To blog or not to blog? The answer must be yes
She wonders whether she should take one of the three courses of action:
1. Vanilla entries that offend no-one (but which maybe no-one reads? Would you still come if there was never anything remotely controversial?)
2. Anonymous blogging (and just hope to heaven that no-one finds out who wrote it, because they always do in the end you know, you have been warned!)
3. Keep on keepin' on, but try harder to steer away from the ice-bergs.
I know many people read her blog, in fact I spoke to one prominent Lib Dem today who confessed he's a regular reader, and would be disappointed to see it go.
After she was dispatched from the Labour front bench I wrote that I hoped the episode would not put her or others off from blogging, and I stick to that. My view is that she and others should take option three.
But she also identifies the warning sign of the "heady" feeling she gets by posting a blog entry. I suppose its like all things in life, just make sure you don't lose your head, get carried away and start throwing insults around. Get angry by all means, but don't lose it.
Essentially blogging is, and should be seen as, an extension of the council chamber or political leaflets. My advice would be - don't say anything in a blog that you would not say in the council chamber or write on a leaflet.
As a journalist I adopt a similar stance to make sure I stay on the right side of libel laws - don't write anything here on DSB that the editor would not allow in the paper. And as always I will continue to bang the drum for political blogging.