Tuesday, 14 April 2009

The stench of hypocrisy

Does Cameron's sleaziness know no bounds? Judging by this BBC article apparently not. His response to an employee of the Prime Minister independently acting to suggest smearing Tories is to smear Gordon Brown and Labour. Well Mr Cameron your party is not as nice and squeaky clean as you would like to pretend so you can keep your faux outrage.

If you don't know what I mean perhaps I can jog your memory:

Of course that was when you had been in power for 18 years which as you say is far too long:

Mr Cameron said Labour had "been in power too long" and Gordon Brown had to end "this sort of nonsense".

I'm guessing then that you didn't campaign for the Tories in '92 or '97 since you had obviously been in power too long at both those elections. Strangely enough I don't think that that was the case since it was around that time you were trying to get selected by your party.

As for change (BTW plagiarising Obama won't make you be like him):

Mr Cameron said: "What this whole episode demonstrates is the need for change - not change in the special advisers code but change in the culture at Number 10 Downing Street.

"I do not think we will get a change in culture until we get a change in leadership and we won't get a change in leadership until we get a change of government.

Let's imagine for a second that you aren't a shallow Thatcher worshipping, old boy networking, elitist. Let's imagine that David Cameron would have a spin and smear free reign as PM. (Tip to readers: Hallucinogenics may be required in order to stretch imaginations that far)

Would that be good for Britain?


Because as you much as you might try to stir it up this latest "scandal" ("Smeargate" if you will.) is nothing. The recession is a problem, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a problem, terrorism is a problem, widespread poverty and high infant mortality are problems, gender inequality is a problem, homophobia and transphobia are problems. A couple of people discussing spreading rumours about MPs. That's insignificant.

So why not tell us what you would do about the economy, or what you would do in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't you actually suggest something that will help ordinary people? (And despite what you think that "ordinary people" doesn't mean the 6% of people who would benefit from raising the threshold on inheritance tax, despite the fact all of your friends probably easily fall in that category.)

Maybe because you have nothing to say?


  1. He who fears, smears.

  2. Bollocks.

    They who deal in politics smear more like.