Listening to the Today programme can often set me up in a foul mood for the rest of the day. The sheer irritation of listening to stupid MPs, fake charities and bureaucrats prattling on whilst I can only scream frustratedly at my radio - usually with mad, wet hair, scrambling to find clean knickers - enrages me beyond all reason.
This morning was no exception. Some MP has put down an Early Day Motion which seeks to reengage the voters in this country with democracy.
That this House notes that the current electoral arrangement in the UK of allowing only one day to vote is insufficient and can hinder the democratic process; further notes that turnout can be raised substantially by making voting easier or more attractive; applauds the US for its introduction of early voting; further notes that nearly a third of American voters have cast their ballots before election day 2008; urges the Government to introduce early voting procedures in the UK to arouse voter engagement and increase turnout; further notes that those who work irregular and long hours are unfairly disadvantaged by single day voting; further urges the Government to introduce legislation allowing for early voting in the UK with immediate effect; and further notes that this action would benefit the democratic process and provide for greater electoral equality which all political parties should be in favour of.
Well, Linda Riordan, I think you are barking up the wrong fucking tree. Let's happily skip over the fact that you are so unknown in my part of the world (And I am interested in politics; oh what a fucking mountain you have to climb) that you may as well shit in my sandwich every lunchtime, and focus on the issue you raise.
You want more people to vote and fundamentally because, as I understand it, you want them to be engaged in the political system. This I cannot argue with, for I want it too. Although unlike you, I suspect I actually want them to know what they are fucking voting for.
Let's move on to your dulcet tones which, in the absence of a lover, woke me this morning:
I note your use of the words 'main parties' in your rehearsed ramble which, in one stroke, points out that you fail to understand the concept of voters not being represented by three parties. Grasp it quickly, my dear, for they are almost identical. If you forgive me wheeling out that broken record, they have the same views on over 80 per cent of our laws. So you're missing a trick there. I fear it may be one of many.
You were questioned on the cost of extending hours of voting, to which you replied:
"What price democracy?"
What price indeed, madam. It's all pie in the cunting sky to you, though, isn't it. For in the face of every rational argument you and your champagne quaffing (I've been to the parties, bite me trying to get that one argued against) pals firmly fucked the arse of democracy last summer and then asked her to suck it. You know that whole 'Lisbon Treaty' bullshit you told us was a separate document? Well, because we can read we know that it wasn't. What price democracy? Depends on how much it costs to get rid of every single Labour, Lib Dem, Tory, Green, Sinn Fein, DUP, Independent, SNP and other pro EU bastard who ever set foot in the House of Commons.
Because I'm a nice, genteel kind of gal, I'll let folk know about that shameful voting record of yours:
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Linda Riordan voted on key issues since 2001:
- Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
Voted very strongly for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted moderately for introducing ID cards.
Voted a mixture of for and against Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted moderately against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.
Voted for equal gay rights.
Voted very strongly for laws to stop climate change. votes, speeches
Two fingers up to democracy and civil liberties there, old gal!
Never mind: the BBC will never notice...