Alex listened to Today so you didn't have to

[matgb]

ETA: At the top. Alex edited a badge into the post. Because of the way Blogger releases feeds, that marks it as a 'new post' for LJ, which means it showed up on my friends page again. Blogger's new version doesn't seem to work well with LJ at all. Pretty sure it's Blogger's fault (this time), although LJ's feed handling is pretty poor overall.
Love and Liberty: David Cameron on Today: How I Long For Yesterday:

Let’s just give Mr Cameron’s career a minute’s silence for that point: the one leader in history so petrified of taking responsibility for anything that he says ‘Not in my name!’ about even his own name.

That would be alexwilcock/alex_wilcock for those interested.

My reaction whenever I read any of his posts is always "he really should post more often". It's like Millenium, but without the childish name calling. Hmm, wodner why that might be...

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

* finds post oddly familiar *

* looks at date of post *

Ahhhh, I see... ;)

[matgb]

Ah, yeah. *edits post*. It's Blogger's fault—he's edited in the nomination badge for the blog awards, and thus it shows up as a 'new post'.

Note that I hadn't got to the comment section at that point. Because the comment has me reacting in exactly the same way as I said here. Oops.

Have I mentioned my sieve like memory? I think I might have...

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I can't remember... ;)

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I really liked that analysis. The idea that Cameron's captain of a sinking ship pleases me greatly. However...

you know the Conservatives, they always say one thing in one place and something completely different in another

Without wanting to be mean-spirited, and acknowledging that my mob often have the same problem, is yon Lib Dem policy wonk referring to the Tories like that not rather similar to a famous exchange between Messrs. Pot and Kettle?

[matgb]

I suspect, given it's Alex. Yup, absolutely, deliberate use of an abuse normally levelled at us )in some cases accurately, but far stupid reasons).

I actually like that on local policy areas, the local party in one city can support something the party in another area opposes--that's normally what's meant when the charge is levelled. You guys probably do it to, but you're not a 'threat' to the big two in the same way.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

It's good, but it's really difficult for accountability. A real problem we have in the Greens is that some party up north have allied with the Tories to get into power in their local council. It totally undermines all our efforts to be seen as a lefty party -- but they're totally free to do what they're doing.

I do tend to think that if the party has democratically decided on a policy, it ought to be respected.

It also (for example) the Lib Dems nationally to claim to support congestion charges, but to oppose them in each and every LD-controlled Council where they're suggested. I'm sure you can see why this is frustrating!

[matgb]

Oh, absolutely, but I do think that in some cases congestion charges aren't helpful (mostly yes, but in some cases no). Bit like tramlinks. The Croydon/Wimbledon one is good. The one proposed for West London goes along a major bus lane and pushes buses into the road.

The one in Bradford was never finished, etc...

Plus, local politics is fine--if you can get some of your platform implemented, do it, the Tories aren't all evil. Honest.