One driver, or two?

In reply to:

Why ministers must never upset their drivers

And a few other political revelations, I have rather let fly:

I'd say that Ministers, and those that consort with them, might still be better advised not to upset a rather larger, and more critical collection of folk: the electorate.

Looking at the latest revelations, that doesn't seem too likely.

It's no wonder these guys are so keen to avoid paying tax to the state; they have first hand knowledge of how such money is squandered... hourly.

I'd be keen to know what this latest new job creation scheme was going to save... or cost the taxpayer.

Though it does pass through one's mind as to the calibre of Dom Jolyesque train-traveling, mobile-spouting, laptop-leaving numpties we entrust the competent governance of this country to who would ignore the compromises to self and national security of blabbing in the back seat in front of relatively junior civil servants, no matter how well cleared.

And...

Sorry to single out but one of many, but having seen the much-vaunted HoC FOI blacked-out 'releases', I suggest they are about as much use as, and hence can simply be shredded and used as just so much kitty litter.

Mind you, whilst the WUVis get excited on the inability to detect 'flipping', which is indeed as serious (if 'nuffink wrong') as it gets, as one just flashed by I am getting to grips with just how clean these guys homes must be for all we have been taken to their cleaners for.

How 'clean' they are as public servants... is another matter.

Vine and chums

If Jeremy Vine's 'show' gets preserved, do try and catch today's, as I did driving back from a meeting.

First up we had what I call 'The Newsnight Twofer' (seems to apply here too) , where two extremes are brought in to comment, on this occasion on the latest expenses scam... er.. diversion.

I am not up to speed on the facts, but it seems taken as read there is someone leaking, though I have yet to find out where this originated. Oddly, no news reporters seem too concerned about that.

So we get some ex-Sun type, now a commercial London station DJ, basically in full 'geezer' mode. And in calm rebuttal, we have... a Guardian political commentator. Hey, balance! Thing is I was with the Guardian guy most of the way until he 'suggested' that it 'may' have been leaked by a Tory mole.

Er... at their distracting best, I thought the BBC, via its tame, carefully-selected invitees, were just try to push the £300k greed angle? Now it's a Tory plot? What the heck?!!!!

And while I think that touting for money does weaken our 'hero's' (I don't see the person, if they exist, as anything like that) case, there are a few points that came up that seemed not to get mentioned.

First, our Jezza and his mate from the Grauniad were pretty keen on the 'Why now when it was all coming out later?'. Er... with the state of our government these days, I imagine most that would have come out was going to be accidentally shredded waaay before Dear Leader's new deadline. Also, and this is no excuse, what are the prospects for an honest whistleblower? I say fired and stripped of pension at best. So £300k doesn't seem too bad really as compo for exposing the sick, hypocritical farce that is our government.

Speaking of which, we then get that paragon of fiscal probity and moral rectitude, ex-DPM Prescott on to pitch his book... um... discuss his inspirational relationship with his protege and poster child for the Labour revolution.... assault your teachers, get expelled, meet a 'celeb' pol given airtime, 'stay in touch', get a job, get knocked up ('...it were after I met John,' she confirms, sparing us a mental image too far. I guess we'll have to hark back to his secretary for word on his advice on contraception to those he mentors), leave job, stay in touch... and get touted as inspirational for being a bit miffed she hasn't be shoved up the benefits register further by now. But... she does want to be a lawyer. Bless.

Even Mr. Vine and almost all his callers were having trouble keeping that load of b*llsh*t down. Though one was accused by Mr. Prescott, of being a Tory troll (rhymes with 'mole'). If I were them I would sue the S.L.O.B (Senior Labour Outdated Bruiser) for libel. And the BBC and Mr. Vine for letting such a thing pass as a defence at their expense. Just because most folk are heartily sick of the sordid lot of them, the results of their failed experiments, and feel moved to comment, does not make all of us Tories. Though to the BBC, anyone not Labour must deafault this way.

But I am sure the Tristrams are delighted with the result, and ratings, but if called to account on Newswatch at dawn this weekend will grumpily assert that it was the public's right to be kept informed on senior Labour Party thinking and the aspirations of their voting, grateful, democratic power base, innit?

DD getting cancelled very soon. Anyone know what happened to Charles Moore?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Physician, heal thyself

BBC stars 'in breach of rules by earning thousands of pounds on the public-speaking circuit'

Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'This appears to be a clear breach of the BBC's guidelines.' How does a clear breach 'appear'?

A BBC spokesman said: 'It is for the BBC to be the interpreter of its own rules,'

Yeah, that'll work.

'I've done nothing wrong'

As readers may know, I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters.

They are usually notable for the subtle twist in meanings often to be found, as here, to the extent of being 180 degrees the opposite of what is usually suggested by the term.

I think this one has to go in now.

I think what was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not.

Newsnight
Newsnight
BBC - Nick Robinson

BBC - McNulty defends expenses claims - I am sure he does. Interesting way of headlining it. I wonder if other media will be so... forgiving, or offer so much balanced 'context' on other historical breaches?

BBC - Andrew Marr - I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters. I think this one has to go in now: 'I've done nothing wrong'. What was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not. However, having just watched Andrew interview one of our best banking regulation brains, 'I'l/(We'll) have to look into that,' runs a good second, especially when looking into stuff for the last decade hasn't been exactly been... thorough. Still, nice to know the PM 'likes everything'. All things to all people might seem sensible political populism, but perhaps not such great leadership.

ps: is this response feature no longer active? It seems not to be updated.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty claims £60,000 expenses on his parents' home

Order-Order - McNulty Should Pay Back His Fiddle

Guardian - Tony McNulty faces call for inquiry over £60,000 allowances - Nothing like an 'urge', combined with some 'discomfort', to really get the wheels moving. NOT.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty's expenses fiddle raises questions over ministerial position