So the reshuffle has kept the media occupied, this week. Trying to
find stories about what was, in reality, largely a missed opportunity and
they settle on whether Cameron was drinking wine when he sacked one
minister or whether a wine bottle was present. All we need now is a
denial - 'I did not have relations with that Shiraz (or un-wooded
Chardonnay, if you prefer)' - for the farce to be complete.
Truth is, not much has changed.
Laws coming in is seen by many as a good thing myself included, though there's a part of me that wonders if two years in the wilderness is long enough for someone that defrauded the taxpayer.
Patterson is somewhat unknown to me but all reports say he is 'sound' (or a raging Right-winger, to the Guardianist fraternity!). Putting him in Environment might (only might) see some sense start to trickle into 'green' policies.
The rest?
Lansley was uncalled for - the Health reforms are in law and under way and who knows them better? Unlikely to be Hunt. There is something about him that I just can't take - and it's not just the 'goofy' face he pulled when going into No 10! Maybe it's his clumsy handling of relations with News International and his choice of advisers.
Clarke, why keep him around? He is of the past (EU views and very liberal on justice). His so called 'maverick politician' mask only ever really extended to wearing brown Hush Puppies. His insistence, when Major's Chancellor, on financial rectitude, gifted a golden legacy to the 1997 incoming Labour administration (which, naturally, Brown managed to squander). He should be gone and not in a position to swan-around taking expenses from the public purse (£120K a year, I saw somewhere!!)
Shapps? We follow each other on Twitter and he certainly uses popular social media and was very promoting of his housing brief and so this probably suggests a good candidate for party chairman. Conservative online activity needs a kick up the rear.
Cable - I hope it isn't just the LBJ thing about having him in the tent peeing outwards rather than outside peeing in. He did sound a little more conciliatory on TV the other day saying he and Osborne are 'in synch' on economic policy. I think though that this would surprise many people to find that Cable considers his brief is equal to that of the Chancellor's!!
Truth is, not much has changed.
Laws coming in is seen by many as a good thing myself included, though there's a part of me that wonders if two years in the wilderness is long enough for someone that defrauded the taxpayer.
Patterson is somewhat unknown to me but all reports say he is 'sound' (or a raging Right-winger, to the Guardianist fraternity!). Putting him in Environment might (only might) see some sense start to trickle into 'green' policies.
The rest?
Lansley was uncalled for - the Health reforms are in law and under way and who knows them better? Unlikely to be Hunt. There is something about him that I just can't take - and it's not just the 'goofy' face he pulled when going into No 10! Maybe it's his clumsy handling of relations with News International and his choice of advisers.
Clarke, why keep him around? He is of the past (EU views and very liberal on justice). His so called 'maverick politician' mask only ever really extended to wearing brown Hush Puppies. His insistence, when Major's Chancellor, on financial rectitude, gifted a golden legacy to the 1997 incoming Labour administration (which, naturally, Brown managed to squander). He should be gone and not in a position to swan-around taking expenses from the public purse (£120K a year, I saw somewhere!!)
Shapps? We follow each other on Twitter and he certainly uses popular social media and was very promoting of his housing brief and so this probably suggests a good candidate for party chairman. Conservative online activity needs a kick up the rear.
Cable - I hope it isn't just the LBJ thing about having him in the tent peeing outwards rather than outside peeing in. He did sound a little more conciliatory on TV the other day saying he and Osborne are 'in synch' on economic policy. I think though that this would surprise many people to find that Cable considers his brief is equal to that of the Chancellor's!!
No comments:
Post a Comment