Cameron and Abhisit

Having seen the coverage of the conference speech by leader of the Conservative Party Sweaty Dave Cameron, it becomes increasingly clear how similar he is as a politician to the meat puppet Abhisit Vejjajiva.

In one sense, the reasons for this are obvious: both share enormously privileged backgrounds which have kept them insulated from the real world and wholly unable to relate to anyone other than the equally rich and privileged, both have the patina of charm and charisma that the many thousands of pounds education at Eton and Oxford University provides, neither has done a socially-useful day’s work in his life.

When reading out a speech, Cameron has the edge – but only I think because he at least has enough self-awareness to realise that he is cynically mouthing a series of platitudes and obvious lies – only a fool or a charlatan would really suppose that his claims to be interested in helping the poor were anything other than mendacity.

Abhisit, on the other hand, reads out the speech but has very little understanding of the issues or any interest in policies and their implications (in this, he resembles George W Bush more). Perhaps he is different behind the scenes or in committees and so forth but it is really difficult to imagine why (apart from the status and power) he wants to be in politics when he offers no indication of any meaningful personal ideology or philosophy – maybe it is, as is the case with other right wing politicians, that he can occupy office simply to deny power to someone who actually try to change things.

Published by


JW has been one of the first contributors to this blog before he gave up on it all in April 2010, during a time when Thai society got more and more polarized about political matters because of red-shirt protesters.

2 thoughts on “Cameron and Abhisit”

  1. “but it is really difficult to imagine why (apart from the status and power) he wants to be in politics when he offers no indication of any meaningful personal ideology or philosophy”

    Bedwyr can answer that. Abhisit, like all men in his position:

    1. Believes that power is his birthright
    2. Believe they know better than everyone else what is good for everyone else.
    3. Believes that it is insufficient to have power and influence, it is necessary for everyone to know they have power and influence, and to use it from time to time to remind people of that fact. It is a self-esteem need.

    I wish I could say Thais are unique in this respect, but of course Thais are not unique in any respect. They are just more blatantly status-hungry and corrupt than most. Anyone with any sense of shame would never have agreed to pretend that his position is democratically valid, and of course he knows it isn’t. But this is his chance at the self-esteem game.

    In reality of course, he is a non-entity. No charisma, no understanding or insight, nothing very much of anything except facade. He has lots of facade. He is pretty but mortally insubstantial.

    And when he is rightly ousted he will sink into obscurity, which is his rightful destiny.

  2. Another reason I find Abhisit deeply offensive, more so than any of his predecessors – is his constant use of platitudes involving the monarchy. He even lectured the UN on the remarkable ability of Thailand to weather the recession, the result of the wise advice of the King on sustainable efficiency. A complete fabrication of course.

    He cannot use his own popularity (won through hard work and winning an election) to further his inane policies, so he has to use someone else’s. In a more spohisticated culture the media and the voting public would have a field day, but in Thailand nobody seems to notice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *