Love and Liberty

Last night, Nich Starling threw a drama-queeny strop breathtaking both in its bitterly negative attacks against Liberal Democrats he’s never met and has never bothered getting in touch with and – as readers of Lib Dem Voice will know – in getting almost all of its facts wrong. I know that several comments have gone unpublished by his censorship (presumably he’ll let them through much later, so he can claim to permit dissent while keeping it all locked up until everyone’s stopped reading) while, rather than apologising, he’s re-edited what he said to make himself look better. Here is the unexpurgated version. In my opinion, it is not suitable for children, or for those of you who may have a nervous disposition.

I drew attention in comments on Lib Dem Voice – which aren’t subject to Mr Starling’s censorship – to the fact that I’d saved it, and have had several requests to see what he said in full flow of vitriol. So rather than repeatedly e-mail it, I thought I’d republish the whole thing. Compare and contrast with his current version (now, as far as I can tell, the third different edit, even with a different title, though I may have missed several of his changes for all I know). The bloggers’ interviews are a marvellous example of bottom-up, do-it-yourself Liberal Democracy in action, organised by someone who isn’t staff or some grandee, constantly and openly looking to improve how they’re done. Well, that’s my view. Here’s Mr Starling’s positive and informed contribution to the debate:

When does one get to enter the "inner sanctum" of Lib Dem bloggers ?

I like blogging because unlike so many things in politics and life, I have the right to state my opinions openly and people can judge what I say by their own values and beliefs. Some might agree with me, some other might disagree, but in essence my views are as valid as any other blogger's opinion. Be the blogger Iain Dale or someone who started their blog only yesterday, it shouldn't matter. All our blogs should be of equal merit, even if clearly some blogs get more readers than others.

Now being a Lib Dem, I thought the party too would want to be seen as being even handed, fair and not too eager to bestow special title or honour on bloggers, but that appears not to be the case.

There is, you see, an inner sanctum, a select few, whose blogs re significant and more important than other Lib Dem bloggers. These bloggers, generally London based, general with "friends" in the right places, get very "special" treatment. Of course, it could be easily argued that Lib Dems based in London will always be able to attend these special meetings by nature of the geography of the country. But just who does get invited ?

I have never been invited to such a meeting and obviously, being based in Norwich makes it impossible for me to attend. But how many other London Lib Dem bloggers get asked ? Who decides who gets on the list and what are you expected to do in return ?

The danger is for those who attend these meetings that they are seen to lose their objectivity. They will be seen by readers to be following the party line or going easy on people because they want to keep their place at the table in the inner sanctum.

There is also a real danger that regional bloggers are seen as being outside the loop, not on message and therefore not worthy of special access to the top people. This is actually rather dangerous as it pushes the premise again that only London matters. As a party committed to devolving power, this seems at odds with the Lib Dems core beliefs.

If I were London based I would probably want to be able to attend, but equally, I would want these meetings to be more open to new bloggers, more open to all those people in the party who might disagree with Lib Dem policy, in general, more in keeping with the preamble to the Lib Dem constitution which states ;

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

The key words for me are "fair, free, open and equality". It seems some specially selected people in the Lib Dem community are, are more free and equal than others.
Posted by NB at 21:09 0 comments

Now, wasn’t that charming?

Let Me Count the Ways In Which That Was B******s

I responded at length on one of Millennium’s open invites to the interviews on Lib Dem Voice – the ones that Mr Starling would have known about if he ever listened to anyone but himself (or Iain Dale), so I’ll republish that, too. First, I was positive and factual:

And another bump for the opportunity to interview top Lib Dems either for your own blog, or to write it up here!

To recap Millennium, above: the people short-listed for the Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year Award were invited to interview Ming last September; my beloved Richard, at Millennium’s behest, then did all the work of organising interviews with the two Leadership candidates (more time and effort than you might think!); then the first bunch of us decided to open it up first to the prize-winners from the other categories, then – as Richard’s been organising more of them – Millennium’s post above was the next attempt to open up the interview panel, followed by the invite to join in for Ed Davey (when the first two people to volunteer on LDV and one who got in touch directly got to turn up alongside some of the original crew – and so could you!).

