Cable and Hunt

So there we are, packing up the TPT office, post-Christmas party, haggling away over how much it would cost for security to not “youtube” the CCTV footage, and up steps Vince Cable, hell-bent on scuppering our vacation plans.

(It actually turns out we’ve been massively over-thinking this political subversion lark – all we really need do, apparently, is ask a politician a fairly inane set of questions, and then record the subsequent self-immolation on our Nokia Gooseberries).

Anyways, in the fall-out from his Grand Fenwickian declaration of war, Vincey-baby has found himself removed from any future involvement in the “Murdoch Case”, replaced, ably we’re sure, by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt (whose parents, incidentally, were both extremely prescient and big fans/scholars of cockney-rhyming slang!).

This move, in fairness, was somewhat necessary after News Corp expressed “shock and dismay”, and suggested that Cable’s remarks had raised “serious questions about fairness and due process”, and, to be honest, was completely understandable in the circumstances.

BUT, before we all start high-fiving each other over this apparent triumph of the British sense of fair play, let’s just take a minute to look at the new, improved “fairness” v 2.0.

Because here’s Jeremy Hunt, back in 2008 in an interview with Broadcast Magazine, stating that

“ we should recognise that [Uncle Rupe] has probably done more to create variety and choice in Britain than any other single person...We would be poorer and wouldn’t be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it wasn’t for him..”

Now, setting aside, for a second, the fact that this statement’s wrong on about eleventy-billion different levels (excepting, of course, the televisual tour de force that was ‘Britain’s Hardest Squirrels’), you do have to question whether such an apparently sycophantic fuck-muppet’s the right person to provide that aforementioned “fairness”, right!?

Well, as it happens, “Fairness” in the TPT, actually means ‘Fair, but in a very specific direction, and as long as it results in 285 channels showing endless repeats of 'Kirsty’s Home Videos', 'Dream Team', and news programmes starring Richard-Fucking-Littlejohn as the poor man’s Glenn Beck”!

Funny that............

Competition Time

At the moment, we can’t help but get the impression that nobody’s really reading our efforts here at TPT, but despite this, we’re going to press on regardless.

This is mainly because

a) We’ve actually got nothing better to do, and because

b) We reckon that even the iconoclastic Galileo was often subjected to “No, Mr Galileo Galilei, we don’t want to look at your revised, heliocentric working model of the solar-system, no matter how shocking it may be, because frankly, we’ve got more important shit to be getting on with”!!

However, given our, *ahem*, limited readership, and given that it’s so very nearly Christmas, and the mandatory obscene-photocopies-from-the-Xmas-party are unlikely to make themselves, we’re going to take a slightly different tack today.

What we’re going to do, in fact, is allow you to experience what it’s like to be a poorly paid intern here at the TPT office. In a dizzying display of festive generosity, we’re giving you, Dear Reader, the opportunity to lay into this:

This being the age of the interwebs, you don’t even need a postcard or a stamp to play. Just bang your efforts in the comment box and press enter. The best submission, posted before January 3^rd 2011, receives a Tetley teabag and a copy of the Lib Dem manifesto.

Happy Posting, and Merry Christmas!!

'WAAITT' - The Musical!!

Despite our obvious brilliance, we here at TPT are actually quite a humble, modest lot, so we wouldn’t dream of suggesting that our previous expose of ‘We Are All In This Together’ came anywhere near to penetrating the upper echelons of the Bullingdon Club.

That said, something’s got ‘em spooked!!

Our sources confirmed that the increasingly blatant daftness of the ‘WAAITT’ message led to an emergency meeting last night, the sole intention of which was to re-vamp, and re-market the entire message.

After one of the ‘outliers’ amongst the team was heard to shout "That X-factor and Strictly’s popular with them lot, innit!?", they set about beavering into the early hours.

This, dear reader, is what they came up with:

Now, we like a show-tune as much as the next guy, and we were even (slightly) impressed with Cameron’s solo (1:30 – 1:50), but, we can’t help but feel that it’s not quite enough.

Still, full marks for effort though!!

This Shit Writes Itself!

Sometimes, we come across stuff that requires such a minimal amount of work on our part, stuff so obviously, blatantly daft, that we put them in a ‘this shit writes itself’ file.

The following ‘story’ is most certainly an example of one of these, and, handily, also serves as a bit of a ‘fuck you!’ to all our detractors and haters, many of whom doubt the very existence of The Political Thesaurus.

So here, for your reading pleasure is “Chaos Theory”, coalition style.

Currently, as part of the new ‘big society’ meme presently propping up the east-wing of Coalition HQ, Cameron and Clegg have been dead keen to push their vision of ‘localism’, arguing that it's a brilliant and original way to combat the evils of central planning. It’s not necessarily a bad idea in itself (although, when we run it through TPT, it does offer ‘every fucker for themselves, except stunningly Tory areas, obviously’), but understandably, some are uneasy about the consequences of such a drastic step.

Indeed, some predict ‘chaos’, and then, understanding chaos, like most of us would, as ‘a state of utter confusion’, legitimately question such a strategy.

Enter Nicholas Boles, Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford, a man so beloved amongst governmenty types because he’s an “outrider” (TPT = ‘someone who talks and thinks in bollocks’), to clear up any confusion and lingering doubts.

