So, two months to go (in theory), and even the Times appear to be somewhat concerned about the situation of the Tory campaign. While they've found much to attack with regards to Gordon Brown's role in Iraq (and quite frankly, I should hope so too), the front page concedes that the PM's performance at the Chilcott enquiry was "confident".Page 2, however, is much more revealing. The second article,"Political Inconvenience", has the subtitle "Why the Conservatives have been derailed by the Ashcroft affair". Do tell...
"The affair poses serious questions about Mr Cameron and Mr Hague. They were too weak to confront Lord Ashcroft and insist that he tell them his tax status."
"More disturbing still has been their reaction upon learning the truth. They have calculated that taking action would produce too much political turbulence. So instead, they have hunkered down, hoping the whole thing will go away. In other words, they have put political convenience ahead of principle."
Will that be all, Mr Daming Indictment?
"Given that the way Mr Cameron governs his party provides the best insight into how he might govern the country, this is not encouraging."
I'm not a Cameronite (if there is such a word), but that's brutal. Ashcroft does get most of the stick in that article, mind, but for a paper that usually backs the Tories, that is far from a ringing endorsement.
There's still quite a few articles that are pro-Tory though, and one of them catches my interest: "Pupils to learn poetry by heart in Tory 'traditionalist' lesson plan for schools". Basically, Michael Gove (the Shadow Children's Secretary) wants kids to learn more about the monarchy, more about works of literature, old-school mental arithmetic, that sort of thing. And to be honest, I like what he's saying. I argued against the abolition of the monarchy in Year 8; I'm a big fan of Shakespeare and Dickens; and like Gove, I want to see modern languages being given more of a chance.
And, whilst we're on the subject I don't particularly like the idea that we should automatically attack the British Empire, or yell at the town councillors of Bristol that they have the blood of slaves on their hands. Both the empire and the slave trade involved horrific events that I've had to read about, and which I will always condemn as acts of needless inhumanity. But we need to understand why people thought such institutions were a good idea: and I'd much rather the kids of Years 9 through to 11 got to know a bit more about Britain's past, rather than just three solid years of Stalin and Hitler: a lot of people I know got put off history by that.
So yes, education under the Tories might well be an improvement. Until you read the article about that woman who's leading their taskforce on mathematics in schools. "Shrill, populist and irrelevant" on Question Time according to Valentine Low on page 3 of the Times, it's only Channel 4's supposed darling Carol Vorderman, isn't it? Who, to be honest, I would not have seen as beiong any of those things, but the picture of her in the paper begs to differ. SCARY LADY.
The response to her performance has been scathing from almost every angle. Throng calls her a
"sniping, right-wing, moaning idiot". James McIntyre calls her a "poor man's Sarah Palin". Internet forum posters are unanimous in condemning her: one poster goes so far as to call her "a bitter old hag". If you want to read more about her performance, just type in "Carol Vorderman Question Time" into Google. The results - pardon the Dragon Ball Z reference, anime fans - are over 9000!
So. Not the best person to be supporting the Tories, then? Still, at least with Boris Johnson on the panel the Tories had someone to make them look like the party to vote for: I've a lot of time for the bumbling blonde. At least he admits when he's wrong about something. It might be a good idea for Ashcroft and Vorderman to do just that.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment