From the Today programme to Jeremy Vine, there is no avoiding either Gordon Brown or his Lib Dem Shadow, Vince Cable, on this Budget Day Plus One. Which is as it should be, of course. But where is George Osborne, "free"-marketeer in action where narcotic goods and sexual services are concerned? Is he in any fit state to be seen, or must the public be denied the spectacle of capitalism's effects incarnate?
After all, we deserve as many opportunities as possible to gaze in awe on a man who was given one of the safest seats in the House at the age of 28, despite never having had any job except of the undemanding Milibandian kind for newly-graduated posh boys, following a politician about (at public expense) so that that politician could write him a reference for a startstruck local party, in the unlikely event of that party's being given the slightest say in who was to be its parliamentary candidate. (Ruth Kelly also became an MP at 28, but she had written for Guardian and worked for the Bank of England, and in any case she has a marginal seat.)
What a nuisance it must have been for Osborne to have had to turn up to these non-jobs when he had no need to draw a salary from the taxpayer, or anyone else, in order to keep himself drugged up and well-whored. But what a thing it must be to be the heir to a baronetcy, to have attended one of the original nine public schools, and for one's erstwhile Headmaster to be a Tory peer. Clearly, it makes one brilliant to the point of fitness to be Chancellor the Exchequer (and after that, I think we all know what - he is several years younger than Cameron) without even having to appear in public the day after the Budget.
Like Blair, or Miliband, or Ernie Armstrong's daughter, born to rule...
No comments:
Post a Comment