Just watched David Cameron meets undecided voters on the Politics Show.
It was interesting. Cameron was good, smooth and pausible, but he could not/did not answer at least half of the questions, preferring a "wait-and-see-we'll-tell-you-during-the-campaign", approach.
The transcript can be found at PoliticsHome
The most interesting question which I think could be asked of Cameron, but which no-one seems to want to ask is this: if he is so much in favour of social progressiveness and government intervention and green issues and relieving poverty and touchy-feely-we-feel-your-pain, why did David Cameron join the Thatcher Tory Party, which believed the exact opposite of all these things, in the first place?
Was he a nasty youth who is now a nice adult? Or is he still a nasty adult, but understands that he won't get elected if he admits it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labour have gone for cartoon campaigns again.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't Labour that increased social mobility and progression, it was the Tories and in particular Thatcher.
For right or wrong, she has presided over the transformation of Britain, the Britain that Labour inherited and built upon.
If it was so bad, why didn't Labour repeal the key elements of her legislation?
Labour did. Labour halved child poverty after Thatcher tripled it. Labour put in a minimum wage, sorely needed. Labour reduced unemployment and increased employment. And Labour invested in the neglected public sector: more and better hospitals and schools and better paid doctors, nurses and teachers.. and more of them.
ReplyDeleteBritain in 2010 is a much better place to live than it was between 1980 and 1997.
Do you agree?