As this is the most-read Lib Dem blogging site, it seemed the best place to put the invites, rather than just the ego-and-stats-boosting option of us just mentioning it on our own blogs. So keep your eyes peeled for when the next one comes up.

And then I mounted my critique of Mr Starling, republished here complete with original mistakes, some of them apologised for:

(DEEP BREATH)

OK, now, I don’t like having a go at another Lib Dem, particularly one I’ve not met and who may be very nice in real life, but there are two things I dislike more: someone having a go at the man I love (well, everyone’s protective of their loved ones); and cowardly attacks without naming people but when everyone knows who the attack’s on, which offends my sense of natural justice. If I set out to criticise someone, I do it in my own name and name them outright so they can reply, rather than spreading bile like a gutless worm. And I admit I made a little sideswipe earlier, so here’s something open, honest and attributable.

So, let’s be clear: do not be put off applying here by the self-aggrandising innuendo of Norfolk Blogger Nich Starling, who thinks he’s not good enough [obviously I meant to say “too good”] for a general invitation and had to have a special personal one. Because the only possible alternative explanation is that there’s a secret cabal of people offered special favours to suck up to the establishment and expressly martyr Mr Starling (rolls eyes).

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re involved in politics. And, look, you know things don’t happen by magic, don’t you? Someone has to get their finger out and do it, and hard work gets results where sitting and whingeing doesn’t. Why, then, do these interviews take place?

Because Richard had the idea and took it upon himself to do all the work: everything from chasing MPs’ diary secretaries to buying the doughnuts. And other people than the six who were short-listed come along because Richard did the work of getting out invites on here for everyone to read, after starting this discussion about how to invite people.

Why doesn’t Mr Starling interview top Lib Dems?

There are two possible explanations.

Is it because, as he claims, there is a secret (widely publicised on Lib Dem Voice) cabal of people who have (unnamed and so handily unprovable) friends in high places and are hand-picked from people who are slavish apologists for the establishment (no, no, don’t titter, madam, you might even believe it if you’ve never, ever read any of the blogs in question, though it’s ironic that the only one Mr Starling links to is James Graham’s tearing Ed Davey into pieces – gosh, James, what are you like when you say what you really think?), all of them part of a London-only elite (like Jonathan from Market Harborough, Linda from Bedfordshire, Jonny from Oxford and Manchester, etc, etc…)?

Or is it because he didn’t bother asking to come along when Millennium asked for volunteers, has never, ever dropped Millennium a line, and can’t be bothered to organise any interviews of his own, believing it more productive to pour poisonous and ludicrous accusations on the people who actually bothered to do something positive and, by implication, particularly the person who does all the work?

Only you, dear reader, can unpick this impossible conundrum to discover the truth.

But seriously, please, if you want a fair, free and open Liberal Democrats, don’t be put off. If you, too, have stayed up too late at night reading The Da Vinci Code, you’re of course free to believe there’s some shadowy conspiracy, but it’s one to which everyone has been invited, and will continue to be.

I decided to reply to this open invitation to make the point, and to make it where it’s likely to be read by the largest number of Lib Dems. And, I’ll be frank, because I raised an eyebrow at replying on Mr Starling’s blog, which is subject to his censorship and which would be a reply to a post he’s already put weasel words into since his initial outburst in an effort to make what he said look less daft. It’s no less nasty, though (as I write, at least!): no apology; no constructive suggestions; just changing some of the facts to cover his a**e while still having a go at other people for no reason.

Now, I’ve never met Mr Starling. Most of what he writes isn’t much to my taste, though I’ve quoted him approvingly a few times on my blog when he’s written stuff I thought was good (for example). I’ve got no axe to grind, no chip on my shoulder, and he’s never run over my dog. But I might read him more often if there was less self-righteous paranoia; sometimes he writes like anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that he, personally, is the greatest thing since sliced bread must be part of a global conspiracy against him. What other reason could there be? Well… Some people just have different tastes. That’s the point of blogging, surely?

So, Mr Starling, if you’re reading – chill! Not everyone has to conform to the view that you’re the greatest blogger on Earth, but that doesn’t mean they have anything against you. And it takes poverty of imagination to assume that if you don’t get a special personal invite, there’s some inner cabal that lives only to get at you. But what really gets my goat is you trying to enforce your ignorance on other people by telling everyone that only some secret group gets to interview the top Lib Dems. And just why was your first response to accuse other Lib Dems of everything under the sun rather than, you know, ask someone for the facts? Play nice. If you can get to London the day the next interview takes place and you volunteer early, you’ll be coming along. If for some reason you can never leave Norfolk, why not organise interviews of your own with Lib Dems there? Or do an interview live online? But if you’re just too grand to read Lib Dem Voice like all the rest of us and too lazy to do any work yourself, don’t [go] into yet another drama queeny strop.

Reader, if you have a Lib Dem blog or are a Lib Dem willing to write up your interview for Lib Dem Voice, seize your chance to interview people through the interviews Richard organises. And if you aren’t first to volunteer and don’t get a place, try again, or – here’s a thought – why not pick a Lib Dem MP and interview them yourself rather than expecting it all to be handed to you on a silver platter? That’s what Richard does, after all.

The issue of regional meetings has been discussed by people who’ve done some of the interviews, and who’ve posted to the Lib Dem Voice thread that Mr Starling still pretends doesn’t exist, by the way. Richard tried to organise an interview with Nick Clegg in Liverpool (he was too busy, understandably), but I notice Mr Starling makes no positive suggestions, merely whingeing and mud-slinging. But as every MP is based in London, and as Richard lives in London and does all the work (NB and is neither a Lib Dem bigwig nor staff), there are logistical problems, and no-one else – least of all Mr Starling – has offered a solution.

Following that, I posted a comment in reply to what was then the current remix of his article, in which he took out some of the more ludicrously over-the-top foaming and added some pretend concern that people without blogs couldn’t come to a bloggers’ interview (the clue’s in the question):

Oh dear.

Your latest re-edit of your work is “equally, if I were not a blogger, why shouldn't I be able to attend such meetings ? Should bloggers be getting special treatment ?”

If that new moving of the goalposts is meant to be populist, it’s a shame you’ve still not had the courtesy to read the invite here on Lib Dem Voice, which you’ve now had several people post links to. Which makes it clear that if you don’t have a blog, you can come along as long as you’re willing to write the interview up for Lib Dem Voice.

And just what prevents anyone else in the party, or indeed the world, from setting up interviews of their own? Why don’t you do it? Why don’t party organisations? Why don’t groups of interested members? The only reason these interviews happen is that Richard does all the work. Did you think they happened by magic?

Feel free to continue the debate on Lib Dem Voice, where everyone is more likely to read it, where you’ll show you’ve bothered to make some vague acquaintance with the facts rather than making up some nasty conspiracy theory, and where people posting comments don’t have to wait for your censorship to allow them.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-elephant-interviews-1840.html

Incidentally, I meant to apply the link to the words “here on Lib Dem Voice,” but forgot and left it at the bottom of my comment, so that’s why the phrasing looks a little odd.

Things I Don’t Do Very Well, and Things Mr Starling Does Very Badly Indeed

Now, I’m aware of several of my blogging shortcomings. I don’t mean that I tend not to be brief, as in my eyes that’s an advantage rather than a shortcoming, but things like getting rather unsociable when I’m not well and often not blogging for a while. Even more often, I tend not to get round to replying to comments until it’s really too late. If I spot a typo in a piece, or a come up with a brilliant line six weeks later that should have been there, or just want to add a label at the bottom, I’ll do a niggling little re-edit of blog posts that probably irritates anyone who reads a feed and gets things several times.

