FEAR NOT, MY FRIENDS—OUR WHITE ELEPHANTS WON’T BE GOING HUNGRY NEXT YEAR

(NOTE: Postscript added 26 June 2016
and another on 28 June)

The trouble with socialist governments is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s money.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

An elephant is a mouse designed and built to Shire of York specifications.

Anon.

Maggie Thatcher was wrong.  It’s not only socialist governments that run out of other people’s money.  Sooner or later, all governments do, regardless of type, level or political composition.

Other people’s money is the only kind of money governments—politicians and bureaucrats—have to spend.  If they were spending their own money, they’d be more inclined to spend it carefully, even when lavishing it on themselves.

If you spend money, your supply of it dwindles away.  That’s a law of nature.  It’s a bit like the second law of thermodynamics applied to the world of finance. 

Luckily for overspending governments, there are simple remedies at hand.  One is simply to print more banknotes, a risky solution at best.  (When the US Federal Reserve does that, as it’s doing right now, it’s called ‘quantitative easing’.  Spare me.) 

Another is to stop or reduce spending on services that government provides. 

The first of those remedies isn’t available to local governments.  (I bet they wish it were.)  The second is available to them, but tends to provoke howls of protest from sections of the community that benefit most from those services—who are not necessarily the people who pay, or pay most, for them.

Government services at every level are usually more popular with folk who use them but don’t pay for them than with folk who pay for them but don’t use them.

As the saying goes, if you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on Paul's support.

That’s a law of nature, too.  Human nature.

If Paul doesn’t get from government what he thinks he deserves, he can whip up a tidal wave of popular dismay that sweeps the offending government out of office.  Faced with that prospect, a government will usually respond by thrusting its claws more deeply into Peter’s pocket.

There are other, no less hazardous ways to replenish diminishing government funds.  The most obvious is through direct (poor old Peter) or indirect taxation.  Another is by borrowing, from your own citizens (including corporate citizens like banks) and investors overseas.

Running low on cash? Have to maintain or increase spending on a bloated public sector and people who can’t or won’t pay their own way? 

Easy!  Impose new or higher taxes (and charges for service) on those who can afford to pay them, at the same time building up a humungous deficit for your grandchildren to take care of.

This is the process that keeps the economy—local, national and global—bubbling merrily along.  The mantra is ‘Buy, spend, tax and borrow’, followed by ‘Buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax and borrow more.’

No wonder astrology is big business on the Internet.   Everyone knows that sooner or later, S.S. Titanic is doomed to hit the iceberg.

I thought that would chase away your midwinter blues.  Now, to the point of this article.

Feeding the little white elephant

At the municipal level, taxes go by the name of rates.  We in York have seen for ourselves how unwise and extravagant spending decisions have resulted in swingeing rate increases over the last few years. 

Take the purchase of the Old Convent School, poetically christened ‘Chalkies’ by the vendors and by me as ‘the little white elephant’. 

That incomprehensible purchase was the work of Commissioner James Best.  A bumbling state government minister appointed him to masquerade as the shire council while doing his best to crush the spirit of dissent in York.

For the grossly inflated price of $625,000, the Shire got back a near-derelict building it had disposed of many years before to save the cost of maintaining it.  It didn’t have enough in the kitty to pay for the building, so it took out a loan (at interest) from Treasury Corporation, and put up the rates. 

There you have it—modern political economy in a nutshell.

The present council, guided no doubt by community contributions to the draft corporate business plan, must soon decide what to do with the little white elephant.  First, though, the building must be ‘brought up to code’, i.e. made safe for public use or perhaps habitation. 

That will cost money—our money.  The elephant will have to be fed, even though it’s doing nothing for us.

Then, if Council decides to sell the building, it will almost certainly do so on a sinking market, resulting in a considerable loss to the Shire—that’s to say, us— made up of the difference in the building’s value, the cost of repairs, the residue of the Treasury loan and every cent paid by way of interest.

