Following a response by Mark Littlewood on this post, I have been persuaded that the opinions I expressed in the post below were wrong. I do not believe that Mark is motivated to make appearances by the possibility to cause damage to the party, and it was incorrect for me to suggest that his appearances are always critical. I would like to apologise for these comments.
I will not be removing the post or any of the comments it attracted, because I do not believe that it is a healthy or desirable mode of discourse for bloggers to do so when their posts attract criticism.
Just watched last night’s Newsnight, in which Nick Clegg was given a good sneering at by Paxman. Nick did OK, I thought, though he would have done well to get in the point that the constitution was an amalgamtion of Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, etc., and not just Lisbon. Paxman becomes ever more impossible on subjects where he clearly thinks his subjective judgments on things are facts.
But what irked me most was the fact that Mark Littlewood was once again used by a news programme as their “he-used-to-work-for-them-so-if-HE-feels-this-way-it-MUST-mean-something” interviewee. I can’t remember how many times I have now seen him featured on programmes like Newsnight, always making comments critical of the party’s position or strategy. But no matter how many appearances he has made, I cannot ever remember it being pointed out that he left the party under something of a cloud.
Can anybody point me in the direction of a single media intervention he has made since “resigning” from his job which has been helpful to the party?