I don't know who Andrew Brown is, and I'll be buggered if I am going to try and find out. But I have just read his ridiculous blog on the Guardian website (so must be lefty rubbish, natch) which asserts that Ann Widdecombe is wholly unsuited to be the British Ambassador to the Vatican because, er, he doesn't really like her. You would never catch me doing a piece based around my personal opinion of someone, and certainly not about either Diane Abbott and Harriet Harman over the last couple of weeks.
Personally I can think of no one better for the position, and if it offered to her I hope she accepts, so I don't have to continue pimping her out around the theatres of the UK.
You see, Andrew Brown doesn't think Ann Widdecombe can be a diplomat because, er, she tends to say what she thinks. As if that were a fault. I have always found it a positive boon.
I feel in the mood for a fisk... you know, where I go through someone's piece and dissect it wth my own snidery. Which in turn could then be pulled apart by someone else, whose observations could also be critiqued and so on and so on ad nauseum.
But it is a tricky area analysing someone's piece line by line to expose its weaknesses and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do it to me. The risk is that it ends up being an exercise in parodying self parody that could create a satire spoof vortex that might break my blog post.