Thank goodness somebody got something out of the deal.  Verily I say unto you, greater love hath no man than this, that he fork over lots of other people’s money to his friends.

What if Council decides not to sell Chalkies?  In that case, it will have to be turned to some profitable purpose. 

Here’s my suggestion:  convert the building into a high-class Gothic-style bordello catering for wealthy sado-masochists from Perth’s western suburbs.  Call it ‘Kiss of the Whip’ and hire somebody to run it under the nom-de-bonque Madam Lash.

That’s the only way we’ll get a reasonable return on our investment. 

And we can arrange overnight accommodation for bordello clients at the York Palace Hotel.

What about the big white elephant?  He needs feeding too

Assiduous readers of this blog will recall that at the May OCM I asked a question about the costs and benefits past and present of the YRCC, and received from Shire President Wallace what I can only describe as an anodyne, cavalier and intellectually vacuous reply. 

Somebody must have told him I’m a fool.  I was trying to keep that a secret.

Well, the past may be off-limits so far as the Shire is concerned, but the future is up for review.  (Don’t be daft, James, you can’t review something that hasn’t yet happened.)

All right, then: the Shire has published estimates of the operating costs of the centre for the coming financial year.  You can find them on the Shire website.

Let’s cut straight to the chase.  Taking Forrest Oval and the YRCC as a single enterprise, the Shire intends to spend a total of  $775,907 and expects to receive income amounting to $447,762, resulting in a net cost to ratepayers of $328,145. 

Peanuts.  What a relief.  Remember, fellow forelock-tuggers, it’s only money, and our money at that.  No reason to lose sleep.

But remember too that these are just operating costs, taking no account (so far as I can tell, I’m no accountant) of other costs like repayment of principal and interest on associated loans.

I haven’t included the cost of salaries ($34,684) and superannuation ($40,877), because I’m still trying to work out how that amount of salary can attract a superannuation liability, calculated at 12%, that is $6193 greater than itself.

If those estimates were to be included, that would raise the net cost of the enterprise next year to $403,706.

That’s the merest bagatelle compared, say, with the annual cost of Perth’s latest white elephants, the pricey Burswood Stadium ($1000 for a good seat, i.e. one from which you can see the game) and toxic, child-poisoning Elizabeth Quay.

Some good news…

On a positive note, you’ll be glad to learn that the bar in the convention centre is expected to make a profit (income $208,000; expenditure $191,914; profit $16,086).  So is the café/restaurant (income $140,000; expenditure, $137,732; profit $2,268).  

That’s a combined profit of $18,354.  Not a lot, but better than the proverbial boot in the nether regions.

(Still, as I said in a previous article, I have doubts about the morality of a local government running those kinds of facilities in competition, as in York, with privately owned munching and swigging stations.  I’m told that at least one senior DLGC bureaucrat has expressed similar misgivings.)

The gym is also expected to make a profit of $12,863 (income $22,880; expenditure $10,017).  Thank you, physical jerks.

…and some bad

Everything else at Forrest Oval will continue to run at a loss.  The Shire expects to spend a total of $219,694 on the convention centre, compared with an estimated income of $70,720 (including income from the gym).  That’s a net cost to ratepayers of $148,994.

I was under the impression that the expense of providing services for the benefit of sporting clubs would be to some extent defrayed by agreed contributions from the clubs.   

Apparently that was once the case, but is no longer so.  Council waived that requirement a couple of years ago.

I recall that in 2012 or thereabouts, the Shire took out a loan for the Bowls Club that the club agreed to repay at the rate of around $30,000 per year.  It appears the remaining balance of that debt was also waived. 

Next year, the Shire expects to spend $11,350 on turf maintenance for the bowling greens and to receive green fees of $8,320 (a net cost to ratepayers of $3,030).   Of course, the club wasn’t responsible for the sinkhole, so we’ve really no right to grumble.

