Sunday, 30 May 2010

Stop Praising David Laws.

Please.  Why is everybody praising this person as a paragon.
This is conceivably one of the most deceitful and most abusive scandals ever.
He had a secret lover, who he paid with taxpayers' money. 
He could have kept his privacy but chose to give him your money as well.  As a way to cover it up.
He also gave his lover exorbitant maintenance and council tax payments according to the Telegraph.
Which records show that he reduced when rules were introduced saying that recipts were needed.
This  is proof that his intent was to make petty financial gain.
Yet he persisted.
The expenses scandal must have told him that he was breaking the rules.
His excuse is that he wanted to help his lover buy a flat. - That's not something that taxpayers need to pay a millionaire for to get themselves represented.
Yet he is universally praised.  
He is praised by the leaders of a government who are going to change our broken politics.
There has been no witch hunt.  
No one's been calling for his head.  
He went because the most disgusting deceit has been tried on, and found out. 
Oh, and how does 'we weren't even proper partners' excuse him? 

Monday, 17 May 2010

The blind man's labrador's witness

If the electorate were a Labrador, (a big if, if ever there was one) then it is a guide dog, a gentle and patient pilot to a uncertain political class, feeling its way into dark territory strewn with obstacles and quickly moving forces. The labrador represents the dumb yet not stupid electorate, that can only shove mutely and bark once every five years. The blind person however is confident of its superiority to the labrador and wants to change the result of the election in its favour. The electorate decided that there should not be an overall majority for any party, but a hung parliament, one that should regularly be called to account and have to trim its behaviour to the requirements of its neighbours.  Good doggy.But what the blind person wanted was a proper majority, a stable mandate that would mean it could ignore the concerns of others, and the consequences of the doggy's clear-sighted decision. So it changes the decision, by allocating a higher percentage of votes needed to dissolve the parliament resulting in exactly the opposite of what the doggy ordered. An untouchable majority. The trouble is that the doggy needs a shit now and then (I love metaphors. I can run and run with them.) When it does the blind man has to clear up the mess with a little poo sack, or risk standing in it. The dog will do this because it's a dog, and it poos in public. Whereas a blind man is blind, and has trouble locating and dealing with the poo. To find it he will have to bend over and sniff around, at which point he'll be mistaken for a dog with hilarious consequences, if the the guide dog happens to be on heat. And the blind man is wearing no trousers. Meanwhile, we can all watch in horror and amusement as the public repays the blind man in the wide-eyed gaze of the media. No really. Metaphors come true all the time