Cameron blurs into Blair….

What the Big Society truly is....

Watching David Cameron do his level best to defend the ‘Big Society’ is a truly horrifying spectacle. What makes it worse as a member of the Labour Party is that we have been here before only the last time it was our leader who had the badly misplaced missionary zeal.  Cameron has obviously always fancied himself as the blue Tony B and in this he is disturbingly close to imitating his idol. Here is what Cameron has to say about the Big Society:

“The ‘big society’ is my mission in politics. It’s what I want us – as a country – to build. And I’m going to fight for it every day, because the big society is here to stay.”

Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Here is Tony Blair talking about his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from office:

“It was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office and I do genuinely believe the world is a safer place as a result.”

I’m not sure the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would concur. What was Mr Blair’s attitude when a genuinely democratic movement from below emerged in Egypt? He supported the then incumbent dictator, Honsi Mubarak saying he was a ‘force for good’. My firm belief is that one of the true reasons for Blair making this frankly mind-boggling statement is his real fear that the Egyptian people will make him look bad by doing more for democracy in the Middle East than his ill-conceived Iraqi escapade ever did. Not just that but in a shorter time and probably at a considerably smaller cost in terms of lives lost. My gut feeling is that this fear will be realised.

So, what’s the point of comparing these two seemingly star-crossed political leaders? The point is, to put it mildly, both have distanced themselves so far from reality that were they in a less lofty positions of power they would be considered a little unhinged and maybe certifiable.  If only Cameron was a shallow opportunist determined to cling on for dear life for five more years he would probably do less damage that way because he would at least have the common sense to stop at a certain point.

It’s so much worse than all that; he actually believes the rubbish he says and feels it will genuinely do good. Clegg is different. He would clearly mortgage everything down to his own underpants for power. However, in Cameron we may have to start facing the worrying fact that he could be a conviction politician….


Tags: , , , ,

About darrellgoodliffe


8 responses to “Cameron blurs into Blair….”

  1. Robert says :

    I might end up in court for slander but what the heck it’s my opinion.

    Tony Blair came to power with a known idea of what he wanted within society, he wanted to be rich, so he had a little black book of names addresses and wealth of all the people he knew.

    Of course it helps if you then go to thats person mansion for a holiday, you can walk around looking at the persons wealth, and dream about what you might have done in the UK.

    Cameron does not have this problem he is already rich, so what does Cameron want well simple really the best leader.

    This week I was informed that my benefits rise would not be as good as hoped it would be £3.86 a week just below inflation, guess what it’s the highest rise in benefits we have had in fourteen years, it takes a Tory government to return our benefits.

    The average rise under Blair’s mob was first year 75p my council tax went up by 12% the last year of Blair it was £1.98, under Brown it was just as bad.

    Being disabled I’ve always done better under the Tories , so socialism seems to have taken a turn for the worse.

    But you joined Labour I’ve left, I had a phone call from Labour yesterday to ask me if I was returning to fight the fight, why the hell should I, I said to them I’m disabled and the phone went dead, I suspect a lot of disabled are explaining what they can do.


  2. Robert says :

    here is one for you, I was told a high number of blind people are having benefits stopped, so I asked to have the new medicals sent to me to read.

    Here is labour view on disability.

    Any blind person who uses a guide dog and can walk 50 metres will be deemed able to work no benefits.

    Deaf people who can read and write, shall not be deemed disabled.

    A person in a wheelchair who can propel themselves more then fifty metres will be deemed to be able to work.

    The Tories have stated they accept these measures but are looking at it again.

    This comes from labour mind you.

    So Cameron into Blair, or is that Blair into some Tory master of the universe.

    benefit rises under the Tories this new benefit rise we will get in April is the biggest rise in fourteen years. It takes the Tories to give us a decent benefits rise.

    Will you be moving to the Tories , because I might.


  3. Gillig says :

    The” No to AV Campaign” started this week.
    The Sun says no, The Mail says no, both say it’s too expensive. Labour mostly say no, conservatives say no and Clegg says he really wanted PR.
    The point is that the machinery is in place for a referendum and the Irish “about turn” is proof that an EU referendum can be rigged.
    To rig a referendum, first create a problem, or reinvent an old one.
    THE VOTES FOR PRISONER’S BILL. An issue abhorrent to the British Public.
    The idea of murderers and rapists being able to vote uses extreme examples to make the point, no mention of the prisoner who didn’t pay their TV license.
    This issue was around when Cameron lost what should have been a walkover election. He had broken his cast iron promise and knew at this point that the EU membership issue would not go away without a referendum.
    An assault on the Court of human rights is underway. Add in the sex offenders register issue to stir it up. I believe Cameron will manipulate anti EU feeling enough to justify adding an EU referendum onto the AV one, at the last moment.
    Once the EU referendum is in place, Cameron will win his battle with the Court of Human Rights, and fight to keep EU membership.
    CAMERON NEEDS A SNAP REFERENDUM. Lord Pearson recently asked for a cost analysis of EU membership. It was refused. When they were in power, Labour repeatedly refused such requests. The sums will not add up. The arguments for staying in will not bear lengthy scrutiny.


  4. Robert says :

    Well I will be voting no to AV, I was told today if we had AV at the last election Brown would have won, god forgive thats enough on it’s own to say no thanks.

    Prisoners well if labour and the Tories are against it then maybe I will go for it, then I think on the poor families who lost family members for the bombers, the parents of the dead and one is still missing on the moors.

    Today we hear of lots of children mixed up with a Pedophile ring in Devon, and I think if you want to vote , do not do the crime, and if people do not buy a TV license they will be out in time to vote and if not well to bad.

    Nope we will not be voting on the EU thats for sure.


  5. John Reid says :

    I can’t see the Idae that Brown would have won with AV, I’d imagine that about 40% of the people who voted Libdem last time second choice was labour and 60% was tory, the Only lection where I reckon that the party who won didn’t have the majority of Liberals backing themas theri second choice was the Feb 74 one, Where I reckon most people who voted Lib in that elctions second Choice would have been Heath.


  6. darrellgoodliffe says :


    Speak for yourself when it comes to votes for prisoners. As you probably have gathered from this blog I support giving them the vote.

    This is one of those issues where you may very well be right about the majority view but its also one of those issues where the majority is behaving inflicting a tyranny. Democracy is not about the absolute and unchallenged excision of the majority will in every case.


    I think your wrong about the second preferences of Lib Dem voters at the last election. Of course, I think that will probably have changed now but that is largely due to the fact that those Lib Dem voters who are more supportive of us have naturally come across in response to the Coalition.


  7. Gillig says :

    I see no sensible reason to take the right to vote away from all criminals.
    Take it away for serious offences.
    Let it remain for minor offences.
    Let the Judge decide the grey area in between.
    UK does not need lessons on human rights from Europe; it needs to take back sovereignty


  8. darrellgoodliffe says :


    I considered the option you propose but then decided I didn’t trust the judiciary and the state not to start using harsher sentences as a political weapon to deprive ‘undesirables’ of the vote. So, I decided it was an ‘all or nothing’ deal.

    I don’t trust judges as being ‘neutral’ and that is where we differ.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: