I so agree. when I watch the election debates, there are several times when I find myself disagreeing with Cameron and agreeing with Brown. However, this just makes me feel disappointed. Mainly because no matter how much sense Brown may talk on a certain issue (and don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all he says), Labour have pissed away any chance they had of getting my vote due to their shambolic handling of the Mandybill. A pity too. They did get my vote at the last two elections for instance and now they're fucked any chance they had of getting it over the miss-handling of one important bill..
Because bigots should be called bigots. And any party which demonstrates that they can still recognise a bigot when they encounter one, while still recognising that calling the bigot a bigot in public would be politically unwise currently, would gain a degree of my confidence.
That's just a long winded way of saying "He's not an idiot"?
(Which most politicians, despite other flaws, are not, so not really anything significant)
I'm more inclined to go with Manthorp's perspective, although the whole thing seems a trifle not really worth this much fuss over.
EDITED: 30 Apr 2010 07:07 by BOUGHTONP
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)30 Apr 2010 07:23
Fair enough that you respect him for calling a bigot a bigot (although he did it behind her back rather than to her face, which would've been more honest), but would you still respect him for calling a spade a spade?
Well clearly saying it to her face would've been more honest. But in a country of bigots it wouldn't've been very politically astute.
There's having principles and then there's having the political instincts to be able to do anything with them (not that I'm suggesting he has much of the latter).
It's a funny one. I thought that Cameron was awful in it, yet a lot of polls have him down as the winner. This is despite him constantly trotting out the old "waste" cliché (which sounds good, but is just utterly unrealistic) and the fact that he was repeatedly accused of inheritance tax breaks for the rich (amongst other things) and which he just ignored and would not answer. Last week when accused of something incorrectly, he immediately and strenuously denied the accusation. The fact that he didn't this time around tells its own story about the truth of these allegations.
I thought Cameron was positively foamy. I was waiting for his head to turn form orange to bright white and then explode rather messily all over the shiny set.
That's what annoyed me about Cameron, that he didn't directly answer those important questions about inheritance tax. That said, the other two annoyed me by going into 'Paxman Mode' and repeatedly saying 'yes or no?' or 'answer the question David' when Cameron went on the defensive or ignored the point completely.