« The Guardian, The Independent and the Conservatives | Main | ConservativeInternational.com »


This suggests that there is a lot more (as I believe) to David Cameron than his caricature of being just a skilled PR man. We won't know for sure until he becomes PM but I do think there's a decent chance that he might prove to be a good one.
Just as his important as his political acumen for me is his integrity. After Blair I would be happy with anyone who isn't a complete charlatan and liar.

Blair was the best. An honest man in a place not always noted for honesty.

Beware the British press, from whom you gather your opinions, especially once they turn against you. And they will. Others in high places warned Blair of this when he was the blue-eyed boy.

I presume you have no real evidence that Mr Blair was a liar and a charlatan - just the thoughts of those you read ... the 'viewspapers'.

Ask David Cameron if he agrees with your analysis on Blair. In private. What he says in public will be meant for the viewspapers.

Cameron is a great PR guy but I don,t believe he will be PM after the next election as the British public will see through him.

Nice shiny face , usually neat hair, talks the talk but will fall at the last hurdle. As for his exploits as a member of the Bullingdon Club, they will come out sooner or later. He is totally unconvincing as a real Conservative.

We need a real Tory , bring back John Redwood !!

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say blair was that honest, but he does look like a saint compared to brown; who is looking more like the black knight every day
"'tis but a scratch"
"A scratch? You're arm's off!"

I guess if you are looking back like that you can place a lot of the mistrust in Labour under blair on things like stealth taxes etc, which was browne again.

I think we'll only get to see what DC is like if he gets to be PM, and I'm expecting it to be good.

Very droll Blair supporter.

Blair was the best. An honest man in a place not always noted for honesty.

Posted by: BlairSupporter | September 16, 2008 at 13:46

Blair was, of course, the most dishonest PM of modern times. Brown stands in the middle of the wreckage of NewLabour for all to see and can't lie very well anyway. Blairism and NewLabour was just a set of big lies from the start. As for the media, they went along with him because of the corrupt methods of providing government information and the fact that the Tories were unable or unwilling to defend their record allowing Blair and co. to get away with anything by comparing themselves to myths of the Tory years.

Blair was utterly dishonest even if it was never proved he did anything illegal.

I cite his close association with numerous celebrities and their provision of holidays for his family, cash to the Labour Party in return for favours and honours and, above all, both the “dodgy dossiers” in the lead up to the Iraq War. There was also the little matter of Mrs Blair’s inability to stop herself from cashing in on being the PM’s wife.

Brown, by contrast, seems personally utterly honest even though, in his present job (and his previous job too) he is completely out of his depth. My joy that New Labour is about to be consigned to a well deserved oblivion is tempered only by a nagging suspicion that the “Heir to Blair” probably won’t be much better.

Did you know Bernie Ecclestone made 2 £1million donations to the Labour party? No, you didn't. Why not? Because Blair lied about it. He said, that the donation had been offered and that they had decided not to take it. That was the second one. The watchdog then made them give back the other £1m.

I joined the party because of the lying shit, Blair. So at least some good came of it!

I don't have time to slag him off today. Can you just take it as read that I wrote a few cheap paras about no policies, no sense of urgency and no tangible personality? Thanks, HM.

By the way, AS SOON as he does something commendable I am going to be the first to commend it. I'll be straight in there being fair and balanced, which is wot I am. Go Dave!

"AS SOON as he does something commendable I am going to be the first to commend it."

Well then, I will be the second.

Ditto Gordon Brown.

We are a very fair and reasonable crowd, we Ukippers!

Cameron himself modestly suggests there simply aren't all the hidden depths for which others are looking: "I'm a very simple soul".

He's right. There are no depths. He has no depth of character, no deeply held values; he's done no real work. He's a brittle mask which will shatter in the face of real policitical problems.

Your description of Mr Cameron, Passing Leftie, could equally have been applied to Tony Blair when he became leader of the Labour Party. Or to Mr Clegg

The modern political class, Tory, Labour and Liberal, are all much of a muchness really and therein lies the root of many of our problems.

Cameron is undoubtedly intelligent, shrewd, a skilful, ruthless, political tactician and very, very ambitious. All of which are useful attributes on the front bench of any political party, but are these qualities alone enough to make an outstanding leader?

In the world of today's young professional political class they are certainly enough to make a successful leader, judged by their own standards. But, are they enough to make a great leader totally dedicated to the good of this country, even at the potential ultimate expense of his own personal popularity and career? In other words a leader with vision and passionate intergrity.

One has only to look at Brown to see that power and ambition alone are not enough. If Blair had a vision, it was one of the creation and empowerment of the modern political class, rather than the welfare of Britain (which he despised) and his integrity was conspicuous by its absence.

The successive failures of New Labour leaders have created an atmosphere of mass political cynicism which, so far from helping Cameron, have raised popular demands (if not expectations) for radical change and improvement in political standards, integrity and competence to levels which will be difficult to achieve, certainly in the short term.

The one attribute which Cameron will therefore need, perhaps more importantly than any other, is the creation of a high degree of public trust and yet, at the moment, this, for the reasons which I have described, is possibly his weakest point. One way in which he can begin to improve this is by demonstrating his trust in the people, by taking us more into his confidence about his plans for the future of Britain.

