David Cameron has good days and bad days. Having complained about Gordon Brown’s attempts to fight the 2010 election on class war grounds, Tofftastic has now been compared to Quisling, the Norwegian collaborator who helped the nazis take over Norway during WWII and put him in charge. Shane Greer, who picked this wonderful nonsense up in Hansard, is absolutely right to suggest that Labour is now stooping to new depths with that one. Politicians do have to put up with ridicule, name calling etc etc but there are limits! I am, however, very pleased to have found an excellent picture of Cameron talking to some visiting dignitaries from the UAE – on their excellent Flickr account.
Shane Greer notes the following exchange:
Mr. Reed: The Leader of the Opposition currently resembles the Quisling of the climate change deniers, so if he seriously wants to bridge the chasm between his rhetoric and the reality of so many in his party, he should have the basic decency and courage to do that publicly. We need a consensus or else we invite failure. If we fail-
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am not very happy about the word that the hon. Gentleman has just used. Perhaps he would like to withdraw it.
Mr. Reed: Which word in particular, Mr. Deputy Speaker? [Laughter.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the word that I am talking about?
Mr. Reed: I am afraid not, sir.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: He might consider withdrawing the word “Quisling” .
Meanwhile… my Tweet of the Week just has to go to Stephen Fry for this…. I enjoyed the wry humour.
Boris has other pre-occupations: Ever since the Aztecs first worshipped the cocoa bean, mankind has experimented with various ratios of solids, fats, sugar and milk, and Cadbury has got it right. The chocolate bar-barians at the gate are Americans. The Thoughts of Boris
Old Holborn hit the nail on the head with his take on Climate Change: “Nohopenhagen was never about saving a few idiot Bangladeshis who keep building their huts on stilts in river deltas. It was never about polar bears. It was never even about climate change.” (Old Holborn – There are 60 million of us but only 646 of them)
Iain Dale asks: Are People From West Sussex Stupid?…. “I ask the question having seen the video below. It raises two questions – not just the question as to whether West Sussex County Council thinks their population is completely stupid, but also the more important question of why they are spending council tax payers’ money on this inanity.” (Iain Dale)
Lazy Hyena, who also produces GuyNews for the Guido Fawkes blog, has an amusing piece…
A nice girl ain’t nothin’ without a string of pearls
“Here are some of the verbal gems that have been tossed her way by these terribly suave gents (almost exclusively middle-aged men) over the past few months. But Hyena’s too nice to tell you who said them:
What’s a nice girl like you doing with this lot? [Many a time]
If you don’t mind my saying, you have a very well developed mind.
You’ve got this look in your eye!
You’re a mystery. I just don’t understand you.
You project a certain image, but really you’re a well-mannered, nice girl.”
What a ghastly turn of phrase:
“I ask the question… It raises two questions – not just the question as to whether… but also the more important question of why”
Why not just “it raises two questions: whether… and why…”.
Benjamin Gray – Indeed!
Benjamin – it’s fairly common (I’m afraid to say) in public speakers who are extemporising. Basically, it’s because they’ve not constructed the full sentence before they open their mouths and so end up ‘thinking out loud’.
Irritating, isn’t it!?!
Simon
not as irritating as clicking on the link to iaaianaianaian fucking predictidale again. i am so stupid – i bloody do it every time. as if i have forgotten how much it hurt beating myself over the head with the big lump of wood with nails projecting from it last time. it’s like injecting the daily male straight into my eyeball.
Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, such Excessive and grandiose verbosity is, with its use of overly formal language and long sentences, complete with excessive conjunctions and replete with clichés, notwithstanding toonmany sub-clauses, begging the question as to whether the speaker or author has in fact thought through their substantive point at all, let alone whether they have reposed their full confidence in the underlying conceptual framework and meta-narrative of their idea.
In other words, it’s fumbling in your feet, or also because you aren’t entirely secure in your argument and are trying to verbally hedge your conceptual bet. I know I’ve done it with some of my more rubbish blog posts.