Monday, 13 May 2013

Cameron and 'The Right'. What more do they want?

By 'The Right' I am referring to that spectrum of opinion which rebels over Gay Marriage and the EU and forms the Right of the Tory party and the Ex-Tory UKIP voters.

The Tory party is rather united over Europe: There are those who're suspicious of the edifice, but want, on balance to remain in, and those who favour withdrawal on our terms. Everyone's in favour of a referendum, after a re-negotiation. Afterall, re-negotiate or withdraw was the rallying cry of the Tory rebels.

"But cast-Iron Dave reneged last time" The promise was made in the context of a pre-ratification election. And you know it.

"I don't trust Cameron, he's a Europhile" See answer above. He's the most Eurosceptic PM the country's ever had.

"But he doesn't want to leave" No, and most people think the issue is pretty finely balanced. Whether we're in or not, the EU is our nearest, and biggest neighbour. You can be sceptical about the EU project without being obsessed by the idea that leaving the EU is the answer to all the UK's problems.

"He's not right-wing. There are no cuts" This is a simple lie. Even as the economy flat-lines Government spending has been falling in real terms. Headcount has been falling. If (and when) the growth comes the deficit will fall faster than anticipated from here. The left underestimate the necessity for cuts. The right underestimate how hard they are to put into effect. The truth is the coaltion's cutting far faster than Thatcher ever did.

"Lib-Lab-Con, they're all the same". Um No. The Rhetoric may be the same, but the policies are very different.

"I'm not homophobic, but why did Dave use so much political capital over Gay marriage?" Why did you make him use so much political capital over Gay Marriage. You may not be Homophobic, but you're doing a damn good job of pretending to be. I simply don't understand why the issue of Gay Marriage has split the Tory party assunder more completely than Europe, over which the Tory tribe is broadly united. WHY DO YOU CARE?

"Cameron can't win". Yes, he can. Thatcher was a lot further behind in the polls than Cameron is now at the equivalent point before the 1983 election. She too faced a useless Labour leader on the left of his party.

"But Cameron is no Thatcher". No, the Coalition's more radical (but with less radical rhetoric) than Thatcher's first term.

The question is "what more do the Right want from Cameron?"



8 comments:

Anonymous said...

A sensible energy policy, perhaps?

@parlow72 said...

I think that the Tory party just don't like David Cameron that much. They don't have confidence in him to deliver a majority in 2015, because he couldn't do it in 2010 and that was against a man who was technically gaga. Backbench MPs realise that Cameron doesn't talk to general public, and especially the lower middle class c1 groups at all well. And it is precisely these groups that deliver majorities in General Elections. However, Nigel Farage does, even though both he and Cameron have similar backgrounds so there's no "class war" as the left would have us believe.

Cameron is a (very) compentant administrator and I agree with most of what the government is doing (except "help to buy" that's moronic). But leadership takes more. Thankfully, Milliminor is no better.

Simon Jester said...

This post was even sillier than Luke's argument the other day, that Polyphemus's government was more free-market than Thatcher's.

Jackart, you've jumped the shark.

Jackart said...

A sensible energy policy perhaps? Is that code for "no more wind farms". I sort of agree, but the more UKIP wank about it the less I do.

Simon Jester. Cameron's in coalition. UKIP, not Cameron are making Cameron unelectable. My question. What more do you fucking want?

perdix said...

Thanks for imparting some realism into the debate dude.

Anonymous said...

*UKIP, not Cameron are making Cameron unelectable.*

And I suppose anyone who disagrees with this is stupid?

I mean I could give reasons as to why Cameron is making Cameron unelectable, but any such discussion in the past is treated the same as your cycling threads, name calling stupidity.



I also have to ask where these cuts are?

Because what I am seeing is no real destruction or dismantling of the FUNCTIONS of government.

No real dismantling of government departments.

Instead it's cutting (marginally) police numbers and services, fiddling about with how benefits are delivered, but not wholesale destruction of government departments.

Colour me unimpressed.

Anonymous said...

No, the problem with wind farms is not that they are unsightly, but that they are useless. We need an end to green levies and surcharges and a sensible energy policy based on a mix of coal, gas and nuclear generation with a bit of hydro where appropriate. That would bring about a significant reduction in household bills. As it is, vacillating from governments of both parties means there is a serious risk of power cuts in the next few years.

Jackart said...

I agree with what you say. It's still not a reason for voting UKIP.

There was an error in this gadget