Monday, October 09, 2006

Hattersley Allowed Out Again

"I spray what I like and I like what I bloody well spray!"

Hattersley is spouting a mountain of shite again in the Guardian today.

The Labour leadership has not, as boxing commentators would put it, laid a glove on David Cameron. There is no doubt why. They have not struck a blow in his direction.

I would agree, they’ve not laid a glove on Cameron. They have however spent all the time since David came to the front, as well as some considerable time before laying many a glove on each other.
A recent poll in the Telegraph has shown the Tories more trusted with the NHS than Labour simply because your collection of morons can’t even manage your own offices let alone large government departments and services.

If, to change the sporting metaphor, the government had decided that the leader of the opposition should be given a year to play himself in, the behaviour of ministers would not have been much different.

As such though he’s had the best part of a year to ‘play himself in’ and you have done nothing other than fight amongst yourselves for whatever scraps Blair deems to leave behind at the end.

Cameron is clearly hypnotised by Tony Blair. But Blair and his closest confidantes seem to be mesmerised by Cameron. Gordon Brown, who received his biggest conference cheer when he spoke about relishing the fight ahead, cannot lead the party into battle.

This of course is something the Tories have known for sometime. Brown has never had a stand up confrontation with anyone in his career. He publicly and privately surrenders and then starts the polite process of stabbing people in the back. We all know he orchestrated a coup and then failed to take any responsibility for it at all. Several ministers resigned but he’s still here. How many more pawns do you have to sacrifice Brown?

That would look as if he took the succession for granted.

Which he has.

The chancellor has to act humble for the next six months.

Which he can’t

Meanwhile, Cameron dispenses sunshine without anybody pointing out that he is selling snake oil. This is, after all, the same David Cameron who masterminded the Tory's 2005 manifesto

No he didn’t… he was on the policy committee yes but you can’t lay the entirety of the manifesto onto Cameron. It would not have gone ahead without Michael Howard’s blessing and it would not have gone ahead without the endorsement of most of the Shadow Cabinet, and as many pissed off right-wingers will tell you a great many of these issues have been dropped, not only by the leadership but by the grass roots members of the party. Members of the party who elected their leader as opposed to just handed him the job of PM when he couldn’t get it on his own merits.

a particularly unpleasant prospectus for government on which Michael Howard based a campaign with clear racist overtones and the obvious purpose of exploiting the politics of resentment, envy and fear.

Such racist overtones that a large part of the campaign featured the words “It’s not racist to talk about immigration”? Not forgetting of course that about a year after this campaign your
very own dangerous extremist said “Talking about immigration is not racist”. Let me also remind you that it was such an exploitative, odious and unpleasant document that 32% of the country voted for it… only a few percent fewer than voted for your dossier of utter bollocks and pipe-dreams, which you probably had sexed up.

If Cameron was only the nominal author of that document and allowed illiberal ideas with which he did not agree to be peddled in his name, he is too weak to be prime minister. If he actually believed in the Conservative appeal to the lowest common denominator of the British character, his claim to occupy the middle ground of politics is simply hypocritical. Somebody towards the top of Labour's high command needs to ask him which reputation he prefers.

How is it? Let’s take a little jaunt down history shall we? Before your lot starting occupying parliamentary seats and singing the fecking Red Flag all afternoon we had a system that involved the Whigs and Tories, or later the Liberals and the Conservatives. They both occupied the middle ground and the differences were about how they ran things rather than what they believed. The idea that a Conservative cannot be on the middle ground is just bollocks. A tub-thumping left wing socialist like you however has little place on the middle ground.

So with that in mind…. Would you please fuck off?

Cameron might answer the question with the claim that he has changed his entire political philosophy during the past 18 months. Nobody would believe him.

Of course nobody would believe him. It isn’t true. I heard Cameron speak 18 months ago and he’s still on the same message. Whereas your party, Lord Gobshite, has changed its political philosophy from “it’s racist to talk about immigration” to “it’s not racist to talk about immigration”.

