Cameron: empty PR stuntman or breath of fresh air?

[SenoraPostrophe]

OK so this isn't really in the news now, but it takes me a long time to read a paper so bear with me...

I'm fascinated by the recent rumblings in the tory party about selective schools. Now Cameron's speech about them (he said he's against) was the first thing ever that made me almost consider not automatically not voting tory, iyswim.

But now he's taken it back due to a backlash from the party.

so I wonder...is it all empty PR stuff? (I can't believe he didn't know that the backlash would be that big). Or should he have joined the lib dems? I do suspect the former tbh, but was wondering what others thought.

Empty PR stuntman. Not sure he has any opinions of his own.

He used to work in PR. Ask any of the Daily papers that have dealt with him in the past and they will tell you it is all an act. He is as slippery as they come...........

I know PR types can be slippery, but you don't have to be surely?

He's taken it back about grammar schools?

Totally empty PR stuntman, I think. I just am not convinced that he has any grasp of or sympathy with the way normal people live their lives.
This is someone who thinks a 'normal university experience' means the Bullingdon Club (exclusive Oxford student dining club) ffs.

On grammar schools I can see why he would have felt the previous Tory stance was not going to get them elected, but did he not see that it was not going to come over well to have a load of old Etonians lecturing the middle classes on social mobility?

Cretin. And I'm a Tory Voter. (well, I have been in the past)
I don't give a monkey's fert what side your bread is buttered in terms of politics - I just want to hear someone with the courage of their convictions. It just all looks like desperation to be get elected.

I'm sure he's a 'nice man', but then I was fairly sure about TB being a nice man. I'm sure he still is. Doesn't stop you making chronically stupid decisions.

Everytime he opens his mouth all I hear coming from it is "I know you think we're the conservative party, but honestly, I hate conservatives."

Having worked with PR types, I understand Cameron's position, and why he looks slippery.
PR people aren't very powerful with their clients, and often have to put a good face of crap they find wrong and stupid. More than one PR has said to me that X was going to happen then the client shafted her by changing their position.
They then have to make the call, which makes them look and feel dishonest and generally crap.
So why is the "leader" of the Tory party, looking slippery. It's because he ain't in charge, he's in office, not the same thing.

I was 100% with him on grammar schools, was both a brave and insightful position.

But sadly, it the whole thing shows the essential problem with the tory party.

It's not ideology as such, but the members. It is a party almost entirely composed of old people who've done moderately well in their lives, but not through education.
They genuinely believe in the "good old days", because for most of them, they actually were good.

The tories are routinely castigated as the "nasty party", but it is far more accurate to identify them as the "ignorant" party.

Under Thtacher, there was a team of very brighr people. She did Chemistry at Oxford when most women left school with no qualifications at all.

They had ideas, and a clear set of enemies.

The huddled mediocrities now running it at all levels from local associations to the top just aren't very smart.

Blair and Brown have the traditional socialist contempt for objective reality, but they aren't stupid. There's a layer below them like Ruth Kelly who may be a nasty piece of work, but you can't be as evil as that
unless you're bright.

He is a like a caricature of a politician. I just can't take anything he says seriously.

is it all a grab for mythical centre ground floaty voters tehn that turns the debate/ politics into the same thing..

....where there is really not a fag paper of a difference between the parties then?

for first time ever i just dont want to vote...

What we lack, wholly is any liberal party at all. By "liberal", I mean one that wants to protect civil liberties and free trade and who will fight against vested interests like unions, religions and big business.

What we have instead is two parties who believe that large groups are inherently good. Thus we have support for "naitonal champions" like British Airways, and Bae who flout the crimibal law.
We have religious organisations conspiring to murder people and rape children, but getting no stronger sanction than sympathetic interviews on the BBC.
Unions aren't the malignant force they were, (I still have the burns I got as a child from them), but need to be watched.
The police are getting more powers than many of them actually want, and British subjects are handed over to evangelical Americans to be tortured.

All the bad crap above is supported by both the tories and labour.

Domini - you have just made me smile with your post -
''There's a layer below them like Ruth Kelly who may be a nasty piece of work, but you can't be as evil as that
unless you're bright.''
I was listening to her on radio 4 blethering on about 'Britishness' ad found her so profoundly irritating. Basically I don't trust a word she says and object to someone belonging to 'opus dei'being in government as she clearly allows her religious views to colour her political judgement.I'm sure her beliefs were not made clear to those who voted for her.

I think he's trying to do what Tony Blair did - still maintain his parties ethos but step a little to the other way (Mr Blair was stepping to the left a little when he got elected) to ensure a wider section of the public agreed with him.

Unfortunately on this topic it's come back and bitten him on the ass. Some spin doctor will be getting a bollocking.

He worries me tbh.... he's all smiles and shows genuine conviction when in the direct public eye yet when you dig deeper there seems to be very little substance.

Sadly, Wheresmysuntan, most people vote for a party, not a person. Look at local council elections, where issues like Iraq and the NHS dominate over local issues almost entirely, even though councils have zero effect.

