Skip to main content

Spin cycle

I must admit I listened to David Cameron speaking to Jim Naughtie on the Today Programme with a degree of astonishment. This "compassionate Conservatism" has so many echoes of George W Bush. Yet as far as Cameron is concerned, it just won't wash. This is the man who wrote the most right-wing Tory manifesto in a generation. So either he is serious, and has changed his mind on most of the views he offered to the electorate barely more than six months ago or is not serious and is as cynical a politician as any produced by Labour's spin factory.

If he is serious, then I find myself substantially to the right of the Tories- ironically, considering that they were accusing me of being "well to the left of Labour" at the last election. Nevertheless, I have not changed my principles one jot. The ideas that Cameron is putting forward are so similar to the "But-skillism" of the 1960's- the decade when British economic prowess was nearly fatally undermined. I am more than happy to oppose this flabby and ill disciplined ideology- and I suspect that Liberally minded Tories will feel the same.

If, however, Cameron is merely posing as a centrist, then he should be warned- the electorate are very tired of being "spun"- that is lied to- and the deeply cynical nature of Cameron's gamble will backfire on him. The voters are sick of this kind of unprincipled shallow bullsh*t and in any event are hardly likely to substitute Blue Labour for the real thing.

Comrade Cameron- beware: your cynicism (for such I believe it to be) is as foolish as it is dangerous. The British people are sick of phonies- as you may find out quite soon!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...