When is a gaffe not a gaffe?
There is a very old joke about the fact that if the media and a politician's enemies and rivals refer to him as having made a "gaffe," it nearly always means he has been caught telling the truth.
When I heard that David Cameron had ruled out serving a third term as PM if he is re-elected on 7th May, my immediate thought was that this might have been better left unsaid. This opinion was shared by virtually the whole of the political and journalistic class, with John Rentoul almost the only exception. (he saw it as "Vote Dave, Get Boris"). The MP for Copeland was one of many to poke fun at the PM for what he said.
Mind you, nobody thought Maggie Thather's "I want to go on and on" comment was a good idea either.
Yet here is the interesting thing. Could this be one of the issues where everyone else has a different view from those involved in politics and journalism?
The BBC reported at first that comments from members of the public were almost unanimously in support of David Cameron saying that two terms would be enough. Later in the day the comments were less unanimous (probably the very fact that people were reported as agreeing with a Conservative leader prompted those on the left to whom such an outcome is unacceptable to call in) but still on balance in favour.
The sort of comments people were making were that the only recent leaders to serve more than two terms - Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair - both went on for too long, that nobody in their right mind would want to do the job of Prime Minister for more than ten years, and it was nice to see a senior politician give a straight answer to a question instead of ducking it.
All of which it is very difficult to argue with.
Maybe - just maybe - the electorate are a lot more perceptive than received wisdom among politicians and hacks gives them credit for?
When I heard that David Cameron had ruled out serving a third term as PM if he is re-elected on 7th May, my immediate thought was that this might have been better left unsaid. This opinion was shared by virtually the whole of the political and journalistic class, with John Rentoul almost the only exception. (he saw it as "Vote Dave, Get Boris"). The MP for Copeland was one of many to poke fun at the PM for what he said.
Mind you, nobody thought Maggie Thather's "I want to go on and on" comment was a good idea either.
Yet here is the interesting thing. Could this be one of the issues where everyone else has a different view from those involved in politics and journalism?
The BBC reported at first that comments from members of the public were almost unanimously in support of David Cameron saying that two terms would be enough. Later in the day the comments were less unanimous (probably the very fact that people were reported as agreeing with a Conservative leader prompted those on the left to whom such an outcome is unacceptable to call in) but still on balance in favour.
The sort of comments people were making were that the only recent leaders to serve more than two terms - Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair - both went on for too long, that nobody in their right mind would want to do the job of Prime Minister for more than ten years, and it was nice to see a senior politician give a straight answer to a question instead of ducking it.
All of which it is very difficult to argue with.
Maybe - just maybe - the electorate are a lot more perceptive than received wisdom among politicians and hacks gives them credit for?
Comments