"Tough decisions". It’s one of those phrases politicians in power love. It generally seems to mean that they want to do the opposite of what they said that they would do before they were elected. It’s a very macho thing; apparently doing the opposite of what they promised shows great strength whilst keeping a promise is a sign of weakness.
At least, that
seems to be the interpretation of a number of prominent Tories. According to Tim Yeo and an increasingly
vocal group of Tories, keeping to the promise which both the Tory party and the
Lib Dems made prior to the last election not to build a third runway at
Heathrow makes the Prime Minister a mouse.
To become a man instead, he has to do the opposite and build the runway.
And to listen to
some of them talk, once would think that sacking the minister who’s
implementing the party’s pre-election promise is somehow enough to free the PM of
any responsibility to keep to his word.
Another of his alleged
‘supporters’, Nadine Dorries has accused the PM of being a sheep in wolf’s
clothing. Again, it seems that she wants
him to take decisions which run directly contrary to what he’s said he’ll do,
and contrary to the agreement which he signed with the Liberal Democrats.
On the specific
issue of the third runway, with his Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently
wavering on the issue as well, David Cameron certainly looks to be losing the
support of his own party, other than those who won their seats on the basis of
that specific promise. (Even his party’s
leader in Scotland –
somewhat bizarrely I thought – last week claimed that a third runway at
Heathrow would be good for Scotland.)
But the question
that strikes me is this. Which is the
greater sign of weakness – sticking by a clear and explicit promise, or rolling
over at the first sign of internal criticism?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment