MadNad Dorries excelled herself in the drivel stakes today. Observe this post. The tone is set by the opening line, informing us that “it has not been a nice weekend.” Now, jump on board for the “Help! I’m under attack by hordes of bitter lefties, and couldn’t possibly be wrong” express which became so familiar over the course of the HFE debates…

The frenzied attack against Conservative MPs and MEPs, orchestrated by and emanating from the left wing BBC and press has equalled that of an animal in its death throes. The more terminal the position looks for Labour, the more desperate the BBC and the left wing press become.

It’s an achievement to parody oneself in an opening statement, I think. It takes true skill to take your earlier ravings about a grand conspiracy against you and twist them into something even more laughable. Apparently, the BBC, in the very act of reporting important allegations of political corruption, become biased.

And it is reportage, rather than story-breaking: Guido was the first to dish the dirt on the MEPs. And he so typifies the “left-wing bias” of the press and media, doesn’t he? Not that he doesn’t spend half of his time railing against it, not at all…

Onwards, though:

Are we all to believe that Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and MEPs don’t make mistakes or are so different as human beings? I do not condone any misuse of allowance, however what we saw over the weekend was the equivalent of a McCarthy style witch hunt.

Again with the victim-complex, eh? You’d almost think she feared attack herself, and had something to hide…

No-one is pretending that Labour or LibDem MPs haven’t made mistakes - or lied - before. And, guess what? The media reported that too. Let’s have a look at the BBC reports on Peter Hain from earlier in the year: here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere too. That was just the coverage of his resignation, let alone the lead-up to it.

And the BBC reported other Labour funding scandals earlier this year too! Can you imagine that? They even broke their liberal programming (clearly they’re commie robots, you see…) to report on allegations of corruption against Alan Johnson, Wendy Alexander and Harriet Harman. And then there was Lord Levy - and so another story they reported of corruption in the Labour Party.

So - all clear evidence of a dastardly leftist campaign to bring down the Conservatives, by focusing for a weekend on corrupt Tories rather than Lord Levy’s memoirs? No? Well, I’m sure if you wait, Dorries will find the logic for you…

(or not…)

And it’s funny that she should mention Senator McCarthy, while we’re there. The ravingly paranoid, conservative anti-abortion Senator McCarthy, that is…

The attack against Caroline Spelman was particularly sickening.

Surely, her lying in the first place was the sickening part?

To take an MP, who ten years previously sought a meeting with the Chief Whip to query whether or not her arrangements were within the rules, which they obviously were, and then to be vilified before any inquiry has been held in the way the National Press, TV and bloggers have, has been appalling.

So - the arrangements were perfectly within the rules, which was naturally why Spelman ended them shortly after the meeting. Yes. No contradictions there. Not at all…

I note a distinct lack of counter-evidence provided by Ms. Dorries. The arrangements were “obviously” within the rules - and yet Spelman lied about them in her expenses. She hired the woman as a nanny and employed her as such. Occasionally, she answered the phone as she was around the house - so Spelman, rather than legitimately petitioning for nannies to be counted on expenses, took the short cut and put her down as a secretary instead.

So, she lied about who the nanny was. And that’s “obviously” within the rules for Dorries.

Perhaps someone should check her expenses after all…

But wait! First, Dorries wants to provide us with some top-notch, well researched evidence against the claims of her own:

As my postman said, “Ten years ago? Is this news?”

Yes, comrades. Anecdotal evidence is the correct way to respond to allegations of corruption, and not at all unreliable or possibly made up.

Am I pushing the pseudo-naive (attempts at) sarcasm a little too far, do you think?

I hope that when this is sorted, her innocence will be declared by the BBC all day long just as it declared her guilty without proof or substantial investigation on Saturday.

Wait - the testimony of the nanny doesn’t count as proof anymore? Funny, because that’s what sparked this all off…

And now it’s time for some more vague anecdotes:

The week before the vote on abortion, I was contacted by my local press to inform me that that the Labour spokesman for the area had made a complaint about my expenses to the Commissioner for standards.

The complaint was entirely inaccurate, without foundation and thrown out by the Commissioner, but that wasn’t the point. It was made in an attempt to destabilise me during the most important week of my career. Desperate left wing tactics.

Mysteriously, she hasn’t provided any solid proof for this claim. Not, of course, that it constitutes hypocrisy in the light of her demanding solid proof of the allegations against Spelman…

If the left think this kind of behaviour endears them to the public, then I think it simply serves to epitomise how out of touch they are.

If MadNad think this kind of behaviour endears her to the public, then I think it simply serves to epitomise how out of touch she is. Shallow defences of the indefensible rammed home by hypocrisy and ad hominem are just what they expect from politicians these days - along, of course, with the corruption she fails to defend.

The public can see right through this witch hunt, in a way they couldn’t see through cash for peerages.

Wait, was that an admission that the cash for peerages investigation was a witch hunt which tricked the public? I must have misread something…

The incoming Conservative government has many big dragons to slay, the BBC has to be the biggest.

No, Nadine. You’re a greater danger to the Conservative Party than the BBC. You present a challenge to the Nu-Con agitprop which paints the party as a new, socially liberal force. The BBC has never quite managed that. So, if anyone needs to be slain…

EDIT: Just seen this. Maybe she does have something to hide after all…