Don't listen to idiots signing e-petitions: Joseph Blurton vaguely elaborates.

Late last night I posted a light-hearted e-petition,

Don't listen to to idiots signing e-petitions,

mainly because I was bored, but partially because my woolly little liberal heart was angered by the stupidity and bastardishness of some of the other proposals. I'm a democrat, at least on paper, but I've never believed in the idea of direct, virtual democracy. Just what happens in the modern age of fascists, trolling, unicorns and lolcats? Either idiots calling for the abolition of everything fun, nice and (small-f) fluffy, or idiots like me calling for the abolition of other idiots.

Now the petition has been quoted on the gloriously witty tech-site, The Register, and other blaggers have been mentioning me by name via either disgust, faux academic analysis, amusement or misplaced reverence. Like me, these are all idiots. What we think really doesn't matter!

But if I can find it, there is a serious point to be made. In my discordant philosophy, I believe we need politicians to be leaders, and not just ostriches (see struthiocracy) who'll blindly follow the ill-informed will of the people. MPs should be so much more. They should be accomplished, knowledgeable people who do the governing so we don't have to. I'm an idiot, a lazy one at that; I can't be bothered to read Hansard or sit on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. But to some of the posters on HM Government's e-petition's website, using a statutory instrument sounds like the sort of thing you should be hanged for.

This all reminds me of the Democrabus in the BBC's brilliant Absolute Power. A gimmick dreamt up by PR people. "Come up with an idea and win the chance to hear us to talk about it for an hour!"



I'm not trying to be clever (I am, after all, an idiot who voted Lib Dem at the last election), but if we can't mock the system, then the system's worryingly wrong.

Message falters.

joeblurton*at*hotmail*dot*com.

AV: a failure by any other name would smell as sweet.

I haven't posted on this blog for yonks, and there's a reason: this last year in politics has left me feeling uneasy, out of my depth; lacking in the surety of my previous convictions. If that's what the coalition did to me, then imagine how Nick Clegg must feel.

Joining the Labour Party wasn't a panacea; it was merely me sticking to a rather outmoded view that I simply had to belong to a party. I had to pick a side. By temperament I'm probably more suited to joining the Greens. But the reason I did not do just that, the reason I felt compelled to join an Umbrella party, and not one tailored my actual ideals, is because of First-Past-the-Post.

For the Greens could never succeed with the current electoral system. Nor could, I realised, any third party gain the ascendancy and effectively influence national policy. It's a frustratingly chook-and-egg thing. With FPtP, short of a seismic shock in our society as happened in the 1920s, we're condemned to repeat the foetid metronomic cycles of Tory, Labour, Tory, Labour, and the governance of the country will continue to stagnate, with successive parliaments simply skirting around the edges, pandering to a small "c" conservative demographic in the key marginals.

I've held to this belief for a while. In fact, it was one of the key reasons I aligned myself with the Lib Dems from my teens. As an enthusiastic and hopefully well-informed student of politics, it's my view that in order to make Government more responsive, more radical, more exciting even, then we need electoral reform. The additional member system is my preferred option, but it isn't on the table. What is, the "miserable little compromise", is none-the-less a bold step in the right direction. It would force PPCs to campaign for the majority, not those same lucky swing voters. Voting could become about ideas rather than tactics. So the reactionary charge that this vote is trivial doesn't, in my view, hold up to scrutiny; a "yes" vote has the potential to reshape political discourse for the better, even if the campaign itself has been grubby and embarrassing.

But it's now all academic. The vote will be lost. And still, I don't mind. Holding my polling card in my hand today felt exhilarating. After ten years of wishing for the very chance, here it was. The long road to some sort of opportunity to make the case for progress is at an end, and it still feels satisfying. The whole debacle, the coalition and this compromise, have wrecked the Lib Dems for a generation, but at least they gave us this moment. So thank you, Nick Clegg. It's the last time I'll say it.

