Nearly four months into his leadership, the first chinks seem to have started appearing in David Cameron's armour.
I listened to his response to the Budget debate a couple of weeks ago and, while I thought it was totally over the top, I dismissed it as routine politicking until I heard some gossip to the effect that, for all his apparent affability, Cameron has a notoriously short fuse.
Today's ill-considered outburst, branding the UK Independence Party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" shows at best lack of judgement, at worst an inability to control his tongue.
Gavin Ayling cites another example from the leadership campaign when he apparently lost it with David Davis.
I'm all for politicians using colourful language when appropriate, but given that Cameron is basing part of his political strategy on being a sunnier, more uplifting character than Gordon Brown, I think this sort of thing could turn out to be significant.
I suspect Labour will now be monitoring Mr Cameron very closely to see just what presses his buttons.
3 comments:
IT WONT MATTER WHAT THEY DO TO CAMERON HE'S JUST A STOOGE BASTARD ANYWAY.
OH YES JUST SO YOU KNOW THE LIBERAL SCUMBAG DEMOCRATS WONT EVER GET INTO GOVERNMENT!
When I first heard Cameron sounding off I thought he said they were 'closet rapists' which really would have been a serious charge to level at any party, even one as odd as the one he is attacking.
Is Cameron, like Major before him, thin-skinned and petulant? Having seen him lose his cool on Sky News the same month as Paul wrote this, I'd say yes. He merely had a criticism (that some in his party think he's 'obsessed with change') put to him, and completely lost it, losing his thread so comprehensively that he asked if they could do the interview again.
Then again, Blair can be just as bad (as he was during PMQs re. his plan for 90 days detention without trial). It was all the more off-putting when he'd overruled Clarke's compromise, agreed with the opposition parties, of 40-50 days detention without trial.
Was this just the result of incompetent arithmetic by Hillary Armstrong? I don't think so. It was (at least partly) to put the opposition parties in a position where, by opposing the government's legislation, they could be accused of being soft on terror. Blair was taking a leaf out of Bush's book and trying to make (party) political advantage of the fight against terror.
Post a Comment