I suspect that David Cameron wouldn’t shed any tears if the AV referendum passed.
Politicians drive policy for their own gain. In the case of Tony Blair, he focused his efforts on becoming seen as a world leader with an eye to a (very!) lucrative life on the lecture circuit. Imagine being able to charge £100,000 for an hour-long rambling monologue of "third way" management speak cuntwaftery and bollocks? Well, he does have huge mortgages to feed.
Gordon Brown focused his efforts on screwing up the economy so that he could spin his "save the world" schtick. He wasn't anywhere near as personable as Blair, so it's been a total waste of time for him. But he wasn't in it for the long game: he was in it to remain in power until he died.
And now we have the unscrupulous, amoral leader of the Tories not really giving a shit about a policy that is complete anathema to his party. He doesn't really give a flying fuck what policies or behaviours it requires, as long as he gets to cling on to the levers of power.
He certainly isn't a small-state Tory, if you look at Osborne's "cuts", they are nothing of the kind. All that is happening is that the state is growing at a slightly lower rate than it would if the "drunk, monocular sailor in port for the first time in a year" was still in charge.
Cameron will endure anything to remain in post. He may not have his eye on the long game like Blair, almost certainly because he doesn't need to. But the consequences for us, who have to endure whatever goes on to keep the cunt in power, will almost certainly be no better for us than the consequences of Blairism were.
2 comments:
"will almost certainly be no better for us than the consequences of Blairism were."
Bollocks, nor do you actually believe that.
You can still see the wood for the trees no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
Wait and see. Does the fact that the Orange Bookers are seen as the guys actually doing something not give you a bit of a hint that your man might actually be a bit of a cunt?
Post a Comment