In my defence, I’d rather post infrequently and spend a long time writing than post a load of stuff that simply isn’t very good. However, when I do post something that isn’t very good, or where I make a wrong prediction, or where I get my facts wrong – anything that I look back at and think, ‘Well, that was embarrassing’ – I leave it there. I’ll do fiddling little changes and the occasional clearly labelled update, but I won’t change great screeds to make myself look better. I’ve frequently added apologetic updates at the bottom when I’ve got something wrong, particularly if I’ve had a comment that’s pointed it out, but if I’ve made a prat of myself, fair dos, it stays there to warn me to do better next time. Similarly, if I don’t get enough people reading or liking what I write, I assume I should address that by writing something better rather than by inventing a vast global conspiracy that’s out to get me.

I find my respect for Mr Starling plunging now that I can see the way he manipulates his blog to cover himself – and I have no idea if he does it regularly, but his changing a cowardly attack to a cowardly attack modified in a cowardly way to cover up how utterly wrong he was leaves a nasty taste, particularly as that sort of dishonesty is calculated to make critical comments look like they’re over-reacting. I also have no sympathy whatever for someone who makes a cowardly attack and then sets his comment-moderation so that he can delay or reject any comebacks until he’s had the chance to change what he’s ‘said’ again, or just keep them waiting until he judges everyone’s stopped reading and he’ll look less of an idiot. Sometimes people have taken a piece of mine apart in the comments and I’ve never got round to rebutting them. Well, that’s my fault that I look foolish, then, isn’t it? But keeping control of comments like this so no-one can answer back and embarrass you – I just think that’s a cynical, cowardly and dishonest way to blog, and my opinion of Mr Starling has gone through the floor as a result. So much for the self-styled champion of telling it like it is and critic of the “Inner Party” – he’d fit right in at MiniTrue stuffing comments into memory holes and claiming he’s always been at war with Eastasia.

Now, obviously a tiny sliver of what Mr Starling said was an unattributed attack on me, because I’ve done several of the interviews, so I can’t entirely rule out a bit of ego in going ‘grrr’ back. But I think there are much more important reasons why he got on my wick yesterday and today:

• The sheer nasty stupidity of having a go at people putting themselves out to open up the party – and, yes, it very much made a difference that the person he most had a go at (without ever having the balls to name him) was my other half. I’m quite open about being defensive about my family.

• The sheer nasty stupidity of saying that people putting themselves out to open up the party are going against the party’s core principles. That bit was such unmitigated sh*t that even he removed it for fear every reader he’s ever had would point and laugh, but he’s neither acknowledged his complete f*ckwittery nor apologised.

• The sheer nasty stupidity of not checking his ‘facts’ to the extent that he had to re-edit what he said to cover up that he’d got it completely wrong. Then not noticing that his re-edit added a new brazen untruth. Why waste time doing any research for your blog, when you can just make it all up?

• The sheer nasty stupidity of demanding special treatment from someone he’s never met but who he expects to act as his servant and spend all his (unpaid volunteer) time organising things to suit Mr Starling, who is too lazy to organise anything of his own but thinks everyone else in the world either meets his personal convenience or is part of a plot against him. He lives in the wrong century; he’d have fitted right in as an absolute monarch.

• The sheer nasty stupidity of claiming he’s a brave lone voice of truth when he’s an utter coward who won’t name the people he’s attacking, makes no attempt to make even a rough acquaintance with the facts, runs and hides behind re-editing when he’s called on it, and who doesn’t dare let anyone criticise him until they’ve met with his approval.

Mr Starling, stop being so nasty and try to stop being so stupid. Stop being so lazily negative. Stop just making things up. Stop being such a delusional self-pitying whinger and come up with something positive instead. And stop being such a coward.


Update: if you read through the comments, you’ll now find me putting down the Angry Stick and being rather more conciliatory. Sorry to have been so OTT, readers!

Labels: Blogs, Liberal Democrats, Personal, Richard, Stupid Ideas, The Golden Dozen