Thursday, December 20, 2007

Cockerell on Cameron

Did you see Michael Cockerell's film on David Cameron earlier this evening? I'd say it is the most sympathetic documentary to the Conservative Party that Cockerell has ever made. When hardbitten journalists like Michael Cockerell make a film which is broadly pro Tory it's an indication that Cameron is making an impact. The anti-voices in the film, like Kelvin MacKenzie and Simon Heffer did not come over well, and seemed almost bitter in their anti-Cameronism.

What did you make of it?


Rich Tee said...

I only watched the first half hour or so and it seemed very anti-Conservative to me, but then I was only watching it by accident in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Very negative, until the last Tory conference was featured right at the end.
Simon Heffer is a source of great irritation for me. Take no notice of him.

Anonymous said...

Heiffer is the sort of journo that stops me from buying the Telegraph. Portillo for once was more measured, but then he needed to be . Methinks he can see which way the wind is blowing.

Campbell.. yesterdays man, and to me it showed.
Incidentally, I thought the film was about 30 mins short, It didnt really portray the turnaround in political fortunes, nor delve into it enough.....

Anonymous said...


I have to say, I thought that was sympathetic only in the sense that Cockerell didn't set an effigy of Cameron on fire and then take a giant crap on it. It made it look as though everything good that has happened for Cameron is a result of Labour doing something wrong, and that his personal shortcomings were entirely to blame for Labour having the odd good day. To focus, say, on the Ealing Southall by-election, and not mention the 900+ council seats, is a clear indication of a documentary trying to make a very narrow set of points. And yes, Simon Heffer is a waste of space. He's like that idiot I get on my regular train who sits there making sighing and grunting noises every time he reads something negative in his newspaper. He thinks I give a rat's arse about his opinions too...

Anonymous said...

votedave 9:11
Ditto, Simon Heffer is a moron with a rather unjustly inflated profile anyway.
Difficult to say though...

Anonymous said...

why woould you bother putting Mackenzie on there? Its almost like putting up teh Chipmunk yo talk about Cameron: of course they aren't going to say anything positive!

Anonymous said...

Could not understand why they got Tara Hamilton Wotsit to do over DC and Hilton and claimed she had worked with them both.

She was a junior press officer and worked with neither of them.

Suggests to me that the research for the programme was sloppy!

Anonymous said...

I thought it was very negative about Cameron. Neutral observers were invited to think that Cameron is all about PR and nothing else.
The slimiest moment was in getting Cameron and wife to repeat a little walk along a pavement.
Cockerell asked them to do it and then shows us the sequence as evidence of Cameron's phoniness.
Heffer came across as a spiteful creep, Mackenzie as a moron.
Alaistair Campbell was more subdued than usual; there was a slightly grudging admiration for the Tory leader.
One thing came across - Cockerell's vanity. I lost count of the number of times he appeared in shot with Cameron. Was he afraid we would think he was using someone else's film?

Anonymous said...

It seemed outdated - a week is a long time in politics...

So, David Cameron has merged Webcameron into and dropped his forum.

Webcameron is just boring videos now - with no more interaction.

Has DC turned into one of 'those' politicians now? They talk - but they don't listen.

Maybe he's just too big for his boots? BRING BACK THE FORUM NOW!


Anonymous said...

I didn't see it and wouldn't have watched it if I could. I am almost bitter in my anti-Cameronism

Mrs Smallprint said...

I watched the programme with interest and as I have said on my blog posting it left me feeling rather depressed. Fill in a few more gaps in the policies for us please David.

Anonymous said...

Who on earth watches telly these days?

Anonymous said...

Alan Duncan and Fatty Soames are good front/back bench turns, but the doco lacked strong Tory contributors. It would have benefitted from some contribution from Davis or Hague or Osborne, for example. It didn't answer the question: what is this bloke really like to work with?

Portillo is too much of a media tart and Heffer is to silly to be taken seriously.

The Razzall/Campbell/Bell device and the Kelvin MacKenzie bits worked well, I thought.

And Cockerell has always put himself in shot too much.

Anonymous said...

I guess those that have been passed by there EUssr Masters will always be allowed good press. Surprised you did not mention the anti English bagpipe paying Pratt from Burble who was on the same program?

Anonymous said...

