In response to Michael St George: TCW’s Brexit Wall of Shame: Call me Dave, Don Benson wrote:
The great spiv, Call-me-Dave, was surely the final confirmation, if that were needed, that ‘style over substance’ is a hopelessly short-term choice for a Prime Minister. But when the Conservative Party secured Dave’s services and made that Faustian pact with vacuity for the supposed gain of electoral advantage, it seemed to be paying off. He appeared to be bringing in the votes.
So it might seem strange that, when Dave unsurprisingly jumped ship, the Conservatives opted again for someone devoid of substance but also without the slightest trace of style. Perhaps there’s a lesson here.
In cynically opting for vacuity in your leader (for a bit of cheap gain), you have to pay the price of importing that quality into yourself also; if you reject substance as a requirement in your leader you find that you yourself also lose it; the vacuity is contagious – unavoidable – and you end up being as shallow as your leader. You can no longer even make cynical decisions rationally.
And so today’s Conservative Party is neither intellectually credible nor possessed of a moral compass. It’s visionless, corrupt, deceitful and detached from the electorate. It has blatantly betrayed its voters and can no longer offer good government to a nation which is crying out for that very thing and which assumed that the requirements implied by Brexit would at last bring forth the best in its politicians as well as the people they are there to serve.
Geoffrey Simon Hicking wrote:
He did let IDS try to reform the welfare state.
While much of the above IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, there is something tedious about not giving the man due for trying to reform education, at least for a bit. All prime ministers have some good points, and Cameron at least tried to reform certain areas of public life that other prime ministers hadn’t even gone near.
Dogs Brexfast wrote:
Ask yourself: ‘What kind of person wants to become an MP and represent democracy?’ Then look at some of the evidence. To be sure, there are those who are committed to public service. Step forward the excellent Kate Hoey, Johnny Mercer and others.
But it also attracts those who see themselves and their sense of wisdom as a ‘gift’ they bequeath to you. They represent you so you don’t have to worry your silly head. Step forward Soubry, Ken Clarke and the rest.
Some just couldn’t care less, could they, Dave?
It’s up to us to examine the motives of candidates much more closely in future. Ask them the question: ‘Why do you want to be an MP?’ Then ignore what they say except to count the number of times they use the word ‘I’ or refer to themselves. A high I-count tells you a lot. Watch as they interact with people. Do they listen? Ask questions? Or do they pontificate?
