In a way, we almost felt bad here at TPT picking on Nick Clegg, what with it almost being the internet equivalent of joining in a fight between 50 ninjas and a no-armed man, but then, we remembered that he’s a lying sack of shit, so we’re pretty much over that!
A bit harsh?
Well, let’s consider the following example. Here’s The Cleggster, way back on May 19th, 2010, ushering in a new age of ‘Politics done good’:
“This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent. That’s why we’ll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest.”
Now, if you’re an easily impressed buffoon, unaware even of the existence of The Political Thesaurus, you may well be reading that, nodding along with what, on the face of it, seems a very noble, even brave sentiment. You may even have muttered something along the lines of ‘Yeah, it’s about time – you stick it to the man, Nicky boy’, and then, like it did us, it may have gone some way to re-assuring you that the up-coming coalition may not be quite as bad as you were fearing.
Indeed, if that does describe you, you may now be beset by confusion, especially given recent events across the country, as Our Glorious Coalition attempts to clamp down on the kerfuffle surrounding University Fees.
And that, my friends, is where The Political Thesaurus comes in....
Take the first sentence:
“This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state.”
Proud, normally used to denote ‘a state of pride’, or ‘being pleased with something’, in this context, actually means – ‘not dead keen on’, or ‘really rather pissed off with’!!!
And then, the second sentence:
“That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent”.
...is actually a classic example of TPT usage.
Because, whereas your normal, run of the mill thesaurus may list synonyms for ‘values’ such as ‘prizes’, ‘appreciates’, or even ‘treasures’, The Political Thesaurus specifies that you can still use ‘values’ when what you actually mean, is it’s antonym - in this case ‘despises’, ‘couldn’t give a flying fuck about..’, or even, ‘will do anything to prevent’.
(Presumably, this is exactly why Clegg felt no guilt, or even regret, when a 12 year old boy was removed from his lessons by The Police, and then warned that he was being monitored by anti-terrorism police, all for having the audacity to organise a peaceful protest outside Cameron’s constituency office over the closure of his local youth club!)
And finally, when Clegg stated that:
“That’s why we’ll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest.”
He was using remove in the rather limited context of actually ‘keeping’, and, going further, ‘increasing’.
At the time of writing, The Coalition has not yet had the time to draft additional legislation to further ‘remove limits’ (including a possible introduction of that well known incentive to protest: The Water Cannon), and are therefore having to make do with more tried and tested tactics, such as ‘kettling’ and the ‘charging’ of police horses to keep demonstration an attractive and valued concept.
So there you have it. Again.
And, dear reader, lest you be in any doubt as to our efficacy and accuracy here at TPT, we will leave you with another two notable incidents in the New Britain with ‘the limits to peaceful protest removed’ to ponder at your leisure:
Firstly, that of Jody McIntyre, the young man with Cerebral Palsy, pulled from his wheelchair, and dumped on the ground, TWICE, and then, indicating, beyond any doubt the complete ‘removal’ of all limits to peaceful protest, the encouraging case of Alfie Meadows, who not only had the shit beaten out of him trying to leave a ‘kettle’, but who was then sent on an impromptu tour of London Hospitals for life saving brain surgery, you know, just in case he inadvertently took priority over a PC with a particularly nasty stubbed toe.
(See, ‘lying sack of shit’ seems even a bit kind now, doesn’t it!!??)