Well,
The 2 leaders got together and welcomed the country to the new alliance.
And what did the pundits do?
Well, the most of them who were on the spot gave their 'expert' view - "trouble ahead, DC was excited and welcoming, while NC was reserved, severe and guarded". then they got the body langoes in, who tried to cook up some more conspiracy sauce by reading NC as subliminally en garde.
I can't believe journalists can be so crap at their job.
Why not read it another way...
The Liberal Democrats are the minority partner, with voters who really didn't want to vote for conservative policies (so we are told by the same journoes I don't trust, but let's use their own novella to break down their latest theory). So for public's sake, would it make sense for their leader to appear to be guarding the interests of those who aren't tory sympathisers? Yes? Remember, we have the party members and organisation who have all approved the move.
The Conservatives for their part really need the majority to form a government, and also have their own party grumblers who would rather see Francis Urquhart wearing the crown than David Cameron, so shouldn't it make sense that a successful coalition in government with a (Centre Left??) party would strengthen reform of the tories away from the peasant, er pheasant, baggers who regard cemeteries as prime real estate giveaways to business allies, and arms deals as inheritance for their children?
And let's not forget that nice excited David does have scary Michael Howard back in cabinet.
Its funny, no matter how often the journoes call it wrong, they still want to be tabloid king makers and keep writing the script until finally they make us believe their storyline. Could it really have ben the same journalists 'ramping up' bigot-gate, who then Mills and Booned Gordon Brown's farewell scene as he resigned?
I can't help feeling that journalism in this country is more interested in keeping us all badly informed and stupid, than anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment