Does everyone just feel obliged to speak up when a Booker Prize-winning novelist disparages a PM, or when a PM answers back?
Aren’t they both entitled to talk?
Did any of the commentariat really have something to say? Or did they just feel the need to open their mouth -- and had no other target, or targets, on which to lash their tongue?
So those opposed to the PM targeted the prize-winner. And those in his favour targeted her. And no-one in the end was any the wiser about anything much at all, least of all about any of the subjects raised by the prize-winner, or in the PM’s response, because no-one was really listening very much at all.
This, by the way, is what is now called “debate” here in little old EnZed.
UPDATE: Eric got there first: “That so many got so riled up over this whole thing... I guess the summer stupid season isn't over yet. Wasn't there a state-of-the-nation address on or something that people should have been paying attention to?”