It has gone on far too long, this debate over the Tory Chief Whip effin' and blindin' at the polis and maybe calling them plebs.
If, by the time you read this, Andrew Mitchell has done the decent thing and resigned, I say well done, old chap. He will still be a cut above the rest of us. Still a member of that exclusive Westminster club. Still an MP but with more time for a few earners from merchant banking and business consultancy.
If Mr Mitchell has not fallen upon his sword (to use a patrician metaphor) I say there should be a plebiscite on whether such bad behaviour by a Government Minister merits dismissal. David Cameron is not (or was not) too sure. Let the people decide.
It must be established first whether plebs, oiks, proles, untermenschen, benefits claimants, bus pass users and other lower orders are allowed to vote. It may not be their place to have a say. The plebeians of ancient Rome, after whom a plebiscite is named, were not allowed to vote on the political matters that concerned the ruling classes.
My Roman history is limited to I, Claudius and the bit in Julius Caesar's memoirs where Gaul was divided into three parts. It turns out the plebeians were freemen not slaves. They could even be wealthy landowners. Plebeian was used in the early days of English public schools to describe pupils whose parents may have been rich but were not of the landed gentry.
Mr Mitchell may have come across the term when he attended Rugby, of Tom Brown's Schooldays and Flashman fame. Mr Mitchell comes across more Flashman bully than Tom Brown all-round good egg.
He wants people to know their place. One of my places every few years is a polling station to cast my vote. I do not condemn the entire Conservative party because of one nasty piece of work. But they do seem to have a lot of tiresome toffs in charge. To be on the safe side, I don't vote Tory.
As for Mr Mitchell, sacking is too good for him. Instead, how about an ancient Roman arena moment involving some hungry lions. And a gladiator with one of those spiky metal balls on a chain.
Draw a line in the sand on this one. Thumbs down from the plebs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article