The Week in Miscellany: Coalitions and Cabbages

I was so sorely tempted to blog in full about the Coalition last week. So many on the left seemed to be panicking as if, as Charlie Brooker humourously puts it, the Tories were blood-curdling Vampiric sadists. We all know a few Tories who are just that, but much of the party's recent rhetoric seems to be aimed at a more centrist audience. With the Lib Dems on board, I'm confident that there will be some sort of beating socially-centred heart in Government. Immediately they're making pleasant purring noises on civil liberties, the environment, and lifting the poorest out of taxation. I'm not saying we should trust them forever, but we should give the Coalition a fair wind. See where it takes us. At the very least, for now it's a refreshing breeze.

~~~~~~

On the allotment front, I want to tell a cautionary tale about the dangers of May. It's all balmy and lovely for a bit, and your sprightly Runner Beans have been doing well on the patio for a couple of weeks. "Allotment, ho!" you say, and dutifully head off to erect some sort of weird bamboo clambering frame for them. And then it happens. May happens. Duplicitous, frigid May. With its snap frosts and consequently withered Runner Beans. Do not trust it.

Other than the Runners, everything's rather rosy in Xanadu (for that, sadly, is the working title for my little patch... don't worry, the shed's called Dave); my fruit bushes are becoming more bushy with every rainy day, none of the mail-order Artichokes or Asparagus crowns have failed, and there's a gradual feeling that the beastliest of the weeds are being tamed by my stern hoe. In short, it's becoming a garden. And it pleases.

~~~~~~

Now! Word-gripe of the week! This time it's the turn of "progressive", which has become so meaningless in the last few months that even David Cameron dares use it. We'll see on that front, but for me this election campaign was the moment when zeitgeisty "progressive" joined the pile of other meaningless campaign words.

So, that updated list in full: sustainable, fair, change, progressive. It'll doubtless grow...

A Vague Similarity

I know this is a very juvenile thing to do, but I noticed something very chilling in David Cameron's face. Can you guess what it is?!

Apologies.

A Cleggophany of Cleggonymy...

After Cleggomania we've had Cleggophilia and Cleggstacy. Now I've found Cleggolatry in The Telegraph. Where will it all Clegg?!

Letter to the Times

When the British get angry and animated, they don't have a revolution, they simply write a strongly-worded letter to The Times.

So, following on from the frustration I mentioned in my last blog post, here is my own little bit of fuming:

Sirs,

Forgive my possible naivety, but my many years as a Liberal Democrat supporter and activist leave me sure that I can rely on the party sticking to its principled guns and not supporting a future minority Labour government if the Tories win the most seats. Nick Clegg would be committing political suicide if he were to even contemplate going against the will of the electorate. When as a party we talk of electoral reform, we really do mean it.

So please don't give credibility to the "Vote Clegg, get Brown" mantra spun in an attempt by Tory HQ to get the working majority they feel entitled to. If Cameron wins, Clegg will support him. Save us the histrionics!

Joseph Blurton,
Devon.

Debunking Coalition Talk

I've noticed a sour odour wafting around the newspaper columns and TV studios over the last couple of days, and thought I'd expound on it for a little while.

There is an assumption in the press - all of it, even at the BBC - that the Lib Dems are most likely to prop up a minority Labour administration after the election. This is giving cheer to many on the left, and making Gordon Brown seem decidedly complacent. The prevailing theory goes that if current polling is reflected in the eventual votes cast, Labour will come last, but still - under our crap electoral system - have the most seats. As the incumbent, Brown would certainly by precedent have the first right to seek to build a coalition. But it actually won't happen.

You can see why the idea's gained headway. There are certainly some policy similarities between the Lib Dems and Labour, and most of the Lib Dem membership would probably self-describe as social democrats. The Lib-Lab pact narrative also appeals to the Tory spin machine, since they can scare floating voters their way. But I have news for them.

I am almost 100% certain that Clegg would not prop up Gordon Brown if the final vote share went a bit like: Con, Lib Dem, Labour (in descending order). Party members might feel more at home with Labour on social issues and constitutional reform, but they are currently a lot closer to the Tories on the economy and civil liberties. There is also another very crucial factor: the principle of the thing.

