In this case, Our New Coalition Overlords™ have been using the money that they extort from us by force to stock up the Parliament booze cellars.
Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham revealed that Government Hospitality, which manages the cellar, had spent £17,698 on new stock since May 6—bringing the total value to £864,000—though he insisted the standard practice of buying wines young saved money for the taxpayer.
It isn't just that this bunch of crooks steal our cash so that they can drink wine that most of the rest of us simply wouldn't be able to afford, of course—although that's bad enough.
No. It's much worse than that. And, just to emphasise the point, here's Henry Bell-End-ingham again...
"Careful management of the Government wine cellar enables GH to provide wine for high profile events at significantly below the current market rate, making substantial savings for the taxpayer."
Substantial savings for the taxpayer, eh? That sounds jolly good.
But... Hang on a second! Isn't it you kill-joy bastards that are attempting to introduce minimum pricing and a ban on below-cost alcohol sales so that, in other circumstances, taxpayers can't make "substantial savings" for themselves?
But of course I can see that you people are different: you people won't cost the NHS anything—because you've all got private health insurance, I imagine (involuntarily paid for by us). Can't go mixing with the plebs and the MRSA now, can you?
And you won't cause any problems drink-driving because you've all either got chauffeurs or jolly nice flats within spitting distance of the House, haven't you (involuntarily paid for by us again)?
So, what you're telling me, Hank ol' chum, is that drinking large amounts of booze is bad for the proles, but good for MPs. That booze might damage us but, magically, does no harm at all to jumped-up little authoritarians in suits?
Or is it simply that booze bought with the sweat of other people's brows tastes exceptionally good and, despite all of the expenses scandals, you just can't wean yourselves off that sweet, sweet liquor?
Seriously, you people are just beyond the fucking pale: you would happily deny us the opportunity to make "substantial savings" on our own drink, but you try to defend the—frankly obscene—amount of money that you spend on booze by claiming that you are making "substantial savings".
So, tell me, Hank ol' chum, how much would we save if you bought no booze at all? Oh, and how much would be save if you stopped the booze subsidy in the House of Commons bars? Because, ladies and gentlemen, let us remind ourselves that in 2007/08*, our Lords and Masters subsidised their own booze to the tune of £5.5 million.
As my peripatetic Greek friend has noted, drinking is one of life's greatest pleasures; these bastard politicians are attempting to remove that pleasure—for our own good, of course. And not only do they spend our money on their own booze, they throw yet more of it at fake charities so that Temperance scum like Alcohol Concern can use half a million quid of our money per annum to persuade MPs to make laws to force the rest of us to stop drinking.
IT'S OUR MONEY, you bastards.
And the only reason that you can take our money in tax is because the vast majority of us are not hopeless, helpless alcoholics—we are working, productive members of society who like to have the occasional drink so that we can forget the fact that we spend nearly half the year working to pay for those who aren't.
How dare you rely on our industry and then use our own capital against us? How DARE you?
And there are still people who genuinely believe that people go into Parliament to try to make people's lives better; there are even those in Parliament who will tell you, with a straight face, that they genuinely want to make people's lives better.
The mind boggles—truly it does.
P.S. There's some more quality comment from Dick Puddlecote, Captain Ranty and Leg-Iron.
* I can't be bothered to hunt down more recent figures: if anyone has them to hand, please feel free to post a link in the comments.