A similar consideration arises in relation to the corrugated tennis courts, which will run at a loss of $4,268 after green fees of $8,320 are set off against $11,350 to be spent on turf maintenance.  (Try playing corrugated tennis!)

I suppose that the cost of re-turfing the bowling greens and tennis courts, and fixing the bowling green sinkhole, is included somewhere else in the estimates, as asset maintenance.

One of the clubs is doing really well at ratepayers’ expense.  Can you guess which one I mean?

Yes, you’re right.  It’s the Hockey Club, of which Shire President Wallace is a life member and former president. 

Next year, the Shire expects to spend $26,260 on oval maintenance and $9,739 on a second hockey field.  No income is expected, so that’s a net cost to ratepayers of $35,999. 

There must be something about the game that attracts good luck—maybe the balls, or the stick.

What was I saying about other people’s money?  Enough, already.  My brain hurts.

NB: Councillor Randell has been unable to contribute to this edition of the blog, but may make a cameo appearance in the next one.

POSTSCRIPT:  Balls or stick? York Hockey Club holds hand out for help in cash and kind

Our currently most successful sporting mendicant, the York Hockey Club, has its hand out for more of our money.

You can read all about the club’s application on pages 55 to 58 of the agenda for tomorrow’s ordinary council meeting. 

Notice, before your eyes glaze over as you read item SY069-06/16-1154505 Application for Support, that it records no disclosure of interest, despite Shire President Wallace’s long association with the club including a stint as its president and current status of life member.

That’s a bit of a conundrum, because when the application first came before Council in May, SP Wallace played no part in the decision to defer consideration of it until the June meeting.  However, he took part, along with CEO Martin, in a meeting on 9 May with representatives from the club to discuss the proposal that is the subject of the application.

The club has provided the Shire with a copy of its ‘financials’, to be circulated ‘as a confidential attachment under separate cover for Councillors’ information’.

Here we go again.  It’s our money the club is after.  Why should its financial situation remain a secret from the rest of us?  If it’s doing well, does it really need help from the Shire?  If it isn’t doing well, can we trust it to spend our money and use our resources wisely? 

And can we trust our councillors to make a rational decision in the interests of ratepayers rather than of people waving a begging bowl under their noses—especially when the president’s friends are holding the bowl?

The club is asking for support in cash and kind for its proposal to host the 2016 Great Southern Hockey Tournament in York, to be held on the weekend of 8 and 9 July.

It wants $1000 in cash to pay for ‘security services’ and ‘an in kind allocation’ of $7,751 to to cover the cost of various benefits and services for which the club might otherwise be charged by the Shire.

We should be wary of the sleight of hand involved in phrases like ‘in kind allocation’.  What the club is really asking is that Council waive fees and charges for a series of items, namely: additional playing field maintenance; provision of rubbish bins; venue hire; cleaning; hire of Forrest Oval; hire of the stadium for camping; and ‘camping on YRCC grounds’. 

On page 58 of the agenda, you can find estimates of the individual costs of those items.  The highest estimate is for camping on YRCC grounds ($2,550), while the lowest is $140 for hire of the YRCC as venue for a dinner on Saturday night.

Throw in the cost of security—for which the club would normally be responsible—and you have, in effect, a donation from the Shire to the York Hockey Club of $8,751.  I won’t describe it as a loss to the Shire, because what it is really is a ‘failure to gain’ rather than a loss—except for the $1000 cash for security, which however you look at it would be lifted ultimately from ratepayers’ pockets.

Can this donation be justified as conferring a benefit on the community as a whole? 

The Shire thinks so, on the grounds that the proposed event will attract ‘in excess of’ [in plain English: ‘more than’] ‘300 visitors… making use of local accommodation providers or local camping facilities’. 

