31st October 2013


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/439468/Taxpayers-to-pay-double-for-MPs-Christmas-decorations

Decorative Dave,

Apparently the Christmas decorations bill for the House of Commons is going to be double the amount it was last year, totalling £13,577. And why shouldn’t it? There is much to celebrate! The economy growing a massive 0.8%! Okay, so it took a good few years longer than expected, but from a Chancellor of the Exchequer without a grasp of basic economics? Well, it’s practically a miracle.

The news about the decorations started to get me all festive so I thought I’d order a few Tory themed Christmas cards from the official Conservatives website. Unfortunately there seem to be none left! So this started me thinking, perhaps I could come up with some well natured, good-ole self-effacing humour range of cards you could sell to replace the old ones. For this, I did seek out the help of a few friends. So, how many Tories does it take to change a light bulb?

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, would decide it’s actually less light that is needed, not more. The saving of light right now would be vitally important in order to ensure more light in the future. Despite being told of the flaws in this theory by multiple experts, he would not only not change the bulb, he would have a few other bulbs removed.

Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, would decide that the bulb, after years of various advancements that had made it perform better and more efficiently, is far too modern, and the old bulbs were far better. The older bulbs, he would decide, needed to be brought back and those bulbs would be supplied by a couple of his friends in the light bulb industry who would be given long-term contracts who would provide specially customised bulbs at ten times the cost of ordinary bulbs.

Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health, would decide that changing the light bulb would result in far too many visitors benefitting from the light without being properly entitled to it. Also, before the light can go back on, he would also shut off light in other areas to concentrate the light on the area around the bulb which would mean people would have to travel further to benefit from the light making everything far more efficient. This decision would later be overturned, owing to the fact that it was stupid.

Iain Duncan-Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, would believe that changing the bulb would merely encourage reliance on the state to provide light. Furthermore, the bulb would be assessed on its true capability whereupon it would be found “fit for work” even though it could produce no more light. Eventually more bulbs would fail and they would go unchanged whereupon it would fall upon charitable organisations who would set up bulb banks providing donated bulbs. At the same time, he would deny there was any reduction in light at all. Meanwhile, the bulbs would eventually be changed by unemployed people on unpaid work experience.

And you, my darling, well, you would point out that the faulty bulb was installed under Labour but you would question if changing the light bulb is actually the answer. You would call a full parliamentary debate for which you’d send Nick, leading to a second debate which would lead to an expensively commissioned report, the conclusions of which would be largely ignored. Eventually, the job would be contracted to several foreign companies who would raise the cost of bulbs in unison every Christmas.

Must dash. Just off out to Poundland to buy 13,577 baubles.

Katy Anchant

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s