Archive: David Cameron

I know that all politicos have a major boner for American politics and that this year is just one non-stop wet dream. But do our lot have to make their affection quite so blatant?

As Alex Massie noted a last week, at the Labour Party conference, Gordon Brown was setting himself up as the experienced man who can lead the country through these choppy waters. As he said, “This is no time for a novice. Zing!”

He is betting that, come the election, voters will choose “experience” over “change”. Does that sound familiar?

Today, David Cameron appeared to deliberately counter Gordon Brown’s line. He is “a man with a plan (on a canal in Panama)”. (Sorry to James Graham for stealing his joke.)

He continued by saying, “it’s not experience we need; it’s character and judgement.” He then did his best Bowie impression and used the word ‘change’ 20 times during his speech.

Do these guys really need to copy everything that happens in America? I mean, Gordon Brown’s wife was brought out in front of the Labour Conference as though she is a First Lady. David Cameron spent a minute or two talking about his wife (with a bit of cringe worthy Carry On-lite humour packaged with it), as though I give a monkey’s who his wife is.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I always had the impression that the job of a First Lady is to provide a kind of ceremonial role, waving at the crowds and the like, because the USA (and France, and wherever) doesn’t have a royal family to do all that sort of stuff. Well the UK does have a royal family to do all that sort of stuff! Besides, Carla Bruni they are not (despite what The Daily Mail tries to tell you.)

George Osborne gives Dave the evil laser death stare Meanwhile, David Cameron was doing that awful thing where he looked as though he was facing the wrong direction. At least this time the people over his shoulder were recognisable faces rather than unknown greasy pole climbers-in-waiting. Unfortunately, George Osborne looked like he was constantly giving David Cameron an evil laser death stare. Watch him in the videos and you’ll see what I mean.

Another amusing aside to the conferences is the BBC’s word clouds. I couldn’t help but notice that Gordon Brown — leader of the Labour Party which distrusts people so much that it wants to issue you with a biometric ID card if you want to so much as scratch your arse — mentioned the word “people” more than any other word.

David Cameron — leader of the Conservative Party that is supposed to hate big government — used the word, er, “government” more than any other word.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems — the party that is said to sit on the fence on every matter — used both words an equally high number of times. At least one of the parties is true to form.

In my previous post I wondered if Nick Clegg would do much to enthuse me. Well, in my view he’s got off to a good start.

He revealed on the radio that he doesn’t believe in God. What’s more, he seems to have a thoroughly sensible, tolerant approach to the whole religion issue.

What a refreshing thing to hear from a politician. It does often seem as though atheism or even agnosticism is one of the worst things a politician can be associated with among some circles. Tony Blair even seemed to think it was a liability to be the wrong type of Christian. C of E while PM, since resigning he has mysteriously become a Roman Catholic.

Paul Linford, for instance has said that Clegg’s non-belief is “certainly concerning for me as a Christian” (via Bob Piper). Never mind the millions of non-Christians in this country who have never seen a non-Christian PM! I wonder if he ever found Margaret Thatcher’s sex as concerning for him as a male.

In this supposedly tolerant society, I sometimes think we’d sooner see a three-legged Prime Minister than a non-church-goer — never mind a black or openly gay PM. I wonder how many leaders of the major parties historically have publicly stated that they don’t believe in God. I assume Nick Clegg must be among the first. Full credit to him for speaking the truth.

The second thing that has impressed me is the fact that he has enlisted Brian Eno to “reach out beyond the London beltway”. In particular, Eno is to advise the Lib Dems on how to appeal to young people.

This is good in two senses. Firstly, appealing to young people is good. One of the biggest crimes in the country today is to be a yoof, as you can see with the vilification of the hoodie, a convenient item of clothing.

Appealing to young people is a typical politician’s cliché. But this comes across to me as quite a serious attempt. Brian Eno is not some greasy pole-climbing politician looking to get good headlines in the Daily Mail.

The second sense in which is this good is… Brian Eno, man!

Brian Eno is 59, which has led some people to wonder if he is really the right person to appeal to youth. I’m 21, which is pretty young, although I guess I am not like most yoofs. But I think Brian Eno is great. The person who (as legend has it) invented ambient music has got to be awesome, right?

He has created some of the greatest pieces of music of the past thirty or forty years. A lot of young people respect this. I know I certainly do. Okay, there are various U2-related crimes, but that’s a tough gig. I mean, talk about polishing a turd!

Brian Eno should be respected for actually engaging his brain (one). He is the only pop musician I can think of who doesn’t just dribble out ignorance every time he opines about a topic other than music. In a world teeming with preening pricks like Bob Geldof and Bono, Brian Eno is a real breath of fresh air.

And, unlike Bob Geldof’s sojourn with the Conservatives (presumably David Cameron has some really nice biscuits and a good belly-rubbing technique), Eno’s association with the Lib Dems is principled. Remember Eno’s website from a couple of years back, Lib Dem This Time (rather broken-looking now)? Eno is also a long-standing supporter of electoral reform.

One other thing, and it’s related to what I said yesterday. It looks as though Nick Clegg has raised a few eyebrows by saying that he hasn’t heard of ‘Fairytale of New York’ and by citing a non-existent album (‘Changes’ by David Bowie) as his favourite.

It does seem a bit odd. But what if the poor guy just doesn’t like pop music? I have written before that I don’t understand why we expect politicians to know these things. Sure, most people keep tabs on pop music. But we are all different, and we all have different interests. Maybe Clegg’s “gaffes” are just down to the fact that he doesn’t waste time on trivia.

I’m glad I have ruled out becoming a politician in the future. If I did, I would no doubt be asked what my favourite film was. I’d have to answer, “I dunno, I don’t really watch films,” because I don’t really watch films. Then I’d be crucified by a media (and society?) that wants mine to be a mirror image of the median voter’s leisure tastes.

I am quite a fan of Freeview. Even though I hardly ever watch any television these days, I think it is so wonderful to have that kind of choice fairly hassle-free for £20-odd. There have been quite a lot of changes to Freeview recently.

First came the unexpected and abrupt death of ABC1. It wasn’t a bad channel, but it always seemed like there was something that didn’t quite work about it. When it launched there were no adverts for months — so how was it funded? Then there was the distinct lack of space on prime-time on Freeview, which essentially made ABC1 a daytime-only channel.

ABC1′s schedule was therefore restricted to rather tame American comedies. The same ones. Over and over again. What’s more, they did that odd thing that digital channels sometimes do, of showing the episodes seemingly in random order. This was especially problematic for 8 Simple Rules. One minute John Ritter was dead, the next he had come back to life! And then he was dead again.

In a way this was a good thing though, because you knew what you were getting. Unchallenging, homely television. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I imagine that if ABC1 was around ten years ago, I would have loved watching it on the days when I was off sick from school.

Then came Virgin 1, which is Virgin Media’s latest little stone thrown in their big bear fight with BSkyB. “Oh, they think they’re so smart having a channel called Sky One,” some Virgin Media big-wig probably said on day. “We’ll show them! We can have Virgin 1.”

So, Ftn has been killed to death just when it was getting good. I loved Ftn in its later days. Its repeats of retro gameshows like The Crystal Maze, The Krypton Factor and Bullseye were strangely captivating. Then later at night there was always Takeshi’s Castle if you were up for vegetating a bit. While it was always Freeview’s worst channel, in the past year or so it had carved out a distinctive identity for itself.

The new channel, on the other hand, does not have a distinctive flavour. In fact, it is almost as if they looked at Sky One and decided “we want a programme like that, a programme like that, and a programme like that.”

In short, it is like a watered-down version of Channel Five. Do we really need another channel full of sub-standard American imports? I think not. I would have thought that, especially with the Virgin brand attached to it, they would have put a bit more effort in to make it more distinctive.

Then this week there was the launch of Dave. Dave is essentially a re-branding of UKTV G2, so it’s good to know they’ve gone from one silly name to another. A lot of people are going on about what a great name Dave is for a channel, but I think it is quite silly. They say that it’s based on the idea that “everyone knows a bloke called Dave”, which is true. The problem is that whenever I hear the name I think of that balloon-faced Conservative leader.

As for the programming it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Watching Dave is like being transported back to the 1990s. Have I Got News For You, Red Dwarf and Bottom are among its roster. Essentially, Dave seems to me like BBC Two 2. It’s the channel that BBC Three secretly wishes it could be, if only it could be unleashed from all of those quotas to do with repeats.

Then there is Never Mind the Buzzcocks. I can’t stand watching it, at least when it was hosted by Mark Lamarr. He seems like a genuinely spiteful person. He tells nasty jokes about people, which I don’t mind usually. But Mark Lamarr doesn’t seem to tell them in the sense of “I’m only having a laugh”. He seems to be genuinely nasty. I can’t stand watching it. For a further insight into the dark world of Never Mind the Buzzcocks, check out this blog post by Adam Buxton.

But without a doubt the worst programme on Dave is A Question of Sport. Why does this programme still exist, even in repeat form? It is just diabolical.

Fortunately, this crime is outweighed by the repeats of Whose Line is it Anyway. Now, why is Whose Line is it Anyway not on any more, huh?

Despite the patchy output, the launch of Dave on Freeview seems to add a lot of value. It is replacing UKTV Bright Ideas, which I doubt will be missed by many people. The hours for UKTV History have been cut back, which might not be very popular. But let’s face it. Everyone knows that history channels only ever get ratings if they either

  1. Show programmes that are nothing to do with history
  2. Dedicate their entire schedule to programmes about Adolf Hitler’s second cousin twice removed’s hairdresser’s pet ostrich.

An update to this post.

Authority: 100

It probably says a little bit too much about me, that in the middle of exam hell I have engaged in a spate of political blogging which was quite excessive. In one sense, I guess everyone procrastinates / lets off steam in these situations. In another sense, it was a spot of bad luck that these fascinating elections coincided with my exams.

I don’t think I have done so much political blogging in years. Obviously, an election is a likely catalyst to get me going again. But I have to say, I surprised myself.

While a few years ago I aspired to be a political blogger, I soon discovered that I didn’t really have the stomach for it. I find the tribalism a bit off putting, which is one reason why I refuse to join any political parties or any other kind of organised movements. Politics is also a bit of a dirty game sometimes.

Things get heated all too easily, and little comments can be construed as major personal attacks. It seems as though, whenever you express an opinion on politics, you gain ten instant friends and a hundred instant enemies.

Recently I have come to learn that it is all part of a game, and usually no real harm is meant. And I think I have come through this busy period of politics relatively unscathed.

I think I have also learned that I find Westminster politics tedious, and Scottish politics quite fascinating. But that might be down to the way I committed myself to Scottish Roundup. I had no choice but to get informed about Scottish politics.

Westminster politics feels really stale in comparison, with your Blairs, Browns and Camerons all shamelessly chasing the median voter and cabinet ministers seemingly in a competition to out-bland one another. Then there are the downright distasteful characters like John Reid and probably about half of the two largest parties.

At least at Holyrood there is the odd Alex Salmond or Tommy Sheridan making it their raison d’être to do something a bit different. And I certainly can’t imagine the next Westminster election being as interesting as the Scottish Parliament elections we’ve just had!

Anyway, all of this is just a long way of saying, I don’t really know how much I’m going to write about politics in the future. But I’ve enjoyed these past few weeks and months a lot, even if it has led to me completely messing up my exams.

And most of all, thanks to everyone who reads, comments and links — both here and at Scottish Roundup. It’s great to express an opinion and let off some steam. It is even more amazing to know that people actually read this nonsense!

You may have noticed that I haven’t been blogging over these past few days. I haven’t even been reading blogs — at all. Just in preparation for my last exam tomorrow, then I will start up again.

I had been completely missing the whole Bob Piper hoo-ha that was going on over the weekend. The only reason I know about it now was because James Higham emailed me to tell me about his latest Blogfocus, and I decided to take a look. When I worked out that it was about Bob Piper, I became very interested. I don’t know if James Higham knows about my previous run-ins with Mr Piper, but the recent storm has rung a few bells.

Needless to say, I was interested to see exactly what the fuss was all about. Bob Piper in racism row? Sounds explosive. It turned out to be a bit of a damp squib. Here is the offending image which was originally uploaded by Unity and then featured on Bob Piper’s blog. I think it should be obvious to anybody with an ounce of sense that the image does not intend to say anything about black people. It is clearly an attack on David Cameron and nothing more.

Labour politicians in the West Midlands must be very reluctant to try and show a sense of humour from now on! First it was Tom Watson’s ‘yoof’ page which was lambasted by many. Then it was Siôn Simon’s misfiring spoof of Webcameron. And now this from Bob Piper.

From my perspective, the storm was manufactured by some Conservative bloggers who are a little bit too desperate to become the next big things in the blogosphere. It is quite telling that the genuine big players in the conservative blogosphere had a rather lukewarm response to the whole thing.

Guido Fawkes sympathises with Bob Piper. Tim Worstall thinks it is a fuss over nothing. Meanwhile, Iain Dale — who I am sure once said that he reads Bob Piper’s blog every day, although I can’t find the quote right now — took two days to mention it at all. Either he didn’t read Bob Piper’s blog on Friday or Saturday (possible), he did read it and took two days to find it potentially offensive, or he didn’t find it potentially offensive at all and has just reluctantly joined the bandwagon.

Once the initial posts by nonentities such as Praguetory had been written, that should probably have been the end of it. But two things happened. The first one I have covered — some Tory bloggers got a little bit too excited and tried to out a Labour politician as a racist, which clearly is not true.

The second thing that happened is more interesting to me though. Bob Piper began to get involved in a debate. And that usually means trouble. Mr Piper tends to see things through a purely ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. I know from personal experience that Bob Piper likes to play the man without even pretending that the ball existed. It does not take him long to resort to personal attacks rather than actually discussing the issue at hand.

When the attacks become so personal, and often downright insulting, the stakes are raised and tempers run high. No longer is it a simple political discussion. It becomes an issue of personal pride.

Iain Dale says, “I believe him to be a thoroughly decent bloke.” He must have corresponded to a different Bob Piper to the one the rest of us have corresponded with!

I recall that the thing that always infuriated my about Bob Piper was the way that he constantly tried to make out that voting for anybody other than Labour meant that you were voting for the Conservatives or even the BNP by proxy. It’s Labour’s old “letting the Tories in by the back door” argument. Unfortunately, it’s totally nonsense. Besideswhich, voting for the Conservatives isn’t as eeevil as voting for Labour if you ask me — but that’s by the by.

For reference, here are some links to Bob Piper in action in the comments here. And, from roughly the same time, at Longrider’s blog including the priceless moment when he accused me of being “tired and emotional” when I said that I prefered the Conservatives to Labour — presumably because only people who are mentally incapable could possibly prefer the evil Tories to golden boy Blair. This is what Jawbox said at the time.

There was also this strange sentence:

I just like winding up DoctorVee with his passion for all things Lib Dem. It works too, his lights start flashing straight away… three bells… jackpot!

That “passion” for all things Lib Dem passes most people by, because it isn’t a passion. I usually vote for them because I see them as by far the least-worst option. Probably, in Bob’s mind, I must be a “passionate” Lib Dem because I, like most other sensible people, oppose the Labour Past the Post voting system which currently gives Labour its thumping majority with only roughly 20% of the electorate supporting it.

You have to wonder about somebody who “likes winding up” people like me though. What a sad life he must have to have concentrated on me so much! Maybe saying that sort of thing is just part of his master debating technique though. You have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

After that whole incident I stopped reading Bob Piper’s blog. I had dismissed him as somebody who had plenty to say, but none of it was substantial or interesting. In short, he was a loud mouth who just ranted from his corner. Reading somebody like that is just a waste of time.

I will admit that I was sometimes rude to Bob Piper when we were debating. But in the sort of atmosphere that Mr Piper brings to a debate, it is usually the only place you can go. If you are being insulted you can either sit down and take it. Or you can respond. And most people will respond. Like I said, pride is at stake.

As I said, I didn’t follow this latest drama from the start. But it does seem as though Bob Piper played dirty in the comments once again, and that is what kept the story going through the blogosphere for so long.

For instance, you can see for youself Bob Piper attempting to “out” a blogger by using his real name, which is a breach of netiquette (see The Devil’s Kitchen, if the post ever comes back up, for more on that). James Higham, commenting on Mr Eugenides’ very sensible post, said that he had read one comment of Bob Piper’s that was “OTT. This is probably what kept it rolling as an issue.” I find that very easy to believe.

A salient point is this idea coming from some conservative bloggers, particularly Dizzy:

For me the biggest issue is that if someone from the right had produced the same “satire” the reaction would’ve been total outrage from the Left with accusations of racism. There is something worrying with this intellectual position that many on the Left have which asserts they are not capable of racism because of their ideological purity. It’s bollocks.

That is true. The left can often be unbearable when they claim that they must be correct because they’re on the left and the left couldn’t possibly be wrong. This also chimes with Bob Piper’s regular stance of, ‘It’s Labour so it must be right’. Although, as Dr Doom in the comments at Iain Dale’s points out:

It’s interesting that you die hard Conservatives are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. How thoroughly decent of you.

Which times were you wrong and where did you say so and apologise?

If somebody on the right were a victim of this witch-hunt, they would undoubtedly cry “political correctness gone mad” and tell everybody to get a sense of humour. I think that is what John at The England Project is alluding to here:

From Bob’s perspective there was a lack of judgement and no racist intent. It’s a crazy world and I for one would not like to see Bob become a victim of that craziness.

All-in-all, I think this incident reflects badly on a lot of people. And, as Mr Eugenides points out, a few people are even (considering) quitting blogging as a result of it. But that’s what happens in these high stakes games that Bob Piper likes to play. As the cliche goes, an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Now everybody has run away to lick their wounds. Hopefully this can serve as a reminder to us all that we should play nicely in the comments.