I really mustn't hold Ms. Hewitt's voice against her! I know it tends to pour over one like warmed-up treacle but I remember that the Blessed Margaret's voice grated like the proverbial nails down a blackboard until she turned baritone, and it was only after one had persevered and listened to what she had to say that it became clear she was quite, quite brilliant. Alas, listening to Ms. Hewitt, as I did last night on Channel 4's Dispatches programme, convinced me that she is only a brilliantly 'lying liar' and a complete incompetent.
Mind you , the programme bucked me up no end, better than any tonic a 'Quack' could prescribe - assuming you could find a 'Quack' with a budget to prescribe anything these days in the "wonderful NHS, the envy of the world" (except no one copies it!) I knew things were shambolic in the NHS but I had no idea matters had reached the glorious state of chaos, muddle, chicanery, waste and incompetence that they have achieved today. I fairly rocked in my armchair, cackling with glee, and actually applauding as a long queue of sorry-looking coves, all experts in their fields, admitted that the whole edifice was on the point of collapse. At this point enter Ms. Hewitt, beautifully coiffed, all teeth and gums with that unfortunate tendency of smiling with the corners of her mouth down turned which is guaranteed to make the 'smiler' appear obnoxiously condescending. The smile only just held (was it glued?) but the eyes glittered in rage as the reporter hounded her with spot-on questions laced with hard facts from his investigations. All she could do was lie and wriggle, wriggle and lie. How I wished we could have seen her after the interview when the cameras were switched off, and I wondered what she said to her Media secretary who had set up the interview and whether in the course of it her carefully modulated tones slid into an unedifying screech?
Anyway, the good news is that the old nationalised health non-service is doomed. Of course, with ninnies like Ms. Hewitt in charge, the change is going to be of the worst kind as she and her ilk pretend that nothing has changed and that the Great British Public can go on expecting medical services 'free' at the point of delivery. Happily more and more of us are realising that only fools and horses rely on any government's promise about anything; so if you have any sense, save the cost of the bullet and start making provision for your own health care - NOW!
In fact, I have a better target in mind for that bullet; the creepy, ignorant Lefty, Alan Johnson, who masquerades as Minister of Education. I say "creepy" because he's the one who always wears sunglasses even when it's cloudy, a sure sign that he's not quite 16 annas to the rupee! He's also the one who, in a hot flush of Lefty exhilaration, proposed that Faith Schools should only be permitted under a quota system. As anyone with half a brain would have known, the combined ranks of the Churches raised a howl of protest and Johnson dropped the proposal like a hot brick and ran for cover. So, dim, as well! Now this divorced tribune of the people insists that the institute of marriage must not be supported by the state - so no surprise there, then, from a man who ditched the Missus and three kids. He thinks that such a policy would stigmatise single mothers and their off-spring. Well, I'm a bastard (in all senses) so I go along with Shakespeare when he says, "let's stand up for bastards" but that doesn't stop me from seeing the obvious fact that fatherless sons are more likely to go feral than those from a nuclear family. But, hey, when you've walked away from three of your own kids, what do you care?
Actually, thinking about it, it would be a waste of a good bullet. There's a never-ending supply of wretched creatures like Hewitt and Johnson, so perhaps I might save it for myself as a last escape!
David, would it be fair to describe you as a "conservative"?
Would it also be fair to describe one of the main parts of conservativism as a belief that traditional institutions and practices (like the monarchy) need to be defended against radical reforms?
If so I'd like to ask how many years must pass before an institution or practice can be deemed "traditional" and thus earn the support of conservatives?
Posted by: Planeshift | Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 19:57
I *assume* that your more than somewhat broad question refers in particular to the institution of marriage. As this practice has been almost universal since Mankind formed itself into societies I would suggest that it should be defended for at least as long.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 21:23