Friday, March 17, 2006

Lord Sane?

Dear Tony Blair,

Please find enclosed a cheque for £1.37. Consider it a loan to the party, if you get my drift. Nudge nudge, wink wink, etc.

Obviously - other than a competitive rate of interest - I don’t expect anything in return. Nope, not a thing.

*coughs*

Mind you, I’ve always been quite partial to the feel of red leather. If you get my drift. I hear the House of Lords has plenty of red leather seats. And I’ve always seen myself as nobility. Lord Sane has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?

Anyway, no pressure.

All the best (I think you’re going to need it),
Citizen Sane

P.S. If you’d properly reformed the House of Lords you wouldn’t be having this controversy now. We’d elect members of the upper chamber, not handpick them. Just a thought.

8 comments:

ph said...

Oh the joy, the pure unbounded joy of New Labour hypocrites being outed.
I well remember the mid nineties when every morning a stream of New Labour acolites would tramp through the Today studios, where egged on and encouraged by the presenters would chant 'Tory Sleaze, Tory Sleaze'.
Now it seems like the current crop make the Tories look like rank amateurs in the pedling of sleaze.
When the Tories were at it, we had a number of unheard of, non-entities fingered for sleaze, but with the New Labour, sleaze seems to be common in the upper echelons of the party.
Personally I have always had the deepest unease about Blair and his acolites, I was just amazed that the rest of the electorate was (and is) so stupid.

Citizen Sane said...

ph 'happy' shock!

The nature of politicians and the nature of politics ensures there will always be sleaze. It isn't subject to the party the belong to: that doesn't make any difference.

But the Tory 'sleaze' cases being unheard of non-entities? Err, no. Neil Hamilton, Joanathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer all spring to mind. All publicly recognised politicians. All guilty as hell.

ph said...

Neil hamilton - a non entity promoted by Labour when sleaze aligations broke.
Aitken - got someone to pay for a hotel room did he not
Archer - walter mitty

The difference between the Tories and labour is that in Labour it institutionalised corrpution and lieing, whilst with the Tories it was individual corruption.
I would also say that the party you belong to makes a very big difference. The labour party used their sactimonious holiness to get into power so the fact that they are so corrupt makes it a bigger beytrayal. Of course they will always be sleaze but when you stand as Prime Minister for the whiter than white party you shoul disist from corruptioin and deceit.
I am still happy - but I still reckon Blair will be the next P.M. with a comfortable majority.

Echoes of Reason said...

Mr. Sane, it's been too long. I believe you'd remember me as Konservative Jay...If not, allow me to introduce myself. I'm starting a new blog with a few friends of mine, and I'd love it if we could exchange links.

-Jay

Citizen Sane said...

Howdy stranger! I do indeed remember you and our many, many exchanges. Often wondered where the hell you got to actually. Good to see you back and blogging again. Rest assured I'll be visiting your blog and commenting where appropriate. Hope you'll be doing the same here.

H said...

Ph,

I am confused as to why you think that Blair will be the next PM when he has already said he will stand down before the next election. As for the sleaze - surely no-one is actually surprised that the Lords is made up of people who supported the person who appointed them. Is this even news? Was it ever any other way? The peerage used to be the people who were loyal (i.e. financially supported) whichever corrupt german family which had taken over the british throne. Now it is made up of whichever fat cat wants to give money to the ruling party. I am not in the slightest surprised, nor do I think that this is new.

I remember once that people used to say that there is always sleaze - just with the conservatives, its sex and with Labour its money. The incredible thing about the last set of tories was that it was both sex and money most of the time. As for whether this administration is as corrupt as the last - i think not. They have not yet, started to take their position for granted as the Tories did in thatcher's time. I don't particularly like Tone but I think that this latest scandal is more motivated by the fact that the media know that people aren't actually interested in the education policy and what should be real political news and they are tired of hearing about Iraq.

H

Citizen Sane said...

From The Guardian today:

Labour v Tories: A history of sleaze

ph said...

h - And think Tony is honest. The man has made the lie an essential tool of government.

As for sleaze, Labour is way ahead. Tory sleaze was in general done by rogue elements. Labour sleaze is institutional.
Personally I think that reporting that Labour ministers are benefiting from bribes given out by Italians with mafia connections is news and that the prime minister is selling peerages is news, whilst piddling around with a ineffectual educational bill is not really news