In the case of Ruth Kelly, her membership of an extreme religious sect will not stop her being re-elected, even though it is now public.
Nor will her written letters of support to convicted sex criminals applying to work in Catholic schools.
The fault is not hers. She makes no secret of the things she does, and in many ways she is quite the opposite of what we see in Cameron.

It is said that Cameron doesn't really bleieve in anything.
On the other hand Kelly clearly has strong beliefs.

Which one would you want making decisions on who is safe to be teaching your kids ?

Im afraid I dont believe in David Cameron. It is all surface stuff, he has no intention of really changing anything - they wouldnt let him, anyway.
He comes across as the product of a group effort - his campaign team.

A problem with the way the big parties elect leaders is that it is easier to win by being acceptable to most people than by sticking out as having strong opinions.

This applies as much to Brown as to Cameron.

Brown is in favour of government listening to the people, greater efficiency, and ensuring a greater level of security, and social justice.

This of course was designed to infuriate those who want the government to ignore voters, increase the level of waste, favour terrorism and think social injustice is cool.

DC - I wouldn't want either of them deciding on the education of my child. Ruth Kelly because she is a religious extremist and David Cameron because as an old-etonian, he can't possibly understand the complexities in state education.
In answer to th OP , I think all Cameron is interested in is 'David Cameron' - definitely a slippery customer.

I don't quite equate "religious extremist" with being a bad person, not least because I'm one myself. I see all religious people as mentally ill.
Also, if you look at the Catholic doctrine that infects Ruth Kelly's mind, it is wholly self centred. It says, quite explicitly, that if you aren't good, God will fuck you over big time.

If you accept Christianity, then the rational thing to do is appease this nasty piece of work.

That's self interest, not morality.

I genuinely don't know about Cameron. The only viable strategy to get and keep his job is to ensure that no one finds out what you are up to.

The easiest way to do this, may be as you suggest, and simply not believe in anything.

But it is very very hard to cut a hole in men's hearts.

I don't think Ruth Kelly has acted with overt-bias towards her church (apart from the letter-writing thing) not when it comes to policy anyway. She was in support of the SOR legislation and in all that kerfuffle about adoption agencies, she stood against her church didn't she?

Depends upon what you mean by bias. Personally I don't call a Catholic minister helping a Catholic sex offender get a job in a Catholic school as being a bias for them.
If your kids were at that school would you reckon the headmaster and minister were acting in your kid's interests ?

However, in her new role she's been rather more blatant. Look at the details of the new points system. "Voluntary work" gets you points. Guess what ? Yep, working for your local church counts towards this.

It seems a bit piecemeal, really. I would have thought an Opus Dei member would have got in a bit of trouble for some of the actual legislation she's been in vocal support of, tbh.

I assume she's read she's read her Aquinas ?
It is wholly consistent with Christian doctrine to do minor bad things if the ultimate goal justifies it.
A more subtle argument is the ethics of voting.
The Labour party is nearly 100% behind gay rights, abortion, contraception and stem cell research. If she voted against these things, it would have exactly zero effect, but would undermine her position with respect to things she can achieve.
One does have to ask why an organisation that freely admits that it's senior staff organised the rape of thousands of children attracts no real attention from the police ?
Can't see that being Ruth Kelly, but it is odd isn't it ?

Crikey no, I wouldn't have thought Ruth Kelly had the wit to orchestrate something like that.

I understand what you mean about applying old Tommy Aquinas, but if she's not going to use her position to affect the big-gun RC issues, what exactly is she doing that is coloured by her relgious views and therefore troublesome. (apart from the letter-writing stuff, and that just looks like favours being pulled in)

Actually, I don't mind a bit if politicians have religious views and stand by them. I dislike it intensely when they use 'religion' to appear 'respectable' and then act with no reference to their own purported beliefs. I tend to feel like it s a bit of Bait and Switch, personally.

One of the reason I don't like Cameron is that it's quite obvious that everything he does is based on what he believes is most likely to get him elected as Prime Minister - it's not because he actually believes passionately in what he's saying.

I've had conversations with Conservative party members who are rubbing their hands together gleefully because they honestly believe he's going to lead them to 'the promised land'. When I mention those who have concerns about the things Cameron is saying, one person actually said to me, oh, don't worry, he's just trying to get elected, once we're in government, he'll be much less populist.

Well, that's cobblers on so many levels. What happened to having a few ideas and bit of bold vision, not based on what you think people want to hear, but what you actually believe is right, and then trying to win the argument?

Quite frankly, if they want to pretend to be the new Liberal party to get elected, and once in power they'll be something else, I don't want them to get in, even if once in power they do things I agree with. It's just deception.

I know I'm an idealist, and probably cutting off my nose to spte my face, but that's precisely why I didn't go into politics myself, not got any ruthlessness at all.

Actually Ruth Kelly is quite smart, but I don't think she has the finger on the right button.

As for religious MPs, I suppose that's where we part company. An MP is elected to represent a wide swathe of people, not the tiny minority who shares her particular faith, indeed quite a few Catholics aren't that happy with Opus Dei.