Monday
26Mar2007
Dave the wolf
Monday, March 26, 2007 at 7:29PM
I was chatting to my brother-in-law, Matt, about politics last night.
He was reflecting on Cameron’s lead over Brown in the opinion polls, and how he has successfully repositioned the Tories into the centre of British politics. He has a point, but those of us with a more seasoned political eye know it’s all smoke and mirrors.
A quick glance at Cameron’s chosen posse is like perusing a who’s who of the hawkish right. Vaizey, Gove, Fox, Osborn, and Cameron himself are all Neocons to a man. All supported the war in Iraq, and, certainly in the case of Fox and Gove, remain ideological defendants of it. These are internationalist Tories who see the world in black and white: they are pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-intervention. They believe that the ‘liberal democracies’ of the West must be defended at all costs; a commitment that includes ensuring continued American economic hegemony over the world (something that their very policies ensure looks increasingly uncertain).
Polls constantly inform us that a majority of the population is against the War in Iraq. So how can a prospective government, supposedly so in-tune with the people, possibly be committed to it? Easy. Just don’t talk about it.
A quick perusal of the American Press or a few minutes watching the Sunday political debate shows (such as Meet the Press), and you’ll quickly become aware that the US political scene is obsessed with the war and the incompetence of those who managed it. Democrats and Republicans alike, including many who initially supported the war, are queuing up to bash the president and his administration.
The only opposition Tony Blair has faced has been from his own backbenches and the increasingly incoherent Ming Campbell. The Tories may occasionally kick up a fuss about a lack of equipment, but when have you ever seen Blair really grilled across the dispatch box about the folly of following the Americans in the first place? It doesn’t happen.
The only reason Blair has been able to continue to follow an evermore rightwing foreign policy, to the immense chagrin of the electorate, is that the so-called opposition have cheered him on from the off. Any wonder that people are turned-off by politics?
As I said, Cameron’s lot are Neocons to a man; a position thoroughly at odds with their centrist pretensions.
Another notable deception the ‘New Tories’ have seemingly managed to pull off, is the pretence that they actually give a shit about the NHS and the working poor. This is a party that – only last year - asked Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, two of the most committed right-wingers to walk this Earth, to lead policy reviews.
Don’t believe these charlatans and their post-Blair triangulations. And certainly don’t swallow their compassionate conservatism mantra; that’s straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. They’re simply telling a jaded electorate what they want to hear. But hey, that’s just politics.
Cameron’s New Toryism: It’s all spin. Don’t buy it.
He was reflecting on Cameron’s lead over Brown in the opinion polls, and how he has successfully repositioned the Tories into the centre of British politics. He has a point, but those of us with a more seasoned political eye know it’s all smoke and mirrors.
A quick glance at Cameron’s chosen posse is like perusing a who’s who of the hawkish right. Vaizey, Gove, Fox, Osborn, and Cameron himself are all Neocons to a man. All supported the war in Iraq, and, certainly in the case of Fox and Gove, remain ideological defendants of it. These are internationalist Tories who see the world in black and white: they are pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-intervention. They believe that the ‘liberal democracies’ of the West must be defended at all costs; a commitment that includes ensuring continued American economic hegemony over the world (something that their very policies ensure looks increasingly uncertain).
Polls constantly inform us that a majority of the population is against the War in Iraq. So how can a prospective government, supposedly so in-tune with the people, possibly be committed to it? Easy. Just don’t talk about it.
A quick perusal of the American Press or a few minutes watching the Sunday political debate shows (such as Meet the Press), and you’ll quickly become aware that the US political scene is obsessed with the war and the incompetence of those who managed it. Democrats and Republicans alike, including many who initially supported the war, are queuing up to bash the president and his administration.
The only opposition Tony Blair has faced has been from his own backbenches and the increasingly incoherent Ming Campbell. The Tories may occasionally kick up a fuss about a lack of equipment, but when have you ever seen Blair really grilled across the dispatch box about the folly of following the Americans in the first place? It doesn’t happen.
The only reason Blair has been able to continue to follow an evermore rightwing foreign policy, to the immense chagrin of the electorate, is that the so-called opposition have cheered him on from the off. Any wonder that people are turned-off by politics?
As I said, Cameron’s lot are Neocons to a man; a position thoroughly at odds with their centrist pretensions.
Another notable deception the ‘New Tories’ have seemingly managed to pull off, is the pretence that they actually give a shit about the NHS and the working poor. This is a party that – only last year - asked Iain Duncan Smith and John Redwood, two of the most committed right-wingers to walk this Earth, to lead policy reviews.
Don’t believe these charlatans and their post-Blair triangulations. And certainly don’t swallow their compassionate conservatism mantra; that’s straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. They’re simply telling a jaded electorate what they want to hear. But hey, that’s just politics.
Cameron’s New Toryism: It’s all spin. Don’t buy it.
Reader Comments (2)
Bravo tyger, well said, Cameron is sort of polished in an over-rehearsed kind of way, but he entirely fails to convince me as a Prime Minister or as a centrist.
I wonder how different it might have been if David Davis had got the job.
While politicians don't shake off their fidelity to those who support them economically there'll be no really positive achievements for the people who elect them in the poll stations. The proof of this we have seen in Blair's mandate.
But, again, who'll bell the cat?