Saturday, 15 January 2011

The Coalition exists for only one purpose

- to save the economy; so writes Charles Moore, in today's op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph. (Interestingly, in the on-line edition, the second half of the article heading is changed to "if it fails its finished") This idea of Moore's (print edition) is in direct variance with mine, which is the Coalition exists to enable Cameron to achieve entry to 10 Downing Street having failed to win an election that was his for the taking; and Clegg to achieve a position that, just days previously, had been beyond his wildest dreams. Both men decided to barter core policy principles for personal gain - saving the economy is the by-product which they both presented to the nation in an attempt to disguise what was a naked usurpation of power due to the electorate's inability to make a decisive decision.

Benedict Brogan blogs with a piece entitled: "In power but not a winner - David Cameron's by-election problem.", in which this appears:
"He’s done his bit for Nick Clegg – again and again. Now he needs to help the Conservative bit of the Coalition. Much of Mr Cameron’s difficulty stems from an inescapable fact: he is in power without having won an election."
"he is in power without having won an election" - if one fails to win an election but ends up 'in power' that can only be achieved by the usurpation of power, hence my assertion above.

The reported fact that Cameron has much unrest on his backbenches over the question of 'caving in' to Clegg's demands for his support and the resultant loss of core 'supposed' Conservative policies, begs the question: which Liberal is actually leading the Coalition - Cameron or Clegg? It can be argued that any nation, in time of trouble, needs strong leadership - strong even to the point of being disliked. It cannot be denied that strong leadership and government is most noticeable by its absence. Margaret Thatcher, in the early years of her Premiership, pursued policies that were indeed disliked, but which cannot be denied resulted in the economic recovery of the nation. Cameron has two distinct disadvantages when compared to the Maggietollah - he does not possess her luxury of a healthy majority, nor does he possess her resolve.

When cast out into the electoral wilderness, parties decide they need to 'change' in order to win back power. Cameron did it; in their turns, Menzies Campbell, Kennedy and Clegg have done it and we now find MiliE doing it. In their desire to change, all three parties have 'retreated' to the centre ground of the political spectrum in their attempts to regain power, the resultant choice with which the electorate is left is one out of three of the same.

Richard North, EU Referendum, quote Proverbs 26:11. It is little wonder, bearing in mind the choice the electorate have - and one that the MSM perpetuate whilst ignoring the message of other parties.


Jonathan Stuart-Brown said...

Proverbs 26 v 11, in case people can not find their way to google it or open a Bible is "A dog returns to eat its own vomit".

As The Bible is now in play, it is staggering the msn and bloggers have referred so little to Matthew 24 and Luke 21 in the week of sudden floods in Australia, Brazil, Sri Lanka and on top of existing wars and rumours of war, a sudden revolution even civil war in Tunisia with potential to set off several others in North Africa and The Middle East.
I suppose the warmists will blame global warming for the revolution in Tunisia as well as West Ham losing 3-0 to Arsenal today or two 'Dancing on Ice Stars' caught kissing in the street and Jordon's most recent divorce (which all got far more msn coverage in national newspapers than the Oldham by-election result).
The tragedy is that the Coalition leaders are more concerned with 'Dancing on Ice' and Jordon's most recent divorce than the Oldham result or Parliamentary business this week and could not get the Matthew 24 and Luke 21 reference if their careers depended on it.


WitteringsfromWitney said...

JSB: as always a comment worth reading - thank you!