John O’Sullivan in the National Review on the "failed" Cameron experiment. The great problem is that, despite that failure, the erstwhile Conservatives will probably win the next general election. The even bigger problem will be that many of them will have convinced themselves that they won the election "on merit" rather than simply benefiting from the collapse of Labour.

View full article here

So, so, true. Conservative "thinking" is not underpinned by any belief or philosophy, other than to avoid being seen as "Thatcherite" and to remain in the good books of the liberal media. They are itching to get in power and manage. What they completely overlook is that leadership is needed. Sadly, Cameron's recent personal tragedy pointed this up: his ready acceptance of the melodramatic cancellation of PMQs yesterday showed what a bunch of Blairite drama queens he and his team are. We are on the eve of having our Government handed over from a claque of self-serving crooks to a bunch of "social-democratic" pansies.

Cameron must have picked as Con leader as he would appeal to the Diana sentimentality of the British people. In times of plenty this choice of leader might habe been tenable but with a crisis that could easily become Depression 2, he is just not going to be up to the demands of the job and the (low?) expectations of the British people.

He could however do the BNP no end of good.

Let's just get it over with and have the big cataclysm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4BCXIcTZo

But the fun has already begun. The party which I now support is making gains everywhere, and the best bit is that it is happening under the radar of the political class. Come the Euro-elections and a serious shock will hit the ruling LibLabCon junta.

Oh shut up with your pathetic wittering.

This guy from the NR presumably has been cheering the Republicans to their doom over the last 4 years.

Everyone is always out of step but you.

You will wilfully undermine the Tories like Heffer and others of his opinionated ilk - cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The Tories will inherit a mess. A massive one. I see no evidence they will go out of their way to badly govern - but then in governing was so easy some of us would seek to govern, seek to be practical rather than snipe from the sidelines and do all they can to keep labour in power.

The Tories undermine themselves. They do not need any help from me. As for this "guy" ... why don't you check him out?

In terms of being practical, your stridency might be better informed if you actually read the blog - such as on our frequent calls for a policy declaration by the Tories on energy, on our calls forthe rejection of climate change zealotary, more realism of immigration, a workable fishing policy, a more intelligent agricultural policy, a rational defence policy (and a coherent position on Afghanistan) - and more effective opposition on the same - for a more coherent foreign policy and ... not last and certainly not least, an honest policy on the European Union.

The absence of any coherent policies in any of these areas, combined with the very obvious absence of any guided debate is in itself good evidence of an opposition which is not ready to govern. Policy cannot be made up on the hoof - it takes time and discussion. The Tories are running short of the one and have not conducted the other. The "Cameron experiment" therefore, has become an article of faith ... "trust me". For those of us who prefer intelligent discussion and for policy to be made on the basis of evidence rather than a belief system, this is not enough.

If you prefer a faith-driven creed, then that is your affair, but try not to visit your ignorance here.

John O'Sullivan was busily telling us back in the autumn that the American recession was over. He is Ok on politics but is far from omniscient.

Yes. I agree. Some people are very, very good when they stick to their chosen path, but go astray once they divert from it. O'Sullivan is very good on politics, but can be wobbly on other things. However, he does us the courtesy of arguing his points through, writing clearly and intelligently. This does rather give the opportunity of assessing the merits (or otherwise) of his arguments. I found his analysis of the Cameron "experiment" persuasive.

The only area with which I have difficulty is not so much his argument as the more general argument about the Conservative brand needing to be detoxified because they (the Conservatives) were "nasty". When they were last in power - during the Major years - our many contacts with ministers and tory MPs never suggested to us that they were "nasty". What came over was an overweaning arrogance - a complete unwillingness to listen in the patronising way that only High Tories seem to be able to affect.

To that extent, the Tories have not changed at all. We see in the current brood (with many of the same figures) exactly the same patronising arrogance that was so infuriating back in the 90s. They are so convinced of their rectitude that they cannot even conceive of how it is possible that anyone could actually hold a view different from their own. Thus, the basis on any relationship is the uncritical acceptance of their point of view.

This is not a party that is going places - once it is in power, it will run aground faster than the Exxon Valdez.

There are several statements here that, if I didn't know better, I would take to be salient critiques of the Democrats here.


And yet again:


And one more:



And we all spiral down the toilet together.