Saturday, February 27, 2010

Vote for change?

Do the Tories still believe that somehow Obama's slogan will match their ambitions? Haven't they been watching as he's slid down in the approval ratings? Didn't they notice his lack of support for the UK's stance over the Falklands recently including sending Clinton (Mrs) to talk to the Argentinian leader?
So why now pick a slogan with such a tainted past?

BBC.

The Conservatives will contest the general election on six themes, the party has announced at its spring conference in Brighton.
They cover the national debt, the economy, family, the NHS, schools and changes in Westminster.
David Cameron dismissed criticism that the Tories were too "timid" in a video post on his WebCameron blog, saying their plans were "bold and radical".
Labour's Douglas Alexander said the proposals were "reckless".
The Tories have revealed their election slogan will be "Vote for change".
Well, lets look again at some change.
  1. Barnett Formula? Nope no change there.
  2. West Lothian question? No real change there either.
  3. EU? Promise of useless renegotiations and referenda on major changes conveniently ignoring the fact that after Lisbon we wont get a chance as it's self amending.
  4. Economy? Promise to match government spending targets. No change then.
  5. Education? Promise of voucher system, but still keeping state control over the curriculum and no doubt all the useless trivia and regulation that goes with it.
  6. Family? Obsession with marriage, though not strangely enough those of us who choose simply to live together.
Don't get me wrong I think there will be changes, but more likely it will be change forced upon us (the country) rather than changes made to the way we live by the politicians, in other words they'll be reacting rather than acting.
The Tories are also trying to hide the fact that most of our regulations come from another source too. Much of what will happen to the UK after the election will come from the EU, not Westminster.

So, Vote for change? Not really, the only changes will be the faces behind the policies, not the policies themselves.

6 annotations:

Barking Spider said...

It's crunch time for Cameron, QM, this weekend will either make or break him - Brown may even call a snap election, although I still tend to think he'll bottle it.

Goodnight Vienna said...

I agree QM - it's a weak and empty slogan that doesn't mean anything in particular. He's speaking without notes tomorrow so let's see what he can pull out of the hat. I thought Osborne did well today - in fact I prefer him to Cameron!

John R said...

Actually I think Cameron and Osborne are equally wishy-wishy social decomcrats rather than true conservatives.

Give me folk like William Hague, David Davis, Douglas Carswell, John Redwood, Daniel Hannan. They might just make the Conservatives conservative again.

Quiet_Man said...

Good choices John, but I doubt that the Cameron clique will allow them near the reins of power except for Hague, who is loyal to his salt if nothing else and wont betray them.

John R said...

QM - I think you're right, 'cos the powers-that-be are not conservative either, so the true Torys will be kept away from the levers of power. They'll all find out how wrong that decision is in the next few weeks. Unfortunately it's the rest of us that will have to pay the price for their stupidity.

I've seen the text of Hagues speech and it's pretty good. Osborne didnt light any fires though. We'll have to see what Cameron produces, I'm not expecting great things. His WebCameron video is the usual content-free social democratic fluff.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Fausty said...

iDave has an EU agenda to meet, whether he likes it or not. I suspect that he might be subject to the forces of hell should he not go with the programme, meaning that he won't get elected.

The climate change thing is a case in point. He surely knows how the majority feels - as with Lisbon.

He's gotta have some skeletons in his closet.

It's possible that, once elected, he will deliver. I doubt it, but it is possible.