While I pound away at the gym at lunchtime I occasionally catch glimpses of the BBC News. Yesterday, David Cameron appeared live, looking like a right prat, as usual, and his opening comment on the Al Meghari fandangle was:
The double-dealing is quite straight-forward.
Well, that was enough to set me off into ripples of laughter.
Straight-forward double-dealing. Hilarious. Surely the one thing that double-dealing isn't is "straight-forward"?
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Real Tory party #9934 - a real corker
Almost everyday (indeed several times a day, sometimes) we are reminded that David Cameron seems to be very unsuccessful at taming the beast which is the Tory party.
At times it is ridiculous how he smarms his way around pretending to be "liberal" and progressive, while his party behave in the opposite way. The Daniel Hannan episode, and its subsequent revelations, was an excellent case in point.
Today there is another absolute corker.
You would have thought someone would have briefed Alan Scard. He is only the Chairman of the Association charged with finding a replacement for one of the most high profile casualties of the MPs' expenses scandal - Sir Peter "In the Duck House" Viggers.
But, oh no, he helpfully provides us with a real insight into the Tory party with this gem:
During the Channel 4 News interview, he was asked about David Cameron's push to get more women elected.
Mr Scard said: "If they are attractive, yeah, I would go for it.
"I know it's a sexist thing to say but you could get the blokes saying, 'Oh you know, I would vote for her because she's really attractive', but then the other women say 'Oh I don't like her, she's too attractive'."
He thought the interview was over, apparently. Perhaps all Tory party chairs should take lesson one in broadcasting, which is:
If you are near a microphone, assume it is live.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Cameron: Who's the tw*t?
It is interesting that David Cameron hams it up to try to please particular audiences. It so transparently contrived. Just after elected Tory leader, he appeared on a London community radio station for the "young". When asked to give a message to the audience he said "Keep it real".
Come off it. This man was brought up amidst antique family furntiure in one of the poshest parts of Berkhire -Leckhamsptead. I've been there several times. "Keep it real" is not a phrase you hear in the Stag pub there. "Yah", "Ew" and "Tally Ho" you might hear. "Keep it real" - no.
So today he tries it again. He's on with zoo radio expert Christian O'Connell, so he swears. "Tw*t" and "P****ed off", he says. Oh yes. He's really down with the kids. And Ew, marvellous, some excellent press emphasising his street cred.
Except there is a fly in the ointment:
Asked whether he used Twitter, Cameron said: "The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it - too many twits might make a twat.
Do you see what he did there? He's a tw*t because he hasn't used Twitter and obviously has no idea what it is, and, let's face it, expecting him to use it would be like expecting Her Majesty the Queen to use the iPod that Bazza gave her and load it herself (I love to think that she has "God Save Oneself" loaded onto it, but I fear not).
But he's turned it round and called all us Tweeters tw*ts, effectively.
That will come back to haunt him.
The twit.
Come off it. This man was brought up amidst antique family furntiure in one of the poshest parts of Berkhire -Leckhamsptead. I've been there several times. "Keep it real" is not a phrase you hear in the Stag pub there. "Yah", "Ew" and "Tally Ho" you might hear. "Keep it real" - no.
So today he tries it again. He's on with zoo radio expert Christian O'Connell, so he swears. "Tw*t" and "P****ed off", he says. Oh yes. He's really down with the kids. And Ew, marvellous, some excellent press emphasising his street cred.
Except there is a fly in the ointment:
Asked whether he used Twitter, Cameron said: "The trouble with Twitter, the instantness of it - too many twits might make a twat.
Do you see what he did there? He's a tw*t because he hasn't used Twitter and obviously has no idea what it is, and, let's face it, expecting him to use it would be like expecting Her Majesty the Queen to use the iPod that Bazza gave her and load it herself (I love to think that she has "God Save Oneself" loaded onto it, but I fear not).
But he's turned it round and called all us Tweeters tw*ts, effectively.
That will come back to haunt him.
The twit.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Cameron's blunder over Ofcom
Philip Stephens in the FT says that David Cameron has made a basic error in promising to abolish Ofcom:
The problem is that in promising to transfer Ofcom’s work to Whitehall so it is more directly accountable to ministers and parliament, Mr Cameron has shown he has no clear idea of what it does.
The central charge seems to be that Ofcom’s views on public service broadcasting have strayed too far into realms better reserved for ministers. As it happens, I think Mr Cameron is mistaken, but the details of the argument are irrelevant beside the fact that broadcasting policy accounts for only about 5 per cent of Ofcom’s workload. Moving it to Whitehall would scarcely mean “that Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist”. Some 90 per cent of Ofcom’s remit comprises unglamorous work such as telecommunications regulation, upholding broadcasting standards, allocating spectrum, and, crucially, policing competition. All this can properly be done only at arms length from civil servants and ministers.
Unless Mr Cameron tears up the rules of independent regulation – or breaks up the organisation into the several quangos from which it was originally created – Ofcom will indeed survive in something much like its present form. It is curious that someone who once worked in broadcasting could miss this point.
The problem is that in promising to transfer Ofcom’s work to Whitehall so it is more directly accountable to ministers and parliament, Mr Cameron has shown he has no clear idea of what it does.
The central charge seems to be that Ofcom’s views on public service broadcasting have strayed too far into realms better reserved for ministers. As it happens, I think Mr Cameron is mistaken, but the details of the argument are irrelevant beside the fact that broadcasting policy accounts for only about 5 per cent of Ofcom’s workload. Moving it to Whitehall would scarcely mean “that Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist”. Some 90 per cent of Ofcom’s remit comprises unglamorous work such as telecommunications regulation, upholding broadcasting standards, allocating spectrum, and, crucially, policing competition. All this can properly be done only at arms length from civil servants and ministers.
Unless Mr Cameron tears up the rules of independent regulation – or breaks up the organisation into the several quangos from which it was originally created – Ofcom will indeed survive in something much like its present form. It is curious that someone who once worked in broadcasting could miss this point.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Parliament Square: The disgusting side of the Tories in microcosm
I haven't met David Cameron. With age, I have decided to at least try not to hate people I have not met, although George Bush is naturally an exception. With a carefully contrived cocktail of alcohol and prescription drugs inside of me, I am sure I would enjoy an hour in a pub with David Cameron. I'd probably need to scream (and wash thoroughly) afterwards, though.
But, as regards Cameron's attitudes I find it very difficult to exaggerate the contempt I feel. His pronouncement on the protests in Parliament Square just sends me into waves of anger. I find it very difficult to restrain myself. I just feel profound hatred, emanating from deep down in my bone marrow, of the stupid stuck-up idiotic pillock Mr Cameron who said:
I am all in favour of free speech and the right to demonstrate and the right to protest.
But I think there are moments when our Parliament Square does look like a pretty poor place, with shanty town tents and the rest of it.
I am all for demonstrations, but my argument is `Enough is enough'.
What hypocrisy! How disingenuous can you get?! He's in favour of free speech but he is not in favour of free speech in one of the most important places we should have it - in front of Parliament!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I should also put in a mention for Boris Johnson who cancelled the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square so that it is more difficult to fit in protests in the first place, due to the traffic flow.
But, as regards Cameron's attitudes I find it very difficult to exaggerate the contempt I feel. His pronouncement on the protests in Parliament Square just sends me into waves of anger. I find it very difficult to restrain myself. I just feel profound hatred, emanating from deep down in my bone marrow, of the stupid stuck-up idiotic pillock Mr Cameron who said:
I am all in favour of free speech and the right to demonstrate and the right to protest.
But I think there are moments when our Parliament Square does look like a pretty poor place, with shanty town tents and the rest of it.
I am all for demonstrations, but my argument is `Enough is enough'.
What hypocrisy! How disingenuous can you get?! He's in favour of free speech but he is not in favour of free speech in one of the most important places we should have it - in front of Parliament!
AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I should also put in a mention for Boris Johnson who cancelled the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square so that it is more difficult to fit in protests in the first place, due to the traffic flow.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Cameron tries to boost his green credentials: London to Norwich by helicopter
It's obvious really. You're going to a meeting on the greenest of green topics (bio-fuels). You obviously choose one of the most environmentally disastrous forms of transport (a helicopter) to get there don't you?
...And it's just a year or so since we were urged to "Vote Blue - go Green".
Is it any wonder why Labour's private polling shows that voters have little or no idea what the Tories stand for?
...And it's just a year or so since we were urged to "Vote Blue - go Green".
Is it any wonder why Labour's private polling shows that voters have little or no idea what the Tories stand for?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Cameron's brazen hypocrisy
It's good to see David Cameron sweating "relaxed" for a change today. I am utterly amazed that he thinks it's OK to try to deceive the public by saying, very narrowly, that Coulson wasn't in post when Gordon Taylor was paid off. Does Cameron think the public has a collective IQ of 30?
Is Cameron, indeed, saying (bizarrely, in a round about way) that the Editor of the News of the World at the time of the pay-offs should be sacked even though Coulson was in charge when it happened?!
I was very impressed by Chris Huhne's genuine anger shown about this in the Commons today (see him in interview form below).
Great minds think alike - I thought of the comparison of this to the McBride affair. Then I naturally took recourse to the Oracle, Mr Wilcock, and saw that, this morning, he saw the same parallel. A few dodgy emails about a website which never opened were milked to high heaven by David Cameron. Now, the little toe-rag has been revealed as having the most appalling judgment as to who to hire, and thinks he can brazen it out with his posh accent.
As my grandmother used to say: "He's so sharp, one day he'll cut himself".
Is Cameron, indeed, saying (bizarrely, in a round about way) that the Editor of the News of the World at the time of the pay-offs should be sacked even though Coulson was in charge when it happened?!
I was very impressed by Chris Huhne's genuine anger shown about this in the Commons today (see him in interview form below).
Great minds think alike - I thought of the comparison of this to the McBride affair. Then I naturally took recourse to the Oracle, Mr Wilcock, and saw that, this morning, he saw the same parallel. A few dodgy emails about a website which never opened were milked to high heaven by David Cameron. Now, the little toe-rag has been revealed as having the most appalling judgment as to who to hire, and thinks he can brazen it out with his posh accent.
As my grandmother used to say: "He's so sharp, one day he'll cut himself".
Monday, July 6, 2009
Cameron turns both ways
It was excellent to see David Cameron doing a complete volte face within 10 seconds on Today. Firstly he said that Quangoes should be stringently reviewed, cut down, abolished etc. Then, when challenged to say whether he would freeze public sector pay, he generously sang the praises of independent pay review boards who are....ahem....quangoes.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The mess in Cameron's backyard
The Telegraph expenses machine grinds relentlessly onward.
It is taking me some time to overcome my distress at the news that Jeffrey Donaldson MP is having to repay £555 which he claimed for hotel pay-for-view films. Will he let us know the titles of these films? As taxpayers I think we are entitled to know, given that we have loaned him 555 quid for months. In the absence of such a list, we can only assume that dear Jeffrey watched the film "Room Service 2" multiple times. That it is the only itemisation which appeared on some of thebills. "Room Service 2" eh? Ooh missus!
Dear little Georgie Osbourne, all set to be the most utterly ill-equipped person to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the history of the post, is being investigated the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
And, oh dear, Alan Duncan is in the limelight again for some barely comprehensible saga concerning his second home allowance, for which I'd better switch to strictly quoting from the Telegraph:
Alan Duncan, a senior Conservative MP, has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in mortgage interest on his designated second home – even though he had owned the property outright for more than a decade...
All in all, it's hard not to agree with Lord Oakeshott, who has said:
It is now crystal clear David Cameron cracks down on ordinary Tory MPs and smiles sweetly at the in-crowd in the shadow cabinet.
PS The title of this post refers to the last two-thirds. Jeffrey Donaldson is, of course, a Democratic Unionist Party MP, and therefore not in 'Cameron's backyard', or, indeed, his front yard.
It is taking me some time to overcome my distress at the news that Jeffrey Donaldson MP is having to repay £555 which he claimed for hotel pay-for-view films. Will he let us know the titles of these films? As taxpayers I think we are entitled to know, given that we have loaned him 555 quid for months. In the absence of such a list, we can only assume that dear Jeffrey watched the film "Room Service 2" multiple times. That it is the only itemisation which appeared on some of thebills. "Room Service 2" eh? Ooh missus!
Dear little Georgie Osbourne, all set to be the most utterly ill-equipped person to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in the history of the post, is being investigated the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
And, oh dear, Alan Duncan is in the limelight again for some barely comprehensible saga concerning his second home allowance, for which I'd better switch to strictly quoting from the Telegraph:
Alan Duncan, a senior Conservative MP, has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in mortgage interest on his designated second home – even though he had owned the property outright for more than a decade...
All in all, it's hard not to agree with Lord Oakeshott, who has said:
It is now crystal clear David Cameron cracks down on ordinary Tory MPs and smiles sweetly at the in-crowd in the shadow cabinet.
PS The title of this post refers to the last two-thirds. Jeffrey Donaldson is, of course, a Democratic Unionist Party MP, and therefore not in 'Cameron's backyard', or, indeed, his front yard.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Cameron's £564 on new photos for his website
From Paul Waugh:
Cam claims £564 for new pics of himself on his website
David Cameron has called for the scrapping of the Communications Allowance - which allows MPs to spend thousands of pounds telling their constituents "how wonderful we are", as he once put it.
But what's this buried in his own exes claim today?
As recently as March last year, he claimed £564 of taxpayers' money for new photos on the gallery of his website.
The gallery as it currently stands is here. There are some excellent photos there.
Cam claims £564 for new pics of himself on his website
David Cameron has called for the scrapping of the Communications Allowance - which allows MPs to spend thousands of pounds telling their constituents "how wonderful we are", as he once put it.
But what's this buried in his own exes claim today?
As recently as March last year, he claimed £564 of taxpayers' money for new photos on the gallery of his website.
The gallery as it currently stands is here. There are some excellent photos there.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Questions about Cameron's mortgage
Of course, he hasn't broken any rules.
He took out the £350,000 mortgage – close to the maximum amount that can be claimed for – to buy a large house in Oxfordshire in August 2001, two months after winning his Witney seat in the General Election. By nominating it as his second home, he was able to claim for the mortgage interest payments under the now-infamous Commons’ Additional Costs Allowance (ACA).
Just four months after securing the £350,000 mortgage, Mr Cameron paid off the £75,000 loan on his London home, taken out only six years earlier.
There is no suggestion that he broke any rules. But mortgage experts say that if he had kept the loan on his London home and borrowed £75,000 less on the Oxfordshire property, taxpayers could have been saved more than £22,000 between 2002 and 2007.
He took out the £350,000 mortgage – close to the maximum amount that can be claimed for – to buy a large house in Oxfordshire in August 2001, two months after winning his Witney seat in the General Election. By nominating it as his second home, he was able to claim for the mortgage interest payments under the now-infamous Commons’ Additional Costs Allowance (ACA).
Just four months after securing the £350,000 mortgage, Mr Cameron paid off the £75,000 loan on his London home, taken out only six years earlier.
There is no suggestion that he broke any rules. But mortgage experts say that if he had kept the loan on his London home and borrowed £75,000 less on the Oxfordshire property, taxpayers could have been saved more than £22,000 between 2002 and 2007.
The truth behind Cameron's call for non-political female candidates
Linda Duberley is a perfect example of a non-political, independent-minded woman with great career experience outside of politics. She's been through a great deal of screening to become a Tory 'B list' candidate but has been unable to get a seat to represent as a candidate - despite working very hard on the ground. Then she saw Cameron last week calling for more non-political, independent-minded women to be Tory candidates. She threw her mug of tea at the television. Here is her story.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Cameron doesn't know how many houses he has
From The Times, an exchange with David Cameron:
...how many properties do you own? “I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”
A house in Cornwall? “No, that is, Samantha used to have a timeshare in South Devon but she doesn’t any more.” And there isn’t a fourth? “I don’t think so – not that I can think of.” Please don’t say, “Not that I can think of.” “You might be… Samantha owns a field in Scunthorpe but she doesn’t own a house…”
The rest of the interview was punctuated with Cameron’s nagging anxiety about how this exchange was going to make him sound: “I was wondering how that will come across as a soundbite”; “‘Not that I can think of’ makes me sound… I am really worried about that…”; “I am still thinking about this house thing”; and his parting shot was: “Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got.”
Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssss. You don't really need any help, David.
...how many properties do you own? “I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”
A house in Cornwall? “No, that is, Samantha used to have a timeshare in South Devon but she doesn’t any more.” And there isn’t a fourth? “I don’t think so – not that I can think of.” Please don’t say, “Not that I can think of.” “You might be… Samantha owns a field in Scunthorpe but she doesn’t own a house…”
The rest of the interview was punctuated with Cameron’s nagging anxiety about how this exchange was going to make him sound: “I was wondering how that will come across as a soundbite”; “‘Not that I can think of’ makes me sound… I am really worried about that…”; “I am still thinking about this house thing”; and his parting shot was: “Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got.”
Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuusssssssssssss. You don't really need any help, David.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Is it possible to suspend my membership of the human race for ten years?
I just cannot stand the thought of ten years of that complete pillock David Cameron. All you need to know about him is that he was a public relations guru for one of the worst, most soulless television stations in the history of British broadcasting.
David Cameron set out plans to radically reform the British political system in a speech at the Open University.
He said the current political crisis highlighted the need for "sweeping reform" and stressed that "a bit of technocratic tinkering here, a bit of constitutional consultation there" would not be sufficient.
Oh go and stick your head down a toilet, Cameron.
A massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power.
Round spherical objects! David Cameron wouldn't recognise a redistribution power if someone redirected the national grid down his left nostril.
So measure number one?
David Cameron will "seriously consider" fixed term parliaments. Oh FFS. In other words he will "seriously consider" it to get into power and find one hundred and one reasons not to implement it once in power, due to it being one of the most powerful and intoxicating powers a Prime Minister has. Anything less than a commitment to fixed term parliaments now is worse than worthless. It's an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
"More elected mayors". Round spherical objects. That actually coalesces power in one person, it doesn't distribute it.
"More local control over schools". Ah yes, the old Tory policy.
"He pledged to cut the number of MPs" Which distributes precisely which powers to the public? Come on! Divulge yourself! (The answer is actually zip - de nada). It'll save money, probably save time, but let's not kid ourselves that it puts power into the hands of the public any less or more.
"We're going to empower local councils by cutting right back on all the interference and instructions from central government - the rules and restrictions, the targets and inspections."
Ah! The leopard changes its spots. Disregard the Tory track record 1979-1997.
Bill by bill. Clause by clause. Line by line.
Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny.
Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?
Well that all goes on at the moment but then unfortunately Labour have such a fantastic majority based on such a paltry percentage of the vote that the bill goes through regardless. Of course, this couldn't possibly be an argument for a fairer voting system could it Camster? Perish the thought!
Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites.
What utter cobblers! It means that peoples' vote actually means something! Original eh?
And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws.
I am sorry. I can't take any more of this.
David Cameron set out plans to radically reform the British political system in a speech at the Open University.
He said the current political crisis highlighted the need for "sweeping reform" and stressed that "a bit of technocratic tinkering here, a bit of constitutional consultation there" would not be sufficient.
Oh go and stick your head down a toilet, Cameron.
A massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power.
Round spherical objects! David Cameron wouldn't recognise a redistribution power if someone redirected the national grid down his left nostril.
So measure number one?
David Cameron will "seriously consider" fixed term parliaments. Oh FFS. In other words he will "seriously consider" it to get into power and find one hundred and one reasons not to implement it once in power, due to it being one of the most powerful and intoxicating powers a Prime Minister has. Anything less than a commitment to fixed term parliaments now is worse than worthless. It's an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.
"More elected mayors". Round spherical objects. That actually coalesces power in one person, it doesn't distribute it.
"More local control over schools". Ah yes, the old Tory policy.
"He pledged to cut the number of MPs" Which distributes precisely which powers to the public? Come on! Divulge yourself! (The answer is actually zip - de nada). It'll save money, probably save time, but let's not kid ourselves that it puts power into the hands of the public any less or more.
"We're going to empower local councils by cutting right back on all the interference and instructions from central government - the rules and restrictions, the targets and inspections."
Ah! The leopard changes its spots. Disregard the Tory track record 1979-1997.
Bill by bill. Clause by clause. Line by line.
Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny.
Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?
Well that all goes on at the moment but then unfortunately Labour have such a fantastic majority based on such a paltry percentage of the vote that the bill goes through regardless. Of course, this couldn't possibly be an argument for a fairer voting system could it Camster? Perish the thought!
Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites.
What utter cobblers! It means that peoples' vote actually means something! Original eh?
And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws.
I am sorry. I can't take any more of this.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
David Cameron's sham public meeting on expenses
For once I like an article by Peter Hitchens. In the Mail on Sunday today he tells the story of David Cameron's public meeting in Witney. It was held at noon on Friday - hardly at time when most people can manage to get along. It was very scantily advertised and most of the questions seemed to be asked by loyal Tory activists. Hitchens concludes:
If Mr Cameron really wants to find out what the people of West Oxfordshire think about him, his mortgage and his chimney, I suggest he hires a bigger hall, advertises the event both to local people and the national media, and holds it when normal men and women won't be at work.
If Mr Cameron really wants to find out what the people of West Oxfordshire think about him, his mortgage and his chimney, I suggest he hires a bigger hall, advertises the event both to local people and the national media, and holds it when normal men and women won't be at work.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Cameron enjoyed "sanctions busting jolly" in Apartheid South Africa
The Independent on Sunday has the story:
David Cameron accepted an all-expenses paid trip to apartheid South Africa while Nelson Mandela was still in prison, an updated biography of the Tory leader reveals today.
The trip by Mr Cameron in 1989, when he was a rising star of the Conservative Research Department, was a chance for him to "see for himself" and was funded by a firm that lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime.
Critics described it as a "sanctions-busting jolly" that raised questions about the character of the man...
The significant thing about this revelation is that when Cameron met Nelson Mandela in 2006 he said:
The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the African National Congress and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now.
The fact that there is so much to celebrate in the new South Africa is not in spite of Mandela and the ANC; it is because of them – and we Conservatives should say so clearly today.
One might be forgiven for assuming, when one heard this originally, that David Cameron was an innocent in nappies when the Tory party was opposing sanctions and Young Tories were wearing "Hang Mandela" T shirts. However, it is now clear that David Cameron was an enthusiastic supporter of the anti-sanctions policy - bearing in mind he made his trip at a time when civil servants and officials were being advised not to undertake such journies.
David Cameron accepted an all-expenses paid trip to apartheid South Africa while Nelson Mandela was still in prison, an updated biography of the Tory leader reveals today.
The trip by Mr Cameron in 1989, when he was a rising star of the Conservative Research Department, was a chance for him to "see for himself" and was funded by a firm that lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime.
Critics described it as a "sanctions-busting jolly" that raised questions about the character of the man...
The significant thing about this revelation is that when Cameron met Nelson Mandela in 2006 he said:
The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the African National Congress and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now.
The fact that there is so much to celebrate in the new South Africa is not in spite of Mandela and the ANC; it is because of them – and we Conservatives should say so clearly today.
One might be forgiven for assuming, when one heard this originally, that David Cameron was an innocent in nappies when the Tory party was opposing sanctions and Young Tories were wearing "Hang Mandela" T shirts. However, it is now clear that David Cameron was an enthusiastic supporter of the anti-sanctions policy - bearing in mind he made his trip at a time when civil servants and officials were being advised not to undertake such journies.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Meet the new world, the same as the old world
What an absolute delight to learn that David Cameron is offering referendums on elected Mayors for cities and council tax changes!
Well done Cameron! What a superb new world we can look forward to when that glorious day arrives and DC sweeps into Downing Street!
Hallejujah!
What ever next?!
Will he be promising general elections at least every five years? And the possibility of changing your council on a stated timetable through elections?...and loads of other things which already exist?!
Well done Cameron! What a superb new world we can look forward to when that glorious day arrives and DC sweeps into Downing Street!
Hallejujah!
What ever next?!
Will he be promising general elections at least every five years? And the possibility of changing your council on a stated timetable through elections?...and loads of other things which already exist?!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Cameron - altogether quite a clever reshuffle
All in all, David Cameron's reshuffle seems quite astute. (Did I write that? I must wash my keyboard out with soap and water). He's rectified, to a good extent, his previous weaknesses:
1. Not enough experience. Bring in Mr Experience, Ken Clarke.
2. Too much "Bully" - Bullingdon club types. Bring in the very antithesis of the Bullingdon club type, Eric Pie & Pickles and replace the awfully posh Grieve (who was a bit of an emergency promotion in the first place) with the slightly less posh and certainly sure-footed Grayling.
