The next Prime Minister
of the UK will be a politician.
This shocking news
follows heated debates on overnight radio talk shows and headlines in
this morning's London papers, in a story only displaced by the
devastating use of his military skills by an ex-US Army reservist in
Texas, well-known as an oil-rich state with a heritage of gun-toting.
The next Prime Minister
of the UK will come from the current government party, the Tories and is now a contest between the last two MPs standing. They will go
before members of that party who will vote for one of them. In a
long-cherished manifestation of a well-loved democratic deficit in
the UK, the electorate will not vote for the leader of the UK, which
is the person who has the power to blow the world up with nuclear
weapons and lead the charge to war and ruin like a previous incumbent
did, as revealed in a recent report.
Of course, with such high
stakes to play for the candidates will be using all aspects of their
experiences, characters and personalities to give them the edge so
that their fellow party members will give them the nod.
A report appears this
morning in The Times, a newspaper based in London not to be
confused with The Times of India or The New York Times,
The Irish Times, Antrim Times, Angling Times, Arab
Times, China Times or The Times produced
on a weekly basis in Brownsville, Oregon. No, this is The
Times, owned by News Corp., a Rupert Murdoch business.
Historically, the paper has been very close to the political and
financial elites in London, so a front page article is a big thing
for a challenger for the position of key holder of No. 10 Downing
Street.
In this morning's
front-page report one of the candidates offers a specific
personal attribute as a reason why they would make a better Prime
Minister than the other candidate. The question is what personal
attribute could cause politicos and pundits, bloggers(!) and blabbers
to get into the major froth that this report has produced? It appears
both candidates are heterosexual, white and not living with a
disability.
Can you fill in the gap
in The Times headline?
Being
a—gives me edge
While the candidate
concerned has rejected the article as being the opposite to what was
intended, the journalists who did the interview, Rachel Sylvester and
Sam Coates, stand over it. They are reported to be reputable, and no
doubt they can record spoken words and write copy and probably have
everything backed up mightily. Some people might suggest that writing
for a newspaper in the Murdoch stable of titles immediately draws
into question their reputations, if not their technical abilities.
But what could it
possibly be about a candidate that could, so early in an electoral
contest, however democratically deficient, have led to this furore
when one candidate claims a more real stake in the future of the
country over the other one, said to be ahead in the polls of the 150,
000 members of the Tory party who will vote for the Prime Minister of
the UK, a country of 65, 000, 000 people?
Rupert Murdoch won't let
you see the full report on-line without paying money. The Guardian
has its own version, free on-line. Between them you should be able to
fill in the gap and all the other gaps such a headline leaves. One
possibility is, of course,
Being a politician
gives me edge
No comments:
Post a Comment