11.06.2005
"Dont pick a fight you dont intend to lose"
From todays interview with Andy Marr, and BBC News last night, and Question Time on Thursday. Keep an eye, if your following the leadership election in the Tories, on the amount of times he quotes a Vietnamese Communist to force home his right-wing credentials, or perhaps creativity. I dont know either way.
Maybe he is looking for the Kenneth Clarke vote in the grassroots. It could be a fun task to just keep looking at it. Far more fun than listening to an unimaginative party choose between its Kinnock and its Foot.
Talk of a new Blair is delusion on their part. Im unsure if electing Cameron is actually a Kinnock Moment on the party's behalf. The guy is taking over a party notoriously fractious and difficult to take. His election is not some magic unifying potion for the tories. The differences will fester in the party, uniting the rabble will be tough for a young Cameron and tough for a hardline Davies.
The real signal in this election is a willlingness on the Parliamentary Party to actually unite and offer some opposition on a more coherent and less divisive nature. If the victory of one or other candidate signals more of the same in the party, factions undermining each other etc. Election is surely longer away. Turing points are often only spotted in hindsight, im dubious about the power of the next month to sort out this party. The country is not prepared to vote them in next time around.
New Labour will have someone new, Probably Brownie Bear. Gordon Brown will be a formiddable opponent to both Davies and Cameron, the guy is more like Thatcher than Blair in terms of knowledge and ruthlessness in politics. Thats a man neither will get an easy ride off of. Looks like may of us want to get to the next entertaining section of British Politics while skipping the major policy issues facing the country.
Personality politics sells papers and garners viewers. It says a great deal about our citizneship and demands of government that we desire they entertain us as well as govern us. This election is a choice between more wilderness years and a chance at winning an election in the forseeable future. Its also about the position of the Tories relative to the Lib Dems. My short input into a saturated commentary on an election which has little or no passion. Personally I find them both hard to swallow.
Dont forget Ho Chih Minh Watch, Davies found a nice soundbite and now begins killing it slowly.
RR
Categories: UK, Politics, Comment, Tories
In their debate on BBC1 a few days ago, Cameron made mention of poverty in Africa as an issue that the Conservatives could use to win over youth and women. He said these kinds of issues were something that many people were very passionate about, and required their politicians to be passionate about as well. I think he's right, although it speaks volumes about the state of politics at the moment that the Tories will have to start at least pretending to do trendy politics in order to have a chance.
I missed that bit, but your right, young cameron seems to be about stylish trendy politics. DAvies is still trying to be in the TA or whatever form of militia he comes from.
I dont really get how the tories could do 'passionate' about make poverty history etc without coming across as an empty vessel following on the media-blown wind. That is doing/did labour little help and they have since focussed on delivery more than before.
Im not sure if either of them can actually define tory because as a life force, lifestyle its a mess. All over the place.
the Tories are about 4 parties in my view. Living unhappily together.
Which one would you vote for?
Cheers, Like the blog btw.
RR
The debate on Thursday was, but for the drugs part, a bit of a joke. Each candidate would say something, then the other would rephrase the exact same thing. "As David said..." was heard every 3 or 4 minutes.
I dont really get how the tories could do 'passionate' about make poverty history etc without coming across as an empty vessel following on the media-blown wind.
I suppose it would be ideologically consistant to call for the abondonment of the CAP, which many say would be great things for Africa. However, I doubt very much that Africa is a vote getter.
One tiny, pedantic, thing. David Davies is a Tory MP, but isn't running for leader. David Davis is a Tory MP and is running for leader.
Good post. Like the new font and the spacings between paragraphs makes it much easier to read for some reason.
Cheers Kev, I am using firefox and so are many visitors now and its a nightmare blog to read with the browser so im trying a few format changes. Thanks for the feedback.
On the correction, cheers, i was simply too lazy to check the spelling. Its sunday and such.
The debate on Thursday was, but for the drugs part, a bit of a joke.
I think there is a conscious softly softly taking place here, the Tory party is sick of the whole 'nasty party' business. It sits very uncomfortably with Davis who is something of a bruiser appartantly.
I can of course see them calling for the CAP business. As it stands it does need to go. Yet 'passionately' campaigning for the poor is not a natural tory trait. At least not any more.
They are an odd bunch to say the least.
Still waiting for the factious flare-up which will inevitably come from the bowels of the tory party.
RR
Yet 'passionately' campaigning for the poor is not a natural tory trait.
No, it isn't really, is it? On that point though, I'd be cynical of any party claiming to passionately campaign for the poor.
Still waiting for the factious flare-up which will inevitably come from the bowels of the tory party.
It's nearly happened on a few occasions now. Cameron's drugs, Osbourne's hookers, Cameron's faux-uber-euro-scepticism, Cameron's drugs: either it's only a matter of time, or they're going to avoid it at all cost!
It sits very uncomfortably with Davis who is something of a bruiser appartantly.
He probably talks the most sense though, and seems more committed to whatever he's talking about than Cameron. That said, I don't know who I'd go for yet. Certainly, I think Cameron would have a better chance of beating Blair, but against Brown, the Tories may be better advised to go bruiser vs bruiser. I don't know to be honest.
I am using firefox and so are many visitors now and its a nightmare blog to read with the browser so im trying a few format changes
Something similar to that happened to me. Just make sure to keep checking it in IE when you make a change, because a lot people still use IE and changes that look good in Mozilla, often look awful in IE.
Your right about cameron the guy is like a reptile slithering from one position to the next and never answering a question straight. The guy could do far more damage to the torys than good, yet thats just natural scepticism i guess. There is no clear cut decent candidate because there is no clear cut Tory ideology. Well there is but most reckon its unelectable.
On that point though, I'd be cynical of any party claiming to passionately campaign for the poor.
Touche. And i certainly concur. In the western world anyway.
the Tories may be better advised to go bruiser vs bruiser. I don't know to be honest.
Is davis as well qualified to kick brown on policy? i think Gordon would get them both myself. Clarke would have done damage. no doubt.
I wouldnt come down on any one side yet. I know Labour would see cameron victory as capitulation by the tories and acknowledgement of the moving centre of gravity leftward. My preference would be a decent opposition to hold government to account, keep it on its toes and fight for politics.
Thats the best way to keep people interested.
RR
Leave your response