It didn't take long for the nasty tory party to show their teeth, and remove that carefully manufactured image for election purposes only (sell by date 8 May, 2015) of a one nation caring sharing Conservative Party.
It was not surprising, that when the fawning political presenters of BBC News talked about the new government cabinet, they rather than analysing the new appointees ability to deliver their portfolios instead talked about how good they were in front of the microphone.
Style over substance then.
Take their grim determination to rid them of the 'budresome' European Court of Human Rights, that dares defend the human rights of us all. All because like the spoilt posh kids they are, when they can't get their own way they want to sulk and take the ball home.
Of course they could follow the recommendations of the Independent Commission On Human Rights that reported back in 2012 which said and I quote:
In accordance with the Commission’s terms of reference this conclusion is put forward on the basis that such a Bill would incorporate and build on all of the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the wider constitutional and political dimension is also of crucial significance in considering the way forward towards the introduction of a Bill of Rights, and it is essential that it provides no less protection than is contained in the Human Rights Act and the devolution settlements, although some of us believe that it could usefully define more clearly the scope of some rights and adjust the balance between different rights. [my emphasis]
I await with interest to see whether this comes about, but I'm not holding my breath, after all for such a change you would need someone at the Justice Department whom has a deep understanding of the both domestic and international law, a lawyer for example.
A former Justice Secretary and barrister Kenneth Clarke last year lambasted Tory plans to ensure that rulings by the European court of human rights (ECHR) are no longer enforceable in the UK, warning that future governments could make arbitrary decisions.
So it seems better appoint someone who will do as asked, and not raise important legal questions that cast doubt as to the principle or legality of their actions.
Someone like Michael Gove, he with an English degree and a background in journalism.
Yep you've guessed style over substance.
And wot was that cry again made by Call me Dave, something about the Conservatives being the new working man's party was it.
Lets see what Sajid Javid, the former banker appointed by David Cameron to be business secretary, has in store.
Lets begin with what he believes and as reported by the BBC:
"I believe passionately in free enterprise, that free enterprise is the lifeblood of any successful economy. My decisions for creating more jobs… crating investment in the economy will be looking towards free enterprise and what more deregulation we can have.”
“What we do know is that sometimes when government creates new rules and regulations they make things worse not better. We are clearly on the side of business and as a government we can help make a better environment for business because it’s those businesses by and large that create jobs.”
And there within is the failed neo liberal ideology of small government and private enterprise knows best, if you choose to gloss over the banking crash of 2008, which according to the rewritten history as presented by the defenders of the right wing, was all the fault of Gordon Brown for doing what they preach, and nothing at all to do with private business greedily corrupting the banking system.
The party of the working person did they say?....that's as long as you are compliant, and loyal and never say boo to a goose maybe.
But wot have they in store for the rest of us. Take their hatred of the public sector, that occassionaly exercise their basic human right to withdraw labour and strike for better terms and conditions.
The party that now governs with just 37% of the popular vote, wants to impose a test greater than that for when a strike can be called. Hypocrites is not the word for it, it's a word not used often in polite society rhymes with punts.
In any contract it's important that the rights of both parties are equal, or otherwise it is unfair. Some say that employment law already favour the employer side too much. This proposal by a party of deregulation to regulate (they can't see the irony in that) to make it even harder to strike is blatantly unfair.
But don't expect the red tops to point this out, especially the Desmond and Murdoch papers and shareholders in rival TV stations to the BBC. After all Murdoch assisted Thatcher to break the unions if you recall.
And talking of the BBC and the current review of its Charter. I'm not optimistic that we will see a better BBC by the end of 2020, but one radically different, with less choice and variety on offer.....After all, will Dave and co say no when the media moguls coming knocking and demand payback for their support. I doubt it very much.
We will have less rights, we will be spied on more, our jobs won't be as secure as before, and with BBC neutered it will be all style over substance.