New rules have been announced in an attempt to rekindle public interest in the long reviled bored game Scrabble for Votes. This irritating game, usually so tiresome that it is played only once every 5 years, sees players squabble furiously over the meaning of everyday words such as "investment" and "cuts". The aim of the game is simply to sow enough confusion amidst the blizzard of bullshit to amass sufficient votes to see off one's opponents.
The new rules will for the first time permit the media to decide on a short list of "main" parties that the voters may choose from, thus avoiding the grim prospect of unsettling the cosy symbiosis built up over many years and many liquid lunches between journalists and spin doctors. Three potential winners of the game will also be decided upon in advance by the media, as they couldn't possibly lose their seats now could they?
Responses to the new rules have been mixed. Mr G Brown from Kirkcaldy, an estranged best friend of a former champion, clunked his fist on the table (unsettling a triple word score) and thundered: "These rule changes, which I must remind you are a global phenomenon, present the viewer with tough choices. Although the deregulated form of the game was appropriate for the past, tight regulation is now required. If we allowed silly little bit-part players to compete then we would run the risk of a future free-for-all."
David Cameron, a newcomer to the game, would not be drawn on his precise plans for dealing with the new rules: "Obviously the rule changes are something that I have long called for and I only wonder why it has taken 13 years to make these changes. Having free and balanced media coverage for all players was simply making it impossible for us elite players, the aristocracy of the game if you like, to secure sufficient funding and column inches. We couldn't go on like this. If I emerge triumphant and oily on May 6th then I promise to set up an independent commission, drawn from all walks of the Bullingdon Club, to investigate either keeping or repealing these iniquitous rule changes, but not before the next game in 2015 when their retention will form a key part of my strategy, or not as the case may be depending on the circumstances at the time."
Another novice, Mr Nick Clegg, expressed his approval of the changes thus: "Thanks for letting me join in, you won't even notice I'm there, I promise."
Some jabbering Jock shouted something and a truculent Taffy made some bleating noises, but their opinions aren't worth bothering you with.