Prior to David Cameron’s fairly recent Cabinet reshuffle, I heard Tim Yeo MP question whether the PM was a ‘man or a mouse’ regarding his continued resistance to a third runway at Heathrow despite a manifesto commitment not to approve one during the current parliamentary term I then saw an interview on BBC Breakfast the morning after the reshuffle during which he continued on that theme and expressed his hope that the Government might now re-think its policy regarding a third runway for Heathrow. The Cabinet re-shuffle had fuelled speculation that this might be a real possibility. The interviewer pointed out that the Conservative manifesto, prior to election, had included a clear promise not to back such a project; “wouldn’t going back on that promise prove detrimental to any future re-election chances?” Not so, claimed Mr. Yeo, it would demonstrate a particular strength of David Cameron’s leadership. Given the number of ‘u-turns’ that have already been performed by the current Coalition Government, I contend that this simply helps to confirm that it is very difficult to believe anything that politicians say, particularly when they are canvassing for votes.
Alex Salmond MSP continues to seek to explain his position regarding legal advice regarding the likely position of an independent Scotland with regard to membership of the EU. A close examination of his words during the oft-quoted interview with Andrew Neil might suggest that he was attempting to answer “no” by saying “yes”, I find this to be simply another example of ‘weasel word politics’, where much is spoken whilst little of true substance is actually being communicated.
I am also ‘sad’ enough to be following the US Presidential election campaign which should finally reach a conclusion in a few days. As a non US citizen I still have major concerns about the nature of the elected President who will ultimately have his (no her option at present) finger ‘on the nuclear button’. Having attempted some manual tasks whilst wearing gloves I know how they can often reduce fine control – mitts , by comparison, might offer a sense of security and comfort but do massively reduce sensitivity at times.
One of the arguments often employed by challenging political parties is that the incumbent government shouldn’t be re-elected because they failed to deliver on some of their electoral pledges, but given that the allegation can generally be applied to all parties I find it a rather illogical one to place too much emphasis on. Another example of flawed logic must surely be Mitt Romney’s repeated assertions during the second debate that he would create “millions of jobs” if he got to lead the government – only to end by stating clearly that “government doesn’t create jobs”!
Perhaps a new approach should be considered – parties pledging to work together wherever agreement might be reached rather the current default of appearing to automatically oppose every suggestion by any other party regardless of the merits. We will never all agree on everything (what a boring world it would be if we did), so why not at least try to agrees on some things, and not just agreeing to differ. Maybe I should just be quiet and get back to ‘cloud cuckoo land’!