Hat-tip: Nick Robinson.
1. Not enough experience. Bring in Mr Experience, Ken Clarke.
2. Too much "Bully" - Bullingdon club types. Bring in the very antithesis of the Bullingdon club type, Eric Pie & Pickles and replace the awfully posh Grieve (who was a bit of an emergency promotion in the first place) with the slightly less posh and certainly sure-footed Grayling.
Hat-tip: Nick Robinson.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Cameron: all but 6 or 7 of the Tory shadow cabinet are "useless"
I’ve got six or seven people in the Shadow Cabinet capable of working in the government. The rest are useless.
So said David Cameron, apparently.
Flight to Inverness are still available from the BA website.
So said David Cameron, apparently.
Flight to Inverness are still available from the BA website.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Gloating is bad form
So, I won't tell anyone if you don't.
It is remarkable to see the Tory getting itself tied up in knots over the economy. Iain Martin writes a most entertaining article in the Torygraph suggesting that little Georgie Osbourne should be moved to a role more in line with his skills. Like looking after the Shadow Cabinet tuck shop.
The Martin article is full of quotable sentences from beginning to end. So choosing one is like shooting fish in a barrel. But here goes with some of my favourite lines:
"There has been," says a loyal Tory MP, "a strange reversal of fortune, in which Gordon Brown focuses on the macro, big picture on the economy and David, the master of theatre, is bogged down with micro initiatives and over-complicated measures of the kind Brown usually specialises in." Osborne as shadow chancellor is blamed for this, because he is most identified with the judgment calls that brought his party here. Then it was Osborne's bad luck that, just as such concerns were stirring, he chose to board a Russian yacht when he would have done far better to remain on dry land.
However, Martin is wrong in this analysis:
One of the Conservative Party's roles is supposed to be that it exists for moments in history such as these, when Leftists who have spent all the money unwisely have decided that the answer is even more of what put the country in a hole in the first place. If it is doing its job properly, the Tory party says: this has to stop and here is a better way which will restore prosperity.
The whole point is that Brown is flourishing because traditionally socialist solutions, rubbished by the Tories for decades, are proving to be the ones needed now: state intervention and regulation, to name but two.
The Tory party has spent over 100 years opposing state intervention and regulation. Now those two actions prove to be about the only thing which is giving the British and world economies any hope of salvation.
Let's face it, the Tories are on the wrong side of history at the moment. Brown, that old Scots socilaista, is on the right side of history - and that's the reason for his smile and the Cameron/Osbourne discomfiture.
It is remarkable to see the Tory getting itself tied up in knots over the economy. Iain Martin writes a most entertaining article in the Torygraph suggesting that little Georgie Osbourne should be moved to a role more in line with his skills. Like looking after the Shadow Cabinet tuck shop.
The Martin article is full of quotable sentences from beginning to end. So choosing one is like shooting fish in a barrel. But here goes with some of my favourite lines:
"There has been," says a loyal Tory MP, "a strange reversal of fortune, in which Gordon Brown focuses on the macro, big picture on the economy and David, the master of theatre, is bogged down with micro initiatives and over-complicated measures of the kind Brown usually specialises in." Osborne as shadow chancellor is blamed for this, because he is most identified with the judgment calls that brought his party here. Then it was Osborne's bad luck that, just as such concerns were stirring, he chose to board a Russian yacht when he would have done far better to remain on dry land.
However, Martin is wrong in this analysis:
One of the Conservative Party's roles is supposed to be that it exists for moments in history such as these, when Leftists who have spent all the money unwisely have decided that the answer is even more of what put the country in a hole in the first place. If it is doing its job properly, the Tory party says: this has to stop and here is a better way which will restore prosperity.
The whole point is that Brown is flourishing because traditionally socialist solutions, rubbished by the Tories for decades, are proving to be the ones needed now: state intervention and regulation, to name but two.
The Tory party has spent over 100 years opposing state intervention and regulation. Now those two actions prove to be about the only thing which is giving the British and world economies any hope of salvation.
Let's face it, the Tories are on the wrong side of history at the moment. Brown, that old Scots socilaista, is on the right side of history - and that's the reason for his smile and the Cameron/Osbourne discomfiture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
