Cameron, the Time Trumpet classic

I've mentioned it in passing before but I'm pleased to be able to share this one with the board now I've found it.

For those who missed Armando Iannucci's brilliant take on Cameron doing his 'Blair-lite' impersonation 'youtube' has kindly put it up.

Sit back and enjoy (especially the 'England bangle' moment, how a few moments on film can sum up the condescending cynacism of the man so well, huh?).

Time Trumpet link

- You might also like to consider what this says about the state of politics in the UK today.
A reworking of the Bill Hicks and the 2 glove puppets routine, anyone?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You might also like to consider what this says about the state of politics in the UK today.

What? That politicians care more for their party and their spin images than creating actual none media influenced policy.

They're mostly all as bad as each other, plain and simple.

Cameron is only doing what Blair did in his first days as Labour leader..

its funny how many Labour supporters forget that

Originally posted by infinite
Cameron is only doing what Blair did in his first days as Labour leader.

- How?

What single major totem of tory policy has Cameron tackled head-on?

What could you call anything remotely like or close to Cameron's 'clause 4', infinite.......never mind an equivalent several examples as Tony Blair reformed the Labour party?

its funny how many Labour supporters forget that

- Na, we remember all that guff.
But guff it was.

Blair reformed much of the old baggage in Labour party policy, replacing it with policy much more in line with the public's preferences.
He reformed and tackled the issue of over-powerful union voting rights in the Labour party and it's effect on Labour party policy and generally did the things that actually needed doing to make Labour electable.

Cameron is merely alternates between cuddly empty talk or ridiculous empty talk.
He hasn't actually done anything substantive or tangible.

The bit "Labour supporters" like myself find hysterical is that after almost a decade of tory whining that Tony Blair was all spin and no substance
(which is kind of amazingly illogical given their lengthy complaints about what TB and the Labour government have actually done) they now contrive to appoint a leader who makes a virtue out of having no actual proposals.

When Blair refused to commit to revealing the specifics of Labour's proposals before the 1997 election it was because he did not and could not reveal the specifics;
but
Labour's policies and the direction they were going to take were all (with the one exception of making the Bank of England independent) well known.

Labour's plans were no shock to the electorate.

Whereas any solid concrete tory plans seem to be a total mystery as much to the torys as anyone else.

Take it on the chin infinite, Time Trumpet got him with 100% accuracy with that 'England bangle' footage.
The man's a cynical fraud.


[edit on 7-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Loved the clip... mostly because I despise Blair and Cameron equally. And I think that Iannucci was satirising the kind of partisanship Infinite displays rather effectively with "Campbell"'s comment at the end about being Prime Minister "being Tony's idea first".

Btw, according to people who were at the Bilderburgs' meeting this summer, Cameron's going to be our next PM. They were right about Merckel the previous year, so I shall be interested to see what's going to happen come the next election.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss...

The video was ok; propaganda of course without much substance. All it proves is that Blair and Cameron share the same public communication skills. Some say that's a bad thing; but then i remember Ian Duncan Smith and I think its a good thing. The Tories have tried having a non communicator and it didn't work (in fact so has every major political party in history).

I saw Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party conference on BBC parliament; and I have to say it was quite good. All this media talk about the Tories being short of policies may be technically true; but I think from the way Cameron took up positions on the environment, government efficiency, the NHS and so on its pretty clear what the Tory policies will be.
And this is where the Tories are of course copying Labour the most. Tony Blair (or rather people working for him) looks at the papers and thinks: the public are worried about crime, oh they're worried about immigration, oh now its the environment.
1. So what does Blair do? He rolls out a nice speech about climate change; even though its questionable whether we will meet our carbon targets (at least not without urgent investment in nuclear power, or other energy sources). And in any case even if we meet our carbon targets; they will be seriously dented by forecasted growth in air travel.
2. He creates a new criminal offence, or gives the police more powers. Meanwhile our prisons are over flowing, and therefore our prisoners get some of the worst possible rehabilitation treatment. Yet its been plane for everyone to see that with Britain (in reality) getting more violent we need more prisons.
Labours been in power since 1997; do they not calculate the prison population? Or do they not build the necessary number of prisons to protect the public, and help save the prisoners from themselves?
3. Blair announces a new initiative on immigration, whilst simultaneously the population rises thanks to massive immigration (causing high property prices, and a need to build over yet more of our countryside).

