Friday, November 18, 2005

Good, but not good enough

Originally posted by The Realist

So, for those of you who have better things to do on a Thursday night and didn’t see it, Paxman grilled David Cameron on Newsnight last night. Besides out-Morrising Christ Morris, Paxman made some pertinent attacks on the young pretender. Cameron (finally, yawn) admitted to having taken coke in his youth. Bothered. Next.

He also admitted to being a big fan of Thatcher, which worried me slightly, as did his assertion that he was a man-of-god. In addition, he is a board member of a bar chain which he claims has an entirely responsible attitude, whilst simultaneously hawking ‘Pink Pussy’ cocktail jugs at da kids.

There was none of the social liberalism that I wanted to see and as for his economic policy, none of it came across as the least bit interesting or inspiring – ‘We will lower taxes if the economy allows’. Even Labour do that.

Although it wasn’t a killer blow, it was at least a good left jab when Paxman forced Cameron to admit that the public’s judgement of him as a decision maker is called into question as a result of him changing his mind on so many issues in the last year – tuition fees, licensing laws, etc. He had him on the ropes over that and Cameron buckled a little bit and regurgitated the ‘lots of tough decisions to make’ mantra. Minus 10 house points…

You just get the feeling that, despite his protestations, he is still old-school Tory. It’s going to take a lot more than a shiny face to make me ever consider voting for that lot .

2 comments:

Dark Horse said...

From the sound of it, it would take a frontal lobotomy. At least, that's what it would take me!

Anonymous said...

Realist, I think you've exaggerated some of Cameron's weaknesses within the interview. He said he was a fan of Thatcher, but took his politics from many different quarters. As for being a 'man of god', he admitted to going to Church sometimes, but not having a 'direct line'. Hardly a Blair in that respect.

Paxman was also not as effective against him as you claim; in fact, Cameron gave a couple of pretty good ripostes, when constantly interrupted by Paxman, and received credit for this in Friday's papers. Paxman's performance on the other hand, was seen by some as being rather demeaning, and likened to his treatment of William Hague in 2001.

Yes, Cameron didn't flesh out his policy positions so much, but I think he's just being a good strategist, and not wanting to repeat Portillo's experience in 2001. More interesting is the new tone he has been hinting at - for example, on the reclassification of Ecstacy. He's changed his mind on some policy positions (but keeping the broad thrust of many) for the (rather pertinent, wouldn't you say?) reason that the Tories have now lost 3 straight elections in a row.
DA