On the evidence, he has not even changed his policies.


The rhetoric has been altered out of all recognition. But his faithful troops in the constituencies are being reassured that when the natural order of things is restored, and the Tories are back in power, all the hugging of "hoodies", endorsing same-sex unions and increasing support for lone parents will be put aside. Tax cuts will take precedence over social investment.

Oh Roy Roy Roy…. You are a twat! You spout all this bile about Cameron and the Tories and so on yet you provide me with no evidence to back it up at all. Come on Mad fecking Hatters… name your sources, after all your good Guttersnipe here has had the decency to link to mine.

Of course if you cannot provide evidence of your accusations then I would call on you to do any of the following:

- Withdraw your accusations
- Resign
- Fuck off and Die
- All of the above

The paradox of Cameron's position is that while the Conservative party does not take his speeches at face value, the Labour party does.

This doesn’t surprise me… those dense fecktards take what Blair, Blunkett and Prescott say at face value. That bunch of bottom feeders let Red fecking Ken back in the party.

The result is politically ridiculous. Polls suggest that a majority of voters, when asked to choose between Tory and Labour health policy prefer the Conservative alternative

Oh yes…. That’s just ridiculous. God forbid that someone other than your lot has a good idea. Jesus…. How much blind hatred do you have for these people?

even though the opposition has made clear that it has no policy and does not intend to produce one until much nearer the election. All that Cameron has to offer is the bedside manner of a Harley Street plastic surgeon. He can make everything more beautiful. Put your life in his hands. Why does no politician of importance say that the bill will be in the post when the operation is over?

Well it comes down to trust doesn’t it? And people are starting to trust Cameron and the Tories… whereas your trough snouted rats have done precious little other than fucking lie after lie after lie. There has been no good come out of this government unless you were actually a member of the government and you wonder why we don’t trust you any more?

Labour will remain a semi-paralysed force until a new leader is in place. But that is only part of the problem. There is a real feeling in the higher echelons of the party that while Cameron goes on being conspicuously nice, Labour cannot be overtly nasty. No one seems to have noticed that he has contracted out the dirty work by encouraging his followers to make sustained personal attacks on the chancellor.

Again prove this will you? You fat fuck! Prove it. If you can’t prove it at least show us a line of enquiry we can follow.. you know a shred of evidence or do we just have to read your bitter fucking ramblings? Get over yourself Porkesley your day has passed now let Cameron get on the job of putting right everything that Blair has shat on.

Personal unpleasantness would certainly be a mistake. Nobody, for example, should emulate George Osborne by calling a member of the shadow cabinet autistic. But that does not mean the government should shy away from subjecting the record and conduct of the leader of the opposition to the most rigorous scrutiny.

Go on then…. Find dirt on Cameron on the basis of his conduct in office. Or of course we could just keep looking at the conduct of the Labour leader in office… ypu we’re going to find more fun there aren’t we? How much did you buy your peerage for?

If Labour does not soon go on to the attack, Tory strategy will have worked. The government cannot assume that its record will, alone, be enough to guarantee re-election.

Because it is shit.

It has done much of which it can be proud.

Three victories, that is the only thing it can claim.

Cameron has been forced to pay lip service to support for a universal health service, high levels of public expenditure and non-selective secondary education.

And Blair has been forced to pay lip service to Mrs. Thatcher and the demise of closed shop unions, the removal of nationalisation and her foreign policy stance. Can we have a pat on the back for the Conservatives you one sided over indulgent fuck?

In these particulars, Labour has changed the political weather.

Yup… nothing works now

But electors become bored,

Especially when feck all happens

and the attractions of the superficial and the meretricious should not be underrated. Labour needs to look new and fresh. But it also needs to expose Cameron as a phoney - a convert to whatever postures provide him with the best chance of winning in 2009.

Yeah… good luck with that.


No comments: