- Using her blog to out her boyfriend's estranged wife as an alcoholic
- Using misleading photographs with faked stories to further "pro-life" campaigns and propaganda (My views on "pro-life" here)
- Lying on her blog '70%' of the time
- Falsely claiming that she had had critics investigated by the police for stalking/harrassment
- Being investigated by police over her parliamentary expenses
- Showing woeful lack of knowledge or compassion for disabled people
Today, she struck another victory for self-awareness, sending out a tweet at approximately 4 p.m. that read "Teacher just emailed me to say that on EMA day, the kids go clothes shopping at lunch time and come back late and disrupt lessons".
Oh. Right. Stop the marches! Halt the protests! Some completely random person may or may not have emailed a self-confessed internet bullshitter saying something that accords with her view! Well, it must be true!
Sarcasm aside, how can anyone see this as anything other than a nasty, vindictive smear against children who claim EMA?
To hammer her anti-EMA point home, a short while later, she posted a second tweet, which said "We also have stdnts who are just at schl to be able to claim ema. They do not want to learn, talk though lessons, use their mobile phones".
This, on the day Parliament are to vote on whether to scrap the allowance or not.
Anthony Painter wrote at Left Foot Forward today about how scrapping the allowance will prove to be a very stupid cut to make. He makes some fantastic and fresh points, and this is a very informative article to read.
In another sparkling example of how much the Tories are in touch with reality, losing EMA means that many teenagers who receive it will have to get jobs to make up the shortfall in their income. This on the day it was also announced that the youth unemployment rate is 20.3%.
Saving EMA would cost about £500 million. This sounds expensive, but let's compare it to the £550 million proposed to be given in tax breaks to couples just for being married (my views on this here). What's more important - promoting education among disadvantaged youth, or giving middle-class people money they don't need, just for the monumental achievement of being married?
The reason I brought Nadine Dorries up wasn't just for her complete lack of tact, compassion or logic when sending those tweets earlier, I'd also like to point out that when she sent these tweets, she was supposed to be in the House of Commons debating the proposal to scrap EMA. People who receive EMA only get it if they have 100% attendance in the week. Dorries' estimated attendance at Parliament voting is around 85%, and she claimed £158,530 in expenses in 2008/09, on top of her basic MP's salary of £65,738.
At about 8 p.m., Dorries sent another tweet. This one read "To everyone.. my tweets re ema were not my words, they were the words of two heads of sixth form colleges". Yes Nadine, which you put on Twitter in order to portray EMA recipients as scroungers.
Personally, I'd like to see these emails, just to make sure they're not something she's made up to "illustrate her point".
I saw two tweets today that affected me as much as Dorries'. The first was from Seema Malhotra, saying "EMA =better grades for pupils in deprived areas = better degrees and jobs = better life chances = social mobility = better Britain". The second, I couldn't find the source for, but read "Why do I get EMA? Because there isn't enough money in my house. Why isn't there? 'cos my parents couldn't afford to go to college".
I couldn't agree more.