Interesting the reactions of Steve Hilton and Andy Coulson as Cameron gave his 'no notes' conference speech! Hilton was like a love sick teenager and Coulson was like "what the F***!!? I get paid enough to not give a flying f***!!!

Johnny Norfolk said...

Web Cameron, What a load of rubbish, Who wants to see his private family life and all that.

Fighting Labour thats what we want.

Anonymous said...

Hi there. I am from Malta. Is it possible to get a copy of this documenary?

kindly reply on

Best wishes


Johnny Norfolk said...

If you think this set out to show Cameron in a good light, I have to question your judgement.
There is no way the BBC would allow it to happen as also there is no chance of a right wing journo doing the same to Brown and it being shown on the BBC.

Labour will have been very pleased with this.

Anonymous said...

Yes I watched it. The film making clearly began as a demolition job and ended as something else. Not quite a ringing endorsement but certainly grudging respect. I got the feeling that Cockerell's bit to camera after this year's Blackpool speech suggested that he had an inkling that the wind might be changing and he had to be ready for either of two very different outcomes.

Heffer's contribution did him no favours. He came across as the sort of really unpleasant right-winger whom I hate to see in power over anything, even the Torygraph. I hope he isn't like that close up, but for his sake more than mine.

I always enjoy listening to Kelvin McKenzie and reading his pieces even if I totally disagree with what he is saying. He has all the zest for life and the humanity which seem so lacking in Heffer. To be fair to him, and perhaps some of the other contributors, his remarks were probably recorded long ago. My guess is a hotel in Blackpool before the conference got into its swing?

The question is, why did the Brown bounce ever happen, since all the political journalists who were puffing him knew him well enough to doubt that he really was the superman standing up to flood fire and pestilence that they were writing about. Polls are bound to be influenced by what people read in the media, for a time anyway.

I suspect that a few weeks of vitriol over in ConservativeHome helped to strengthen the press story given a history of Tory party splits. Looking at the posts there I did sometimes wonder how many of the hostile ones were by trolls and astroturfers, though there clearly are some whole-hearted Tory supporters who will never be reconciled to Cameron's leadership.

Brown could have won so easily if he had gone to the country immediately Blair handed over and might even be enjoying a huge majority had he done so. I have a feeling the public mood was beginning to shift before the Blackpool conference (that week's Question time gave a hint). So an election in late October or early Novemeber might well have been an embarrasment or even disaster for Labour. Anyway the fellow lost his moment. Life is tough, isn't it!

Anonymous said...

verity - almost bitter ?

Shurely shome mistake

Anonymous said...

I think it was fairly well balanced. Surely there can be no argument that NuLab have lost the next election rather than the Tories winning it ( a combination of ID cards, the economy, Brown's arrogance, various admin cock ups and sheer inertia)

I myself wouldn't rule out a vote for any of the 3 parties but if you remove ID cards (which I think the Tories would've support if in power) I see no consistent themes from the tories.

How can they reconcile social justice with cutting health & safety, & other deregulation?

How sincere are their green claims when they remain wedded to economic growth, excessive foreign trade and many of their supporters are still not convinced by man made global warming?

I still just don't think Cameron comes across as sincere. He has no consistent ideology, no beliefs that he seemingly views as paramount (unlike Brown & Clegg for all their many other faults) and just comes across as a media hungry professional politician. He seems 'nice enough' but is that really enough to run the country?

Anonymous said...

Aaron: You can download it using the BBC iPlayer.

Anonymous said...

Brian mate, what the hell have you been smoking? (I want some!)

"but if you remove ID cards (which I think the Tories would've support if in power)".

Hypothetical blather. They are not in power. They have stated /categorically/ that they do not support ID cards. They will not implement them.

"He has no consistent ideology, no beliefs that he seemingly views as paramount (unlike Brown & Clegg for all their many other faults)"

Ha ha! I presume that was not sarcasm? Brown consistent ideology?

The only thing Brown trousers stands for is anything to stay in power. He'd been chomping at the bit for what 15 years for this job and he wants to keep it as long as possible. Nothing else matters..

The tatters of our once great economy should make that absolutely obvious, and if you cannot see that then I genuinely /weep/ for you... (And to be blunt, I think you should be shot if you genuinely consider voting labour still...)


Anonymous said...

perhaps the clue was in the title

the not credible journey