Politics today in Britain is a parade of the second rate. Why do Tories bother with lads' mags?

Politics today in Britain is a parade of the second rate. The people
have sussed out that Britain is in a mess and they rightly blame the
Blair-Brown governments but they are equally correct to be baffled by
Cameron’s Tories who are like the froth on a capuccino leaving one
wondering ‘What was all that about?’

That about sums it up - politics today is about - er - nothing.
Nobody talks about anything but the minutiae of government, never
about the principles. Cameron talks about “Reform” but all he
means is tinkering around the edges of a failed system. Neither
party can devolve ‘power to the people’ - as they claim to want to -
when they have devolved 70% or more to our new masters in Brussels.
There little left to devolve! It’s shadow boxing

xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
[I have greatly shortened d’Ancona’s piece as he is part of the
turgid conspiracy to talk only about trivia]
=============================
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 10.8.08
1. Why do Tories bother with lads' mags?
By Melissa Kite

Rarely does a politician make a statement so bizarre that it is
ringing in your ears a week later. So congratulations to Michael
Gove, whose attack on lads' mags is still making my head ache.
The shadow schools secretary's claim that pictures of scantily clad
women encourage irresponsible behaviour by young men, leading to
fatherless children, is so daft and hypocritical it's hard to know
where to begin.

But let's start with the hypocrisy. Tory leader David Cameron
regularly features in men's magazines, even posing for a photoshoot
in one. He seems to enjoy the exposure and makes no complaint that we
know of about the half-dressed content of the other pages. In fact,
he has a book coming out entitled Cameron on Cameron: Conversations
with Dylan Jones, Mr Jones being the editor of GQ, whose current
cover features, er, women in lingerie.

Let's also not forget Mr Cameron on Parkinson, boasting about an
encounter with Kate Moss. Scantily clad models are good enough for
the Tories when it comes to essential rebranding work.
Mr Gove's statement is daft because he complained that lads' mags
make women look "permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available".

Dear oh dear. It could be Mr Cameron talking about half-price
Chocolate Oranges at the checkout.

If only, the logic goes, they didn't shove tasty women in our faces,
we wouldn't want to have sex with them and we'd all be better
husbands and fathers.

Hello? Earth calling Mr Gove!

Quite apart from the fact that it's misogynist to complain about
women looking as though they uncomplicatedly enjoy sex - which is
allowed nowadays, you know - how can it be anything other than a
legitimate male fantasy to think about naked women? Or are the Tories
going to legislate for what we are allowed to imagine?
Perhaps Mr Gove has an alternative vision to a Britain peopled by
"lasciviously available" women. An Islamic state, a fundamentalist
Roman Catholic society, or a communist regime based on the People's
Republic of China, perhaps.

I don't like to hector so nice a bloke, but when he pretends outrage
at pictures of naked women, he ought to be able to say what he would
put in their place.

I reckon the super-smart Mr Gove knows full well that having Jordan's
assets on display in the newsagent is the hallmark of a free society
where women are allowed to do what they like with their bodies and
men are allowed to think what they want about the results.

But he was seeking a headline. And the Tories have form on this kind
of populist gimmick.

Mr Cameron and his colleagues have managed to pointlessly attack
kids' clothing (too sexy), gangsta rap (too sweary), Jeremy Kyle (too
tacky) and of course chocolate oranges (too chocolatey).
And they have made a point of not attacking hoodies (too
misunderstood), or taxes (too difficult to cut).

They get themselves embroiled in trivia because they dare not promise
anything on which they might be held accountable.
No one is going to go back to Mr Cameron a year after he takes office
and ask him why he hasn't tamed the media influences that contribute
to bad fatherhood.

If he promised to make the trains run on time, however, we might
demand he keep to it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
2. David Miliband is no iBlair nano
By Matthew d'Ancona

What a bunch of wusses. What a laundry-bagful of blouses. What a
bunch of third-rate girly-men.

For months, and especially since the Glasgow East by-election, Labour
MPs have been moaning about Gordon Brown, and agonising over what to
do about the leadership. Well, it is 12 days since David Miliband
broke cover in his Guardian article and - by heavy implication -
invited others to do so.

With one or two exceptions, the response of the Parliamentary Labour
Party has been to hide behind the sofa. We'll keep the Red Flag
flying here? This lot can't let go of the white flag.

(- - - - - - -).
To sum up the argument: Labour MPs seem to have decided collectively
that the next general election is lost. They fear that a new leader
would be obliged to hold that election sooner rather than later.

It follows (the argument runs) that Mr Brown, who wants to play it
long, should stay leader, because, as one veteran Labour MP put it to
me, "we all keep our job and its perks a bit longer". Yes, I know:
pathetic.

(- - - - - - -). In 1997, New Labour swept into power talking about
"a new dawn", proclaiming itself "the political arm of none other
than the British people as a whole", and asking only for "the chance
to serve": a resonant phrase inherited from the late John Smith.
Eleven years on, the party has forgotten about John Smith, and asks
only the chance to cling on to the John Lewis list a few months longer.

This inertia has been compounded by the spin that Mr Miliband is the
hapless marionette of neo-Blairite puppeteers, the front-man for a
restorationist, counter-revolutionary plot. (- - - - - - -). He is
not the Blair Nano.

Funnily enough, there is a Blairite plot to subvert Mr Brown, and it
is called the Conservative Party. A binding principle of the Cameroon
strategy is that New Labour squandered its huge parliamentary
majorities and blew the chance truly to reform and to modernise the
public services and the welfare state.

From the early days of his leadership, Mr Cameron goaded Mr Brown as
the "road block to reform", and promised, as the self-styled "heir to
Blair", to complete the mission that Blair had identified but never
wholeheartedly pursued.

In pursuit of this objective, the mantra adopted by the Cameroons is
"progressive ends through Conservative means".

(- - - - - - -)As Michael Gove put it in a fine speech to the IPPR on
Monday: "We don't have a good local school in every community. We
have moved to something closer to a Starbucks-style outlet delivering
pre-packaged learning."

This is Blairism with a blue rosette.(- - - - - - -)

As the Cameroons posture as the inheritors of the Blairite mantle -
capable of enacting a revolution that New Labour was only able to
talk about - [Mr Miliband] needs to explain how Labour under his
leadership would move beyond that policy agenda to something quite new.

I cannot see how he can possibly accomplish this with clarity and
vigour as long as he remains in Mr Brown's Cabinet.

When he gets back from holiday, Mr Miliband should resign as Foreign
Secretary, prepare his challenge and get on with it.
---------------------------------------------
Matthew d'Ancona is Editor of The Spectator