Wednesday 7 January 2009

Remember To Vote For Neil Clark

Here.

Once a day from each computer to which you have access.
Posted by at

26 comments:

  1. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:39

    Surely one should only vote once. Otherwise, the poll is meaningless. Although I suppose it's unavoidably meaningless anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:43

    Why should I vote for Neil Clark, though? His blog isn't very good, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:43

    They have left the option open.

    And the Likud Lobby is clearly going hell for leather in support of Melanie Phillips, so we might as well take the fight to them.

    A national newspaper columnist up for an award like this. It's not fair, really. Even her blog is salaried by The Spectator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:44

    Yes it is, Reece.

    And anyway, he is our man in this fight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:45

    I'm not sure the Likud Lobby is that exercised by, or even aware of, the whole thing.

    Olly's Onions is very good, though - I'll vote for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:46

    I think you'll find, from the showing for Melanie Phillips, that they are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:47

    Clark won last year, thanks to a campaign by Harry's Place, Oliver Kamm and others who thought it would be funny. He utterly failed to spot that he was being made a laughing stock, which made it all the funnier.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:48

    She's got 342 votes as I write this. Not very many, but enough to put her in second. Which lobby is getting the vote out for Created In Birmingham, do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:49

    You can never know that.

    What you can know is that he won.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:50

    Yes, Ines - for about a week, Clark posted about nothing but the blog awards, which by definition meant that his blog, at least for that week, was one of the dullest in the UK. Fun to watch, though

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:50

    so if Melanie Philipps, or anyone on the 'right', wins, that's evidence of a lobby fixing the vote and presumably you'll discount it? But if Neil Clark wins on the basis of your similar campaign, that will be ok?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:51

    You can know that - the campaign was very prominent on the blogs involved.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:53

    "Which lobby is getting the vote out for Created In Birmingham, do you think?"

    His mates, I expect. I had never previously heard of him. Is he a student? I suspect so.

    "Fun to watch, though"

    And successful.

    "so if Melanie Philipps, or anyone on the 'right', wins, that's evidence of a lobby fixing the vote and presumably you'll discount it?"

    If Melanie Phillips, specifically, wins, then, under the present circumstances, we will all know why.

    ReplyDelete
  14. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:54

    But that's all you can know, Innes. And that, in itself, proves nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:54

    His mates? He has a lot of mates, then. Far more than Neil Clark, Melanie Phillips or Iain Dale.

    His blog looks quite good, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 17:55

    If Melanie Phillips, specifically, wins, then, under the present circumstances, we will all know why.

    But if Neil Clark wins, *under the exact same circumstances*, then we'll all know why as well won't we? And the result will be equally meaningless?

    ReplyDelete
  17. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 17:59

    Many people who pay attention to this sort of thing would ordinarily refuse on principle to vote for a national journalist's salaried blog. But not at the moment. Funny, that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 18:02

    "Many people who pay attention to this sort of thing would ordinarily refuse on principle to vote for a national journalist's salaried blog"

    Really? Who would? And why?

    (I'm not voting for Phillips, because I dislike her shrill and ludicrous writings. But I would certainly be prepared in principle to vote for a national journalist's blog, if it were nominated and I thought it was the best nomination. I like the way you slipped in the word "salaried", realising that Neil Clark is also a journalist.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 18:02

    Good to see that you have punctured the self-important "we gave it to him as a joke" crowd.

    They think they own the blogosphere so of course they think that it must have been all down to them.

    In fact though the small turnout would be a humiliation for a "very prominent" campaign by the might Harry's Place and Oliver Kamm. Do they really have that few readers?

    It was also "very prominent" on several blogs like this one that make no bones about having a more select audience. You, The Exile, Martin Meenagh, Neil himself, it was you who won it for him, not the uber-bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 18:05

    "Good to see that you have punctured the self-important "we gave it to him as a joke" crowd."

    But you haven't "punctured" it. You've merely disagreed with it - as one would have expected.

    ReplyDelete
  21. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 18:06

    Howl, there are what might be called blogging fundamentalists, and they would never usually vote for a Fleet Street blog. But they tend to share Phillips's view on the great issue of the present day, so they are clearly making an exception.

    Neil is a freelance who blogs for nowt like the rest of us, whereas Phillips has not only a Daily Mail column, but also a salary from The Spectator to blog for them.

    Jack, spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. David Lindsay7 January 2009 at 18:08

    If anything, Strep, Jack has punctured it.

    Last year's result really was just that - a result - for those of us who blogged in support of Neil because we broadly agree with him.

    But for a major campaign by Kamm and HP, so low a turnout was a humiliation.

    Just as well that we, and not they, delivered the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous7 January 2009 at 20:36

    Last year's result really was just that - a result - for those of us who blogged in support of Neil because we broadly agree with him.

    But for a major campaign by Kamm and HP, so low a turnout was a humiliation.

    But you were both calling for the same thing. The thing you were both calling for, happened. How can it have been a victory for you and a humiliation for them? You were both (at least in pure voting terms) on the same side.

    ReplyDelete
  24. David Lindsay8 January 2009 at 15:27

    Yes, but they think that they are the Lords of the Blogosphere. They ought to be gutted that they can only get so few people out to vote. We, on the other hand, were delighteed, and will be so again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous8 January 2009 at 15:34

    I doubt they were gutted - they got over 1000 votes. Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed kings of the UK blogosphere, Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale, only got about 600 votes each.

    Look, it's either an insignificant contest with a tiny number of voters, or it really matters. You can't have it both ways

    ReplyDelete
  26. David Lindsay8 January 2009 at 15:38

    A thousand? That's it?

    And if you mean the number of people who voted for Neil, I say, again, they certainly weren't all egged on by Kamm or HP, and frankly I doubt that very many of them at all were.

    Not least because, frankly, I doubt that very many more people read them than read Neil's blog anyway. Any figures that they might produce are, after all, only their own.

    But, like Phillips (or, indeed, Iain or Fawkes), they are blogging from the inside. So they matter.

    Don't they?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)