And so Expensegate came for Bill Cash, and here I find myself in a win-win situation: if he goes, it’s another one of the Europhobe fringe out of the way, and if he stays, it’s a good advertisement against Euroscepticism. So I should worry. But this now concerns me: I can’t see what he’s done that is so dishonourable as to debar him from the House of Commons. And I’m not a Tory supporter – full stop.
Cash is alleged to have allowed his son to live rent-free at a flat he owned in London. No, I can’t find anything illegal or improper there. Then he claims for living somewhere else in London – he’s entitled and allowed so to do. No impropriety has taken place, and he’s not dodging the issue. Perhaps it is being suggested that he should be a tougher Dad and chuck his son out of the flat instead, as if there has to be a direct connection between one flat and the other. I still can’t work up sufficient righteous indignation on this one.
What I do see, however, is that the Maily Telegraph is now picking MPs off on a regular basis, and here Young Dave ought to be concerned. This is the very same way in which the legendarily foul mouthed editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre (total remuneration package of 1.5 million) likes to do things – hence Private Eye’s new nickname for the Telegraph. The Mail will tell of a murder, rape, child neglect case or the like – then start the Why-oh-Why treatment. Why isn’t the law being changed? Why have social services missed this one? Why are sentences so lenient?
Then they’ll find another similar case. What about this one? Why-oh-Why again, and again. The Maily Telegraph is doing the same, and right now, particularly to Cameron. Mackay bad? Going to tell him to step down? What about his missus? Is that as bad? Getting rid of her too? OK, now what about Bill Cash – getting rid of him as well? Cameron, inexplicably for someone who I’m sure is not daft, is allowing himself to be picked off and prodded around on a daily basis. If he lets this carry on, then it will indeed carry on. This is a beast he cannot sate.
Ultimately, the Maily Telegraph could even come for Dave himself: after all, there he is, worth some millions, yet taking out a mortgage that he just happens to be allowed to claim against. How stern a talking to is he prepared to give himself?
Perhaps the dissent of Nadine Dorries, which I mentioned recently, was not evidence of “wacky” behaviour, but something that Young Dave might learn from. Ms Dorries, I’m sure, was right on this part of her approach: just what is the motivation of the Telegraph? Further, what is the motivation of, and the part played by, Telegraph proprietors David and Frederick Barclay, aka The Fabulous Bingo Brothers?
If Young Dave just sits there, he may end up like Michael Dukakis – covered in crap and on his way to defeat. But that would suit me fine, so perhaps I’ll keep schtum.