Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image


We have a problem.


Tony Abbott, Stephen Harper and John Key, the conservative Prime Ministers of Australia, Canada and New Zealand respectively, met for a quiet lunch prior to the funeral of Nelson Mandela.

Where is David Cameron? Given the attitudes of each of these men to the major issues facing us, would the British Prime Minister have been welcome? Or even have anything to contribute?

H/T Catallaxy Files


  1. Roue le Jour says:

    Comrades Obama and Cameron enjoy a light-hearted moment at the state funeral of Nelson Mandela…

    Slightly O/T but I have been thinking lately that the Tories have to dump Cameron if they are to stand any chance in the next election, but I’m not seeing any sign of that in the MSM. Am I wrong?

  2. Andrew says:

    “the conservative Prime Ministers”

    That’s the problem, Cameron isn’t a conservative, he’s a Conservative.

  3. Whangadude says:

    Well apart from selling state assets John Key doesn’t seem very conservative to this New Zealander.

  4. Ian Hills says:

    Perhaps this cosy little meeting didn’t have PR appeal.

  5. DICK R says:

    Maybe Cameron was unable to get permission from his EU puppet masters to be there!

  6. John Galt says:

    Why should they care about Cameron? The UK turned its back on the anglosphere when they joined the EEC – France made sure of that during the entry negotiations in the ’60′s and ’70′s.

    So the common bond that these three now share is not historic ties to the UK, but a common border around the Asia/Pacific region and they are looking at trade with China and the developing nations of ASEAN for their future prosperity.

    David Cameron represents the elite of a historic past, like some Edwardian uncle. He has nothing in common with these guys. What are they going to talk about with him Warble Gloaming?

  7. Kevin B says:

    Guido is not the MSM, but he does have his ear to the ground in Westminister and he is picking up rumblings of an approaching anti-Dave stampede.

    Unfortunately it appears to be led by one Theresa May.

  8. John Galt says:

    Unfortunately it appears to be led by one Theresa May.

    Lets not forget that St. Margaret of Thatcher (pbuh) was a very different Tory before she rose up from the backbenches to challenge Ted Heath. She also had a massive transformation between her election to the leadership in 1975 and her commencement as Prime Minister.

    Theresa May may not seem very appealing at the moment, but the possibility of a Thatcherite transformation would be far more appealing than another 5-years under the dull fug of Cameronian Blue Labour rule especially with Nick Clegg lobbing spanners in the machinery every time someone suggests something sensible like cutting back on welfare for families with more than 2 children (i.e. subsidized breeding for the underclass).

    I actually think its an interesting suggestion at the moment, nothing more. I would prefer someone with more bottom like David Davis, but suspect he’s a bit too far out in the wilderness to gain the necessary parliamentary support.

    Remember, even back in 1975, Maggie was seen as little more than a stalking horse by the majority of the Tory backbenchers, little more than an “Anyone but Ted” candidate. It was only in the second round that she showed her winning spirit and even then it was somewhat of a fluke. Most of the Tory backbenchers just thought of her as “that bloody annoying woman”.

    Former Colditz inmate Airey Neave had a lot to do with that and it was a shame that he was killed by the INLA before the 1979 General Election. He would have made a bloody good chief whip.

  9. Andrew Duffin says:

    They are conservatives.

    Why would Cameron want to meet them, or they him?

  10. Kevin B says:

    May = Thatcher? Not really seeing it.

    Still, probably a better alternative than this chap.

  11. Tim Newman says:

    Tiny pedantic point: Airey Neave was killed by the INLA, not IRA.

  12. RAB says:

    France made sure of that during the entry negotiations in the ’60′s and ’70′s.

    But they stangely didn’t apply the same rules to themselves with their old Colonial possessions and dependent territories, did they?

  13. John Galt says:

    Thanks Tim. Corrected. I’d forgot about the INLA and the other alphabet soup terrorists of Northern Ireland. It is one of the benefits of (relative) peace, recent events in Belfast notwithstanding.

  14. Schrodinger's Dog says:

    John Galt (6:53pm) – absolutely spot on.

    Every society, for better or worse, has its elite. Unfortunately the British elite of the last fifty years has, with the exception of Lady Thatcher, been pretty abysmal. Perhaps their biggest mistake was abandoning the Anglosphere. Ironically, they abandoned it at just about the time communications technology had advanced to the point where it could have become a global political force.

  15. DICK R says:

    It was no mistake, it was a calculated act of malfeasance.

  16. Mr Ed says:

    Cameron would not fit in that picture, he would stick out and spoil it, physically flabby but immorally obese. It looks as if three relatively decent men have found a quiet corner at a gangster’s convention and can finally relax and talk freely.

    A simple test of a politician for me, ‘How would you feel if he asked to borrow your car?’ (David Blunkett excepted). With those three I would expect to get it back in good nick, (not saying I would lend it!) almost any other I would expect to trash it because they feel that they can or should.

  17. Mr Ed says:

    It has just occurred to me that Queen Elizabeth (the incumbent) Monarch for those three Prime Ministers would also seem to be wholly out of place in that picture. They look troubled and daunted, but unbowed by the magnitude of the battles ahead. The Queen would expect that it would all be fine if they all smiled to those who would devour them.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: