A rift between Cameron and Osborne, eh?
With no Election until 2010, how could a very Noughties foreign policy be "more modern" than one which eschews such decidedly unconservative concepts as coercive utopianism, world government, and the use of "realist" as a term of abuse, and which instead takes into account the re-emergence of multipolarity and multilateralism from Moscow, to Tehran, to Caracas, with several more to follow in the near future?
Even George Bush now accepts these as the facts of life, and is behaving accordingly. So Osborne is a throwback even now, never mind in 2010 and beyond. By then, he won't even be dangerous. He'll just be ridiculous. Indeed, he already is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry, but this is so-called split between the twin architects of "Liberal Conservatism" is even mroe of a media con than the wholly fictional Blair-Brown split - and that was between the two men who created "New Labour". Once again, Cameron is copying the Blairites, who were in turn simply aping the strategy of Bill Clinton and his team. George will pretend to be a neocon (even though he isn't). Cameron will pretend to be a paeleo-con, or a "liberal conservative", or whatever - whereas in truth he'll be exactly the same as Osborne and Blair and Bush and Clinton and so on and on. (And Cleggykins as well, it would appear.)
ReplyDeleteOh, The Spectator is running this as a first salvo. The neocons are getting restless.
ReplyDelete