« The sales-wealth puzzle | Main | Ruth Kelly and liberal tyranny »

May 10, 2006

Comments

dearieme

Oh irony: Blair's legacy will be Cameron. And all because "Eva" Brown is a coward.

Tim Worstall

I was recently reminded that I’ve actually met Cameron, many years ago. Didn’t like the twit then either.
Anyone ready for the "None of the Above" Party?

Costs 350,000 k or so to stand in every constituency. Can sell the mailshot for 2 million. Self-funding protest?

Tim Worstall

Bugger. Just checked with the Electoral Commission. Someone’s already tried registering that party and they’ve passed a statute not allowing it.

David Farrer

But if we all were to change our names to "none of the above" and stand for election?

Tim Worstall

I think we can change our name by deed poll and do that: although the Electoral Commission can, I think, limit the names used. Didn’t someone try to stand as Margaret Thatcher against Margaret Thatcher? I know there was a court case/ ruling on it but not how it turned out.

Dander

Ever since Cameron was elected I've been surprised by the outright hatred and contempt he inspires among serious Tories.

True Conservatives should hope that Blair stays in power long enough for Cameron to be ditched. But how to get rid of him...?

dearieme

Dander: mange?

Dander

True to form, though, the FT sucks up Cameron's drool and gives him just the headline he wanted: "Cameron picks fight with big business", thus panding to the illiterate discontented vote while safely avoiding any real controversy --- who's going to defend irresponsible business? What a tosser.

Luis Enrique

Is there any comfort in the thought that politicians’ speeches are just attempts to second-guess what's going to "play well" with the electorate that bear very little relation to anything else? So we don’t have to worry if they spout incoherent nonsense – engaging speeches like this as if it ought to actually make sense, is about as clever as pointing out plot flaws in Hollyoaks. Perhaps we should congratulate Mr Cameron on knowing that his job consists only of saying whatever will get the Torys elected, and doing a good job in that respect. (mmm, if supermarkets do bad things, we’ll complain! If companies are nasty, we’ll make them nice!)

No, there’s not much comfort in that thought. I suppose what politicians do in power is also determined by second-guessing what will play well with the electorate. God it’s so depressing. The whole thing is a charade.

It’s not an original observation that we’ve got the politicians we deserve, but why is the system producing such stinkers? I blame the media! But that doesn’t help, because we get the media we deserve too. Is there any way of increasing the incentives politicians have to talk sense? I suppose the only thing to do is to keep pointing out when they talk crap and bash them over the head with it whenever possible. Doesn’t seem to work very well, though.

Jeremy

it would have been nice if Cameron had pointed out that Green took a £1bn tax free dividend in his wife's name to Monaco. Don't his staff use the NHS and have kids that use schools?

Alex

Well, I don't recall anyone at all in any party saying a word about the Tories making Archie Norman a shadow cabinet member at the same time as he was in on the shameless Knutsford plc/"Marks&Sparks takeover" ramp scam.

So no, I wouldn't expect much.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad