The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

We are going to have so much fun once the voting starts, aren't we chaps!

The fun is, that despite Labour having been in power for thirteen years, reaching unheard of levels of dissaproval and common disgust, people still don't want anything to do with the Conservatives. The Toff lobby party is always one grade worse.



The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

Election Looming, Tories Put Posh Foot in Mouth

LONDON — What could be more embarrassing for a party trying to change its elitist image than the existence of someone like Sir Nicholas Winterton? A Conservative member of Parliament for the last 39 years, Sir Nicholas wandered disastrously off message recently when he decided to share his thoughts on why legislators should be allowed to travel first class to avoid exposure to the common man.

“They are a totally different type of people,” Sir Nicholas declared

All this matters because many Britons, when confronted with privilege, are still deeply ambivalent about whether to mistrust, envy, celebrate, despise, aspire to or undermine it.





Many old-time Tories are leaving Parliament this year, including the unrepentantly first-class-loving Sir Nicholas. But there are more waiting in the wings. Last year, worried about how an impeccably pedigreed Tory candidate named Annunziata Rees-Mogg would go over with hoi polloi, Mr. Cameron suggested that she might want to campaign under the name “Nancy Mogg.”

She refused, although, to be fair, another candidate, the spectacularly named Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, dutifully “de-toffed” himself by downgrading to “Richard Drax” on campaign posters.
Meanwhile, Ms. Rees-Mogg’s brother, Jacob, a banker who is also running for Parliament and who appears to believe he belongs to the “Brideshead Revisited” era, having once taken his childhood nanny with him on the campaign trail, went on television to denounce Mr. Cameron’s plan to get more women and minorities elected as the triumph of “potted plants” over “intellectually able people.”

Which self-respecting British taxpayer would sweat buckets every day just to support Dave Snooty and his Eton Pals?

Mr. Cameron cannot overcome the fact that his own background of easy privilege fits the classic Tory stereotype, Mr. Savage said. Among the most obvious issues, Mr. Savage pointed out, are that “he speaks with a posh accent and comes from the most elite school in the country.”

That would be Eton, the traditional finishing school for the aristocracy, and the alma mater of most members of Mr. Cameron’s inner circle. Mr. Cameron also went to Oxford, where he ran in rarefied company, enjoying shooting parties at the estates of his rich friends and joining the upper-crust Bullingdon Club, whose members like to put on white tie, get spectacularly drunk and destroy things like the insides of rural pubs.


Mr. Cameron also married well: Samantha, his wife, is the daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, Eighth Baronet and a descendant — reportedly in three different ways — of King Charles II; her stepfather is the Fourth Viscount Astor.
With all this as material, Labour cannot resist. Prime Minister Gordon Brown played to easy laughs in Parliament last year when he derided a Tory proposal to reduce estate taxes as having been “dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/wo...itain.html?hpw

[Pannonian]

The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

UKIP fragments the Tory vote, but the BNP actually takes from the old Labour constituency. The BNP's main selling point in mainstream terms is rights for the British (read: whites), which plays well among the underprivileged who aren't bright enough to ask how the BNP intend to do this. UKIP's appeal is to Thatcherites whose exploration of their ideas has led them up their own arse. The Tories and New-Labs are broadly similar post-Thatcher neo-Liberal parties with different emphases, which is what the British mainstream is nowadays. The LibDems are the LibDems.

[Furunculus]

The fun is, that despite Labour having been in power for thirteen years, reaching unheard of levels of dissaproval and common disgust, people still don't want anything to do with the Conservatives. The Toff lobby party is always one grade worse.

The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

you are right to assume that it is the tories election to lose, and they may yet lose it, if they do i will be laughing hard believe me.

but you are wrong to ascribe the BNP vote to the tories because that is pure labour territory, and wrong to play too hard on class politics.

[Boohugh]

Alistair Darling has finally admitted that we are in for some serious spending cuts after the election, apparently worse than the ones Thatcher made in the 80's! This raises two interesting points for me:

1) It proves Gordon Brown is either completely and utterly deluded as he isn't willing to personally admit the cuts and still thinks he can spend money, or he just keeps lying about spending and hopes the truthful messages from his ministers slip under the radar.

2) Where does this place the die-hard anti-Thatcherites who still blame her for so many of the UK's ills by making such drastic cuts in her time, when the Labour government (if they win) will make even bigger cuts? Although I guess if Cameron wins, and he goes ahead and makes even deeper cuts than Labour as he is promising, then they'll have a whole new hate figure to blame for sorting out what is basically a momumental financial balls-up!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Traditionally the working-class tends more towards "racism" against outsiders, while the Upper Class tend to looking down fondly on everyone equally. After all, the colour of your Gentleman's Gentleman is much less important that whether he understand how to polish your shoes and press your shirt-collar. So the BNP hardly plays to the Tory.

So what if Mr Cameron went to Eton and Oxford, it means he's well educated. I frankly don't give a toss about how much money he or his wife has, or their breeding. To think it makes him intrinsically a bad person or unfit to run ther country is just as prejudiced as attacking Barrack Obama for being "Black".

[Pannonian]

2) Where does this place the die-hard anti-Thatcherites who still blame her for so many of the UK's ills by making such drastic cuts in her time, when the Labour government (if they win) will make even bigger cuts? Although I guess if Cameron wins, and he goes ahead and makes even deeper cuts than Labour as he is promising, then they'll have a whole new hate figure to blame for sorting out what is basically a momumental financial balls-up!

Thatcher isn't reviled for her spending cuts. She's reviled for utterly stripping Britain of all sense of community, and making an ideology of it. She's liberalism taken to its extreme, no identity outside the individual, the individual being everything. She claims some adherence to Toryism via the family, but Toryism had traditionally been about the class doing its duty within the set society, of which the family was but a small part. Her difference from old Labour's socialist ideals doesn't need explanation. She's won her political struggle in that her view is now the political mainstream. But let's not forget what she did.

[Myrddraal]

The theory is that those who have grown up with privilege have no experience of many of the problems in society and the economy which they are supposed to address in power. It's got some basis, but mainly it's a load of . If Cameron is intelligent enough and empathetic enough the argument has no leg to stand on, and I have no doubt that he is.

[Pannonian]

The theory is that those who have grown up with privilege have no experience of many of the problems in society and the economy which they are supposed to address in power. It's got some basis, but mainly it's a load of . If Cameron is intelligent enough and empathetic enough the argument has no leg to stand on, and I have no doubt that he is.

The Tory argument would be that the privileged classes have a duty to society as a whole, and should do their best to discharge it. Wellington was the archetypal Tory. The Thatcherite argument would be that the individual has no responsibility to society beyond what the state demands, and even this should be reduced as much as possible.

[Furunculus]

Thatcher isn't reviled for her spending cuts. She's reviled for utterly stripping Britain of all sense of community, and making an ideology of it. She's liberalism taken to its extreme, no identity outside the individual, the individual being everything. She claims some adherence to Toryism via the family, but Toryism had traditionally been about the class doing its duty within the set society, of which the family was but a small part. Her difference from old Labour's socialist ideals doesn't need explanation. She's won her political struggle in that her view is now the political mainstream. But let's not forget what she did.

reviled by some, i have never had a problem with it.

[InsaneApache]

I personally couldn't give a rats arse where the Prime minister or his cabinet comes from. They could come from Neptune as far as I'm concerned, just as long as they're competent and capable.

[al Roumi]

Traditionally the working-class tends more towards "racism" against outsiders, while the Upper Class tend to looking down fondly on everyone equally. After all, the colour of your Gentleman's Gentleman is much less important that whether he understand how to polish your shoes and press your shirt-collar.

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

Can I have some sauce with your amazing statements on the correlation between social class and racism please, it's a bit hard to swallow.

Have you any idea about history?

Edit:

Must I invoke godwins' law and explain a bit about Oswald Mosely, to name but a single example from the last century?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

Not what I said, I suggest you re-read. I deliberately placed "racism" for the working class in quote marks. My point was that prejudice works differently in different classes. The lower class are directly threatened by outsiders, and this manifests as ethnic prejudice when confronted by immigrants. By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

So, this is why the King caused consternation during WWI because he tended to praise all commonwealth troops equally, regardless of origen; but he did this because they were all his "subjects".

I find it interesting you raise Mosley, who is probably one of the most ambiguous figures of the 20th Century, a Facist certainly, anti-Jewish and Anti-Catholic. However, also a Labour MP, pro European and against the violence of the Blacks-and-Tans.

[al Roumi]

By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know.

I see you have returned and once again donned Green. That's certainly a pleasure to see.

Anyway, I defer to your greater experince in this area and in life in general. I was merely offering what I percieve to be the case. It should be noted have have no direct access to the Upper Class, being the stereotypical "Poor Clerk".

[al Roumi]

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know.

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

Edit:

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.

Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the BNP's economic policy -although i agree that they purport to have the interests of the comon British worker at heart, something not easy to reconcile with an ultra free market approach such as fascism tends to espouse.

[Banquo's Ghost]

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.

Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?

[al Roumi]

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

True, I guess the upper class lost their grip on the steering wheel of power in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Their party of choice was Monarchical. I'm getting confused with more recent history where the controls have been held by the middle class, against whom the upper class defended themselves and lost in the strife of the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries (depending on where you live).

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?

I couldn't agree more - its baffling given the apparently privileged lot BA crews have compared to other airlines, but maybe that's nonsense too. The pendulum of public opinion is most definitley not behind them when BA can make the strikers look like the cause of holiday travel nightmares.

As with the recent public sector worker strikes, i find it consistently amazing how self-centred people appear to be when made to feel the pain of those in the wider private sector. Then again, i'm sure I'd find it hard to be stoic about a pay cut or the threat of redundancy if I had a mortgage and family to support.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I personally couldn't give a rats arse where the Prime minister or his cabinet comes from.

What if the problem with Dave Snooty and his Eton Pals is that they are a self-serving clique, as the investigative journalism of this quality paper suggests?

David Cameron's closest Tory chums will make £7.1MILLION from his plans to slash inheritance tax for the super-rich.


A Mirror investigation has found that 18 millionaire members of the shadow cabinet will save up to £520,000 each under the Conservatives' flagship policy.


Among those benefiting from the controversial plans to raise the tax threshold to £2million are shadow chancellor George Osborne, foreign secretary William Hague and Mr Cameron.
Angry trade union leaders last night said it was a blatant example of the Tories looking after their own. Unite general secretary Derek Simpson said: "They want to feather their nests but make hard-working families work longer and for less."

A few more proposals like this, and Britain will move from a meritocracy to an old-fashioned rigid class society - like the US.

Increasingly, the current Tories are taking their cue not from traditional British class divisions, nor from Thatcher's conservatism, but from the excesses of the US right.

[InsaneApache]

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant.

[Pannonian]

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know.

Were your family still in France at the time of the Great Charter? Or had they gone English by then?

[Idaho]

The "system" is parliamentary democracy, unless you think there is a better system you should vote.

...

That Idaho, is why you cannot complain.

I do think there is a better system, so I don't vote.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.



This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant.

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

Were your family still in France at the time of the Great Charter? Or had they gone English by then?

I think one might say the issue was still under some degree of negotiation.

[Pannonian]

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

There was this bloke on another forum, who did some work for some lord or other. He noted that he was the scruffiest looking bugger he had ever seen, totally unconcerned with appearance, as if he had more important things on his mind. The counterargument is that the aristocracy have inbred to the point where their brains don't function properly any more, and that's the real reason for their otherworldliness. Adam's apple, swallowing a ballcock, etc.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Well, once again this is two seperate kinds of prejudice, which is the point. Though, anti-Monarchistic sentiment among the Lower Class has always had an ethnic slant; ever since William the Bastard.

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

I seem to recall something about Sheffielf cutlers playing a trick on Victorian Middle Classers.

[Whitey]

Just popping my head in...The quality of debate on this forum was never bad, but just glancing through this thread it seems it has got even better over the years.

It's a bit silly to give a 'thumbs-up', what would that count for? At the same time, good stuff.

And yes, I've always tought it rather daft that the middle classes (of which I am certainly a member) are so obsessed with the form and order of an event rather than the actual substance. It comes from a reasonable place, however. The duke can do what the hell he likes because he doesn't need anyone for anything. We may, so we follow the rules.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class. Both New Labour and the current Conservative party are completely devoid of principles or political philosophy, so they are each grasping at ephemera from the past. This is particularly true of Cameron's Conservatives. They don't want to be the "nasty" party anymore, but have no real idea what they do want to be.

Cameron came to lead them because no-one else was quite as vacuous whilst reminding the old school that they had once been conservatives - ie reactionary, cautious and aristocratic, with an expectation of power to rule underpinned by an advanced sense of divine paternalism. Thatcher's revolution had destroyed the old Tory in favour of monetarist individualism with no obligations save to themselves. In the nineties, the brutality that world view inflicts was rejected for Blair's fantasy Third Way which continued the theme of individualism but added a fiction that the country didn't need the "nasty" fiscal responsibilities and could party forever. The Conservatives (now more than ever a loose coalition of philosophies in direct conflict with each other) failed and failed to overcome the public's enthusiastic embrace of jam forever. Just as Blair provided Thatcher-lite-but-cuddly, Cameron provided a suitably vapid Blair-clone and provided a thin appeal to the wings of the party that still cling to the old paternalism because of his alleged breeding.

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy.

(Had the Tories elected a similarly charmless but hard-principled working class man like David Davies, one suspects this election would have already been over. Had they elected a real aristocrat, I suspect they would be announcing 15% public sector pay cuts like Ireland in their manifesto and challenging the public to face reality. Neither type wants to be loved, like little David does).

[InsaneApache]

Cameron made himself look a right wally when he was interviewed by channel 4 about gays. He made The Great Leader look nimble and sure footed. Indeed the mask is beginning to slip, as I said a week or so ago. I wonder why Cameron joined to Tories as he seems more like a social democrat than a conservative. Davies would have made a better fist of the election campaign for sure. A working class lad made good, who talks more sense in one minute that the three party leaders do in a month.

I still say the Tories missed a trick with El Portillo.

[Furunculus]

BG - i certainly agree that cameron has done nothing to recommend himself to me, his only claim to my vote is that the tories would be less destructive than labour, but i am not sure that is enough as i am pretty firm on the idea of electing someone who represents my aims and expectations.

IA - agreed about portillo, i always liked him. almost as much as i like john redwood, now there is an old school tory of first-principles.....