An inability to learn from experience
seems to be a standard requirement for Tory MPs, particularly when sent out on
defend-the-PM duties. Every time any of them comes up with a new line of
defence which they think to be clever and apt, some quote or action will be
dredged up from the PMs 'colourful' past to undermine the point they are making, yet still they keep trying to do it. And thus it came to pass yesterday that,
within hours of one Cabinet Minister comparing the fixed penalty notice with a
parking fine, someone drew attention to the PM’s
views on parking fines – as in that he accumulated piles of them,
deliberately ignored them, didn’t pay them, and allowed them to disintegrate in
the rain, using a Belgian-registered car as his excuse on the basis that the
local constabulary wouldn’t bother to chase the owner of a foreign vehicle.
Another handy comparison bites the dust, unless the more limited lesson that we’re
supposed to draw is that at least he pays his fines these days. The long arm of the law doesn't seem to be long enough to catch even a self-confessed serial fine dodger.
According to an increasing number of reports, many
Tory MPs have decided to wait until after the May local elections before moving
to depose their leader. The theory behind this is, apparently, that a really bad
set of results will demonstrate that the electors at large want him out and
that will be the trigger for the gutless ones to think about doing something to
remove him. It’s a way of evading any sense of morality or propriety that might
still be lurking somewhere about their personage; it says, in effect, that all the
lawbreaking, the lying, the misleading are entirely acceptable to Tory MPs
up until the point that the electorate demonstrate at the ballot box that they
are no longer acceptable to voters, and thereby threaten the continued
presence of the spineless ones in the distant recesses of the palace of
Westminster. It’s every bit as self-serving and immoral as the PM himself. They
deserve all the opprobrium which is heading their way.
Posts
2 comments:
These days you gets your laughs where you can, so it was delightful to read of some MPs' reported criticisms of the Archbishop of Canterbury for "moralising*", almost as if they're altogether unaware that moralising is a good part of his flippin' job.
*"misguided moralising" is even worse. Who do they think has been misguiding him? [glances anxiously upwards]
Gav,
I fear that you (and the Archbish) might be misunderstanding the role of England's established church. Ultimately, it all boils down to selecting the right preposition. The established church is supposed to preach on behalf of the Establishment, not to it - and especially not at it.
Post a Comment