The excuse that these plans may be either ridiculed, or even stolen by the other parties is simply not valid. If the plans are bold and ambitious the Tory party communicators are perfectly capable of justifying and defending these. If the opposition try to steal them, this is an admission that the Tories have better policies than they do,and would also probably be better at implementing these.

At the moment there is a justifiable doubt about whether the Tory party really has a portfolio of policies capable of dealing with such crucial issues as the energy security gap, our immigration policies, the economy and (sorry, but I have to say this again, since it affects so many of the other issues, the powers of a new Conservative government to control our own legislation) some positive undertakings over future relationship with the EU.

Not only is Cameron beginning to lose trust and credibility over what is perceived by some as secrecy shiftiness or lightweight policies, but he is also giving unecessary credence to the Lib-Dems for appearing to be more open about their policy planning.

David, if you are going to keep making such lucid points there will be precious little need to post thus allowing me to get on with some work. Great job.

I just wish you had been able to stick it up earlier so CCHQ could benefit.

Conference could be a firebreak but since their main idea last year was inheritance tax and non-doms I have my doubts. Not long now.

Another PR job that goes along with the video of him talking to his staff about avoiding complacency. Its so obviously set up to make Cameron sound more heavyweight than in the past where he is seen as a wishy washy PR man.

I dont believe the bit about Cameron and eocnomics at all because if that part were true he wouldnt be avoiding talking about the economy. He'd have the confidence to discuss it, if only at a base level.

Hes a private individual who parades his children around at church to show his family credentials... Dont trust him. Its a Blair in blue.

Henry Mayhew,
Thanks for your kind comments about two of my recent posts, I am sure that we share many common aims.
Whilst I was proud to have stood as one of the candidates for Jimmy Goldsmith's "rebel army" Referendum party in the 1997,and remain strongly opposed to our continued membership of the EU, I, like many others, was dismayed by the internal strife, and subsequent lethargy, which destroyed the great opportunity gained by UKIP at the last European Parliamentary elections, and appears go be continuing even now.

There is no doubt that the Great British Public, is generally more eurosceptic than not, but with varying degrees of understanding or intensity of the priority of this issue. This is, of course not accidental, since the three main parties have all conspired to relegate the EU relationship to a "non and most boring issue", or, which is certainly true, to deliberately mislead the public about its importance and implications, since soon it will be impossible to reverse this process.

I would certainly vote for a UKIP candidate in the next European elections where this might exclude a europhile, but not a proven eurosceptic, Tory candidate, though, in the past, this has sometimes proved a futile, or even counter productive gesture. The only importance here is not their, zero, influence in the EU Parliament, but in concentrating the minds of the Tory EU faction towards urging Cameron to rectify his flagrant breach of promise over withdrawal from the EPP, if only as a means of demonstrating his committement and sincerity.

David, you are quite right as usual. I am only a member of UKIP because I agree with their policies and like Nigel a lot. I am only not a member of the Conservatives because I disagree with their policies. I don't feel any need to see myself having any influence really though one can but hope. I just enjoy politics and arguing the toss. It is fun to take on and expose the unemployable careerists.

David Cameron will surprise the lot of you.

Here's hoping.

Your description of Mr Cameron, Passing Leftie, could equally have been applied to Tony Blair when he became leader of the Labour Party. Or to Mr Clegg

The modern political class, Tory, Labour and Liberal, are all much of a muchness really and therein lies the root of many of our problems.

Posted by: David_at_Home | September 16, 2008 at 17:45

Ironically, the problem with wasn't lack of depth or conviction with Blair - quite the opposite. If he'd been a weathervane like Cameron, he'd not have taken us into Iraq. He was wrong, but it was certainly a matter of personal belief and not expediency. It was deeply unpopular and divisive on the left (the right of course would have jumped on it anyway if they'd been in power). The problem with the current regime is to do with poor PR, some dithering and a lack of unity - things which nearly always bring down a government.

The problem with current regime is to do with poor PR, some dithering and a lck of unity'- Passing Leftie. Deluded, utterly deluded.
I'm not trying to make a party political point here when I say that the biggest problem facing our government is that so senior many members of it are useless .They've been appointed for political reasons rather than reasons of ability.
I am trying to make a party political point when I say that so many policies pursued by the Labour Party whether they be in the fields of education, foreign policy, immigration, energy, farming, the constitution, public spending have failed and have been seen by the general public to have failed

I'll add "deluded" to my list, thank you.

Seriously, have you looked at your light-weight shadow cabinet, who are the most privileged and under-qualified for over 150 years? The only reason you'll get in is because a sclerotic government is tearing itself apart, and Cameron doesn't frighten the horses.

Grieve v Smith, Hague v Milliband, Gove v Balls. Are you serious Passing Leftie?

"The only reason you'll get in is because a sclerotic government is tearing itself apart, and Cameron doesn't frighten the horses."
I'm surprised to find myself in agreement with Passing Leftie. One and a half cheers for British democracy.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker