Why Cameron Is - To Put It Bluntly - A Prat

Bruce Anderson, writes in the Telegraph, that "For good or ill, David Cameron is on the charge" and that:

"To the dismay of his followers, David Cameron failed to win an overall majority, which had seemed an easy task. So the new Prime Minister opted for a coalition: very much second best, in most Tories' opinion. One might have assumed that the outcome would be a tentative, hesitant government. On the contrary: Mr Cameron has piled radicalism on radicalism."

So the new Prime minister opted for a coalition: very much second best - but as I posted previously this evening, principles 'go out of the window' when power beckons. The decision Cameron made - and that of Clegg - was nothing more than 'self-serving', namely POWER. Some may, justifiably, argue that for 'radicalism' read 'left-wing liberalism' - it most definitely is not 'radicalism' if, as Bruce Anderson asserts, it "was drawn from sound conservative experience." 

Anderson also writes:

".....David Cameron's experience was with the conservative rhythms of rural Oxfordshire: villages where the inhabitants did not need to be told that they were all in this together, where the little platoons of civil society were spontaneous creations. Again, the difficulties often came from big government, just over the horizon in London, far too ready to say, "Whatever you're doing, stop it", far too quick to disregard local people's priorities and to discount their energies. Long before he worked for the Government, Mr Cameron understood its limitations, and its dangers."

In which case one has to immediately ask: what is this 'Big Society' then if not 'Whatever you're doing, stop it'? Cameron most obviously does not understand government's limitations and its dangers! Also, if Cameron realised that we, as a nation, like to 'get on with things' on our own he would not be insisting that we belong to a 'self-centred, dictatorial' organisation such as the EU!

Another assertion Anderson makes - and which shows that Cameron just 'does not get it' - is:

"David Cameron observed Tony Blair's failure and was influenced by it. He learned two lessons. The first was the need to understand and use the machinery of government: Number 10 should be a formidable signal-box, but nothing will happen unless the PM pulls the levers."

 So one man decides everything that happens? Remember the last words of this post? And he has the utter, blatant, cheek to talk about 'democracy'? I can but refer to the heading of this post!