Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I was reading this article in the Times. It made me laugh but especially it spoke loads about the real personalities of Brown and Cameron. Great stuff. I was surprised to see such an intelligent article from someone who I thought wouldn't see further than apperances and media spin like most of the British electorate.

    I think that people's perceptions of Brown and Cameron are too engrained for Labour to get even close to the Tories in the elections next year. I mean, Cameron going on Absolute Radio pretending to be with it by having a prepared fake-interview where he swears... and a lot of people actually bought it, instead of seeing through the pathetic lows that Cameron is prepared to go to get elected. He'd support paedophiles if it could get him elected: the man has no substance, no values and like his little privileged bumchum Osbourne, **** for brains.

    Yes people enjoy blaming all their woes on an unattractive, awkward and aloof (but talented and intelligent) politician. It's far easier to look at appearance and vent frustration at that, rather than using a bit of analytical brainpower, but many people are already saying how Blair will go down fairly badly in history all because of the War in Iraq, whereas people are already preparing to see Brown as a "fairly decent and talented politician".

    Hindsight provides a lot of clarity while at present, confusion, media spin, false information, ignorance and anger have prevented the average Briton from understanding the cause of today's issues.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6733952.ece
    You could win on TV, Gordon. No debate

    The Prime Minister shouldn’t be afraid to take on David Camera-on. And this is what he should say

    I actually believed Lord Mandelson — a heart-stopping dive into the gullibility deep end, I’ll admit — when he said that there would be a US presidential-style TV debate between Gordon Brown and David Cameron before the general election.
    I wonder now if he invented the whole thing, hoping that the prospect of a TV debate would have the same effect on Mr Brown as the prospect of 50 dates at the O2 had on Michael Jackson. Still, it’s a shame the Prime Minister seems so reluctant. Anyone who has ever watched an ox being terrorised by a squirrel — the lumbering beast snorting and wincing as the tiny claws score a million scratch-marks on his surprisingly sensitive hide — would have been bursting with anticipation.

    But then what if Mr Brown, at that eleventh hour, had managed to turn things around: a little shimmy, the soft sound of squirrel against soil and, before it could scramble to its feet, an enormous hoof splats it into silence. All it would have needed was one killer opening speech, honest and clear, to place Mr Brown, hoof raised, above the terrified rodent. But what could he have said that would have won us over at that late stage? I offer here a transcript of a speech that would probably have persuaded me:
    Good evening. May I begin by saying that those of you who’ve tuned in to see the famous “Gordon Brown inappropriate smile” will, I’m afraid, be disappointed. I gave smiling a go but it just wasn’t me. It looked out of place, like when a vacillating supermarket customer leaves an incongruous jar of strawberry jam on the household detergent shelf.

    I’ve always felt that my wife, Sarah, and I get on so well because we share a sense of humour. We have to — I don’t have one. It’s time to stop pretending I do.

    Speaking of relationships I feel that my relationship with you, the British people, has gone through a very bad patch. You may even be thinking of dumping me. This handsome young chap over here [gesturing towards Mr Cameron] has flattered and flirted his way through a charm offensive with which this loyal, loving but unspectacular fellow on your arm has struggled to compete. In case you’re wondering, he smells lovely — of mint leaves and bergamot — whereas I smell like a cross between a meat pie and a second-hand bookshop.

    I know you’ve gone off me and like every insecure partner, I’ve sat with friends, emptying my heart and listening to their extensive advice: try YouTube, wear lighter colours, talk about your private life, say there won’t be cuts, smile. I’ve tried to be something I wasn’t. Conscientious, honest, hard-working people are never that sexy.

    Look at Officer Dibble in Top Cat. He was a dedicated officer of the law but that fast-talking Top Cat made him look like a flatfooted fool. However, when you’re scared or in trouble, who you gonna call? Not Top Cat. He’ll be out with his fat-cat friends playing hands of poker for more than you earn in a year and making jokes about those who aren’t part of his smug little in-crowd. Close friends get to call him DC. It’s Officer Dibble who’ll work overtime to sort things out; who’ll try his very best.
    My predecessor, Tony Blair, used to say to me: “Gordon, you’ve got some great stuff in your storeroom but your shopfront scares everyone off.” Tony was a tough act to follow. He was charismatic, a master of the soundbite. How popular would John the Baptist have been if he’d followed Jesus, rather than preceded him? I’m crying out in the wilderness, living on locusts and honey and wearing a filthy animal skin. No wonder I’m lagging in the polls. Tony, like the original Messiah, got crucified in the Middle East but seems to have risen again.

