...a blog by Richard Flowers

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Day 1955: Sir Mr the Merciless Strikes Back!


Ordinary QUESTIONABLE TIME was supposed to come from Belfast this week but that was cancelled in favour of a SPECIAL EDITION from London.

At first we thought that this was because Mr DIMBLEDUM had refused to get on the EASY JET to Belfast, but no, it turned out that it was because of the LOCAL ELECTIONS last week and the events at the court of Lord Blairimort that were too exiting to let go past without a good GOSSIP!

(What a shame that the LOCAL ELECTIONS came as such a surprise to us all, or Mr Dimbledum could have planned for this in advance!)

It was jolly good too because it starred Liberal Democrat leader Sir Mr the Merciless along with one-time Conservatory big beast Lord Tarzan of Hessleswine. In keeping with the theory that Lord Blairimort only promotes people who will cover his bottom on television, newly elevated chief-chicken Mrs Hazel Blears was there to do her "I'm so disappointed with you all" look whenever someone was critical of the Labour. Also Piers Fletcher-Dervish who I THINK used to be an idiot on the telly.

We thought that it went VERY WELL for Sir Mr the Merciless. Mainly because he was being Merciless.

We already know that people see Sir Mr the Merciless as TRUSTWORTHY, but it is good to see him being a good PROSECUTOR as well. It is important that he has the right QUESTIONS with which to focus the debate onto the crucial area: WHAT is the government doing? IS IT what people want them to do? ARE they doing it right? SHOULD they even be doing it at all?

Even better is when he can say: why are they not doing THIS instead?

I have written down the questions and tried to remember some of his answers:

Question One: Blair has made his cabinet ministers pay for mistakes they have made. What makes him so invincible or unwilling to pay for his mistakes?

Asked by Mr Dimbledum how long Lord Blairimort can last: He'll go in 12 months on the day of his 10th anniversary in Downing Street – or the day after since that would be the day of the local elections.

Question Two: Is it right that a man past retirement age with a title but no job should continue to enjoy two free houses, £133,000 salary and a couple of Jags?

If John Prescot were to be sacked there would have to be an election for the post of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and if there is an election for Deputy Leader how much greater the chance of there having to be an election for the post of Leader of the Labour Party. John Prescott remains there as protection for the Prime Minister, but paid for out of public money – that's your taxes and mine. And I object to that.

Question Three: Does the lack of any clear Tory identity or policies mean that a Labour government will be in power beyond the next general election?

Here's what I say to Mr Cameron: "Where's the beef?" (Eek! That's what I said!) The environment is too important to wait for eighteen months for Mr Cameron's ideas; here are the Liberal Democrat policies…

Question Four: The wrong intelligence led to the Iraq war and intelligence services sadly failed on 7/7. What is the answer?

There should be a public inquiry – just as in America they had a full, open inquiry in Congress and the Senate – so that people can have confidence that the government is fulfilling its first duty: to protect the people

Question Five: Is the hijacking of planes a legitimate means of gaining permanent status in the UK?

A very good answer: of course we should give human rights to these hijackers, even if that makes me unpopular with some members of this audience.

We should be able to rely upon the judicial system to get it right, and not make mistakes that get cases thrown out, and then punish people in the proper way for the hijacking, but after that process is over and quite separately we should then consider whether it would violate their human rights if we were to return them to Afghanistan.

What we need to remember is that human rights are there to protect all of us, and you never know when you or your family or friends might need them.

The other panellists were MUCH less impressive.

In fact, during the first question, Lord Hessleswine became very CONFUSED and forgot who was who in the Cabinet. (Daddy Alex said that if they treated him the same as they treated Mr Charles CK1 then the media would use the clip over and over to try and imply Lord Hessleswine was DRUNK! I bet that they don't!)

And we were a BIT worried that Mrs Blears has started to talk a bit like the MINISTER FOR MAGICAL ACCIDENTS.

I wonder if this, this and this might be the explanation!

Mrs Blears made one man in the audience VERY CROSS (and my Daddy Richard too) when she was saying that the horrible TERRORISM in London last July had been nothing to do with INVADING IRAQ. "You sit there and say that you listen to the people," shouted the audience man, "but a million people marched to say no to the war and you didn't listen then!" Mrs Blears gave him her I-pity-you-for-being-a-pleb look and said the issue was too complicated for him to understand. This made Daddy Richard shout a LOT of things at the television but I do not think I can write any of them down. Except maybe "…PATRONISING…!!!!".

Yesterday, Mr Mike Smithson of POLITICAL STIRRING DOT COM hazarded a salvo against Sir Mr the Merciless followed (uncannily) by this editorial in the INDEPENDENT.

I think people are saying this because Sir Mr the Merciless has been a bit bad at Prime Minister's Questions a few times. He needs to spend summer practicing it a bit and get some better helpers for his preparation. But it really does not matter. King Paddy of Bosnia was not much good at it either and that did not matter then. Mr William Vague was very good at it and he still crashed and burned in the real world.

The ONLY person for whom it MATTERED was Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve because he was rubbish OUTSIDE the House of Commons AS WELL AS in it. If he had kept his Conservatory troops happy at PMQs they MIGHT not have all stabbed him in the back when they did. But they probably would have anyway!

The important thing, then, is that Sir Mr the Merciless is making sure that the party in parliament are all well organised and happy and feel that they can talk to their supreme leader and that he is listening to them. Since they are Liberals getting them all singing from the same hymn sheet is harder that HERDING CATS. And besides, we have heard them sing at GLEE CLUB!

It seems to ME that too many people are listening to the Conservatories when they keep BRAYING ON about how Sir Mr the Merciless is OLD. Oddly enough, the Conservatories have an AGENDA when they say this, and it may shock you to learn that it is NOT that they have the BEST INTERESTS of the Liberal Democrats in mind.

Far be it for me to suggest that they FIB, but really!

Sir Mr the Merciless has SENIORITY and WISDOM and GRAVITAS and RESPECT in BUCKETS compared to the new leader that the Conservatories have chosen. Mr Balloon has not demonstrated that he is good for ANYTHING yet apart from SOFT FOCUS PHOTOGRAPHY and picking up HUSKY-DOG DOO-DOO. "Newness" is all that he has so OF COURSE the Conservatories keep going on about how everyone else is OLD.

If Mr Balloon's "newness" is so jolly good – why did the Conservatories not put HIM or one of his "new" CHUMS on this SPECIAL-EDITION LORD-BLAIRIMORT-IN-CRISIS Questionable Time?

Here is my advice for today: Liberal Democrats should not try to SPIN. We are not any good at it and it does not do us any good anyway.

Stick to saying what we think to people's faces.


Rob F said...

Interesting how people see things differently - I thought Ming was utterly crap on Question Time, and his constant facial twitches made me concerned he was developing Parkinsons.

On the other hand, I thought he was excellent on the Politics Show today. What was it Ming used to say about people (ie CK) having "good days and bad days"?

MatGB said...

Well, not be a TV watcher, I can't comment on how well Ming did, but am pretty sure that Millenium is right.

What is it witht he media these days that they have to constantly create leadership crises? They all wanted Huhne to win, or they don't want Ming/LDs to do well?