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.