Friday, 17 April 2015

Toby Young Panic Spin Unravels

Ah, to spend the evening of a leaders debate away from any sight of the leaders debate. Yes, there was a Zelo Street evening out with friends in the historic city of Chester yesterday, well, in three of its finest watering holes, anyway. Thus I was spared not only the debate, but, far better, the endless and inevitable spin that followed, some of which takes desperation to a new level - and a desperately low one.
This meathead calls others weird

And dredging away down there in no style at all has been the loathsome Toby Young, spinning for Young Dave and his jolly good chaps, despite Cameron not bothering to turn up. So we had the bizarre scene where the Tories were not represented in the debate, but the likes of Jeremy Hunt (the former Culture Secretary) and Liz Truss were allowed into the spin room to tell anyone listening that the Tub Of Lard won it.
Tobes, meanwhile, was ready to open Twitter feed and insert boot: “So, the big question about @Ed_Miliband this evening: Fake tan or sun bed?” he sneered. Well, you’re not allowed to say “Jewish”, are you, Tobes? What a clown. Try again. “An @Ed_Miliband-led rainbow coalition would look exactly like this #shambles” he ventured, still not concerned that his hero Dave was absent. And there was more to spin.
Why does @Ed_Miliband ‘respect’ the fact that @NicolaSturgeon wants to break up our country?” he pleaded: in Tobes land, respecting others’ views, even if you consider them to be wrong, is not permitted. In any case, he knew who had won: “Just filed my verdict for @Telegraph – a win for Cameron”. HE WASN’T THERE. That, folks, is the idiocy and desperation of the Tory-supporting punditerati in one.

Meanwhile, Tobes pretended that even the hated BBC agreed with him: “BBC News at 10 leading with @NicolaSturgeon’s invitation to @Ed_Miliband to join her in a coalition. Not good for Labour”. Not half as “not good” as your man not bothering to turn up. Have another go. “Survation re-defining the meaning of a ‘snap’ poll here. HELLO?!?” Ah yes, the post-debate poll was not to his liking, and was therefore rubbish.


Why? It was biased, silly: “Party prefs of Survation poll respondents was Con 27 Lab 35 LD 6 UKIP 20 Oth 11. No wonder they called it for Mili!” Very good Tobes, you forgot the “undecideds”, and that it would have been different if your man had been arsed to show up. “Here are the verdicts from a group of @Telegraph writers and bloggers” he suggested, and no, I don’t want to look over there, either.

And, just to vary the diet of drivel, Tobes told anyone still reading “Brilliant video montage: Why @edballsmp was wrong to say ‘no money left’ was a ‘joke’ (h/t @CampaignWatchUK) … Brilliant from @CampaignWatchUK: Ed Balls laughing himself silly at ‘no money left’ joke”. Campaign Watch UK is, er, a venture of Himself Personally Now. So Tobes is telling everyone that he is brilliant. Because he says so.

Thus the wibblings of the politically and intellectually bankrupt. No change there, then.

4 comments:

  1. I was under the impression that this light-hearted treasury note business was a long standing tradition. For example in 1964 a note was left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan:"Good luck, old cock ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course back in 1964 there were no bottle banks, so Reggie's empties would have piled up a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Labour guy who was interviewed on the Daily Politics yesterday said he didn't think Liam Byrne had expected David Laws to open the note, but someone with a sense of humour!

    Laws managed to pack quite a lot of unpleasantness and bile into his very short first term in office. Not sure trotting him out at Election Time is quite such a clever idea as Nick Clegg thinks it is.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Liam Byrne expected to be followed by his Tory shadow, which I think was Philip Hammond, who he'd always got on with.
    The note was made public by the humourless David Laws. Laws was probably worried that there wouldn't be enough money to cover his expenses.

    ReplyDelete