Lord Pearson put into place to continue.
Phil Woolas. Well, naturally, we are all glad to see the back of him but are we all that glad with the situation in which elections will be second-guessed in courts on the basis of whose electoral literature was acceptable or otherwise. Where will that stop? Shall we reach a position in which electoral literature will be published and simply sent to special courts who will then decide on the truth, honesty and decency of every candidate's output, pronouncing that candidate the winner?