Wednesday, April 07, 2010

“The battle is going to be between hope and fear”


So says George Osborne, as David Cameron churned out all of his choicest electoral enticements, talking of ‘renewal’ and a ‘fresh start’ for the country and offering a vision of ‘hope and optimism’.

It’s either that, or five more years of Gordon Brown.

Despite Nick Clegg’s delusional squarks, this election is a two-horse race: the choice is between the Labour Party and the Conservatives; that, for good or ill, is the electoral system we have and the political settlement which has evolved over the centuries. It may not be ideal, but we are stuck with it.

So, if you want to be rid of Gordon Brown, you must vote for David Cameron.

Except in Buckingham.

And a vote for any other party does indeed risk handing Gordon Brown victory.

Except in Buckingham.

And those who favour a hung parliament may well bequeath a perpetual Labour-LibDem coalition (a UK ‘Christian Democratic Party’) which will change the voting system to PR and put the Conservatives out of power in perpetuity. A hung parliament in which David Cameron won the most seats could still yield a Labour-LibDem coalition, leaving us with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister and Vince Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

God preserve us.


David Cameron was right to state that this is ‘the most important election for a generation’. He said: “If you vote Conservative, you are voting for hope, you are voting for optimism, you are voting for change, you are voting for the fresh start this country — our country — so badly needs.”

And as these melodic cadences soared over the Thames, Gordon Brown clunked away with “I am not a team of one.”

And like a machine, he delivered his automated message: “Britain is on the road to recovery and nothing we do should put that recovery at risk. We will not allow 13 years of investment and reform in our public services, to build up the future of these great services, to be put at risk.”

Exterminate, exterminate.

He might as well have delivered a lecture about his neo-classical endogenous growth theory.

The fact is – and this is sometimes difficult for politicos and anoraks to grasp – that the vast majority of the electorate really don’t have a clue what our politicians are on about and millions do not care. It’s not that they are mentally deficient or apathetic (though they may be); it is that many of our politicians appear to be pathologically incapable of communicating in the vernacular, and they give the impression of living in a parallel universe.

So when Gordon Brown boasts of his ‘ordinary middle-class’ background, we may well wonder what is ‘ordinary’ or ‘middle class’ about him.

Few are really deluded into believing that Gordon Brown is anything but profoundly abnormal.

And the class swipe was nothing but inverted snobbery.

The people are really quite sick of being promised heaven on earth, only to realise that they have been inflicted with another five years of purgatory.

Perhaps a bit of limbo would be good for the politicians. It has been announced that the period between polling day and parliament's return is being doubled from the usual six to 12 days, apparently to give the parties extra time to thrash out any coalition deal.

The civil service expect a hung parliament.

Her Majesty has been briefed on her constitutional duties.

The reality is that David Cameron needs a swing of more than 7 per cent to win with a majority of just one. There is indeed an enormous mountain to climb: the last time the Conservatives won that many seats was in 1931.

To achieve this, he must be authentic: the people do not want another showman. He must engage honestly: the people do not want pretence and condescension. And he must talk about and offer credible policies upon real concerns: the people want to hear about lower taxes, controlled immigration, a properly-equipped military, better schools and hospitals and for the EU to get out of our face; not waffle about wind farms, cutting the number of MPs, ring-fencing NHS spending, ‘equality’ or ‘change’.

There is indeed a hope that the Conservatives will win.

But a very real fear that they may not.

Except, perhaps, in Buckingham.

33 Comments:

Anonymous Tony B said...

At some point, there needs to be an end to campaigning on the slogan of "change" or a "fresh start". This is one reason this country lags behind others in so many areas. Each government devotes all its time to undoing what the last one did (with the exception of Labour which has just continued with Thatcherism whilst trying unsuccessfully to patch up all its ills). If Mr Cameron is offering "change", then he's abandoning Margaret Thatcher's legacy - perhaps Your Grace agrees?

7 April 2010 at 08:32  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

Go Farage

7 April 2010 at 08:32  
Anonymous pedant said...

Hope, optimism and change are all very well if you like that sort of thing (except change, which usually means finding some fresh politician's paw in your pocket) but what about REVENGE? Who will promise us that?

No doubt Yr Gr is too saintly to agree with me. I dare say you're right (sighs sadly and returns thumbscrew to drawer).

Didn't Shakespeare prophesy, "High-reaching Buckingham grows circumspect"? If elected there, Mr Farage will be the only MP in Parliament able to represent, positively and unequivocally, a very important point of view held by the majority of his countrymen. He may be a bit of an ass, but we read that Balaam's ass had important things to say. So will Buckingham's.

7 April 2010 at 09:21  
Anonymous Night Watch said...

Hi,
I find it a totally impossible situation. I feel it is very important to vote (especially for once we actually get the chance to have a say in politics, whereas for the last countless years the MP's and PM has passed through treaty and reform that we have no say in whatsoever, it maks a lovely change to get a say.) But I honestly don't know who to support an interesting link from the telegraph points out a very real truth, as a born-again Christian there is not one party to vote for. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7289494/General-Election-2010-David-Cameron-should-have-more-faith-in-the-Christian-vote.html So what to do??? I long to vote, but I honestly dont know who to vote for! help!

7 April 2010 at 09:26  
Blogger PJH said...

Except in Buckingham.

Wasn't the fragrant Mr Bercow going to change the constituency he was running for to St Stephen's to stop that sort of funny business?

What happened with that little idea? Haven't heard about it for a while.

7 April 2010 at 09:29  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

For the independently minded voter like me this is a particularly difficult election. As the three main parties are fighting over the middle ground and more particularly a few marginal constituencies the differences between them are nor great. If I could pick and mix policies from all of them I would do so.

What I look for is coherence not conviction, for honesty rather than spin. The isms are yesterday’s stale lunch. To rely on any political doctrine having all the answers is a fallacy and most of the electorate have woken up to this fact.

I share some of the conservative sentiments regularly expressed here but others I consider to be reactionary. To look at the world through the prism of political conviction is very similar to seeing it from the perspective of faith and to combine the two as many here do inevitably distorts reality so that it fits your own prejudice. And to hanker for the old Tebbit/Thatcher days of clear blue water is totally unrealistic; nowadays it is a decidedly muddy brown.

So rather than whinge why not face up to the new realities? We will probably end up with a hung parliament so for the election after this one we will probably be voting using PR. Rather than bemoan the fact perhaps this could invigorate politics by giving an opportunity to those of us who are not in marginal constituencies to affect the outcome. For example my MP is Andrew Lansley, the Lib Dems are a very distant second and labour is nowhere. What incentive is there for me to vote as I know he will not be unseated? PR works in Germany so why not here?

7 April 2010 at 09:48  
OpenID britologywatch said...

Your Grace writes: "this election is a two-horse race: the choice is between the Labour Party and the Conservatives; that, for good or ill, is the electoral system we have and the political settlement which has evolved over the centuries. It may not be ideal, but we are stuck with it. . . . those who favour a hung parliament may well bequeath a perpetual Labour-LibDem coalition (a UK ‘Christian Democratic Party’) which will change the voting system to PR and put the Conservatives out of power in perpetuity".

Methinks your Grace is being a tad inconsistent here: on the one hand, you're saying we're stuck with First Past the Post; and then you say if you vote for a hung parliament, you might get PR. So if you do want a genuinely pluralist politics, you should vote to try and bring about a hung parliament. Thanks for the guidance.

And to talk of a putative Labour-LibDem coalition as 'Christian democratic' is fanciful in the extreme, isn't it? After all, I thought Cameron's progressive Conservatives were positioning themselves as the Christian-Democratic party in all but name - the point being they don't want to use the 'Christian' label.

If there were a Christian-Democratic party that was proud to call itself that, I might vote for it, being Christian and a democrat (therefore, favouring a fair electoral system). But the reality is that, for most voters, there is no real choice under the present system, as most seats are 'safe'. In my constituency, for instance, the Tory will win however I vote, making it a one-horse race.

Amen to that, you may say. But it's hardly democracy.

7 April 2010 at 09:53  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

David Cameron was right to state that this is ‘the most important election for a generation’. He said: “If you vote Conservative, you are voting for hope, you are voting for optimism, you are voting for change, you are voting for the fresh start this country — our country — so badly needs.”

YG This may be the case, to a point, as far as economic policy is concerned but the perception is that there will be no change in social policy or in our relationship with the EU.

Sorry, still UKIP for me.

7 April 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

“If you vote Conservative, you are voting for hope, you are voting for optimism, you are voting for change, you are voting for the fresh start this country — our country — so badly needs.”

Utter tripe, I am sorry to say.

7 April 2010 at 10:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This election campaign is nothing more than an end of term school talent show.
Of all the topics that matter to ordinary people living in today's Britain I can't pick out a single example from any of the cast of players that will create genuinely memorable change for the better.
This is personality politics writ large and we will bombarded from morning 'til night with endless images of Brown's toe-curling 'smile', Cameron's desperate moon-faced sincerity and the other fella swanning around like some gents outfitter's assistant from 'Are you being Served'.

There's a programme on TV where, according to her Dad a little girl
confused the X Factor show with an election - But she is spot on.

It is like the X Factor, all that is on offer is a series of nervous performers singing other peoples songs that I've heard before.

"The lines are now open"

7 April 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Cranmer said:

The fact is – and this is sometimes difficult for politicos and anoraks to grasp – that the vast majority of the electorate really don’t have a clue what our politicians are on about and millions do not care. It’s not that they are mentally deficient or apathetic (though they may be); it is that many of our politicians appear to be pathologically incapable of communicating in the vernacular, and they give the impression of living in a parallel universe.

What a nutshell! Frankly that absolutely sums it all up for me.

I could frame that and put it on the wall....

7 April 2010 at 11:24  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

A hung parliament will be healthy for democracy because we are not electing a government now - Just choosing second rate managers for our government in Brussels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSeAyOxAbO8

7 April 2010 at 11:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

If you vote Conservative…you are voting for change…

…says David Cameron. Well, yes. Tory and Labour MPs would change sides in the House of Commons but, beyond that, nothing would change. We’d still be ruled by Brussels, we’d still be stuck with mass immigration, our soldiers would still die pointless deaths in Afghanistan, Islam would still be flavour of the month, ministers would still lie to us.

I do want change—change from the two parties that have conspired for decades to sell us out to Brussels.

7 April 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 April 2010 at 13:46  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, as far as the "two main parties" are concerned I also live in Buckingham.

cf The Spartacus support group scene.

7 April 2010 at 13:54  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Some robust responses to your remarks, Cranny.

Mr Rottenborough's observation that the only change would be a change of benches in the House of Commons just about sums it up, I think.

However, when he says: 'We’d still be ruled by Brussels, we’d still be stuck with mass immigration, our soldiers would still die pointless deaths in Afghanistan, Islam would still be flavour of the month, ministers would still lie to us,' he doesn't mention the other little matter we'd remain stuck with, namely the quasi-religious commitment to a belief in man-made global warming, and the ruinous policies devised to cope with it. Apart from the EU (though this matter can't be separated from it), the AGW scam and its consequences are possibly the most damaging of the lot.

Nevertheless, nine out of ten, Mr R.

7 April 2010 at 14:31  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Is that a broken Union Flag I see behing the fat-faced child? And all the fat foreigners who gaze up in adoration? Apart from the up-gazing, the poses echo those Brown pics; has somebody sent them all a sort of "Miss manners" template?

btw, does anyone else think these pages lack a certain something - without D. Singh? I know he said he would leave, but hope he can still stop by every now and again.

7 April 2010 at 15:17  
Anonymous no nonny said...

sorry - 'behind'

7 April 2010 at 15:41  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D. Singh will be sorely missed. Why did he leave?

7 April 2010 at 16:39  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Lets not forget Prime Minstrel Brown has only dropped his swan song 'mandatory' from his ID cards temporarily.

A hung parlaiment would be a good thing, even if it destroys the economy and ends up an absolute disaster.

Better to be free in poverty, than have a wealth of beurocracy and all the surveillance money can buy.

Ive always kept a penny in my pocket as good measure against being done for vagrancy!

Signed: Clapper-dudgeon

7 April 2010 at 17:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Anabaptist trots out the latest cry of the modern-day Luddites, who without qualification or regard for the scientific record, regale us ostrich like, with such comments as "...namely the quasi-religious commitment to a belief in man-made global warming..." simply because in his mind, it excuses any sense of Western industrial responsibility or culpability, for the exponentional rise in global temperatures of the last 250 years.

This is a false belief.

Admittedly, this view has been given some currency of late, by the domestic case of malpractice by a British university, in an attempt to procure or extend funding: but this aberration in no way disproves but maligns, the findings of years of global research.

Science by its very nature has to be, apolitical and so should religion. He apparently fails to see the similarity of his statement and the state of denial and erroneous persecution by the Christian Church of Copernicus and Galileo, but no doubt he will praise the advancement and current level of scientific knowledge, as if it is somehow a kind of reward, due to an incongruous alignment of Christian religious virtue.

Proof of anthropogenic influence on the global temperature record lies within the vast number of published scientific papers and conclusions that overwhelmingly concur to contradict to his mischievous statement. For example I offer, that according to the report "Recent Climate Change: Atmosphere Changes". (Climate Change Science Program). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 21 April 2009 :-

“The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[28] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores”.

From analysis of these core samples, contributing gases are thus identified and ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: water vapour, which contributes 36–72% (more heat = more evaporation = more clouds = more trapped heat) - carbon dioxide 9–26%, - methane 4–9% and ozone 3–7%.

I think it rather strange he uses the expression 'quasi-religious belief', to challenge contemporary scientific opinion that results from ongoing research programmes, as though they are some kind of acts of political heresy that stand in the path of advancing Conservatism; which is all a bit rich but unsurprising, coming from a believer in the existence of something or someone that can't be seen, tested or in any other way proven.

7 April 2010 at 17:53  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Good heavens, Mr Dreadnaught. That's a bit overwrought. No time to answer you now, but I shall.

Didn't know D Singh had left us. When was that announced? Hasn't he just gone on holiday?

7 April 2010 at 18:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

OUCH!

7 April 2010 at 18:47  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Now here's a thought Your Grace, one which the Bishop and Mr Slope think is pretty top notch... why not rebrand the Tory party as The Christian Democrats?
Archdeacon Grantly spluttered a bit to be sure, but he is more Tebbit than Tebbit...

7 April 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

and Your Grace, I don't think Her Majesty needs to be briefed on her constitutional duties...she's an old hand at it don't forget

7 April 2010 at 19:27  
Anonymous len said...

David Cameron should be streets ahead of this Labour Government at this time and the question that should be asked is why not?
I don`t think Joe Public has got much idea what the main parties stand for,apart from promising change.(Or more misery in the case of Labour)

People are totally disillusioned with politics and politicians and if David Cameron doesn`t come up with something concrete for the electorate to grasp he could find himself struggling.

7 April 2010 at 19:36  
Blogger David Wheeler said...

To me now there is only one party that is offering, (a try at least of), change. LibLabCon are all for being dissolved into Europe, and taking the rest of us with them. UKIP are doing their utmost to get us out of Europe. THAT is CHANGE - and a very welcome change. Lightweights or not, they are facing the greatest threat to Britain head-on, and there will be plenty of heavyweights for hire, if they win this election.
Think about it.

David Wheeler.

7 April 2010 at 20:22  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Anabaptist and Mr. Davis - I hope you're right and that D. Singh's absence is only temporary. Though I thought he said a few weeks ago that he would only be posting for a little longer (no explanation given or due).

Perhaps I misunderstood ...

**********************

Cameron's blindness and deafness are something to behold. Maybe that's why they're all starry-eyed; it's nothing to do with the photo-op after all!

7 April 2010 at 21:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7 April 2010 at 21:50  
Anonymous Peter Thomas said...

"There is indeed a hope that the Conservatives will win. But a very real fear that they may not."

And if they don't it's their own fault. They, like Labour and the Lib Dems, have failed to work in the interests of our Nation. They are all now full of talk about parliamentary reform. Reform? What poppycock! They have no intention of reforming their little club. And they all seem to have forgotten how treacherous and self-serving they have been, but are under an illusion if they think the people have forgotten. I very much look forward to seeing at least some of the political class brought down low by the people on election day.

7 April 2010 at 22:58  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Agree 100% your Grace.

I care little what politicians say, or appear to be saying, or indeed are interpreted as saying by our establishment controlled MSM.

What matters is what they do, when they are in a position to do something.

I am perfectly itching to see what Cameron will actually do. A hung parliament is therefore to me, the worst of all worlds and the best of none.

A hung parliament is a veritable dogs breakfast of potential nastiness. A hung parliament is the effective suspension of accountable democracy. Which is already thin enough on the ground. Where every one can and therefore will blame everyone else, while the establishment gets on with their normal job of doing whatever they please.

Who knows what the proverbial THEY will get up to while democracy sots itself out? I don't, but I know it will not be nice, and that there will be sod all any of us will be able to do about it.

Our democracy sold out to the establishment the day it was first introduced.

The establishments favourite tools ( the civil-service ) are preparing for the result they are most surly trying their collective up most to contrive to achieve. As evidenced by the behaviour of especially The BBC.

For it should be self-apparent that The BBC is the official mouthpiece of the British/European/World establishment. Therefore all one has to do to work out what the establishment wants to happen, is to very CAREFULLY listen to The BBC.

Always remembering that: The BBC is not controlled by any single political party or indeed ideology. The BBC is not left-wing or right-wing. The BBC does not represent the middle either. The BBC is effectively The Middle, which should be better known as establishment controlled FASCISM.

Which is the bits of both right and left that the establishment wishes to inflict on the people at any given time, without the bits that the people actually want or repeatedly promised.

Anything else the BBC may or may not appear to represent is simply smoke and mirrors designed wholly to deceive not only the public, but the vast majority who work for, and/or trust the BBC.

7 April 2010 at 23:18  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

No mention of restoring our Fishing grounds, closing the borders, building cars and ships, steelmaking, electronics, building up our armed forces.
Just the Abama Hopey Changey stuff, nothing specific, nothing cast iron like, we will not let matters rest there.

Two Videos, one mildly interesting of Cameron

The other one slightly more disturbing.
Blair

8 April 2010 at 00:16  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thanks for the vids Adrian Peirson. I tend to reverse the values in your comments though: BLiar is just that, but his remarks have some merit - even if he's only acting.

Cameron though! I saw his talk as an extension and interpretation of the Bliar concept: but one that honours the foreigner over the indigene, and the foreigner's faith, language, and interests over our own. I was nearly ill.
Now I see what he means by 'heir to B'

Maybe we should render that: "Higher than Bliar."

PS: Why do they both look as if they've had face-lifts?

8 April 2010 at 01:32  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older