I would like to return to a point I made in an entry last week. I said that CaMoron wants to do what Blair did in 97. in fact I think he wants, in a way, to be Blair: we see him presenting himself as a fresh-faced figure, using lots of hand gestures and short sentences. I reckon, if you compared the two men's styles, both in oration and how they conduct themselves, you'd find the two very similar.

My point is this: what other proof do you need that CaMoron is a sham? He's obviously latched onto Blair's successful formula and thinks he can dupe the country into electing him. His is a screen, a mask, behind which lies the same old outdated conservative values. Blair was liberal and open; CaMoron speaks of austerity and a return to rigidness. While I do agree with some of his points and think hip a good speaker, I think he uses lessons learned from Blair to repackage an ideology of class division and the repression of the poor.

Immitations are never as good as the real thing.