Skip to main content

Redwood is deadwood and Blair is in the air

An interesting contrast on the radio this morning. At 7.35 John Redwood is talking about crunchy economics. He made some valid points, but his manner was hectoring and abusive- talking all over the interviewer, whose primary point was that Redwood was strongly disagreeing with his leader. Redwood was rude and ugly- no charm, no social graces. Yet several of the points he made about economic policy were right on the money.

Twenty minutes later up popped David Cameron. His points were waffly- "sharing the proceeds of growth" "moderate choices"- intellectually it was drivel, but delivered with the easy charm of the fifth form cad. You felt that this was a cheery, reasonable sort of chap. How bad could he be?

The trouble is that the last time we elected a cheery public school chap, we ended up with a Prime Minister who ended up saying the following:

"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional, and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace"

"Predict"? "Intervene"? This man seriously believes that you can predict peoples lives from their circumstances. What an insult to the thousands of kids born in difficult circumstances who go on to lead rich and rewarding lives- and what an excuse for those people who refuse to accept the consequences of their own behaviour. This man does not understand the first thing about freedom- and for that alone, if not his myriad other misjudgements, he should not be in office...

...and Cameron should never get there.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...
1 comment
Read more

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 ...
20 comments
Read more

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...
Post a Comment
Read more