Cameron caught in compromising position

The nation - or rather the small part of the nation that is remotely interested in our ultimate fate, in what's going to happen to us over the next five years, rather than TV's 'Strictly Come Out of Here' with Anton Dick - waits with bated breath for the release of the Coalition agreement document - the manifesto of the Blue 'n' Yellow party.

In 30 gripping pages, this roller coaster of emotion ("once I'd put it down, I couldn't pick it up again") will tell us in detail how the two parties have compromised to cobble together a new manifesto. A manifesto that none of us saw - because it didn't exist - before we voted. A manifesto that, even we had been able to see, we could not have voted for. That's what we'll get with PR, folks - get used to it.

If we're to believe Cleggy's gotta-to-admit-it historic speech yesterday, there could be some pretty tasty stuff therein.

Of course, not everyone's happy. Not even every Tory. Take Bill Cash: he told the BBC there was a ..

"..tsunami of changes taking place which could create a great deal of uncertainty and tension.."

"..very acute concern among Conservatives that the party's position was being watered down".

"We want things to work, we want stability, but there are also these democratic questions about being elected on manifesto commitments."

Hmmmm. You know what, Bill? Tough shit. Stop your bleating.

This didn't have to happen you know. If the Blue Team had won the election all on their own - and why the fuck didn't they, against the most disliked, inept incumbents we've ever seen? - then you could have executed the whole damn manifesto for the next five years.

But that didn't happen, did it? Ashcroft's millions were poured down the wrong drains, and your main man dropped his notes then shat himself when the lights came up on the first TV debate.

So you had to ally with a tiny party of opportunists, who probably still can't believe their luck. Your leader had to climb into bed with a Dutch boy. And when that happens, you can expect to see some compromising positions.

You won't necessarily be able to legalise hunting darkies, or repatriating foxes. But you will have to get on with fixing the economy, which was your party's main, core, central promise.

If the Tories look after the pounds, and the Lib Dems look after the premise that we need a lot fewer stupid laws, a lot less authoritarianism : guess who'll have really won the election?

Yeah: us.

.

3 comments:

Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs said...

"guess who'll have really won the election?

Yeah: us."


Spot on. It's a politician's attitude of "what's in it for me" rather than "what can I do for my country" that is the eternal problem with politics of all colours.

Captain Haddock said...

Cameron's position might just turn out to be more than merely compromising ..

He's decided to take on the powerful 1922 committee, who are said to be "furious" at his latest proposals ..

The last Tory leader to tackle this committee was IDS .. and he stepped down as leader a few days later ..

I've never believed that Cameron was the right man to lead the Conservatives (and have said so here before) .. personally, I hope he gets a bloody nose .. and a real, genuine Conservative becomes leader ..

Jill said...

It'll be interesting to look back on this election in a few years' time and try to work out what the overall theme in public opinion the result actually represented. Those of us who are politically interested enough to write/read political blogs are such a small minority, after all.

My feeling is that the public wanted rid of Labour and understood the need for belt tightening, but refused to go so far as to completely trust the Tories on the basis of a perceived expectation of a slash and burn of the public sector.

Unhappily for me, I don't think civil liberties interest the majority of people that much, and unhappily for you, I don't think a big state is anathema to that majority either.