|
JulesRants
http://20six.co.uk/julesrants
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
David Cameron, then.
Is it just me, or is the warm reception he's being given in the media
more to do with them being very bored that politics in the UK hasn't
been terribly shouty and divisive, and therefore isn't very interesting
to the Westminster village?
Most of the slavering I've seen & read
from talking heads recently has a distinct undercurrent of wanting to
see blood spilled. They want Brown to take over from Blair now, and in
as bloody as fashion as possible. They want Cameron to bite chunks out
of the PM, whoever that might be. They just want some juicy stuff to
cover, whether or not it's actually constructive or useful to anyone
outside Fleet Street and Broadcasting House.
The Tories themselves want him to single-handedly make them electable
again, to 'do for the Tories what Blair did for Labour'. The trouble,
of course, is that most of the heavy lifting had already been done by
Neil Kinnock (getting rid of Militant) and John Smith (one member-one
vote, ending trades union dominance). Blair's contribution was either
symbolic (getting rid of Clause IV - which committed the party to
public ownership & nationalisation) or atmospheric (being a new
face that nobody associated with the bad old days).
Nothing analogous has taken place in the Conservative party.
They could have made a point of throwing out the far right - racists
& homophobes, or the more rabid Europhobes, for example - but they didn't. They could have
brought in some kind of affirmative action for women and minority
candidates - something Cameron has raised as a possibility - but they
didn't. They just kept trundling on and on and on, assuming that the
electorate had had a rush of blood to the head in 1997 and that they
would eventually come to their senses and start voting Tory again. Er,
no. Their share of the vote has been pretty much static since the early
1990s, and Cameron has a huge job of reform to do before they are an
effective party of opposition, let alone a government in waiting.
He's made some vaguely encouraging noises, but so far, there's no
reason to believe he's going to fulfil the same role for his party that
Kinnock did for Labour, let alone Blair.
And even then, most of the Tories I've seen giving their views on the
need for change, they all seem to think that the requirement is for other people
to change, and not them. If Cameron really is serious, I think that
there will be some serious in-fighting in the Tory ranks - maybe even
resulting in some more rightwing MPs splitting off to form or join
another party (memories of the SDP anyone?). And if he isn't, no amount
of presentational jiggery-pokery is suddenly going to make the same
tired old party electable again.
In a way, I think he needs to
pick a fight with his party, if only so that when the dust settles, the
wider public (and the remainder of loyal Tories) are crystal clear that
the Tories have been renewed.
The problem (for them) is that this will take time, and the divisions,
while they are happening, will not make them look very electable (so if
this is the road Cameron plans to go down, he needs to set off quickly
if he wants to stand any kind of chance at the next election). He might
just be able to squeak this through in time.
Personally, I think that the Tories, having been in opposition for
eight years, need another ten years there, just to make up for the 18
years that they spent in government up to 1997.
So I hope Cameron
fiddles a bit then reverts to type - all the opposition leaders since
1997 have stood claiming to be the reformist that would lead the party
back to government. And they've all failed, because (unlike Labour)
they've never had a clear idea what they were for, except winning
elections.
Q. What DO the Tories stand for that is a unique identity for
them?
A. Bugger all.
Ask any Tory this question, and you get a parade of
tired cliches overlying some bluster. It's like asking the more loudly Bible-thumping Christians
why they believe in God - they have no idea, they've never given it any
thought, and they're vaguely insulted that they have to justify
themselves to anyone (including themselves).
|
9.12.05 15:30
|
|
|
JulesRants
