?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The view from the bottom of the pile.


In the last post, I said it's what the public sees that counts. It's not what's true or what's right that matters, but public perception of what's right and what's true. They are not always the same thing.

Dai Cameroid has realised this, I think. He's stated, in public and in definite terms rarely heard from any politician these days, that any Tory MP who doesn't pay back the expenses they're required to pay back will be sacked.

Labour MPs are resisting paying the money back because they claimed it within the rules and their claims were approved. That's true. They were working within the rules, but they wrote the rules and we all know it. Many claims, from all parties, were immoral even if they were within a particular set of rules.

It's interesting that the Brown Gorgon's insistence that they pay back the money anyway is seen as likely to force a leadership challenge. Nobody challenged him when he said he planned to load all single teenage mothers onto trucks and ship them off to the workhouse. Nobody challenged him over selling off our gold at rock bottom prices, a plan he intends to repeat by selling off assets in a recession. Yet when he tells them they need to restore public confidence and that it doesn't matter whether they were right or wrong, they must bite the bullet and get the voters back on side, they rebel and start legal proceedings which will cost more than they owe in order to keep their cash.

Brown Gorgon 'gets it'. He's realised that the public will not let this matter drop and that fighting it will only make his party's position worse. The Cameroid gets it too. The difference is, the Cameroid has taken a strong leadership stance with 'Pay it back or get out', while the Gorgon's stance comes over as 'Oh, please, go on, pay it back, don't be mean about it'.

I'm sure the Tory troughers are muttering dark things into their gin and tonics, but they are faced with a leader who has made public his intention to sack them if they rebel. Labour have formed their wagons into a circle around the trough and plan to keep it, no matter what their leader says.

If those Labour MPs do decide to challenge this through the courts, it'll still be going on at the next election. The Tory troughing will have been largely forgotten and forgiven if they all pay it back. If one or two refuse and Dai Cameroid sacks them, that will look even better to the public. The Labour troughing will still be in the news, and it won't be good news.

There are so many nails in Labour's coffin now, there's barely room for the corpse.
wordpress blog stats

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
ext_170298
13th Oct, 2009 12:10 (UTC)
Another great post
There are so many nails in Labour's coffin now, there's barely room for the corpse.

Wonderful line! With your permission I may quote you.
leg_iron
13th Oct, 2009 23:46 (UTC)
Re: Another great post
Quote anything. No charge ;)
(Anonymous)
13th Oct, 2009 13:54 (UTC)
You are a nice man, but you don't understand this strong leadership thing. Cameron isn't being a strong leader; he's making the same mistake he made earlier. The correct method:

Before the story even gets running, find the very first whinger - make sure you chose the right one, somebody expendable, somebody who was only going to be a pain in the nuts anyway - then, before they even know who has hit them, get the constituency party on the blower and tell them that you are removing the whip this very minute before scumbag takes everyone down with them.

Tell them you intend to live with the minor inconvenience of a bitching back bencher, but that you'd rather lose the whole constituency than back down on this. They are to deselect the candidate and find someone else they can live with, because the voters deserve someone who plays fair. The Conservatives sniff power at the moment and don't want to go outside the traces. Think of it like cutting off one limping husky so the rest of the sled can travel faster. Mush - remember Cameron's pictures from the arctic?

Then display the bloody corpse, pour encourager les autres. You can bet that any remaining whimpering will stop pronto (Widdecombe excepted), and let it be known that confidentiality be damned, you'll be checking with the fees office that every last farthing is going back because no way is some two-bit chiselling duck-houser going to be allowed to take Our Great Party down with their tuppenny-hap'ney scams. (Ignore any inconsistencies regarding wisteria and chimneys).

Refuse to comment further publicly, but let Sources Close to Cameron confirm that he regrets his previous concilliatory stance over the Spelman cheating. Empathy with a working mother was clearly mistaken for being and easy touch. I'm sure everyone remembers it was a difficult time for him and his personal grief may, perhaps, have led him to insufficiently consider that ripping off the taxpayer means ripping off a child somewhere. Live and learn; she's a lucky, lucky girl. He blames himself, really, he allowed friendship to cloud his judgment.

I doubt very much if he'd have to sacrifice more than one of them, and Widdecombe is going anyway so she'll just have to be endured, but still call her and tell her she can forget any idea of being Ambassador to the Vatican unless she shuts her trap right this minute.

See, that's how you have to do it. Talk like Mr Barrowclough, act like Mr Mackay

I 'ad that Joseph Stalin in the back 'o the cab once.
Woman on a Raft
leg_iron
13th Oct, 2009 23:54 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, but no leader in our political system has the guts to do it. Perhaps I should have phrased it 'relatively' strong.

The papers say both the Gorgon and Tefal are going to be tough on their parties. What they quote is:

When asked if he would withdraw the whip from MPs who refuse to pay, the Gorgons said 'We would have to consider that'.

Whereas Used Car Salesman Dave said - 'If they don't follow the ruling, they cannot be Tory MPs.'

One comes over as 'Well, maybe' and the other comes over as 'Definitely'. Which is the best we can expect, I think.

I see from Guido's blog that the Tory and Labour troughers are united in an effort to save their own skins. Pity they can't unite to save ours.

Soon, Dave and the Gorgon's words will be put to the test. We'll see who means what they say.

In the meantime, I have around eight months to think up some good names to call the Cameroid Cabinet. Dave doesn't have anything to match the Brown Gorgon, Hideous Harman or the Moribund Brothers... yet.
(Anonymous)
14th Oct, 2009 11:48 (UTC)
If only.
There have only been two Tory leaders in the last 30 years or so who would have had the bottle and political courage to do such.

One was the Iron Lady; the other was Francis Urquhart. ;)
(Anonymous)
15th Oct, 2009 17:11 (UTC)
Excellent. Post and comments.
That Labour,nail,coffin is a keeper.

BQMP
(Anonymous)
13th Oct, 2009 18:17 (UTC)
I don't buy this line that they claimed within the rules and Sir Thom's criteria are new ones.

His criteria were, I believe, that the expenses had to be "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of acting as MP and the expenses had to be "above reproach". Both of these have been the guidlines for some time.

Although Labour MPs should be the last ones to complain about retrospective legislation (RFL anyone?) this is not the case here.

Some are using the weasel words "retrospective investigation"; ironically these people are better than the outright liars, but it's better to be investigated retrospectively than the alternative of being investigated "proactively" i.e. before the crime has been committed although, again, Labour MPs should be the last to complain.
leg_iron
13th Oct, 2009 23:58 (UTC)
They can't complain about retrospective legislation. They invented it.

I havem't seen the rules for myself, so you might be right that they did break existing rules. More likely they simply amended the rules to suit as they went along. Oops, broke a rule. Better change it (retrospectively) before anyone notices.

If they hadn't been caught, they'd have gone further and we'd be paying to employ their relatives and house their entire families.

Oh wait...
(Anonymous)
14th Oct, 2009 10:57 (UTC)
Retrospective legislation
"Although Labour MPs should be the last ones to complain about retrospective legislation (RFL anyone?) this is not the case here."

Well spotted, its OK for them to ass rape us if we made a previous choice to buy a big car (but dont perhaps do many miles a year), but as soon as it applies to them, they start squealing.

And I do hope the forehead sticks to his guns and sacks any who dont comply.
(Anonymous)
15th Oct, 2009 08:11 (UTC)
Machiavellianism
You've hit the nail on the head re:

"It's not what's true or what's right that matters, but public perception of what's right and what's true."

I believe it's called "Machiavellianism" or in other words doing the utmost evil for the smallest good and never really bothering to address matters that really......matter as they become less and less of an issue and your desire to do greater wrong increase exponentially to your lack of desire in doing right.

That attitude along with many other toxic spurges of Righteous uber-thought are excellently exposed in a book that even before I read this post I was thinking of recommending you - "Ten Books that screwed up the world and 5 that didn't help" by Benjamin Wiker.

It pretty much explains the pompous, pseudo-intellectual ethos that has enabled the Righteous of either policitcal pole (if you believe such a spectrum to exist anymore, or ever for that matter)to rise to their current position of redundant, self agrandising "politics".

The Righteous have probably burned every copy they can get their hands on (so theres probs no cpoies in the UK at least) as it chronicles their insidious nature and (lack of) "belief system" too well.

Well at least I think from what I read of your opinion you will enjoy it.

Peace, Whom?
ext_174734
15th Oct, 2009 09:26 (UTC)
troughpiggers
I would not bank on ZanuLieBorg losing the next election. they are socialists, which is to say: they ubderstand what democracy entails and how to subvert it by stuffing ballot-boxes, and by "managing postal votes". Especially in their Rotten and Pocket boroughs, of which they have a lot.

If they should be defeated, the main task for day-1 of an incoming administration should be to, for example, integrate the 2,113 inner-Newcastle "seats" at Westminster, and the 4,306 London ones, into just two, which will then have about 100,000 electors each on their rolls. These will then approximate in size to the average rural (which is to say, Tory) constituency.

If the "students" in these places come out rioting, they can be gassed. Their very appearance in regard to this particular matter will validate my hypotheses about why ther are where they are, who has encouraged them, and who is put in to "teach" them.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )