Now this is proper sleaze

Our politicians (in Britain and Ireland) are often shallow, careerist, greedy, arrogant and sometimes corrupt. However, it's sometimes instructive to look elsewhere for comparison, and a couple of stories provide the opportunity to do just that.

Over in Italy, the Prime Minister owns most of the TV, radio and print media, and controls the state channels. He's been accused of consorting with prostitutes, very young girls, evading taxes, dealing with extremely shady elements, and a British government minister's husband has been convicted of accepting a bribe to lie for him. He also thinks it's hilarious to joke that Obama has a 'good tan'. Now his immunity from prosecution while prime minister (a law he passed to protect himself) has been declared unconstitutional, and he's very upset…

Meanwhile in France, the Minister for Culture's autobiography reveals that he was in the habit of paying Thai 'boy' prostitutes a few years ago…

Arrrrggggghhhh - bastards.

I'm speechless with anger (which is OK because I've nobody to talk to) but luckily for you, I can still type. So I've diverted from the train station to share the rage.

The Taxpayers' Alliance is a small bunch of selfish, lying, cynical reactionaries, whose tiny membership believe that Thatcher and Pinochet were essentially communists. They'd rather let the poor starve, the old freeze and the sick die rather than pay any tax. So obviously they think that all politicians are thieves. All they want is lower tax - despite it already being lower than every civilised country I can think of.

The Daily Mail is a tumour. Its owner is a tax-evading, hypocritical harlot - a man with power but no responsibility. Again, the paper resents the existence of government. Lord Rothermere, owner of the Mail, lives in France. Except he doesn't. Well, it depends on who you ask. His milk and bread are delivered to a £50 million mansion in southwest England, which is definitely in England. Letters from the taxman, however, are delivered to a convenient address in France because he's officially 'non-domiciled' in Britain for tax purposes. Essentially, he's letting us pay to keep Britain the quite pleasant place it is for him to enjoy, while hiding his money elsewhere. No doubt he tells the French that he doesn't live there either.

Let's not forget that the Daily Mail stole the 1924 election by publishing the Zinoviev letters (which claimed that the Labour Party was a communist front) knowing them to be fake, openly supported Hitler and his British mini-me Oswald Mosley, tried to overthrow several governments, and was rancidly anti-semitic.

So what are these two unpleasant factions up to? They're raising money from the public to prosecute MPs for cheating us, the taxpayer. I know some MPs are corrupt. But most aren't, and we can sack those who are by voting for someone else. Lord Rothermere and this uninviting, loudmouthed pressure group however, can't be sacked, aren't elected, don't come under any proper scrutiny and can't be questioned. Rothermere is cheating you, me and everybody else, while pointing at MPs and shouting 'thief'. They've stolen a few thousand pounds. He's stolen millions. What can we do? Other than burn down his mansion (he won't mind, he says he doesn't live there), we can tell the truth to any Mail readers we know, and remind everybody that if you don't make a contribution to this country, you don't get a say.

Newspaper owners, including the Mail's in the 1930s and 1970s, plotted to overthrow the government through military means. Now they poison the less-informed because they resent democracy. They think riches qualify you to rule. They don't.

I'll stop now. I know you all think I'm a boring wanker for going on about this stuff, but it is really important and it's SO wrong.

No web access for the next few days. I'll miss you all, and Radio 4. I'm taking a Richard Sennett book along as a 'prop', as I don't have a copy of 'Friends of the British Museum'.

Community payback

Steve Bell really is the new Gillray or Cruikshank. Today he imagines our leaders treating themselves as they treat poor people who nick another £10 from the social security…

Seumas Milne nails these bastards completely.

I buried this suggestion in an earlier post. Here's the version I just sent as a letter to the Guardian:

I have a solution for housing MPs which will reduce the opportunity for sleaze and produce social benefits.

Each MP will be loaned a council flat in London as their second home, preferably in the worst-built, highest-crime, least-maintained estate available. They will be offered the same facility in their constituency, though if they already own a home there, moving will not be required. Once the flat is furnished (and maintained) at reasonable expense, no further money will be provided. Living amongst the poorest citizens will keep the MP honest, remind them of their vocation, dissuade them from acquiring expensive white goods, encourage them to consider the most pressing social issues, and will surely lead rapidly to pressure on local authorities and agencies to improve living conditions for the people we consign to such places.

Folletted

Why does Barbara Follett need £25,000 of private security - all paid for by the taxpayer?

She's a millionaire anyway.

She's Minister of Tourism, not Defence/FCO/Northern Ireland etc. It screams self-important, narcissistic loony.

The only enemies she has are the Labour MPs she mercilessly bullied in the 90s, when it was apparently her job to make them buy designer suits and have trendy haircuts to show how 'New Labour' they were (which insultingly assumes that voters actually make their choice by consulting GQ rather than on political matters). Her husband Ken also has enemies - literary critics and anybody who's bought one of his books at the airport.

Hazel's squirrelling nuts away

Imagine my joy! I've had occasion to take Ms. Blears to task before, so it's sweet to be vindicated. Not only is she a moral and political void, the epitome of mechanoid politics, she's on the take. She's spent nearly £2000 on two TVs - why not a couple of £250 units, Hazel? Perhaps the thinking was that if she bought a 52-inch screen, she could watch her own appearances in life-size!

Worst of all, she's been playing the property market like a Tory, using our money to do places up, then sell them on - claiming on three houses in one year. Clearly Hazel has been using her mega-screen TVs to watch 'Trading Up' or some such evil, Thatcherite programme. I imagine my cousins the weasels are denying any relation to her right now.