Anonymous asked: Do you guys see yourselves as Twitter? 2000 words 4 the blogger, 140 characters for the 'answer'. Leave a constructive url, 'Request denied'. The TRG needs to decide whether it wants a proper, open debate - or just transmit like yet another control-freak arm of contemporary party politics. For the record, I was answering the somewhat ethics-free piece on Freddie 'Britain is closed for business' Goodwin. You may have thought him good at his job: those of us in the real world didn't.

Dear ‘Anonymous’,

Thank you for your question. Unsurprisingly perhaps to most, we do not see ourselves here as Twitter. Neither your subsequent qualification of ‘Twitter’ nor the characteristics of Egremont typify that website.

Naturally we seek debate. The TRG’s very existence as a (non-affiliated) wing of the Conservative party would surely suggest that it condones debate.

Indeed, Egremont explicitly welcomes comments from our readers:

Comments from all readers are welcome. In order to write comments directly below articles you must follow Egremont for a fortnight. Alternatively, anyone can have their say by clicking on ‘Have Your Say’ on the links bar at the top of the page. You may do so anonymously but as renowned political theorist Kim Basinger once said, “you lose your anonymity like a helium balloon on a string.” Go on, let go of the string.

It is regrettable that you did not let go of the string, so to speak, but we are grateful you decided to have your say, which is printed above.

Our reasoning for operating our comments system like this is that the general tone and level of ‘debate’ in the blogosphere tends - with isolated exceptions - towards the ill considered, rather than thoughtful. Visit a large blog such as Guido Fawkes’, ConservativeHome or the like and I hope you will see what we mean, as people ‘contribute’ with comments that can be offensive and unrelated to the post itself.

You will also notice, if you visit the web pages of major newspapers, how under-article comments tend to be marginalised, restricted from view, reduced and generally beyond certain qualifying hurdles. Due prominence is given to the article.

For the record, the blog you refer to concerning Mr Goodwin (‘Why Stop At Mr Fred?’) is a satire. And in the words of literary critic Northrop Frye, “in satire, irony is militant”. Please accept our sincerest apologies if this was not readily apparent to you.

Based on that blog article, you presume we believe that Mr Goodwin was good at his job. I must quote:

In short, Mr Goodwin has had his knighthood stripped from him because he turned out to be catastrophically bad at his job.

Once upon a time, everyone thought he was fantastically good at his job.

That the piece is satirical - in the truest, classical sense - may not have been evidently clear, we grant. That the above quotation informs the reader we believe Mr Goodwin to have been “catastrophically bad” at his job, is on the other hand rather obvious. Even to those in the real world.

Yours sincerely,

Nik Darlington