Tuesday, January 16, 2007
How Very Rude!
You'd think if you invited people to a party you might well bother to turn up and attend it. But not in the case of our beloved Chancellor. Tonight there is a party at Number 11 Downing Street to celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of the Act of Union and to mark the minting of a new £2 coin. Gordon Brown sent out invitations to the great and the good (mine seems to have got lost by Her Majesty's Royal Mail) but has now decided to travel to India instead. It seems the First Lord of the Treasury is too busy to attend as well. Oh well, I am sure Red Dawn Primarolo will do. Quite what for, I'm not sure, but she'll just have to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Gordon has piggy-backed at the last minute onto Mr Darling's trip. True he was invited, but he turned it down.
Gordon knows that if he is seen to promote the Union before the May elections it will increase the anti-Labour vote in Scotland.
I think that's a good reason to ask him alot more questions on the subject.
I keeping asking myself how long can Gordon keep ignoring the elephant in the room.
Iain.Well noted.But unfortunately typical of this boorish Scottish Chancellor. I hope you listened to sycophantic labourite McNaughtie and his demonstrable bias in the Salmon-Alexander discussion this a.m. That the BBC allows this person to continue presenting the prime UK morning news programme I find deplorable.
Surely this Union should be celebrated on 1 May when it took affect? Or in March when passed. Why is this celebration in January anyway? My invitation also lost in the post.
I know that you do not allow the c word on this blog. Here's an offering from the Fink...
From the hard 'c' to the sharp 't', it's a sensational word
Martin Samuel
Here's a column that the easily shocked should avoid
We start this morning with a joke. Not just any old joke. My favourite joke. Now some of you may find it offensive. Actually, most of you will find it offensive. In fact, if you are at all the sort of person who writes to the editors of national newspapers complaining about declining standards in the modern media, I would advise you to look away now. Come to think of it, maybe it is best if you all just stopped reading right away before anybody gets hurt. I’m sure David and Libby have fascinating things to say elsewhere on these pages. And look at the cartoon, how funny is that?
Me? I’m writing about a word. Not a nice word, but a good word. I happen to think one of the best words. You probably won’t agree. And it’s going to be appearing a lot in the next few sentences. So, if you are at all the sort of sensitive person described in this preamble, do not say you were not warned.
There are two guys talking. The first one says: “You know, the day I met you, I thought you were a c***. And every time we’ve met since I thought you were a c***. And it can’t just be me, because everyone who’s ever met you thinks you are a c***, and probably everyone who will ever meet you will think you’re a c***. In fact, you’ve got to be the second-biggest c*** in the world.”
The second guy thinks about this for a while. “So the day you met me you thought I was a c***?” “Yep.” “And every day since you’ve thought I was a . . .” “Right.” “And everyone I’ve ever met thinks I’m a . . .” “You got it.” “And everyone I will ever meet will think I’m a . . .” “Uh-huh.” “So how comes,” he says, triumphantly, “I’m only the second biggest c*** in the world?” The first guy looks at him with total contempt. “Because you’re a c***,” he says.
Peter Cook wrote that. And if he had written that, and only that, in his entire life, I’d still think he was a genius. When you tell it, from the sublime shock of its set-up, to wringing every last drop of emphasis from that punch-line, you know you are crossing the final frontier. And it’s a word. We are resigned to war, lies, corruption and incompetence, hypocrisy and despair; but a word — that word — still has the power to provoke fury. For proof, read the Sunday papers.
“The BBC came under new fire last night after it announced plans for a £200,000 TV documentary devoted to the most offensive word in the English language. The programme, tentatively titled I Love The C-Word . . .”
There followed several paragraphs of pomposity from the Shadow Culture Secretary, Hugo Swire, and John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture Select Committee, disapproving of a programme that had not even been made. And you know what I thought? Of course, you know what I thought. I think it quite a lot lately. I think it so much that I am seriously worried about the word drifting into the mainstream because it is so apposite to modern times.
I used to collect background material and make notes and write salient points and themes and areas for debate. Now, mostly, I’ve got one newspaper cutting with four letters scrawled at the top of it and the rest is window-dressing. When John Reid panics the nation by telling us that it is highly likely we will be under attack from terrorists in the build-up to Christmas and absolutely nothing happens, and I recall that this is the same man who, as Defence Minister, justified dispatching more British troops to a hellish, lawless region of Afghanistan by glibly suggesting they would probably leave without a bullet being fired, I no longer think of a thousand words. I think of one.
It is an old word, its etymology disputed but probably proto-Germanic (kunton, becoming kunta in old Norse). It appears several times in Chaucer (queynte) and in Pepys (cunny) and Shakespeare played around with it in Hamlet — the “country matters” joke in Act III, scene 2. As long ago as 1230 it formed part of a street name in the “Stews” area of Southwark, London, in which prostitutes stood.
Gropecuntelane is now Milton Street. Grape Lane in York enjoys the same history. So it has been around the block, only becoming truly taboo around 1795, the date at which it disappears from all main English dictionaries, until reappearing in Webster’s in 1961.
So why is it good? It has a hard “c” and a sharp “t”, making it short and explosive and lending power, drama and, wielded correctly, humour. A few years ago, I was eating at one of Marco Pierre White’s restaurants. There was something of a commotion. A party, and one lady in particular, appeared very unhappy with the behaviour and attitude of the maître d’. Espying the owner dining quietly with a friend in the corner, she began assailing him loudly and forcibly (“Marco? What kind of a poofy name is that?” is remembered with special fondness.) At the end of this highly inventive foul-mouthed tirade, the customer finished with what she clearly believed to be an irrefutable allegation. “That man,” she said, pointing at the maître d’, “is a complete and utter c***!”
It is the most spectacular rendition I have ever heard, each syllable given a full aerobic workout down to the resounding “tuh” at the end. And then, addressing the remaining open-mouthed (but, secretly, loving it) patrons she strode towards the door with an unlikely claim. “And that is not a word I use lightly,” she said.
Nor should it be. For deep down, I hope the moral guardians of Britain get their way and continue to be made furious. I hope the politicians pontificate, and the faint-hearted reach for the smelling salts. I hope we veer from acceptance and smug writers continue to denounce its use as evidence of a limited vocabulary. Because, the way I see this, you have the entire English language at your disposal, its wonderful richness, its beautiful multifariousness. And so do I. And then I have c***. So I’ve got one more word than you.
Quite agree - hearing three Scotsmen arguing about independence for Scotland - sounded like a family squabble, and made the rest of us (that would be England, Wales and Northern Ireland) feel as if we were intruding on a private conversation.
It also seemed to me that Naughtie allowed Douglas Alexander (Labour MP) rather more leeway than he did Alex Salmond (not a Labour MP). Then again, when he has twice on air referred to "WE in the Labour Party" and "when WE are re-elected", it does give one the impression he might be a trifle biased...............
This of course has nothing to do with the latest inflation figure !!
Show's how deeply rooted Brown's love of the Union is!
Likely that this has happened because of a Conservative report that says he doesn't get out much:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2547835,00.html.
With any luck he'll go down with Delhi belly.
Couldn't Jailhouselawyer have posted that on his only blog? Oh, I just remembered, no one reads it.
Brown getting out to avoid a few awkward questions as usual - things like inflation rates, devolution, West Lothian etc etc.
This man is real Leadership material - right down the tubes.
What was the rush, anyway? India can wait, there are much more pressing matters here. But, as always, not being around to take the flak is standard practice for this prat.
Still, Dawn's always good for a laugh (no, not with, more at).
Gordo may be concerned that, with the imbibing of numerous wee drams, fisticuffs might ensue .... and he cannot afford to have any more rumours circulating about his involvement with fists !
What has all that rubbish from jailhouselawyer got to do with the subject in question?
It was, in fact, jhmcrs I agreed with, in case anyone wondered!
Stupendous stuff ! Perhaps there's also a meeting of the Smith Institute on the same night, and he didn't want to get out by the paparazzi.
I can't imagine Gordon doing the 'When in Rome...' thing over in India, but then I've been wrong before..
If there is sign of trouble you can be sure of one thing, there will be no sign of Foxhole Gordon!
Joke : Gordon was waiting to be born ...
God says ... "Gordon, the good news is you will become Prime Minister, the bad news is you are born coward and I'm going to put a big yellow stripe down your back."
Gordon replies ... "Well in that case can you make it two yellow lines so I can tax anybody who stands behind me."
Think this is all about the inflation figures.
I wondered last week how Gordon Brown could effectively disappear on business!
Theo spark and chatterbox are right.
RPI highest since 1991 and Gordon has suddenly flown away.
Any chance of Tone calling him back like (I think) happened to Healey?
anonymong 10.52: I thought it suited "How Very Rude", like you obviously are. Couldn't be more wrong, not only is it read but it also receives posts. Anything else?
What is it about Nottingham Boys High School that it produces such smug and breezy complacency in people like Ed Balls, Geoff Hoon and Kenneth Clarke ?
can we re-engineer the heathrow fog so that Gordo can't come back from the Raj?
he's always doing that isnt he? running off hiding, somewhere anytime there's a big serious issue on the agenda.
leadership material my arse.
Totally agree with Mr scruff, Gordi's got no spine at all, he's just a greasy sod who (occasionally) sits in the commons all scrunched up like the Mr Punch lookalike he is. What a coward he is when (not) being honest with Bliar.
I'm sure Rola Cola Primarolo will find time. She certainly hasn't been seen in her Constituency for quite a while. Is she still M.P. for Bristol South?
I'm sure Rola Cola Primarolo will find time. She certainly hasn't been seen in her Constituency for quite a while. Is she still M.P. for Bristol South?
Oh well, with his future boss away in India, it seemed a good day for the Miliblogger to publish a public suicide note in the Telegraph.
Old gordo has gone behind the sofa again must be bad news in the air.This
so called "leader in waiting" is a coward and couldnt stand up to a breeze. how rude running out on his party.
Inflation comes in at it's highest for years so Cowardly Brown flees to India leaving his monkey Ed Balls to take the flak.
It's par for the course for Gordo, though with the economic news likely to get considerably worse this year he's going to spend a lot of time in hiding.
Hardly leadership material is he?
Post a Comment