<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Littlewood and the Westminster Hour</title>
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/</link>
	<description>crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Top of the Blogs: The Golden Dozen #36 &#124; Liberal Democrat Voice</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-97804</link>
		<dc:creator>Top of the Blogs: The Golden Dozen #36 &#124; Liberal Democrat Voice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-97804</guid>
		<description>[...] Littlewood and the Westminster Hour on James Graham’s Quaequam Blog! Perhaps only the Lib Dems’ Bruiser Blogger of the Year could [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Littlewood and the Westminster Hour on James Graham’s Quaequam Blog! Perhaps only the Lib Dems’ Bruiser Blogger of the Year could [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96898</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96898</guid>
		<description>John: that's great if the only thing you want your party leader to have to say is that he once appeared in a play with Helena Bonham-Carter.  If you want politics to actually be about something on the other hand...

Rob: I fear you may have a point, although I would maintain that one of the main reasons that Huhne did as well as he did last time was down to the momentum created on the WWW.  It may not have directly effected that many votes, but it influenced the media and created word of mouth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John: that&#8217;s great if the only thing you want your party leader to have to say is that he once appeared in a play with Helena Bonham-Carter.  If you want politics to actually be about something on the other hand&#8230;</p>
<p>Rob: I fear you may have a point, although I would maintain that one of the main reasons that Huhne did as well as he did last time was down to the momentum created on the <a href="http://WWW." rel="nofollow">WWW.</a>  It may not have directly effected that many votes, but it influenced the media and created word of mouth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob F</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96835</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob F</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96835</guid>
		<description>"(sort your bloody website out!)"

I'm starting to think he shouldn't if he wants to win.  He's got the majority of the Parliamentary Party behind him, striding through their constituencies saying "Clegg, has to be Clegg, Clegg's the man, vote Clegg"... same with numerous PPCs from what I hear... looking at it objectively, I'd say that extending his web site further carries more potential risks than benefits. (It's an easy source of knocking-copy for journalists).

Send a few e-mails with the data they've gathered, make sure everyone knows how to vote... skip the YouTube guff, and they can still bag the election. I think there's very little evidence that the web sites last time round influenced the vote significantly, and that was when you had a 'battle of the webmasters' with Martin Tod thrashing me, and me desperately trying not to be thrashed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;(sort your bloody website out!)&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m starting to think he shouldn&#8217;t if he wants to win.  He&#8217;s got the majority of the Parliamentary Party behind him, striding through their constituencies saying &#8220;Clegg, has to be Clegg, Clegg&#8217;s the man, vote Clegg&#8221;&#8230; same with numerous PPCs from what I hear&#8230; looking at it objectively, I&#8217;d say that extending his web site further carries more potential risks than benefits. (It&#8217;s an easy source of knocking-copy for journalists).</p>
<p>Send a few e-mails with the data they&#8217;ve gathered, make sure everyone knows how to vote&#8230; skip the YouTube guff, and they can still bag the election. I think there&#8217;s very little evidence that the web sites last time round influenced the vote significantly, and that was when you had a &#8216;battle of the webmasters&#8217; with Martin Tod thrashing me, and me desperately trying not to be thrashed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96825</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/22/littlewood-and-the-westminster-hour/#comment-96825</guid>
		<description>`Bottom line: you only need to flick through the Sunday papers to realise what an effective job Nick Clegg has done to sell himself to the media. But at the same time, you only need to flick through half a dozen random policy papers to realise to what degree Chris Huhne has dominated much of our policy-making agenda`.

That's enough to make anyone think! 

Now let's see - we have one man that can effectively get himself in the sunday papers which millions of people read - or another that gets himself into random policy papers which a 1000 or so people read. Hmm, tough call!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>`Bottom line: you only need to flick through the Sunday papers to realise what an effective job Nick Clegg has done to sell himself to the media. But at the same time, you only need to flick through half a dozen random policy papers to realise to what degree Chris Huhne has dominated much of our policy-making agenda`.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s enough to make anyone think! </p>
<p>Now let&#8217;s see - we have one man that can effectively get himself in the sunday papers which millions of people read - or another that gets himself into random policy papers which a 1000 or so people read. Hmm, tough call!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
