The vast, featureless expanse that is David Cameron’s forehead has not even earned its first prime ministerial wrinkle and he has already managed to reveal that his thinking is the tired, unwanted and ineffective thinking of Tony Blair. Rather than associate himself with the radical small government agenda proposed by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan in their excellent tome called “The Plan” (which I can honestly commend to all our readers) rather than even reverting to a Thatcherite agenda or indeed anything else, the vapid empty vessel has chosen to associate himself not with Michael Gove’s excellent school reform or Osborne’s timid financial measures but rather with utter nonsense, such as starting off the “bonfire of the quangos” by creating a brand new, pointless quango to smack down on supermarkets – which will lead to us paying more for our food.
He smartly followed this up by vowing to take the universal Sure Start childcare program and “target” it “more effectively” and “intervene earlier” with “disadvantaged and dysfunctional families.” By “target”, I assume he means “provide a service to those scoundrels who are proficient in gaming the system, rather than those who need it”. By “more effectively”, I assume he means in the normal government sense, whereby making things worse is a measure of effectiveness. By “intervening earlier”, I assume he means “in much the same way as Baby P was saved by early intervention.” And by “disadvantaged and dysfunctional families”, I assume he means leeches, parasites and other assorted vermin.
I find it alarming that people feel that because Cameron will be in charge, rather than Brown, that the people working in the government apparatus will be any more effective than they were before. Admittedly, it is better if your departmental objectives are not set and micro-managed by a dysfunctional lunatic, but since Cameron doesn’t seem to be setting any more useful goals than Brown would, it doesn’t move us in the right direction. To be fair to the man, he has not hidden his intentions from us, with his claim to being the “heir to Blair”, his endorsement of “the third way” and his repeated offers to endorse government policy which is exactly aligned with his own – something that happens far too often. Indeed, the ease with which the Labour Party has managed to steal several key Tory policies and make them their own led Cameron to stop telling people what his policies were.
But nobody seemed to feel that it was unacceptable that the Tories should be proposing policies that were so agreeable to Labour ministers.
And of course, with a complete lack of change in focus comes the inevitable continuation of things like an overtly politicised, criminal-friendly justice system; a plethora of busybodies poking their nose into the minutiae of your life; endless new rules and regulations; more sacrifices in the Temple of Gaia; raids on your pension and other funds; etc., etc. Rather than an age of austerity, followed by a return to prosperity, I fear that Mr Cameron’s lack of genuine conservatism will lead us into a Decade of Discontent. Who knows what will remain intact of our bloated government after that? And what will remain of our political parties? Having feasted rapaciously for decades and with their horizons coming ever closer, will they be completely rent asunder?
I sense a hint of desperation in Cameron’s demeanour, for all the smooth words and public speaking skills. Either he doesn’t have any policies and is already having his “Cones Hotline” moment before the election, or he’s not going to offer us anything different from Labour, or he actually has some useful policies, but he’s scared to tell us what they are, because we might not like them. So he’s either completely useless or not even slightly different to Labour or he’s getting elected on a false prospectus.
Which of those options appeals to you the most?
- First Class posts on Wednesday Letters From A Tory
- January 13, 2010 at 22:05