So what do the Tory expenses revelations tell us in terms of comparative party sociology? Arriviste versus arrived, so far as I can see. The Labour people seem to be scurrying up the ladder like prehensile little monkeys, frantically flipping properties, charging the taxpayers for stuff they’ve seen in the Sunday Times style section, claiming for everything on a throw shit at the wall basis. Labour are the garagistes now. The Tories? Clean my moat, taxpayer. And my swimming pool. Dig my garden. And build my portico while you’re at it. This is cruise control.
Oik as I am, there may be things I’m missing. As Alan Cklark might have said, you can tell they’re middle class because the taxpayers buy their furniture for them.
I think I'm going to change my name to Alan Cklark just in time for my ID card (after which (I assume) name changing will become impossible or just very very expensive). There's something pleasingly sandpapery about 'Cklark'.
Posted by: Charlie | May 12, 2009 at 04:35 PM
Actually, now I think about it, another difference might be that Tory offenders can afford to pay their expsnes back. Labour ones, not so much. Over-leveraged, they be.
Posted by: Charlie | May 12, 2009 at 04:39 PM
Whoops. I was referring of course to the Cambodian branch of the family. Surely you've heard of the famous Sir Kkhenneth Cklkark?
Posted by: jamie | May 12, 2009 at 05:02 PM
'Michael Heseltine is the sort of chap who bought all his own furniture' is the only witty remark in Alan Clark's diaries, so of course Clark himself didn't make it. He was repeating Michael Jopling's joke.
Posted by: Dan Hardie | May 12, 2009 at 06:36 PM