But according to the Shire’s estimates, at least 100 of those visitors will be camping for nothing on YRCC grounds, and I’m betting the number of campers taking advantage of free accommodation there and elsewhere will be considerably greater than what’s envisaged by the Shire.

It seems likely, too, that not many of those visitors will come into town to eat breakfast, lunch or dinner when food will almost certainly be available on site—perhaps from their own supplies, or on sale from the club.

From a ratepayer’s point of view, the cost seems definite, the benefits nebulous.

And don’t expect those visitors to spend a fortune in the tavern.  The hockey club has 13 liquor licences per annum, granted en bloc every year.  My guess is that any profit resulting from the sale of alcoholic beverages will flow directly into the club’s coffers, not the Shire’s.

Okay, $8,751 isn’t a huge amount of money.  But there’s an issue of principle here.  No community group, however well connected, should consider itself entitled to a handout from municipal funds—our funds—without offering something tangible in return.

It troubles me that the hockey club, already doing quite well out of the Shire compared with other groups, doesn’t seem to have included in its application an offer to divert some part of any profits from the event—for example, from the sale of booze, soft drinks and grub—to its benefactors, the ratepayers of York.

I ask again: is it the balls or the stick that brings the club luck.  Or is it just brass neck?

[Disclosure: one of my nephews plays hockey at county level in England.  Further disclosure: he’s in my bad books at the moment because unlike his parents and siblings the treacherous fellow voted for Britain to remain in the EU.]

POSTPOSTSCRIPT:  At last night’s OCM, Council approved the ‘in kind’ request, but not the cash payment to the club of $1000 for security purposes.  So the club will have to pay for security from its own resources.

It would be churlish of me to object to Council’s decision (wouldn’t it?).

However, I was too hasty in claiming that such a decision would cost the Shire nothing, resulting merely in a ‘failure to gain’.  Shire staff will have to prepare the grounds for the event at an estimated cost to ratepayers of $1,200. See p. 58 of the agenda for last night’s meeting.  The Shire will also have to provide additional rubbish bins—estimated cost $261.

In response to recent comments on the blog critical of SP Wallace, I repeat here an earlier observation that he is a good chairman of meetings.  I’m not being patronising.  It’s the truth.

 

 The Splurj Mahal, York

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

 (Note: postscript added 13 June 2016
            further postscript added 14 June
          and a tribute in verse added 16 June
          and another great photo for day 4 of the challenge, the best yet in my opinion)

Silence isn’t always golden—sometimes it’s just a way of keeping us in the dark

Ever the optimist, I submitted in writing a question for Council to consider at the ordinary meeting on 23 May 2016.

The question was set out, more or less as it went to Council, at the end of my article ‘The White Elephant in York’s Pajamas’, posted on Friday 13 May.  

According to popular superstition, that may not have been the most auspicious day to post it, but the article provoked close to a record number of comments, indicating a high degree of public interest in the history and possible future of the York Recreation and Convention Centre. 

At the meeting, I read out my question, omitting the obsequious bits I had craftily added by way of preface.  Shire President Wallace’s response was so friendly, cheerful and enthusiastic that for a moment I thought he was about to give me a medal, make me a freeman of the shire, present me with a prize-winning stud ram and offer me his daughter’s hand in marriage (the last being subject of course to the pending introduction of sharia law and the consequent legalisation of polygamy).

My question, in essence, was about the cost and benefits (if any) of the construction and operations of the YRCC. 

I wanted to know how much the centre had cost to build; how much of that cost had been skimmed from other projects; what it had cost to repair and maintain since being opened for public use; what financial benefits, i.e. revenue and profit, had accrued to the Shire from the centre’s operations; and whether or not the centre was ever likely to pay its own way.

Introducing the question, I reminded everyone that former A/CEO Graeme Simpson had well over a year ago promised to provide us 'within a week' with a ‘fact sheet’ containing information of that kind.  He made the promise in one of his rare lucid moments, so it’s no wonder I remember it so well.   

We are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled.  I was expecting the present Council and Shire administration to fulfil it, on the premise that a promise made is a debt unpaid.  After all, it was made in the Shire’s name.

Be careful what you wish for, because if it’s hard facts you’re after you might not get them from the Shire of York

As I wrote in ‘Notes from Underground’ (25 May), ‘I formed the impression that the question wasn’t unwelcome, as I had felt it might be, and would evoke in due course a detailed response’.  In my innocence, I expected Council to instruct the CEO to make public what I (and many others) would like to know.  

Using the kind of language beloved of politicians and bureaucrats, I pointed out in asking my question that such information might help us ‘to facilitate an informed consultation process’ regarding the relevant aspects of the draft strategic community plan.   

Alas, the vanity of human hopes and wishes!  By ‘detailed response’, I meant that the question should be answered in detail—and further, that the detail would relate for the most part to the question as I had asked it, not to another distantly related question that I didn’t actually ask, but might have asked if my purpose had been to assist Council and the Shire administration to obscure the awful truth about the YRCC.

This was the Shire President’s response, slightly edited, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting:

…the draft Corporate Business Plan refers to an action “YRCC Management Review” to be undertaken in the 2016/17 financial year…It is expected that this review will result in a Business Plan for the YRCC being presented to Council for consideration.  The Business Plan will address many of the … issues [forming] part of your question.  Once this Business Plan is considered by Council and directions for the Centre decided involving consultation with sporting clubs this would be a better time to issue a Facts Sheet if possible.

No, Dave, that wouldn’t be ‘a better time’.  The best time to give us the facts is NOW.

‘I want to believe…’

OK, let’s paraphrase what the Shire President said.  The tart comments displayed in italics are mine.

1.              This financial year, there’s going to be a ‘Management Review’ of the YRCC.  (Excellent! But who will carry out the review, under what headings, and if the review reveals that the centre isn’t cost-effective, and can’t be made so, will the Shire tell us?)

2.              The review should result in a ‘business plan’ for the centre.  (What form will the review take, based on what underlying assumptions?)

3.              The proposed business plan will address ‘many issues’ raised in my question.  (Precisely which issues will it address?)

4.              We don’t think this is the right time to put out a Fact Sheet.  It may not be possible to produce one (why the hell not?) It would be better to put one out when Council has considered the plan and decided, after a round of chin-wagging with the sporting clubs that use it, just where the centre’s future is heading.  (Most residents aren’t members of sporting clubs and don’t use the centre.  Suppose that a majority of residents would prefer not to go on paying in their rates for a centre they don’t use and which can’t pay for itself—what then?  Will their objections be cast aside in favour of the interests of a handful of sports fanatics—and of a bevy of superannuated boozers getting subsidised grog in the tavern?)

I think Shire President Wallace and his cohorts completely missed the overall point of my question, which as I made clear from the outset was to enable residents to make an informed contribution to the development of a business plan for the centre.

We shouldn’t have to wait for a facts sheet until after the business plan has been presented to Council.   We need the information I asked for now, not when the plan is to all intents and purposes a fait accompli.

To give just one example of what I mean:  if it turns out, after examining the figures, that the tavern and restaurant are paying their way and reaping excellent profits for the Shire—stranger things have happened, though not often—will that raise the spectre of competitive neutrality in relation to the town’s struggling hospitality sector?  

If it does, should we close those operations for the sake of local entrepreneurs?  We can’t reflect on that question, or indeed on the future of those operations, without a full knowledge of the facts.

Like Agent Mulder in The X-Files, I want to believe.  I really, really do.  I want to believe that the new Council and administration not only have our best interests at heart, but also want to share with us the facts and figures upon which their perception of our best interests relies. 

I want to believe that the bad old days are gone forever, that the truth will no longer be withheld from us, that it will shine forth resplendently for all to see as a new and more confident era dawns.

I want to believe that unlike most if not all of its predecessors, Council will eschew secrecy in government in the knowledge that such secrecy isn’t only the first step on the path to corruption, it’s also the first step on the path to public opprobrium and loss of trust. 

I want to believe that our Council really is committed to open, honest and accountable government.  

Yes, I want to believe all of that.

But I’m buggered if I'm ready to believe it yet.

POSTSCRIPT:  Why won’t the Shire of York tell us what the Major Fraud Squad found in the Shire’s financial records?

In my History Channel post of 17 April 2016, I discussed Acting CEO Dacombe’s recommendation that Council should suppress details of the Major Fraud Squad’s decision not to investigate irregularities arising from transactions on the Shire’s corporate credit card and (I believe) other financial dealings of the Shire.

I did so under the heading ‘And now for something completely different—lawyers advise York Shire Council to suppress Major Fraud Squad report’.

I adverted to the matter again in my farewell tribute to Acting CEO Dacombe, posted on 26 April.

It wasn’t my intention to have a go at Mr. Dacombe, whom I like, respect and admire.  He made it clear that his recommendation relied on legal advice.

Nor was I being critical of the police.  They identified irregularities, but described them as ‘governance, accounting or record-keeping issues’.  It’s the governance issues that most concern me here.

Presumably, governance issues arose because councillors had approved irregular expenditures, thus providing those responsible for them with a viable defence to any criminal charges that might otherwise have been laid.

So far as the police were concerned, the Shire Council has the authority and power to approve all expenditures made in its name, and by giving that approval, to validate them.

Explained—or explained away?

I’m not entirely happy with that explanation of what seems to have occurred. 

Can it really be the case that what ratepayers might regard as dishonest —I won’t say fraudulent— activity ceases to be so because lazy and incompetent councillors aren’t bothered to check what is thrust under their noses for approval month after month?

And were our highly paid auditors asleep at the wheel when they examined the Shire’s financial records year after year?

I suppose it’s possible that certain members of past councils were directly implicated in some of those irregularities, which in total may have cost ratepayers a significant amount of money. 

It’s my understanding that some of the irregular expenditures were on alcohol purchased from a bottle shop in Perth, while others related to a trip interstate.  On a more trivial note, I know of at least one occasion when the Shire’s credit card was used to buy icecreams in Mundaring on the way home from consulting a lawyer in Perth.

Probity

Leaving aside the vexed question of possible criminality, were questions of probity involved in any of this, and if so, what did Brad Jolly and his fellow lotus-eaters at the DLGC have to say about them?  Do they have anything worth hearing to say now?

The DLGC knew what was going on, because York ratepayers told them.  They did nothing, probably because they didn’t care.  Or perhaps they thought it wasn’t ‘in the public interest’ for councillors and staff to be embarrassed by the truth being made available to the forelock-tugging residents of York.

Thankfully, new policies are in place to reduce the likelihood that such improprieties, large and small, don’t happen in the future.  We have Mark Dacombe and Dr Gael Ferguson to thank for that.

But is that a plausible excuse for turning a blind eye to past iniquities?  I don’t think so, and I doubt that most of my readers do, apart from the tiny tribe of self-interested zombies who are all for flushing uncomfortable ‘historical issues’ down the toilet.

Inappropriate?

What most puzzled me about Acting CEO Dacombe’s recommendation was the assertion that it would be ‘inappropriate’ to release details of issues raised in the police report because to do so might result in individuals responsible for them being easily identified.

Most of us have a shrewd idea who those individuals might be.  Frankly, I don’t care who they are, if they are no longer members of Council or employed by the Shire.

What troubles me is that some of them might be members of Council who were also members of past councils at times when the irregular expenditures occurred, and were among those who approved them.

What troubles me even more is that their complicity, witting or not, in giving such approval might be what lay behind both the recommendation and Council’s vote to adopt it.   At the April ordinary council meeting, that vote was split 5-2, with councillors Saint and Walters dissenting.

