Andrew Gilligan on a rant while I was away:
"There's a certain mad nobility in the way Boris's opponents seem determined to strap themselves to the most unpopular causes going. You wonder what's next a support group for double-glazing salesmen? A bid to rehabilitate that misunderstood feminist icon, demonised by the Right-wing media, Rose West?"
Now where have I heard that one before? Could it be from an 'anonymous' commenter a few weeks back:
"There's a certain mad nobility in this blog's obsessive support for the most unpopular vehicles in London. What's next - a campaign to rehabilitate Rose West?"
And again from commenter 'Kennite' on Dave Hill's blog:
"There's a certain mad, self-destructive nobility in the Ken Left's dogged defence of some of the most disliked things in London - Sir Ian Blair, bendy buses."
Oh dear Andrew, you do seem to have been working that phrase hard. So what else have you been working at?
Here you are seemingly defending yourself in the third person:
"The point the Gilligan piece was making is that the world has changed. It's not Boris or "Tory ultras" that will "abandon" the 50,000 new affordable homes target - it's the economy, and it's going to happen whether Dave Hill likes it or not"
and again attacking Dave Hill:
"Nobody outside the ranks of Ken Livingstone supporters would accept your principal commentator, Dave Hill, as "independent". He has repeatedly attacked Johnson, found endless inventive ways to repeat the "racist" slur about him, done his very best to downplay the importance of the LDA grants scandal and made clear his delight at polls showing Ken closing the gap."
And on the Evening Standard:
"Liz Jones hasn't written for the Standard for nearly two years, SuperClive. A good sign that, like so many who condemn the paper, you don't actually read it."
and on Ken Livingstone's radio show:
"Dave Hill's famously unbiased reporting has unfortunately omitted to mention the several callers who suggested that Ken was "bitter," that he should stop "slagging off Boris Johnson" and that his mayoralty had "lost its way." As for Ken's claim that Gilligan is obsessed with him, I counted about fifteen mentions of Gilligan. Who, exactly, is the obsessive one here?"
Er, the man counting the mentions of his own name perhaps?
And on your political allegiances:
"Nor will it do to write off everyone who opposes Ken or New Labour as, by definition, a Daily Mail reactionary. If Polly had ever read any of Gilligan's columns, she would see someone writing from a broadly left-wing, if anti-New Labour, perspective"
Or a pro-New Conservative perspective? Or an anti-anti Boris Johnson one? Or a pro-sockpuppeting your critics vibe? Or an anti-responding under your own name slant? Which is it Andrew? Your public deserves to know!