Tuesday, September 26, 2006

I'm just sitting watching Blair's reception at the Labour Party conference. During the Cold War, the US military spent a ridiculous amont of money researching brainwashing. It was thought that they never managed perfect the technique.

Well, someone has.

To borrow a method from the man himself (think of him saying this), remember:
Secret sleazy loans, the party bankrupt, membership falling, Iraq, increasing polarisation of society (aided by the promotion of faith schools), record low turnout at elections, unprecedented, potentially dangerous cynicism of politicians and the democratic process, personal greed, spin over substance, stifling of honest debate and more.

Conference, we should be proud of the achievements of New Labour.
*Clap, clap, clap, yay!*

Until someone finds a cure, the Labour Party is not fit to govern.


Listening to and reading the reactions to Blair's speech, I was suddenly struck by an extraordinarily controversial idea.

Perhaps the best way to judge whether someone has been (or would be) a good Prime Minister isn't exclusively related to how good they are at acting, orating and conveying faux sincerity. Maybe, and I know this is really "out there" but bear with me here, maybe the best way to judge whether someone has been (or would be) good at running the country would be to consider how well they have been (or would be) at actually running the country. Competence, trustworthiness and conviction in real principles might conceivably be better indicators than an ability to fool a just large enough minority with set piece contrived performances.

Or is that just too outlandish?

(This isn't a plug for Acquiescence Brown, just in case you wondered. He'd be exactly the same if he was any good at it.)

Tags: , ,