. I watched Andrew Marr , the Scottish socialist serve Gordon Brown gift wrapped delicacies to masticate upon at his leisure the other week with cold fury. Just ask the question any media lecturer might ask about he recent New labour Coverage on the BBC. Would a Martian have the slightest idea why it was that Blair was leaving so early or that Brown had attempted a putsch ? Would he have been able to tell the difference between the understandable sentimental treatment of Diana`s Birthday bash and the political coverage of Gordon Brown ? With difficulty .
I don`t object to hagiographic creepothons to “People’s Princess” . Personally I detested what she symbolised about the country but if it is balm for the scarred over rift between the people and monarchy in I approve. Some would say why bother with the fossilised remnant of an institution. I quite agree. Instead we might ask some sympathetic Generals if they would sponsor her Majesty’s direct and benevolent rule Yes quite so ; we should dispense with this silly parliament thing entirely . The building might be used for children’s trips like a Real working mine” , with “real MP`s “ now employed to have the same debate interminably .Naturally Government takes place elsewhere a. They said in Russia ,”We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us “. With parliament it has become “ “We pretend to care and they pretend to rule us “ . Of course Gordon has promised to change that. From his attitude to the disguised EU treaty and English votes we know he is lying .
The sight of Alistair Campbell explaining why is wasn’t the money that made him dish up his squalid career from the crypt before Blair was forgotten encourages me in the belief that we should take our grievances directly to her majesty. How Andrew Marr ( again ) can sit there and allow this squirming maggot to smear this meretricious emollient on the public is beyond me . Perhaps he earns his thirty pieces of silver after all . One can only gaze in slack jawed astonishment at an organisation capable of appointing Polly Toynbee as their social affairs editor and passing it off with Gallic shrug and moue. Breathtaking. You might as well have woman’s hour hosted by a man .It was in 1946 …ah the good old days eh
Then ,just as the sea of evil smelling soul`s corruption seems endless there springs up bright fresh hope form the heart of things . That hope is David Cameron. This week he pulled the bathrobe away revealing the disgusting old bruiser Brown is at PMQ`s .This morning his performance with Marr was magisterial. Naturally pussy cat Marr turned Tiger when dealing with our hero but his bias back fired . The harder the ball zinged down the wicket the more momentum Cameron had to use. He was quite simply the most accomplished performer I have ever seen .I am quite serious.
He is not in a position to repeat easy slogans his point is subtle balanced and yet clear. For example , he dealt with the accusation that he did not like single mothers with fulsome praise for the way they cope with a difficult job . He dealt with Brown’s acquisition of Digby Jones by suggesting how useful some of the advice he has given him in the past might be . He was delighted to be unable to support Brown’s not very mysterious reticence in taxing Private equity income….( Would you like to guess why ?). He was gemstone bright simultaneously wafting comforting pheromones towards moderate England . There was something new here though , a side we have not yet seen and that was when he got on to the subject of the broken society
It was here I felt my heart swell with pride as a Conservative sketched an overhaul of the benefits system and not in a vengeful but in a careful and sympathetic way . When he spoke of a multi generational task to “mend the country” you felt this was a man who meant it and could do it. I have always admired David Cameron but I can understand the frustration some have felt in the phony Tony war period Now the game is afoot he emerges as an inspirational leader.
You may sneer but people tell me they have had their “Cameron moment “ and this morning was mine . The moment you looked at him and no longer felt inclined to be cynical , when the burden of disillusion slipped from your shoulders and everything seemed possible again. With such a man to lead you and the talents of the British people why should anything be beyond us . Conservatives must choose to sulk in their tents or be part of the greatest story of the age …….
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Who`s with me !!!
18 comments:
Fancy this old Cortina I've got out the back? Special price for you. You seem just the man.
I also watched Cameron this morning. Felt something too. Is that what a 'Cameron Moment' feels like? All-in-one emetic, diuretic and laxative? Should get the country going.
You were right about the 'fulsome praise' for single mothers, but you might want to look up the meaning of the word 'fulsome'. You may buy the line that he can change the balance of the tax and welfare system to benefit married couples without disadvantaging unmarried couples and single parents, but the only way I can see to do that is to increase the overall cost of the system. Modern Tories standing for bigger government - who'd have thunk it.
The biggest problem with his performance and your response to it is that it's exactly the same as Blair in 1997. I'll trust a politician who comes in talking about hard choices and being honest about (short-term) losers as well as winners, not the politician who wants to be all things to all people and pretends that we can have it all. There is a lot of pain to be gone through to put things right. We need a politician that is prepared to start being honest about that to the public.
Cameron may win with this soft sell, or the traditionally sceptical British public may see through him, but one thing is for sure - if he gets in having promised how wonderful things will be, people will be just as disappointed with him after a while as they are with Blair now. And they will mistake the failure of his Third-Way Toryism for the failure of the right more generally, which will set back the cause of real change immensely.
bgprior : Utter balderdash ! David Cameron bears no resemblance to "Phoney Tony" in thought word or deed: I had the privilege of meeting him a few days ago and he was absolutely inspirational. He spoke unscripted for 40mins. and answered questions with intelligent and thoughtful replies. There was no "hand wringing and the lip quivering" insincerity that Blair exuded! Andrew Marr is a typical Nulab sycophantic BBC hack, who is paid to do his masters` bidding, ie the Brown Broadcasting Corporation, (formerly the Blair Broadcasting Corporation).
As soon as this corrupt lying Stalinist regime is kicked out by the electorate the sooner we can put the "Great" back in Britain !
So, to David Cameron I say ,take heart David, Brown and his "Government of many talents" (don`t make me laugh) is no match for
you, and your supporters".
P.S.Hello to Mr Newmania ,Good Blog site, congrats. TB.
You were right about the 'fulsome praise' for single mothers, but you might want to look up the meaning of the word 'fulsome'.
You mean “excessive “ . Expansive was what Intended which is the current dominant meaning. Good line though I appreciated it..
You may buy the line that he can change the balance of the tax and welfare system to benefit married couples without disadvantaging unmarried couples.
I do not.They will of course be relatively disadvantaged compared to the current position when they are absurdly favoured. How would you like him to put it .“We’re going to hand single mothers out to dry “ Be serious . Political language is artfully nuanced and you have to read the signs with some care .
The biggest problem with his performance and your response to it is that it's exactly the same as Blair in 1997. I'll trust a politician who comes in talking about hard choices and being honest about (short-term) losers as well as winners.
I think you entirely misunderstand the complexity of the relationship between words and the electorate. Possible losers set their antennae to detect any hints and these are in turn amplified by the opposition. Read the rhunes and he is offering a a softened Conservatism. You doughty champion would simply lose
. We need a politician that is prepared to start being honest about that to the public
How would you know when you see him. Isn`t this bordering on the childish ? I don`t wasnt to be rude but I think my mother would say( as she does) Oh for god`s sake their politicians ! Romantic would be a kinder way to describe your wishes
nd they will mistake the failure of his Third-Way Toryism for the failure of the right more generally, which will set back the cause of real change immensely
The right will not be elected and . The “Progressive vote , including the Liberal or centre is a natural and fortunately split majority and only by The whole spectrum, of right wing thinking combining and supporting an electorally realistic platform can we hope to defeat Brown . It takes some realism and ability to compromise . Sound Conservative values . I have a certain distaste for extremism and ideology becoming the touch stone of the Party anyway. This is tnot the thrid way a in the Anglo European social model it is a recasting iof small government ina contemporary light. David Cameron has gone , in my opinion , further than he should in publicly placating the right of the Party. We should privately agree . The Conservative Party used to understand this instinctively when did it get all sixthn form debating society ? Not for me .
Thanks True Blue ... the closer we get to an election , and we may be quite close the less messing around I am doing and the more trying to keeop everyone on board. I sometimees think Copnservatives exaggerate their differences just for the fun of it . In reality I have never met one I didnt like and at heart agree with from wet to UKIP and I know both,.
I envy your meeting . He is quite something isn`t he and with Hague firing on al cylinders as well its an awesome team
I hope you are right about the phoney war being over. My post earlier today was full of frustration that the Conservatives don't seem to have bitten hard enough recently perhaps that is all part of the plan after all it is virtually impossible to get the government to change its mind when there are so many Labour MPs who will vote for whatever they're told to vote for.
It's also very hard to get the Conservative message across when the BBC is so totally against anything blue. The news tonight led on that nonsense about the terrorist threat going to take 15 years to "solve". Of course nobody asked what needs to be done over those 15 years or how we will know when the problem is solved. The message really is: we are going to take away more freedoms and scare you into it for another few years. The next story was "Tories to raise tax on booze" totally ignoring all the rest of IDS' report.
It will be hard to win an election on that basis.
IDS should have known that would be the reaction Ed and to be frank it was mine . What was he thinking of ? We have introduced 24 hour drinking recently ...and now the answer to binge drinking , is taxes ? Seriously .?
What an own goal and the timing is appalling. It will be hard to win anything with that fool not on a leash. I know he is tackling a vital area of socila thiking but he cannot out his poltical brain on ice ..
FRUSTRATING
Indeed - while "what matters is what works" on one level, if the Conservatives aren't for people being responsible for their own actions versus the state micromanaging telling us what is good or bad for us then what are we for?
Just watched the interview - very impressive.
Newmania, This goes to the heart of what politicians and political parties should be for. Should they:
(a) do and say whatever is necessary to get elected, and then implement the programme that they had managed to keep sufficiently obscure from the electorate to achieve that aim, or
(b) try to change hearts and minds, to persuade people of the merits of the programme that they believe is right for Britain and therefore right for Britons, even if it seems to disadvantage some of them in the short-term?
You may be right that (a) is necessary, but the assumption that this is the case is a significant contributor to cynicism about politicians and apathy about the political process. I'd say it's better to fail at (b) than succeed at (a). No real and lasting change can happen without taking the people with you. Maybe this is naive, but better naive than cynical. And every now and then, someone with sufficient personality and determination comes along and proves that (b) is possible. Dave doesn't seem to be that sort of person, as you appear to be conceding.
By the way, my dictionary says:
fulsome (adj): copious (obs.); cloying or causing surfeit; nauseous; offensive; gross; rank; disgustingly fawning.
I hope you don't mind me using some of this over at pickinglosers. It is rare to get such an honest admission that (at least in the eyes of a supporter) we should not take Cameron at his word.
TB, Both DC himself and George Osborne, his closest political ally, have described him as the "heir to Blair" (although on other occasions they have rejected this label, depending, presumably, on whether it is helpful or unhelpful in the circumstances), so they have only themselves to blame if uncomfortable comparisons are now made.
You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight. The qualities you describe as setting Dave apart - that he "spoke unscripted for 40mins. and answered questions with intelligent and thoughtful replies" - are exactly the skills at which the other TB was also a master. He was nothing if not "inspirational" - even his political enemies had to admit he was an impressive "performer", as the standing ovation demonstrated.
You focus now on the "phoney" "hand-wringing and lip-quivering", but that wasn't what the majority of people saw in 1997. It is only as the public have got to know him that familiarity has bred contempt for many of them. We haven't had that chance yet with Dave, but it will happen, because he will inevitably disappoint expectations simply by allowing them to be raised in the way that Newmania has described as inevitable.
The fault, in my opinion, lies only partially with Dave and TB. It lies as much with those who place absurd faith in them. I don't want someone to rescue us, to "mend the country", and to make Britain "Great" again. I want someone to clear away the detritus of big government so that we can make Britain "Great" again. Dave and TB are at fault in allowing us to believe that government can fix things. We are at fault if we believe they can deliver.
What's all this 'Britons', 'British' stuff from bgprior? Those words are like a litmus test. What's the matter with English? or Scottish etc., whatever is in context . The UK has three parliaments, none of them English, and it's time it had a fourth for England.
I respect your opinion on an English parliament HG but I disagree. I would prefer the simpler and more elegant holistic solution: independence.
I favour English votes which reflects trhe position better and is less expensive and more practicable.
BG Prior ...thats an interesting post I like you last paragraoh especially which I agree with.
Nemania: Despite the patronising comments from bgprior regarding drawing parallels between David Cameron and Tony Blair I can assure "all" that I do not speak with "benefit of hindsight" I speak with a heartfelt belief that DC is the man to lead us into a successful general election vic"tory" The man has got it all,so what bgprior is banging on about I do not know ? Is he one of the BOF`s locked in a time warp perhaps ? I say to him "Get over it man and support the leader". We can`t afford another in-house squabble it`s ludicrous !
Incidentally Nemania I am a great fan of William Hague too and believe I shall be meeting him in the not too distant future! His turn will come around again, perhaps when David decides to do other things ! Also ,have had two meetings with Chris Grayling, a shadow Conservative Minister. I
feel that he too, is a fine
politician with a bright future in the party so, all you cynics get behind these fine men and stop making negative comments !
Hatfield Girl,
What's all this 'Britons', 'British' stuff from bgprior?
It was a reference to TB's comment:
As soon as this corrupt lying Stalinist regime is kicked out by the electorate the sooner we can put the "Great" back in Britain !
I take it you will now apply your litmus test to TB's position, rather than to mine?
'right for Britain and therefore right for Britons,' seems to be you, bgp , True Blue is talking about a slightly different concept; but if you say it's both of you, then alright.
Why are you not speaking of England when the other countries of the UK now have devolved parliaments?
Scotland and Wales aren't regions, and Labour is even trying to regionalise England to downgrade the importance of the break up of the Union.
We can`t afford another in-house squabble it`s ludicrous !
Yes quite and I think its about time that the silly posturing stopped . I agree with you entirely TB and envy your meeting with Hague . I am less of a fan of his but therre can be no doubting the quality of the man.My feeling is that amongst Conservatives there is a large area of agreement that we do not share remotely with the Labour Party. This being clear and the leader being elected the nonsense must stop and the support begin in earnest.
You are writing absolutely in the spirit I intended. I may indulge in hyperbole for the fun of it but nonetheless I very much believe in the point I make .
Its quite simple , get serious or get Brown.
Hatfield Girl,
I think you'll find the TB comment came first. But perhaps you read backwards. Anyway, if it makes you feel better, I will happily agree that the West-Lothian Question is a problem, and that the compromise solutions being proposed by all the major parties are badly flawed. I'm probably closest to Newmania's position - full Union or full independence (I'd prefer the former, but only if the Scots, Welsh and Irish want to live on an equal footing with us). But one thing I hope no one is fooling themselves about is any illusion that an English parliament, whether additionally to a UK one or instead of it, will improve the quality of politics in this country. More institutions means more politicians, and that is unlikely to drag the average up. And it means more taxes to pay the politicians to shout at each other, and more civil servants to draw up more (and more detailed) plans for them.
This has little to do with the question of whether Dave is the best thing since sliced bread, except for the fact that Dave clearly wouldn't go for an English parliament, so perhaps you agree with my assessment of him, as this seems to be the only issue that counts for you. Anyway, I hope that has scratched your itch.
Post a Comment