    Yes, he’s come back as an ecofriendly, millionaire-next-door, Tory toff on a bloomin’ pushbike. I would swear, but I’m not cool enough. Alesha Dixon looks better than Arlene Phillips but will she be a better judge? David Cameron looks fantastic, hissing out his smarmy, Flashman-like repartee in the prat’s vacuum that is Prime Minister’s Questions — politics’ answer to speed dating — but that’s not the place to pick your next leader. It’s more panel show than political debate, with straightforward, honest Gordon the butt of every *****y joke. Mock the Weak, it should be called.

    Yes, I’ll admit it. I feel quite weak and intimidated in the face of all that Bullingdon Club, thrash-the-fag aggressiveness. That is why I care about the weak in society, the bullied, the stammering, the apparently unimpressive. I see through all that and judge people by their hearts, not their sparkly exteriors.

    David Cameron, or David Camera-on as I call him, might give you an exciting time at first but, when your calls are going unanswered, when you feel let down and deserted, maybe you’ll remember clumsy, compassionate Gordon.

    I wasn’t born to rule like some of my social superiors. I had to learn on the job and I’ve learnt a lot from my mistakes. Three strikes and you’re out sounds great but what about the knowledge and experience accrued during and after the missing of that third strike? Must that always be squandered? As you watch tonight’s debate, I suggest you keep an eye on that very determined turtle, just behind the already celebrating hare.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    I think that people's perceptions of Brown and Cameron are too engrained for Labour to get even close to the Tories in the elections next year. I mean, Cameron going on Absolute Radio pretending to be with it by having a prepared fake-interview where he swears... and a lot of people actually bought it, instead of seeing through the pathetic lows that Cameron is prepared to go to get elected. He'd support paedophiles if it could get him elected: the man has no substance, no values and like his little privileged bumchum Osbourne, **** for brains.
    1. Prepared- of course it was, all interviews of that sort have some element of preparation.

    2. 'Pathetic low' - going on a radio station?

    3. He'd support paedophiles - no, of course he wouldn't.

    Yes people enjoy blaming all their woes on an unattractive, awkward and aloof (but talented and intelligent) politician. It's far easier to look at appearance and vent frustration at that, rather than using a bit of analytical brainpower, but many people are already saying how Blair will go down fairly badly in history all because of the War in Iraq, whereas people are already preparing to see Brown as a "fairly decent and talented politician".
    I actually think Blair will be remembered as the greatest Labour PM in history.

    As for Brown - intelligent, perhaps; but talented at what exactly? If anything, I think the last few years have shown him to have very little political acumen at all. He rode to power on Blair's coattails.

    Whilst Blair is responsible for the wars in particular that turned public opinion against him, Brown is the man who has completely alienated the Labour Party from most of the electorate. A skilled politician could have turned their fortunes around, used Blair's departure to the party's advantage - Brown has actually made the country long for those days.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    I think that people's perceptions of Brown and Cameron are too engrained for Labour to get even close to the Tories in the elections next year. I mean, Cameron going on Absolute Radio pretending to be with it by having a prepared fake-interview where he swears... and a lot of people actually bought it, instead of seeing through the pathetic lows that Cameron is prepared to go to get elected. He'd support paedophiles if it could get him elected: the man has no substance, no values and like his little privileged bumchum Osbourne, **** for brains.
    Totally agree with everything you say. Brown is twice the politician Blair was and 10 times the politician Cameron is. It's such a shame that modern politics is such style over substance. I fear for the country when Cameron gets in to power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Frank Musik
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeytk)
    Brown is twice the politician Blair was and 10 times the politician Cameron is.
    Funny then how these people can (or, in Cameron's case, will) actually win elections and get their policies through. Do you think it demonstrates skill to be the most unpopular Prime Minister since Chamberlain? Do you think it is an example of political skill to have the slimiest man (I of course refer to Mandelson) in Britain effectively running the government? Do you believe it is politically skillful to have to exercise U-turn after U-turn, and be defeated on policy issues from within your own party?

    If Gordon Brown had any skill whatsoever, he would not be teetering on the bring of ending the most unsuccessful premiership in history.