I believe that if any current councillors were in any way, at any time and for any reason so complicit, they should not have voted on the recommendation because they had a discernible interest in avoiding embarrassment by keeping the matter under wraps.

(Incidentally, it was a similar line of reasoning that led me to conclude that a former council’s decision to suppress the Fitz Gerald Report was illicit.  The three councillors forming the quorum that voted for suppression were all mentioned adversely in the report and had no business voting on it.)

It’s the issues that matter

That said, I suspect most of us would be happy just knowing precisely what the issues were—all of them, not just governance issues—without being given details that could identify the individuals responsible for them.

This isn’t just about history.  It’s about the present and the future.  It’s about ensuring as far as possible that nothing that shouldn’t have happened ever happens again.

Good policies are helpful, but human ingenuity in the service of self-interest will usually find a way around them. 

The best safeguard for good governance is an electorate that knows the truth and is vigorously and permanently on the lookout for bureaucratic misfeasance and for the failure of councillors to put community interests ahead of personal concerns.

 So, councillors, come clean—tell us what the issues were that the police identified.  As our ancestors used to say, before truth became a casualty of the postmodern era, telling the truth shames the devil and sets us free.

POSTPOSTSCRIPT: On a lighter note…

From Cr Randell’s Facebook page—his first entry in The 5 Day Photograph a Twat Challenge

I don’t know if Trevor’s going to win, but they say he’s in pole position.

 The challenge continues with a second entry…

Game of Thrones…Trev snaps a selfie in a public toilet—and not a hair out of place!

 He missed out on the Queen’s Birthday Honours.  Is he aiming for Twat of the Year?

…and rolls on with a third…

 

THE TWAT IN THE HAT

  

(apologies to Dr Seuss)

This is the tale of a Twat in a Hat,

Some said he was silly, some called him a prat,

Others laughed at his antics and called him a dork

But he shone like a star in the fair shire of York.

An adept of Facebook, and eager for fame,

He had earned by his efforts a luminous name:

The world read with wonder his trenchant remarks

That wound up in rows of exclamatory marks;

His favourite epigram, oft written down,

Declared that his foes should be run out of town—

Those complainers and whingers, who dwelt on the past,

Had no place in HIS town, and from thence should be cast

Back to where they'd all come from.  Lip angrily curled,

He cried, ‘First Ashworth Road, then tomorrow the world;

The future of York rests with rubbish in trucks.

It’s time to move forward.  History sucks’.

Most of all he detested—I’ll mention their names—

York’s dastardly bloggers, David and James:

Those horrible creatures, those arrogant knaves

Who slime in and out of their cowardly caves,

Pointing the finger at bloody good blokes

Who’d looked after their mates and struck down other folks.

The summit and crown of his glorious career

Was to stand for election as Twat of the Year.

Not everyone thought that was such a good thing,

The bloggers poked fun as his campaign took wing,

While respectable residents said he’d lose face

If he wasn’t elected, and bring us disgrace,

Which of course would be shameful, a shock and a scandal—

But he’s certain to win.  Just ask Councillor Randell!!!!!

…now it’s Day 4, and the champ weighs in with a defiant declaration of where he stands on a vital issue of principle affecting us all—if those figures refer to inches, he must have shrunk in the wash, probably during the spin cycle…

 

Don’t worry, Trevor, nobody around here thinks love is a crime, or wants to see you dragged off to jail.  Such an event would ‘eclipse the gaiety of nations, and diminish the public stock of harmless pleasure’.

Disappointing News:  Day 5 of the ‘Photograph a Twat Challenge’ seems to have been cancelled or indefinitely postponed.  The Facebook page that hosted it, Trevor and Sharon’s Love/Hate Page, is no longer available for viewing to the general public.

I wonder—is it possible that the day 4 photo isn’t of Trev but of the mysterious Sharon?