From the second he walked onto the stage, David Cameron took complete control of the Conference Hall. He looked as if he was enjoying himself. And his enjoyment was infectious. What I really liked was his concentration on the speech. We didn’t have the artificial ‘pressing of the audience participation buttons’ that I intensely dislike – and there was none of the ‘look at me, am I not wonderful’ stuff at the end. Cameron doesn’t need any of this to make his impact. We have a star leading us to the Promised Land.
Have to admit that I’m a touch worried though. I entirely agreed with Cameron’s message. It was rather a good feeling to be in agreement with all that my leader was saying – about public services, about tax, even about marriage where he tackled a seriously risky subject in a sensitive but forceful way.
But hang on a minute Glyn. How can this be? I have always thought of myself as being on the ‘wimpish’ side of the Party. And there I was walking out of the Hall, listening to my good friend and colleague the very un-wimpish David Davies, AM/MP, eulogising about the speech content. And today, we have Melanie Philips in the Daily Mail doing the same. If Simon Heffer joins in, I’m going to read the speech again to make sure I wasn’t just star struck and missed the real message. After Melanie’s comments, I am very nervous that Peter Hitchens will do some damage to the Cameron revival by saying something supportive. No, this can never happen. I’m worrying too much.
It is a pig of a job though. Immediately after the speech David had to do a ‘Photo with Candidates’ session. Must have been 100 photos in 10 minutes. I know what its like because I have presented various prizes and certificates in the past (I once presented a trophy to Michael Owen when Liverpool under 12’s won a football tournament see ‘Name them’ Blog of 27 Feb) – and it is difficult to prevent the individuals merging into what seems a never ending amorphous line (though I’m not sure what amorphous means). And then facing up to the best of Welsh media looking to trip him up, and then back to his helicopter – no doubt to cook a late Sunday lunch for the family. And blow me if the UK news didn’t pick on the helicopter thing, despite the fact that he couldn’t have come at all without it. We demand too much of our leaders.
10 comments:
All that we demand of our leaders is that they're not hypocrites - that they practise what they preach. I have to travel by helicopter because I'm important - the rest of you can get on your bike to save the planet.
No-one should arrange their means of travel because of their importance - but on whether there is any less environmentaly damaging form of travel available, which enables them being able to get from place to place on shcedule.
so cameron is a tory after all. Now watch his poll ratings go down
I thought it was the most disappointing speech I've heard David Cameron deliver since he became leader. It sounded like a return to the disastrous back-to-basics agenda of the early nineties. I thought Cameron's strategy was to win the support of socially liberal voters. This achieves the exact opposite.
Did you hear the speech Oli? I thought Cameron tackled the issue in a non-judgemental way - which is why I thought it was ok. Clearly we will have to disagree on this because I thought it was a really good speech. I would have hoped that even 'social liberals' wouldn't refuse to accept simple facts.
Glyn, I agree with you entirely. It was the first time I'd seen David Cameron speak live and it was excellent. I was particularly impressed that he didn't shy away from the issues e.g. marriage. What also came through was his strength of purpose. This guy knows where he is going and how he is going to get there.
Hi Glyn. I did see the speech and there were aspects of it I thought were very good - the commitment to opposing ID cards for example. I just think the marriage issue is pure gesture politics intended to appeal to old Tory instincts and not the modern centre ground. My views would have been clearer had I not mucked up the link to my blog in my last post ;)
Oli, I would be very disappoited if it was in any way gesture politics. I don't think Cameron was trying to make any moral judgement. Its just that the statistics show that, on average, children benefit from having a father and a mother. I don't want to be judgemental or moralistic in any way either- but marraige does seem to keep the family unit together. Cameron is trying to find a way of reducing the social problems that are destroying so many young people today.
I agree with glyn on this. marraige forces people to try to work things out which matters for the children even if it is hell for the parents.
There is no incentive for people to get married these days. At least there was a financial advantage to getting married when the 'married persons' tax allowance was in existence. Perhaps it might be an idea to bring it back in some form?
Post a Comment