Peter Hitchens points out: “The Blairite commentator John Rentoul has now openly said that he would rather David Cameron remained in office after the next election than that Ed Miliband took his place.
The details are here http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/17/blairite-for-cameron/ and I urge you to read them.
The key passage is this :’So I had to say what I think, which is that it would be better for the country if David Cameron were to continue as Prime Minister next year.’
He goes on to qualify this (and to make some typically unconventional remarks about the much-derided Ed Balls, whom it is now fashionable to dismiss).
But he knows what he is doing when he says this, and he knows which bit is going to be quoted. Mr Rentoul, biographer of th Blair creature and longstanding Blair enthusiast, is now an open Cameroon.
Many such people, in politics and the media, have been secret supporters of the Cameron project since Gordon Brown became Premier. But this explicit declaration is something new.
I have argued for many years that the Tory party has been captured by Blairism, because its only purpose now is to obtain office, and-having no moral, philosophical, economic or other critique of New Labour – it seeks to do so by copying the machine which repeatedly thrashed the Tories at elections from 1997 onwards.
Very interesting times are coming. once the results of the Euro-elections are known in May. Expect a lot of realigning. But the pretence that the Conservative Party is a conservative, patriotic formation surely cannot be maintained much longer.” (http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/01/blairite-openly-endorses-cameron.html)
And his latest Mail On Sunday column is excellent:
“Once I used to care about the sexual wanderings of politicians. Now I don’t. And I am very sorry that I wasted so much time over it.
It was Bill Clinton who changed my mind, and long hours listening to the confessions of Paula Jones. She described in wondrous detail what it had been like to be chased around a room by the trouserless, excited and red-faced future leader of the free world. At the end of it, I liked him more than I had before.
True, he was an awful President, especially because of the keen support he gave to the IRA against Britain. But he was nothing like as terrible as George W. Bush, the invader of Iraq and jailer of Guantanamo Bay, whose private life was comparatively blameless.
Anyway, where’s the hypocrisy in such people treating marriage as pointless, or an empty promise? All modern Western politicians enforce tax, social and welfare policies that have almost destroyed lifelong faithful marriage. They are especially brutal to marriages in which the parents actually bring up the children, instead of farming out the job to paid strangers.
Nowadays, such arrangements are an eccentric, costly lifestyle choice adopted only by the old, the unfashionable or by the very rich. So what’s hypocritical about Mr Clinton, or France’s President Hollande? They’re only doing what they are urging and helping everyone else to do.
IT would, of course, be different if they headed governments that gave real incentives for marriage, and which penalised the unmarried. But they don’t. So it’s not.
The real hypocrisy of modern times is the way that candidates for high office like to pose as members of ideal, smiley nuclear families (the nanny, of course, is always left out of the pictures). Maybe this is a true image of their private lives. I have no idea and would rather not know. But it’s a completely false picture of their policies – the mad, giant subsidies for fatherless homes, the irresistible pressure on mothers to go out to work five minutes after the midwife has cut the cord, the divorce laws rigged against the innocent.
They should openly live the cruel, inconstant, child-unfriendly lives they force millions of others to follow. And if they’re not prepared to do that, and to let their children suffer the consequences, they should change their policies.
The secret power of Hayley and out ‘right-on’ soaps…
If I really wanted to influence national life, I’d try to become the editor of a major soap opera. These dramas have a strange power over the national mind, spreading ideas by stealth, turning unpopular views into mainstream conventional wisdom.
Deprived of real neighbours and real social contact, millions of people now treat these fictional electronic apparitions as if they lived next door. And, just as we were once powerfully influenced by the real people who lived around us, now we want to be liked by the soap characters who have replaced them.
I think there must be large numbers of people now in early middle age who actually think they went to a school called Grange Hill, and recall its characters better than they remember their real schoolfellows.
Adults are equally bamboozled. In 1998, a Downing Street spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, both called for the release from a non-existent prison of the non- existent Deirdre Rachid, a character in Coronation Street.
So if you can make those characters do certain things in a noble-seeming way, or put certain views in the mouth of a popular figure, you can influence and even change public opinion. You can also change language and manners. American TV imports have in the past 20 years turned ‘railway stations’ into ‘train stations’ and caused millions to say ‘can I get’ instead of ‘please may I have’.
I’ve no doubt that the Coronation Street drama about Hayley Cropper doing away with herself will greatly help the campaign to extend abortion on demand from unborn babies to ill or otherwise inconvenient children and adults. How long before they, too, can be pressured into seeking death, and then lawfully snuffed out? For Hayley Cropper is a well-liked character, and the sympathetic portrayal of her plight plunges straight into the emotions of viewers.
I think this is insidious and underhand. That’s not just because all such soap propaganda is in the hands of the Politically Correct – though it is. Vanessa Whitburn, who radicalised the radio soap The Archers, once blurted out: ‘To be PC is really to be moral. It is having a correct moral stance.’
The worst thing is that this sort of propaganda by melodrama bypasses wisdom and reason. Those who are manipulated by it do not know what is happening to them. In short, it is brainwashing. It’s so sinister that if commercial advertisers did it, it would probably be illegal.
Does David Cameron secretly hope that Scotland will secede? After all, he can never hope to win a majority while Scots are represented at Westminster. The flabby feebleness of the Government’s campaign to save the Union suggests strongly that Downing Street is hoping for a Scottish exit.
Has the drug law ‘hero run away?
Professor David Nutt, the hero of the drug law liberalisers, isn’t such a hero. Last week, he suddenly dropped out of a Sky TV debate with me on cannabis laws. Could this be because he came off worse the last time we met? I couldn’t possibly comment.
These people are so used to being treated reverently on air that they are shocked by hard opposition. They are also dangerously wrong. And if cannabis is legalised, there will be no going back.
Congratulations to The Independent newspaper for exposing what looks very much like ‘gendercide’ – the deliberate abortion of girls for the crime of not being boys – now going on in this country. I once saw this in action in China, in schools on Hainan island where there were hardly any girls in classes. It’s doubly barbaric, and we mustn’t allow it here.
The left-wing Guardian newspaper (the only one BBC staffers read) rightly takes a firm line against censorship. But when Melissa Kite submitted an article on ‘addiction’, in which she described me as ‘intellectually brilliant’, The Guardian censored the words. Personally, I think Melissa was far too kind, but that’s not the point. She said it. They cut it out.
My ‘I told you so’ department would like to point out that the UK Statistics Authority has now finally caught up with this column and noticed that crime figures are fiddled. Well done, the UKSA. Who’s next?”