From yesterday's FT:
Ken Clarke, the outspoken former Conservative chancellor, has warned David Cameron not to translate his "standing up to big business" rhetoric into policies in government.
I'm struggling here. We know that politicians lie about nearly everything and can only hope to achieve a small fraction of whatever bright new future they promise during an election campaign.
But if Dave's "standing up to big business rhetoric" was just rhetoric, how much else of what he has said was "just rhetoric" as well? How is the voter supposed to distinguish between "rhetoric that will be translated into policities" and "rhetoric that won't be translated into policies"?
But like I said, it's surprising that Ken Clarke was so blatant about admitting it.
Falling Into Pluto (Simulation)
8 minutes ago
2 comments:
I had more of a clue where Blair stood on what he was going to do, and to a large extent in his first term, did what he said he would.
I did have some hope that Cameron was a Thatcherite in disguise. His pronouncement on schools not being run for profit (which he could have not been mentioned at all) makes me think that he's not.
How much else indeed was rhetoric?
Post a Comment