    I fear for the country when Cameron gets in to power.
    No, you fear for Socialism. And quite rightly so - you lefties should be damn-well quaking in your boots. As for the country and British politics, both will improve markedly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    1. Prepared- of course it was, all interviews of that sort have some element of preparation.

    2. 'Pathetic low' - going on a radio station?
    The key prepared element being "I'm going to swear and people might actually believe that I'm with it and I can pretend I love Mr T because everyone loves Mr T". Yes totally pathetic. A new low for British politics. You wouldn't get that in European politics other than perhaps Italian. In other countries, the political class comes down like a ton of bricks on guys like Cameron.
    (Original post by L i b)
    3. He'd support paedophiles - no, of course he wouldn't.
    No he won't if the public doesn't support it. The guy has no ideas and in his short political career has jumped from one position to another when it comes to key issues such as economics, the EU, the environment.

    (Original post by L i b)
    I actually think Blair will be remembered as the greatest Labour PM in history.
    Actually, you're already very, very wrong. Blair is already being described as a shoddy PM by most foreign press. It's amusing how the British press presents Blair as a potential EU President and all other foreign press gives him no chance and he's really not liked: because of the Iraq war but especially because most other EU countries like their politicians to have a bit more substance.

    (Original post by L i b)
    As for Brown - intelligent, perhaps; but talented at what exactly? If anything, I think the last few years have shown him to have very little political acumen at all. He rode to power on Blair's coattails.
    He has the intellect and analytical skills required for issues such as the constitution, the economy and has a clear view of how he views a socially fair Britain.

    I'm a bit disappointed that you mix up political acumen with charisma. You see, that's the problem with a lot of British people: they are truly manipulated by their press. Whereas people have still fallen for the charming Blair (and somehow, the unpopular wars have become Brown's fault...), many Europeans who have seen what Blair did within the EU have seen the true face of Blair. He was a decent PM who could make good speeches. During the last presidential rotation of EU, Blair did a fantastic speech, one of the best in his careers about his views of the EU, what he wanted to put in place and in the end? The 6 months of British presidency were a huge anticlimax with nothing presented by Blair actually being implemented.
    Most people more or less connected to the EU or simply the few people within the UK who actually know anything about what happens within the EU (and indeed there are very few, because of media coverage), have already written Blair off and discovered what he is:
    He's a great talker, makes a good speech and is a good diplomat. THAT is what he is but not the guy you'd go to if you want ideas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you lefties
    Haha, you sound like Bill O'Reilly.

    Funny then how these people can (or, in Cameron's case, will) actually win elections and get their policies through.
    Policies? Cameron? No. They get into power through personality contests and well orchestrated PR campigns. It's what Blair did, expept Blair had a party with good policy to back him up. Cameron just has smarm and the concept of 'change'. What can the Tories really change? They can't solve the financial crisis, then can't clean up the political system (oh no they'd have to get rid of their moates), all they can do is reverse the progress the country has made in the last 12 years. That is why I fear. Under the Tories Britain will move bacwards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeytk)
    Totally agree with everything you say. Brown is twice the politician Blair was and 10 times the politician Cameron is. It's such a shame that modern politics is such style over substance. I fear for the country when Cameron gets in to power.
    I'm personally not fearing it. Cameron has so few ideas and Osbourne neither that very little will happen. The measures taken by Brown's government will bear fruit and we'll have 5 years of economic stability (no boom though, so the Tories won't be able to say they've done loads for the economy) but as is usual for politicians of the style of Cameron, people will fall out of love with him VERY quickly.
    It's one thing seeing a politician with a nicely maintained image criticising the government. It does not require much intelligence or ideas. Good PR, media spin and it's easy.
    But the British electorate is really not loyal to its politicians: as soon as people start expecting something from the government and they don't deliver, as soon as Cameron messes up ties with a few countries (Blair was not good with the ideas but he was an EXCELLENT diplomat, Cameron is not a natural diplomat, not travelled enough, too ignorant and too comfortable within a very small environment that is his party and his fellow Etonians), people will tire of him.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    The key prepared element being "I'm going to swear and people might actually believe that I'm with it and I can pretend I love Mr T because everyone loves Mr T". Yes totally pathetic. A new low for British politics. You wouldn't get that in European politics other than perhaps Italian. In other countries, the political class comes down like a ton of bricks on guys like Cameron.
    And what reason do you have for thinking this?

    Indeed, I hardly think most people would consider saying '****' swearing anyway. Although I hear in the north of England it does carry more baggage, in the rest of the country it is no worse than 'berk' or something similar.