When pressed about whether such an approach would cause chaos, he responded thusly:

"I mean, bluntly, there comes a question in life. Do you believe planning works? That clever people sitting in a room can plan how people's communities should develop, or do you believe it can't work? I believe it can't work, David Cameron believes it can't, Nick Clegg believes it can't........”

*Drum roll.............*

“Chaotic therefore in our vocabulary is a good thing”.

Confused? Well, he goes further:

"Chaotic is what our cities are when we see how people live, where restaurants spring up, where they close, where people move to. Would you like to live in a world where you could predict any of that? I certainly wouldn't. So I want there to be chaotic in the sense I want lots of organisations doing different things, in different areas."

There you go, folks, conclusive proof that The Political Thesaurus exists. And that it’s being used. Because, even though every single one of us here would pick up a dictionary or thesaurus and get the distinct impression that ‘chaos’ implies, at best, a state of affairs that would prove a wee bit troubling, Nicholas Boles reckons it’s ‘a good thing’, having as it does, something to do with millions of restaurants opening, or some such shit......!!

Ed is *definitely* the right man for the job!!

Finally for today, we here at TPT would like to pre-empt any accusations of partisanship (we’re very much equal opportunity haters here, actually), so here is one example of the opposition employing, to spectacular effect, The Political Thesaurus.

Back when he was a-campaigning to finally and conclusively “learn his big brother for dead-arming him loads and that”, and, almost incidentally, become the new, New Labour Leader, Ed MiliVanilli was asked if he would be attending the protest rally due to be held by unions and, according to The Daily Mail, ‘other raging Commies’ on the 19^th October 2010.

His answer was short, sharp, and some would say, definitive:

“I’ll attend the rally, definitely”

Subsequently, given that use of the word ‘definitely’, many amongst us were left somewhat mystified when said rally came, and then went, without so much as a token drive-by from Eddie ‘The Edster’ Miliband. Some scrabbled around in the dirt, amongst their broken dreams and sense of abandonment, for obvious explanations, and cries of ‘it’s an apolitical thing, innit!’, and ‘he wasn’t invited anyway’ were put forth in a vain attempt to mask the sickening sound of breaking hearts.

Amidst such confusion and devastation, however, we kept our heads, and we began to look for clues in the TPT, and, as is often the case, our results proved interesting.

Turns out, you see, that when a politician says ‘definitely’, particularly when they’re “pre-election”, it actually has fuck-all basis in the reality land that we all know and love.

What it actually means, is:

‘right now, because I’ve calculated my answer to suit my particular audience, and knowing that all you chumps will shortly be drawing crosses on a paper with your stubby, malformed hands, I’m going to say what you want to hear, but, after that, after you’ve taxed your little brains voting for ME, I’m going to fuck right off and do whatever the hell I likes.....’

Or, in some cases, simply:

‘Yeah, whatevs....’

Wow – who knew.....?

But there you go folks. Even with a simple word like ‘definitely’, it’s fucking mental out there!!

Removing Limits on Peaceful protest!!

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 19^th, 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!!??)

"We Are All In This Together!"

To begin with, we here at TPT can think of no better introduction to the inner-sanctum of ‘The Political Thesaurus’ than the current phrase de jour ‘We Are All In This Together’.

On first reading, or first hearing these near ubiquitous words, for example, it would appear that there isn’t much ‘wiggle room’ in such a short, seemingly simple statement. However, when one runs it through TPT, interesting things happen.

Firstly, ‘We’, when spoken by a politician, actually means you without the generally accepted ‘us’ connotations of the ‘we’, as simpletons like you and I would probably understand it.

(This can be evidenced by the fact that, despite all the ‘tough’ times stuff thrown at us on a daily basis, or the omnipresence of the ‘tightening our belts’ narrative, David Cameron recently hinted that the MP’s expenses watchdog would be abandoned – *bish, bash, bosh*!!).

Therefore – we, in fact, equals “you but not us”.

Secondly, even though most of you out there probably consider ‘All’ to mean ‘wholly or altogether’, or ‘everybody or everything’, again, you’d be stupendously, magnificently wrong. Like, on a total, the earth is flat kind of level. Because, in this context, ‘All’ has a very specific meaning, which, roughly translated, states:

‘Initially, the poorest, sickest members of our society, those with little-to-no way to oppose measures designed to really fuck them up, before gradually moving upwards and outwards to anyone else who really didn’t have anything to do with our current mess, but stopping before it affects bankers, who did, politicians, who did, or billionaire business men, tax dodgers, or party donors, who continue to do so!!’

And finally, yet in a similar vein, ‘Together’, far from actually meaning ‘in collaboration’, or ‘simultaneously’, or even ‘as a group’, once again means quite the opposite.

In reality, this ‘Together’ can be read as meaning:

“you lot fight it out amongst yourselves (and if it helps, blame someone, anyone, else), and while you’re distracted, we’ll use the time to filter away more and more of the money that you could all be using for such luxuries as putting a roof over your head, or feeding your families, you fucking plebbos”.

So there you have it, dear reader, ‘We Are All In This Together’, re-imagined, re-jigged and re-donkulated, with a little help from our copy of The Political Thesaurus.

Have a nice day.....