Charles Moore begins his article of today - endorsing David Cameron - with this paragraph:
"Call me new-fashioned, but I was disappointed when I logged on to the websites of David Davis and David Cameron at 9am yesterday to find that neither had yet posted anything about the BBC debate between the two candidates the night before. Shouldn't each David have been claiming victory, looking for momentum, calling for further debates? It was a bit 20th century to have to wait for the newspapers to get the reaction."
Someone needs to tell Mr Moore about this blog! The 21st century
bloggers produced 2,164 hits on this site from 10.35pm on Thursday
until 2am on Friday morning. We haven't quite rivalled QT's 2.5m
viewers but you have to start somewhere.
Mr Moore is right, however, to note the inadequacy of the campaign websites. DC's website (although the most attractive and comprehensive of all the sites) still doesn't mention the debate - it has gone as quiet as DD's campaign blog went during the Blackpool conference. A six day silence on the DD campaign blog was then blamed on technical difficulties.
If Charles Moore was to visit DD's revamped site today he would discover that the site now offers a lot of stuff about QT (see here (plus here and here and here and here and here on the campaign blog)).
Go to Liam Fox's site and
you wouldn't know that the great doctor had been eliminated from the
race. Chris Grayling's talking head (hero of last week's De-Blunketting) is still there making the case for Liam. Ken Clarke's
site does acknowledge that their man has lost. In the right-hand
margin this appears:
"Thank you for your support over the last few months. The website will remain up and running until mid-November should you wish to access any information."
Peter Oborne still appears at the top of the site, however, arguing that Ken Clarke's candidacy has "collapsed his rivals". Not quite, Peter!
For those still wanting to vote for Mr Clarke there's a campaign to write him onto the ballot paper. For those unsure who to support you might like to visit the Who Should You Vote For? site. I thought the questions it asked were too narrow to be useful but it's harmless fun.