The perils of incidental music
Part of the pre-DC speech rave up was Moby's porcelain. A good idea?
In my dreams I'm dying all the time
As I wake its kaleidoscopic mind
I never meant to hurt you
I never meant to lie
So this is goodbye
This is goodbye
Tell the truth you never wanted me
Tell me
In my dreams I'm jealous all the time
As I wake I'm going out of my mind
Going out of my mind.
Erm.....
In my dreams I'm dying all the time
As I wake its kaleidoscopic mind
I never meant to hurt you
I never meant to lie
So this is goodbye
This is goodbye
Tell the truth you never wanted me
Tell me
In my dreams I'm jealous all the time
As I wake I'm going out of my mind
Going out of my mind.
Erm.....
Labels: Conference 2007
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 at 1:14 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
What on earth is Moby's porcelain?
Anyway, I said elsewhere that as the audience has already seen Cameron deliver a speech without notes, the effect is inevitably diminished the second time. Does anyone remember what he said, or was everyone waiting for his to corpse, and be thus distracted from the content, if any?
He should have pepped it up a bit by delivering it while skipping rope or something. Or he could have had a Busby Berkley chorus line behind him, heavy on the feathers. If he wants to do tricks, he should flesh it out a bit.
Fantastic speech!
Localism, customer facing public services, freedom, democracy, smaller state, level playing field, family, wow.
Surely he should have delivered it as a rap? About hangin' aat wiv d' Blue Posse? And wantin' more bitches to be MPs?
A good performance by Michael Gove on Newsnight, dealing with Jeremy Paxman's interruptions like an adult rather than trying to ignore them.
I look forward to your post conference round up.
The sppech was good I thought. verity you want us to have Brown as PM I see. Easy to say when you don't live here. We have only a choice of 2 men to lead us.
Why do you prefer Brow, an unreformed , autistic marxist, to Cameron, for all his faults?
I loathe Brown and Cameron in almost equal measure. They are equally dishonest and equally ravenous for power.
I have never seen a race with two more unappetising horses. CU, I really don't know what to do, other than vote for UKIP or the BNP, both of which address issues the main parties choose to elide over.
I want vast swathes of "immigrants" sluiced out of Britain because they - with a few exceptions - bring absolutely nothing to the table, and only take and water down our ancient culture. Their presence also degrades British society in that, for example, Christian schoolchildren are being fed at lunches with foul halal food. Because the immigrants would kick up a fuss and the establishment is unwilling to engage them because, inexplicably, and I still don't understand this, they have votes equal to the rights of indigenous Britons.
They are allowed to mine the Exchequer of British taxpayers' funds. Why? They are accorded, as net uncontributors, treatment on the NHS. Why?
Neither party will promise to separate us, in a congenial way, from the EU.
Or even discuss it. Why?
So, the two biggest issues of our lifetimes - excepting those alive during WWII - and the parties are of one accord: Do nothing. Don't rock the boat. Go forward to the New World Order.
Cameron is just as keen on it as Brown. Make no mistake. As long as he has his feet under the top table, he really doesn't give a crap.
I really don't see, CU, that there would be any change of emphasis if the Tories got in. David Cameron forced the Opposition benches to give the vile, criminal, sleazy Tony Blair a standing ovation. They are one.
So you think that the status quo is better than a small step in the right direction?
No. I think a radical change is the best solution, but that is not going to happen.
As far as I can determine, Cameron was not really addressing the Tories at the Conference. His speech was geared to Labour, to reassure them that if they gave him his turn, he wouldn't wreck anything. He would be a steady hand on the wheel.
I saw that speech as Cameron pleading for the job of PM not to the voters, but to the Labour establishment, promising to leave the premises in the same condition in which he had inherited them.
Cameron is a pinko. He didn't address "immigration" - aka "flooding the British Isles with aliens in sufficient numbers to dilute the native culture" and he didn't address buggering off out of the EU.
Other than wanting a more elevated status for marriage, on which I agree with him, he offers an agenda which does not differ from Labour's in any major sense. Except he is more prepared to worship at Zac Goldsmith's weird altar of "green". But as that has a nice New World Order tinge to it, the Labour establishment won't quarrel with it.
Can you not see that this is a stitch-up?
No I cannot see that. I see that if Cameron said "send em home!", "get us out!", then the media and Labour would tear him apart leaving us with Gordo in charge for another ten years.
Remember Blair had to pretend to be right wing to win in 1997 and Cameron has to make soothing noises to win in 2007.
I don't agree at all. You're saying that Cameron should also trick the voters by misrepresenting himself, because it worked for the sleaziest individual ever to occupy high office in Britain?
I don't like that attitude.
Cameron clearly thinks he should lie to the voters and that is one more thing that causes me to regard him with contempt. He either doesn't have enough confidence in a true Conservative programme, in which case he shouldn't be the Leader of the Conservative Party; or he is Labour Lite and is speaking from the heart.
Either way, thanks but no thanks.
» Post a Comment