    No he won't if the public doesn't support it. The guy has no ideas and in his short political career has jumped from one position to another when it comes to key issues such as economics, the EU, the environment.
    Which positions has he jumped to and from which positions did he start off?

    Actually, you're already very, very wrong. Blair is already being described as a shoddy PM by most foreign press.
    So? The foreign press is hardly going to like him, is it? I've read through plenty reviews of Blair's premiership - one of the most interesting was Blair's Britain edited by Anthony Seldon. I'd say they generally cast him in a positive light on the things he cared about: education, health, Northern Ireland and so forth. His accomplishments are certainly impressive: he undertook large scale public service reform that I simply don't believe the Tories could ever have managed.

    He has the intellect and analytical skills required for issues such as the constitution, the economy and has a clear view of how he views a socially fair Britain.

    I'm a bit disappointed that you mix up political acumen with charisma. You see, that's the problem with a lot of British people: they are truly manipulated by their press. Whereas people have still fallen for the charming Blair (and somehow, the unpopular wars have become Brown's fault...), many Europeans who have seen what Blair did within the EU have seen the true face of Blair. He was a decent PM who could make good speeches. During the last presidential rotation of EU, Blair did a fantastic speech, one of the best in his careers about his views of the EU, what he wanted to put in place and in the end? The 6 months of British presidency were a huge anticlimax with nothing presented by Blair actually being implemented.
    Most people more or less connected to the EU or simply the few people within the UK who actually know anything about what happens within the EU (and indeed there are very few, because of media coverage), have already written Blair off and discovered what he is:
    He's a great talker, makes a good speech and is a good diplomat. THAT is what he is but not the guy you'd go to if you want ideas.
    Intellect does not necessarily a good politician, or even Prime Minister, make. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure why you're suggesting Gordon Brown is especially intelligent. He's got a Ph.D, most PMs are not so well educated, but it doesn't take a great deal of intellect to get one of them - particularly in an arts subject in which the person concerned had a personal interest.

    Political acumen largely is about charisma - a politician had to be likeable, they have to win people over to their way of thinking and doing things: this does not just apply to the public, but also within their parties and the government. Being a good politician is not about ideas, it's about selling those ideas.

    Incidentally, I don't think - as you apparently do - that Blair has escaped public culpability for the war in Iraq. But Brown certainly does hold responsibility for that too.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeytk)
    Haha, you sound like Bill O'Reilly.
    Having never heard him, I wouldn't know. However calling someone a 'lefty' is perfectly normal; it is not the exclusive preserve of one man.

    Policies? Cameron? No. They get into power through personality contests and well orchestrated PR campigns. It's what Blair did, expept Blair had a party with good policy to back him up. Cameron just has smarm and the concept of 'change'. What can the Tories really change? They can't solve the financial crisis, then can't clean up the political system (oh no they'd have to get rid of their moates), all they can do is reverse the progress the country has made in the last 12 years. That is why I fear. Under the Tories Britain will move bacwards.
    Yes, they will reverse the progress: that's because plenty of people don't think dodgy economics, the worst national of any G20 nation, identity cards, a surveillance society, regular abuse of civil liberties and the creation of literally thousands of new criminal offences are examples of the sort of progress they want to see.

    Yes, I agree entirely - a lot of the first Conservative government's energies will be focused on correcting the ****-ups of the previous administration.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    And what reason do you have for thinking this?

    Indeed, I hardly think most people would consider saying '****' swearing anyway. Although I hear in the north of England it does carry more baggage, in the rest of the country it is no worse than 'berk' or something similar.



    Which positions has he jumped to and from which positions did he start off?



    So? The foreign press is hardly going to like him, is it? I've read through plenty reviews of Blair's premiership - one of the most interesting was Blair's Britain edited by Anthony Seldon. I'd say they generally cast him in a positive light on the things he cared about: education, health, Northern Ireland and so forth. His accomplishments are certainly impressive: he undertook large scale public service reform that I simply don't believe the Tories could ever have managed.



    Intellect does not necessarily a good politician, or even Prime Minister, make. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure why you're suggesting Gordon Brown is especially intelligent. He's got a Ph.D, most PMs are not so well educated, but it doesn't take a great deal of intellect to get one of them - particularly in an arts subject in which the person concerned had a personal interest.

    Political acumen largely is about charisma - a politician had to be likeable, they have to win people over to their way of thinking and doing things: this does not just apply to the public, but also within their parties and the government. Being a good politician is not about ideas, it's about selling those ideas.

    Incidentally, I don't think - as you apparently do - that Blair has escaped public culpability for the war in Iraq. But Brown certainly does hold responsibility for that too.
    Well what a shame that you see politics as just that. It's funny because I view politics as vision, ideas and values. Yes there's the whole political game of backstabbing, media spin etc but that is just a diversion from what really matters. But each to their own: some people don't necessarily see further than appearnce and what the British press gives them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Having never heard him, I wouldn't know. However calling someone a 'lefty' is perfectly normal; it is not the exclusive preserve of one man.
    It's the way it's used as a derogatory term that made me think of Mr O'Reilly. He's an American Fox News anchor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeytk)
    It's the way it's used as a derogatory term that made me think of Mr O'Reilly. He's an American Fox News anchor.
    And they're not used as derogatory terms? :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Well what a shame that you see politics as just that. It's funny because I view politics as vision, ideas and values. Yes there's the whole political game of backstabbing, media spin etc but that is just a diversion from what really matters. But each to their own: some people don't necessarily see further than appearnce and what the British press gives them.
    That is precisely the problem. Politicians and political anoraks tend to forget that these 'visions, ideas and values' are not abstract notions that will never see the light of day, but is actually implemented into ill-thought out policies that affect people's lives. I think the British has outgrown the ideological battles and clashes, and would like to move towards a less paternalist style of governing. Cameron offers this, whether he will practice what he preaches is another matter. We won't know until he is in office, but one thing is for certain is that we aren't going to get it from Gordon Brown who still lives in the politics of the 1980 and 90s.

    As for Frank Skinner, I wish he would stop playing the victim. He never has anyhing of value to say. His only argument that Cameron isn't fit to be PM is because of which school he went to. If anything, Cameron's high standards education at Eton and Oxford probably qualifies him to be PM more than anyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If anything, Cameron's high standards education at Eton and Oxford probably qualifies him to be PM more than anyone else.
    In no way am I wading into the debate (again haha) about whether well-educated people are the most appropriate to be a politician...surely the general point, which has a fair amount of credibility, is that those who have gone through Eton, Oxbridge etc. have less of a handle on the issues facing the majority of the British public. (Actually, scratch that first sentence, I suppose I am wading back in...)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by libertin)
    That is precisely the problem. Politicians and political anoraks tend to forget that these 'visions, ideas and values' are not abstract notions that will never see the light of day, but is actually implemented into ill-thought out policies that affect people's lives. I think the British has outgrown the ideological battles and clashes, and would like to move towards a less paternalist style of governing. Cameron offers this, whether he will practice what he preaches is another matter. We won't know until he is in office, but one thing is for certain is that we aren't going to get it from Gordon Brown who still lives in the politics of the 1980 and 90s.

    As for Frank Skinner, I wish he would stop playing the victim. He never has anyhing of value to say. His only argument that Cameron isn't fit to be PM is because of which school he went to. If anything, Cameron's high standards education at Eton and Oxford probably qualifies him to be PM more than anyone else.
    Is it not depressing how many PMs and MPs come from such a small section of society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilko1991)
    Is it not depressing how many PMs and MPs come from such a small section of society?
    Then don't bloody vote for them, if you're so bothered.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilko1991)
    Is it not depressing how many PMs and MPs come from such a small section of society?
    True, but has always been the case, and will be for the concievable future.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoliceStory)
    Then don't bloody vote for them, if you're so bothered.
    That's got nothing to do with it. The people who represent members of society should come form a broad spectrum of society. Not just people who go are in the top 1% income bracket and can afford to go to Eton. Would it not be better to make politics less elitist.

    EDIT: Did the op also read the article about the legalisation of drugs? I think thats one of the best columns I have ever read. Very good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilko1991)
    That's got nothing to do with it. The people who represent members of society should come form a broad spectrum of society. Not just people who go are in the top 1% income bracket and can afford to go to Eton. Would it not be better to make politics less elitist.

    EDIT: Did the op also read the article about the legalisation of drugs? I think thats one of the best columns I have ever read. Very good.
    That's exactly the point I'm making, if you're so bothered about it don't vote for someone who has that background. I for one couldn't give a damn what economic background my MP has, and you have no right to force someone I don't want upon me.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.