Virality and Virility
Thanks to Flying Rodent in the comments to the last post.
Oh dear. Let's be charitable. I'll assume that our Nick is joking about the Observer 'viral ad'.
The editor, a kind and caring man, warned me that posters here could sometimes be rather rough.
He didn't warn Nick that they can be almost unbelievably credulous, and culturally philistine. There are 13 comments as I write this. None realise that it's an Armando Iannuci sketch.
I was going to correct FR's observation "Cohen and Bright seems an oddly homogenous pairing" because I was under the impression that Bright has retired. Newp. In that case, the comments do get rather rough, and rightly so.
What is this about? Allow me to feel a little vindicated. I know I predicted somewhere (on here?) around the General Election that when the Tories (specifically Simon Heffer in the Telegraph) turned on David Cameron, it wouldn't be pretty. Heffer and others regard Cameron (wrongly, IMO) as what was called a 'wet' during Thatcher's first term. Not 'one of us'. Deviantly left-wing, and so on.
My guess is that Nick has joined the Spectator because he has form for piling on the Lib-Dems. And the Spectator can fire at the LDs all day long and still claim to be loyal to the Tories. This, then, is another move at undermining the Coalition from the right, because the Coalition isn't sufficiently Thatcherite yet.
Or, I could be paranoid. It's been known.
 But whose name, NC appears to have forgotten. (I consider naming names basic journalism, and academic and blogging practice. But that could just be me.) It's Fraser Nelson, isn't it?