Let me explain. It's no use spending decades ranting on about electoral reform in the wilderness unless you actually - when the crucial moment comes - stick to your guns and follow the principle of the thing you believe in. If the Tories get the most votes, they have the mandate. Simple. I know this choice will be a hard one for Lib Dems, but I also have faith - from years of personal experience - in how fervently they believe in this particular principle. They would most likely join the Tories and win the concession of electoral reform. (How now could the Tories refuse?) For those interested, Guido Fawkes' blog has quite an amusing take on this hypothetical Lib-Con coalition here.

Now, this all assumes that the Tories will win the most votes. Looking at a lot of the polls, it's actually relatively easy to see that the Lib Dems might themselves be the party with the peoples' mandate, and still form the smallest party. In this position, the Lib Dems would probably demand - as well as proportional representation - the right to impose terms on the other parties. In this scenario they probably would work with Labour, but on the proviso that Gordon Brown steps down, in favour of Alan Johnson or one of the Milibands. They would simply and undeniably have the power to do this, and to demand electoral reform, or else the public would fume if they were thus denied the expression of their will.

So, this talk of "Vote Clegg, get Brown" is all hokum. It's a Tory scare tactic designed to give them the working majority they feel they're entitled to. It looks almost guaranteed that voting Clegg will mean change, because the Liberals hate Gordon Brown just as much as the rest of the nation. They're not too keen on Cameron either, but probably feel he's a man they can work with.

So there you are. If more vote Clegg, you'll get a Lib-Con pact. If even more vote Clegg, you'll effectively get government by, er, Clegg.

~~~~~
I have to add that, personally, I would rather see a Lib-Lab coalitionthan a Lib-Con one, but I don't see the arithmetic going that way. It could, but it won't. This is what riles me about the assumptions in the media at the moment, since I have no hope of this happening, why should they?!

Notes on the Lib Dem surge.

Wow. It's the only appropriate word right now. This weekend's polls are so staggering I may have to bite my arm off just to see if this is actually deep sleep. Nick Clegg's much-praised performance in the ITV leaders' debate on Thursday night has propelled him into the forefront of British politics, and seems to have caught the media, and the other parties, by surprise. Today's YouGov poll puts the parties at C 33, L 30, LD 29, and a BPIX poll in The Mail on Sunday actually puts the Lib Dems in the lead for the first time since 1985, on C 31, L 28, LD 32.

The phenomenon vindicates the long-time mantra of the Lib Dems about their historically awful Catch 22 situation. Without support they cannot get enough exposure, and without exposure they cannot get support. But since almost 1 in 4 voters chose the Lib Dems in 2005, there was little chance of them being left out of the new leaders' debates. The Tories and Labour must be sorely regretting this. But complaints by the likes of Anne Widdecombe about allowing the Lib Dems a platform really do reinforce Clegg's claims about the supreme entrenchment of the political orthodoxy. It's a very useful angle for them. They're both rotten, so come with us!

However, now that the Lib Dems are in the public spotlight after almost a century in the wilderness, and are threatening Cameron's sense of entitlement to govern, the two "old" parties will train their sights anew on the third party.

The conservative press, by which I mean most of the, er, press (The Sun, The News of the World, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Daily Telegraph - really, almost every newspaper!), have essentially printed a memo verbatim from Tory HQ. The main three points of attack seem to be as follows:

• The Lib Dems will sign Britain up to the Euro.
• They will scrap Trident's replacement, leaving Britain without a nuclear deterrent.
• They support an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

This is a classic case of attack by misrepresentation. If you alter the wording of any policy significantly, you can completely change its meaning. In the previous three cases, the Lib Dems' meaning is as follows:

• The Lib Dems would like Britain to join the Euro eventually - like Labour - but now is definitely not the time.
• Given the size of the deficit they would prefer to replace Britain's four on-duty nuclear submarines with an alternative, cheaper deterrent, such as land-based missiles or airborne delivery, at a cost of £20 billion, rather than £100 billion. This is expected to be operational from 2030, and coincides with America and Russia making bilateral reductions.
• The Lib Dems support an amnesty for all illegal immigrants who can prove they have been here for 10 years or more, contributing to the economy, and not committing any crimes. "Playing by the rules," as folks like to say. This would help to grapple impoverished people out of the hands of criminal gangs.
  

It all sounds very different, put like that, doesn't it?

Now, let's do the same thing for the Tories, because it's fun.

• The Tories will abandon communities stuck with poor schools and hospitals to run them by themselves. A source close to the Conservative leader was quoted as saying: "we can't afford to fix them, so you're on your own."
• David Cameron announced last week that the Tories will value commitment at the paltry sum of £3 a week, or the very reasonable price of 3 Daily Telegraphs.
• On Sunday the Tories enlisted Gary Barlow to help turn every school into a spin-off of The X-Factor. Simon Cowell, interviewed about the scheme at a charity fund-raiser hosted by The Horned Beast, Lucifer, rubbed his hands in glee.

You get the idea. Why not try writing your own?!

Anyway, the Lib Dems are doing well, and good luck to them. But the Tories will have to do a lot better than attacking invented policies to halt the yellow tsunami. Conservatives call Lib Dem policies "eccentric", but I think the polls show that the public have been itching for something new and optimistic. They won't get that from the old duopoly.

A Very Tory Marriage

The Tories are big on marriage. Broken homes are apparently a cause of their Broken Britain. There might be some truth in this, but their recently-announced £150 tax break for married couples is nothing but bribery.

So who does it appeal to? The Daily Mail vote, obviously, but they're already voting Tory. Or UKIP. Or BNP. And it appeals to married people, obviously. That's already quite a sizeable proportion of the demographic most likely to vote.

But if the Tories seriously think £150 a year is enough to save a marriage from collapse, they're utterly deluded. I can see it in houses up and down the land. "We'll stay together for the kids" being replaced with "we'll stay together for a new A-rated freezer!"

It's also grossly unfair. They've certainly dodged a bullet by extending it to Civil Partners, but it devalues the very thing the Tories say they are trying to support: commitment.

For all of those couples who are loving, and committed, but not married, and for all of those sorry people who struggle alone but would love to have the chance to be loving, and committed, and married, it's a huge slap in the face.

And for what? It's purely designed to win over the middle class vote. It is, in short, a flat out electoral bribe.

I just hope that when the public look at the Tories' tax proposals, they'll see how blatantly opportunistic and unprogressive the party still is. In my dreams...

On the Independent Buyout / Newspaper Ownership

You should never believe anything you read in the newspapers. It's trite but true, and now more so than ever. Today's news that Alexander Lebedev has bought The Independent for £1 shouldn't come as a surprise. The mysterious ex-KGB agent, having bought The Evening Standard last year for the same nominal sum, has a stated aim of being a media player. How much this has to do with his forming a political collaboration in Russia with Mikhail Gorbachev is difficult to say...

The case of The Independent is a sorry one. It hasn't returned a profit since the Chinese invented paper, and in recent years has hardly been a newspaper at all. Its lead stories are often magazine-style articles about some far away calamity. All very noble, but of little interest to most casual readers browsing the titles on offer at the news-stand. Okay, I'll call it. It's just a cheaply-printed magazine with some news thrown in.

Lebedev's purchase of the title may actually reverse the fortunes of The Independent. He has the financial clout to throw sacks of saffron at the paper, and there is even talk of his replicating the regeneration of The Evening Standard by offering copies of the paper for free. So far so shiny.

But what worries me is that - in an age when every newspaper carries its own editorial baggage (I'd cite The Guardian as an exception, but I'd be wrong to, frankly) - The Independent may cease to feel quite so independent.

Perhaps this entrenched bias is why the intelligentsia are hooked on the modern 'spheres'; the blogosphere, twittersphere et al. Whilst every commentator here has his own bias, it's largely self-proclaimed. (Disclosure: I'm in the Social Democratic wing of the Lib Dems) That allows for an amount of easy rational discernment on the part of the reader.

Given the amount of hyperbole, fabrication, embellishment and lying that thrives in the newspapers, it's no wonder that today's savvy post-ideology pragmatic consumer has headed for the hallowed, eclectic high ground of the interwebsphere.

Sadly, the BBC will never get anything "right" from here on in...

The BBC is embroiled in another scandal. Peter Hain is angry! Thrilling. Nothing the Corporation does these days seems to meet with approval and, now that the forces of media Conservatism are beginning to encircle it like proverbial vultures, the survival of the BBC "as we know it" is seriously threatened.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. First we have to pick apart some of the arguments made in the latest row about the BNP Leader, Nick Griffin, being invited to appear on tonight's Question Time (22:35, BBC1). Parts of the left-wing activist machine - most of whom have solid and worthy links to anti-racist movements (Peter Hain, Diane Abbott, etc.) - seem to be putting the onus of responsibility onto the BBC. The BNP, as a racist and illegally-constituted party, should not be given this 'platform of legitimacy'.

I can sympathise with this viewpoint. My own gut instinct for dealing with the BNP - and other such problems - is not to give them the oxygen of publicity. "Don't talk about it!" was the cry, long ago, and one I silently repeated with the economic downturn (how does talking about a crisis of confidence help an economy recover from a crisis of confidence?). But we're beyond that. We've had years of BNP stories making the top spot on "the Six and Ten", and now the only way to tackle the problem - in my view - is to engage in a grown-up debate. They won't win it.

The BBC's DG, Mark Thompson, today maintained that including Griffin in tonight's Question Time was the editorially correct thing to do. This sort of strict interpretation of the Corporation's core principles should be applauded. As a nation we are blessed to have such entrenched impartiality. The BNP - Thomson says - has attained a certain proportion of votes and is thus entitled under the BBC's editorial guidelines to appear on Question Time.

The other point made by Thompson is that only Governments have the power and right to censor parties for the public good. This argument might not appear to have the necessary moral unambiguity to satisfy the complainants, but it should serve to emphasise the point on the BBC's editorial impartiality. Them's the rules, guv'.

What most perplexes me is that we now have a situation where the BBC - so often maligned by the right as being 'biased' - is now seen by the left as assisting the BNP in its quest for mainstream legitimacy. This is very dangerous territory for the Corporation, since its own constitution seems to be in direct conflict with those who would ordinarily support it. The principle, they say, should be suspended for the sake of defeating fascism. And therein lies the problem. Suspending the principle would actually lend legitimacy to the BNP's complaints of censorship, and would thus play straight into the hands of fascism. A ban would also be - disturbingly - by definition fascistic.

But the real loser in all of this is not the liberal conscience. The winner is not even the BNP. The true loser in this row will be the BBC, who are finding it increasingly difficult to apply their mission statement in a fragmented, crowd-driven environment. The blogosphere only adds to this distortion, since most blogs aren't governed by the same sort of strict editorial guidelines papers should - in theory - be governed by. The winners, alas, will be those organisations that best utilise that distinctly American personality cult of news bias. Step in a de-regulated Sky News. Step in the bloggers. The blog world can deliver truth, but it mostly offers a platform for the inane ramblings of idiots like me. Without the BBC, where will we be able to escape bias?

Struthiocracy: Government by Ostriches

Well, what a fine little pickle this is. Four ministers going in two days, Labour expecting a drubbing at the European elections, Hazel Blears rocking the boat... (oh, how I shan't miss her!) Even the trusty Guardian, in its leader editorial, is calling Brown's pedalo in. The waters of the Westminster Village boating pond are so choppy at the moment that fair-weather Blairite flamingos are migrating before the reshuffle.

Brown promises the nation he's taking action. But I suspect "action" means the same to Gordon Brown as it does to the Vogons. Unluckily for Labour, only one of them is fictional. So the Government's enquiries can enquire, the committees can deliberate, but all the while the nation sees the other parties coming up with all manner of radical proposals. Alan Johnson, to his credit, has made positive noises on proportional representation, but at the moment it's a distraction only, and if Brown supported it then you can be damned sure the public would reject it.

And I think this is the Government's major problem. They couldn't now even sell candy back to the baby. Nobody is listening. They might listen a bit more to Johnson, but Brown and his cadre are too entrenched in their bunker, too busy with their heads in the sand, to actually hear the voice of the people. That voice tells them to go. The big man's passion for power, however, will be the Labour Party's undoing. Rather than disappear gracefully after Friday, as would serve the country and the party best, Brown will have to be dragged out of Downing Street with his beak clamped to the desk.

If Labour MPs don't have the bravery to oust their Dear Leader next week, then they have only themselves to blame for the eventual fate of their party. An entire generation of youths will always despise the party for Iraq, for top-up fees, and for so much more. The party is in debt to its sand-covered eyebrows and donations have dried up. If Brown insists by his arrogance on clinging to power until the bitter end, then Labour may well cease to exist as a viable force in national politics.

The end is nigh. The Guardian is right to warn, and right to suggest its readers shift support to the Greens and Lib Dems. The progressive future looks increasingly to be out of Labour's hands.

The Benefits of a Scandal

Oh, it's all miserable isn't it? Some MPs have been naughty, the rest are unjustly hated, the Speaker's going, the papers have won... oh, and the economy's reliably awful. But, dear reader, fear not! Whatever your opinion on the cause of the problems, whether you agree or disagree with my left-field ideas about actually being "nice to people", we can all take some degree of solace from the proposed solutions.

Alan Johnson wants fair votes! David Cameron wants an end to the Royal Prerogative! Nick Clegg wants every change he can think of! And yes, Gordon Brown wants a revolver.

Even though the public fury leaves a sour taste in my mouth, proposals on this scale represent (pretty much verbatim) my political wish-list. Throw in Cornish devolution and more tax relief for small breweries, and you're almost there. As a constitutional geek, I have long held the belief that reform of the voting system in particular is not just desirable, but necessary in a "democracy". This should be where the grand struggle between my Old Tory heart and my Young Liberal brain begins, but it fizzles out into a consensus.... it's just crackers (and, well, almost underhand) to have a system whereby the number of votes cast doesn't closely correlate with the number of seats won.

Perhaps if we had some power to actually elect our representatives, the current sense of disconnectedness wouldn't be as acute. My Young Liberal brain tells me this should be the case, but my Old Tory heart knows that it won't be. There must also be a Tory portion of my brain too, because apathy seems pretty entrenched in Scotland and Wales, where they have PR. Thankfully for both of my political identities (the sneering Hay Festival Ponce and the goading Edwardian Port-Swiller) this can be reduced to my usual maxim: people are stupid. People in England are stupid to not realise how jolly lucky they are to have this chance to change things, and people in both Scotland and Wales are stupid for not realising how much more power they have and how much contentment this should bring.

Oh well, best not fret over it. If people will be stupid, leave them to it, eh?

A Rage Too Far

Hot on the heals of Nadine Dorries's comments on the mood of the Commons and her fears for a suicide (in the current climate these concerns are apparently "zany"), Joan Smith writes today in CiF that she is sick of her country for despising all MPs. The comments section at the bottom of the page, never a place for rational thinking, shows an ignorant population foaming at the mouth.

"They're all at it! How dare they! You parliamentary apologist! "

I don't have to tell you how unhelpful this kind of thing is. Here are two sane people, trying to protect the dignity of those honest and hard-working MPs (you know, just like the mythical "honest, hard-working people" they're supposed to represent), and all they get is abuse. Likening the current climate to McCarthyism has its merits. The public are after The Enemy and anyone speaking up for The Enemy is a Commie pig. Or, conversely, compare the current climate to Mao Zedong Thought... the apologists are Class Traitors, Capitalist Roaders.

Despite the public's self-righteous fury, these apologists are actually the only ones left with a moral compass. They are wise enough to see that the court of public opinion is not the highest authority. They are willing to brave vilification to stand up for a basic moral ideal: that the innocent shouldn't suffer. The tabloids can rant on about how the traditional British sense of fair-play has been lost, but the populist rags are most to blame for this. Every media outlet in the country has piled unbearable pressure on so many politicians who simply do not deserve the abuse. These are people who have devoted their lives to serving you and I. They deserve to be treated humanely.

Intermittently, people like Dorries bravely put their heads above the parapet and do exactly what is required: they speak up for decent people, and against the mob. They in turn suffer. I, for one, commend their bravery, and will continue to support their efforts as best as possible. At least one member of the public is actually detached enough to see the issues clearly. As Stephen Fry said, there's simply too much else wrong that's more important. Stand up and be counted. Make a difference. Hate the public. Hate stupidity. Love fairness.

MPs' expenses: What's the fuss is all about?

Tax-payers' money has been wasted on frivolous claims for moat-cleaning and light-bulbs. The Daily Telegraph is drip-feeding a seemingly endless stream of embarrassing news to an enraged public. I feel it's important that I display some sort of cognizance of the problem and why it makes people angry. MPs are our employees, say the press, and should only claim for what they can justify to their electors. But I think this is a naive and overly-simplistic perspective. We are not their masters. They are ours. The entire point of representative democracies is that our law-makers govern us; rule by the mob is an idea that sickens most sane people. The public, after all, are idiots. Voter choice is a charade; your pencil mark has been guided to make that cross in that box by a series of intricate subterfuges involving business, media outlets and our governing elites. Plus a little help from dear mother "events". If politicians genuinely thought that we were their bosses, they would rescind the entire elections experiment and get on with governing the country unhindered. Make no mistake: these days, your vote matters only in that it might help substitute one governing elite for another.

The Telegraph's "Matt" cartoon puts it very succinctly: "I went into Politics to make my living room a better place". Given the quality of most living rooms, I think this is a very noble ambition. It's much better than, heaven forbid, someone in politics actually trying to make a difference. Having ideals in government is about the least desirable trait. For evidence, I cite the 1980s. Sensibly, New Labour has abandoned ideals and continued along a journey begun by John Major: one of light-handed, pragmatic non-intervention. Real change is a divisive and terrible thing. The beauty of our political system is that Ministers can let the country evolve in its own way, and then claim credit for it. Their pomp and procedure is a clever veil for the truth: in a democracy, power is unreal.

But I digress. In an age where the liquid lunch is disappearing, when the corporate ethos and efficiency-savings are leaking into every sphere of society (this is, remember, to be blamed on whatever vague societal nonsense drives Meme Theory, and not on policy-makers), I think it's time for somebody calm and informed to write a paean to the Frivolous Expenses Claim. I must possess at least one of those qualities, so I will try. On a basic level, especially in a recession, these claims are a very Keynesian priming of the economic pump. Without the allowances, perhaps MPs would be more frugal with their spending. I think only a fool would deny the positive effect on the economy of this intervention. Perhaps this could be supplemental to the Government's economic strategy: rather than investing more billions in propping up banks, perhaps we should be grateful for the much-needed cash boost for moat-cleaners and light-bulb retailers.

My other reason for defending frivolous expenses is simply one from the realm of personal aesthetics. It has always pleased me that somewhere in this repugnant, barren Isle there was one last refuge of extravagance. Grace and favour homes, grand Parliament buildings, banquets with visiting dignitaries; all of it seemingly designed to inspire an other-worldly aura of elegance and solidity. The trappings of the myth of power. It is romantic, whimsical, and therefor meritful. In the public's rage, they may be about to destroy some of the finest ornamental remnants of our profligate past.

Much of the controversy seems to have centred around the idea that useless, untrustworthy politicians are pocketing vast sums of public money. If anyone maintains the same train of thought as myself, they will see that these sums are not only minuscule, they are also essential to maintaining the illusion of Parliament's importance. If you remove the benefits, the perks and the pomp, the public may wake up to find that their politicians are spending a lot of time frenetically getting nothing done, and may demand a more direct say in the governance of "their" country. That, dear readers, would be a sorry day indeed.