What's important to me is not the tactics of our political parties (well providing their legal) (unlike say cash for honours!!), but whether a political party will announce policies come an election, and whether it will be in a position to implement those policies (and will).
When it comes to implementation Labour isn't good; otherwise how come (with the exception of partly debt fuelled economic growth) things are still so bad?

Originally posted by Liberal1984
All this media talk about the Tories being short of policies may be technically true

- No lib it's not "technically true" it's actually true.

They don't have any formal defined policies.

I think from the way Cameron took up positions on the environment, government efficiency, the NHS and so on its pretty clear what the Tory policies will be.

- He mouthed some warm vague phrases out loud.

That doesn't prove a single thing about what their defined policies will really be.

Tony Blair (or rather people working for him) looks at the papers and thinks: the public are worried about crime, oh they're worried about immigration, oh now its the environment.

- Are you suggesting a gov. should be unresponsive to the concerns of 'the people' now?

That's a change.
Not too long ago you were telling us that they should only go for the populist approach.

1. So what does Blair do? He rolls out a nice speech about climate change; even though its questionable whether we will meet our carbon targets (at least not without urgent investment in nuclear power, or other energy sources). And in any case even if we meet our carbon targets; they will be seriously dented by forecasted growth in air travel.

- First of all the UK is on target not only to meet our Kyoto targets but to beat them by a fair amount, actually.
As Tony Blair said in his conference speech by almost twice the amount required.

Perhaps you are confusing the Kyoto requirement & this gov's own more stringent target, hmmmm?

In the UK, we can take pride that we are projected to cut our emissions of greenhouses gases by 23-25% from 1990 levels over the Kyoto commitment period – that is nearly double the level of the Kyoto targets.
However, UK emissions of carbon dioxide are rising.
We remain on track to meet our Kyoto targets, but we will on current trends fall short of our national goal of a 20% reduction in Co2 emissions by 2010.

www.defra.gov.uk...

What are you saying about air travel? Ban, restrict or tax it more?

What about new replacement nuclear reactors and the UK's power production 'mix'?
It seems that the public agree a reduction of our dependence on supplies from abroad is no bad thing (should the government now completely ignore the people's wants?).
link

2. He creates a new criminal offence, or gives the police more powers.

- Actually I think you'll find there have been few truly 'new offenses' "created".
Parliament passes the laws here, not TB (and Parliament usually does this after lobbying from various groups including the various Police forces throughout the UK).

Meanwhile our prisons are over flowing, and therefore our prisoners get some of the worst possible rehabilitation treatment.

- We have more prisons & prison spaces than ever.
I though you approved of that?

The gov is also trying to give a lead that doesn't see courts rush to imprison at every turn.
Laudable as it is the truth is that everyone loves "rehabilitation" right up until they have to pay for it.

Yet its been plane for everyone to see that with Britain (in reality) getting more violent we need more prisons.

- No we don't.
We 'need' to stop sending minor white-collar criminals to prison, minor thieves, the mentally unbalanced, road tax, TV license dodgers & cannabis users to prison.

You seem to have missed the point that 'the Government' doesn't sentence anyone.
Judges and Magistrates do that here.

Labours been in power since 1997; do they not calculate the prison population? Or do they not build the necessary number of prisons to protect the public, and help save the prisoners from themselves?

- You never can resist the ridiculous rhetoric can you lib?

Govs project trends - spending trends, crime trends and/or what they believe are the likely consequences of their policies and actions.

It isn't an exact science.

3. Blair announces a new initiative on immigration, whilst simultaneously the population rises thanks to massive immigration (causing high property prices, and a need to build over yet more of our countryside).

- You have got to be kidding lib.

Our history of rarely checked house price growth is all the fault of 'the immigrants' now is it?


Yeah I can see it now, straight of the boat & into the estate agents.
They never contribute anything in 'your world' do they?


BTW, do you ever take account of emigration when doing your anti-immigrant thing?

Or how about those British-born people buying 2nd homes (particularly in 'nice' areas of the country) who force up prices & drive away those brought up there, hmmm?

Nevermind, it's all 'the immigrants' fault.

What's important to me is not the tactics of our political parties (well providing their legal) (unlike say cash for honours!!)

- .....go on then lib, let's see a criminal conviction in this, you claim, illegal "cash for honours" scandal that you think is going on.

(BTW you might like to inform the Police of your 'evidence' for this cos the reality is that despite hours of questioning & effort no-one has been so much as charged nevermind convicted of any offence.
Contact Scotland Yard here asap, I'm sure they'll be very interested in those facts you seem to imagine you have and they, so far, don't.)

but whether a political party will announce policies come an election, and whether it will be in a position to implement those policies (and will).

- Nonsense.

It is quite right & proper for a party to inform the public of where it stands.

No one is saying they have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' (Labour did not pre 1997)
but
it is perfectly sensible to expect policy to be outlined sufficiently so that people can see and hear what the opposition (afterall supposedly the alternative government in waiting) would do in a given situation
(which is the difference, Labour did do this pre-1997......but because they wouldn't outline every single little economic thing they were going to do the tories pretended otherwise).

Otherwise it merely places them in the rather infantile (not at all serious) position of merely saying anything they like in any given set of circumstances, with no risk of responsibility or come-back.

I think the people want to be treated much better than that.

When it comes to implementation Labour isn't good

- What do you mean?
I suppose these 'biggies' just mean nothing to you or just passed you by?

In stark contrast to every previous British government they moved away from a policy of mere quiet containment to putting as much effort and resources as they could into ending the utterly disgraceful and thoroughly shameful neo-civil war that had been going on in the UK in Northern Ireland for over 30yrs.

They kept their word on schools, hospitals and the public services all of which have shown an enormous improvement across the whole country since 1997.

They kept their word on devolving power to the 'home nations', they did not fail to implement it.

They cut British unemployment massively (taking UK employment to record levels).

They cut inflation and kept it down at a sustained level not seen since the early 1950's in the UK.

They brought in the first financial assistance for working families' child care needs in this country.

The increased Child benefit by record amounts and up to a record level.

They introduced a decent national minimum wage and have raised it year on year.

They cut and kept interest rates down at a low level last seen in the early 1960's (thereby helping to take UK home ownership rates to record levels).

They increased the British overseas aid budget by more than double since 1997 (in contrast to the previous governments policy of freezes or small annual cuts).

They helped push and organise an entire 'western' move to forgive 3rd world debt and to help ensure the refinancing of those most in need.

First British government to put the act of going to war to a free vote in Parliament (and openly state this was intended as precedent, not a one-off).

First British government to enact the formal right of a 'Freedom of Information' Act.

Incorportion of the ECHR into British law.

Labour meets it's 1997 pledges
More Labour pledges met
This terms pledges

There's a lot more I could cite but you aren't really interested in the facts are you lib?

.....you want to make silly claims that they're useless at "implementation" & haven't really done much?

otherwise how come (with the exception of partly debt fuelled economic growth) things are still so bad?

- Get off of your soapbox lib, they aren't.

That's why they've won 3 elections on the trot & even with a deeply unpopular war in Iraq & the public showing signs of being bored with the same party they still stand every chance of winning the 4th.

(maybe you can come out with this kind of stuff because you have no adult memory of how things really were here when they really did get truly awful & were "so bad"?

You've said before you live in a rock solid tory seat (usually indicates very middleclass) so maybe you have absolutely no clue what 2 long & deep recessions and 2 long spells of mass unemployment were really like for large parts of your own nation?).

[edit on 11-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Sminkeypinkey

Tony Blair (or rather people working for him) looks at the papers and thinks: the public are worried about crime, oh they're worried about immigration, oh now its the environment.

- Are you suggesting a gov. should be unresponsive to the concerns of 'the people' now?

That's a change.
Not too long ago you were telling us that they should only go for the populist approach.

Far from it; I'm saying its a good thing that the Tories have also decided to be responsive to the concerns of the English people (as opposed to just their core supporters). Labour did that about ten years ago, now so to are the Tories.

Also no matter what you say about the Tories not having policies I think it’s pretty clear what they're new ones will be (and any extras will probably be welcome). But I guess there's precious little point arguing about it, as we'll only find out come the next election (that's if they have any formal policies at all) (and unlike you I believe they will) (after all it would be a first in English if didn't!!!).
Till then I think the English people won’t worry too much about the Tories not having any policies as you can’t actually vote yet. In fact the only people who will really worry about it is the people in the other parties who would ether like to copy their ideas; or build better arguments against them.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]