The comment on the last post on The Tap from Twig about Peter Hitchens being ‘on fire’ today in the MOS, and the link about Tim Montgomerie picked up by Iain Dale in the FT (LINK), are all telling the same story.
Those who have strong convictions and beliefs about politics such as Hitchens, Montgomerie, IDS are all poised to become hugely infuential under a Cameron regime. The religious right such as IDS, and the deserters from Marxism like Hitchens, are all from the red hot end of the scale of politics – fired by belief and conviction. They are not going to be silent if Cameron disappoints them.
Cameron has to please BBC Marxists to get elected, and his stance of many key issues could be seen as being motivated by that fact, but once in office, MPs and other influencers of opinion will be in a position to undermine Cameron, ánd even remove him and replace him, if he doesn’t come up to the mark in addressing their convictions.
On rare occasions, politics can get me fired up too, but mostly I prefer to handle politics and politicians, using a strong pair of tongs, and address the follies of government that I see around me with the ridicule and contempt that they deserve. What use will anger do me? My health requires that I tread a lighter path these days, apart from anything else.
As an observer, though I can see a pattern emerging. Cameron has trod a PR path to power, with few concessions to conviction. He will be tested very quickly. Is his PR a ploy, hiding a different person underneath, a person who is not shallow, a spiv or a spinner, but a person of strong convictions and beliefs who will please those who are desperate to see major change and the rescue of the country from a state of valuelessness?
Or is Cameron as shallow as Blair?
That test will decide how long he lasts.
If he’s as shallow as alleged by Hitchens, UKIPPERS and others, he will be felled by continual rebellion from within the Parliamentary Party and from the blogosphere, interalia. But if, OTOH, his shallowness is merely an act designed to confuse the BBC’s Marxists into permitting him a turn at the helm, and he in fact turns out to be a politician of strong conviction, he could build an unassailable base of power, once elected, which brings Britain out of a state of total hopelssness and valuelessness, as inherited from Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the EU. A new belief in ourselves and a better society become possible.
It’s not about Cameron, in the end of the day. He is only one option for the future. There are many others, but they all first need Cameron to be elected as Prime Minister, and an end to Labour.
For the media, Blairism can only be replaced by another Blair, someone weak and malleable, who does not care about the destruction of society’s institutions, like schools and the Police. But ‘Blairs’ by definition are impossible to define, and to know what they are really made of. They are an act.
Just because the last Blair disappointed so stingingly, does not mean the current version will be anything the same. Cameron could be Fabianism in reverse, approaching power by stealth, hiding his true beliefs to ensure his enemies are not on their guard when he strikes. Deception, in politics as surely as in warfare, is the modern day weapon of necessity.
Here is the BBC video of Cameron objecting to Blair’s candidacy for EU President – as ‘all singing, all dancing, all acting’. LINK. The man he so admires – remember?
BLAIR THE FABIAN – from an earlier post:
Some of the more erudite members of the wealthy and intellectual classes of England formed an organization to perpetuate the concept of collectivism but not exactly according to Marx. It was called the Fabian Society.
The name is significant, because it was in honor of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrrucosus,
the Roman general who, in the second century B.C., kept Hannibal at bay by wearing down
his army with delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever
Unlike the Marxists who were in a hurry to come to power through direct
confrontation with established governments, the Fabians were willing to take their time, to
come to power without direct confrontation, working quietly and patiently from inside the
target governments. To emphasize this strategy, and to separate themselves from the
Marxists, they adopted the turtle as their symbol. And their official shield portrays an image
of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Those two images perfectly summarize their strategy.
It is now 1884, and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of
these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent
members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs later would be known world wide as the
founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the
Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known
figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and numerous others of
similar caliber. By the way, the Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are
members, not the least of which is England’s Ex Prime Minister, Tony Blair.