I take on superman. And issue with his portrait painter.

On cartoonists' political leanings...

Well, you wouldn't want to give the Labour PM a good kicking for political reasons I guess, especially if you are 'left of centre'.

Here's me thinking satire was aimed at all bubbles that need pricking, but now I understand that dogma over-rides professional pride.

DC should of course get some stick, too, and deserves all he does, if well-targeted and funny. As it is here.

But glad you are not 'saying' GB is a a superhero, because that is what most of the Westminster Useful Idiot Village still is trying to claim (and somewhat at odds with those outside the bubble IMHO), so I wonder what you have drawn him as then?

I guess at least he is not flying but running. Frankly a crumpled mess at the phonebooth threshold would have seemed more appropriate.

Must just be my personal leanings showing through, as a taxpayer saddled with more debt and the promise of a ton of tax pain. Mind you, I also think that image would have been funnier, and more accurate, too.

Addendum (as he kindly replied):

I appreciate the reply; few originating posters do. And considering the 'head above parapet nature' of the situation that is often understandable if not very noble. I think you must have known what the reaction to the above may have been.

Speech is free. Or, in this case, a cartoon as well.

However, I think many (certainly myself) are getting a little tired with blatant personal or corporate agenda creeping in at every turn with so-called objective news media.

Hey, you can say what you like and the Telegraph can publish what it likes, as at least I can opt not to buy the paper or cease to provide the fuel of a click through. The choice is still there.

Though perhaps more honest than most, I guess I was just disappointed at what seemed a clear statement that whatever else your political affiliations meant that you would be giving our current Prime Minster a clear, or at least easy, ride, politically.

I also see this with some columnists' coverage of the US election, which have gone beyond partisan to parody.

Humour is a subtle, but effective tool. But then I look at such as this, from the BBC's Nick Robinson, which I do hope was meant to be tongue in cheek (but after his less than special outings in such as 'Have I Got News For You' who can tell?):

'...What's more, Gordon Brown, fresh from taking the plaudits for saving the world's financial system, is busy laying a new trap for the Tories. He's pledging to carry on spending and borrowing in the downturn...'

It might play well to the gallery of the Westminster Useful Village Idiots, but as one at the sharp end of what I consider (non-party politically) one of history's most woeful party/leader combos it is not that funny or a 'game' for the delight of the chatterati, with overt support seeded in at any turn reflecting poorly on professional standards.

Whether it's funny or not will always be subjective. But as to whether it is honest is another matter.

I now know where you stand, no matter what. and will in future have to view any future efforts in this light. For a political commentator that, I regret to say, reduces the value of output in my eyes considerably.