The final paragraph of today's Daily Mail leading article (devoted to attacking the Lib Dems' defence of the human rights act) is sure to be repeated in similar form in the coming weeks and months:
There is also the two-page spread headlined THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAVE-IN: Cameron pledged to scrap Act... now Clegg champions it under ANOTHER coalition compromise.
And Stephen Glover weighs in with It's early days, I know, but if Mr Cameron keeps dumping cherished Tory beliefs, there'll be trouble...
Further on, on a "news" page, we reach a page lead Clegg's tax revolution: He wants to roll back the state - and then give councils more of our money! Below it is a sniffy piece by Quentin Letts about Clegg's first big speech as deputy prime minister headlined Cleggy, Dave's very own Private Pike...
There hasn't been a honeymoon period for the coalition in the Mail. It will have no truck with the Lib-Dem side of the partnership and will surely do all it can to unravel the parties.
Other infuriated Tory-supporting papers are likely to do the same, of course.
For example, today's leader in The Times calls on the Conservatives to honour their election manifesto by repealing the ban on foxhunting. The paper knows well enough that this is a no-no for the Lib-Dems, but reminds Cameron that his party "is the leading partner in this coalition" and that "the Tories should not run scared of their instincts."
Coming at Clegg from the opposite side is The Times's commentator David Aaronovitch, There's too much Old in this New Politics. He deconstructs Clegg's speech and finds it, and him, sorely wanting.
Similarly, in the Daily Telegraph, its sketch writer, Andrew Gimson, argues that the new politics is both confusing and a deception.
By contrast, the paper's leading article is altogether warmer towards Clegg. In A bold vision for better government, the paper welcomes much of the Lib-Dem leader's proposals, though it has reservations about the 55% hurdle to dissolve parliament before its five-year fixed term of office.
And The Sun? Its news report on the coalition pact refers to "fresh uproar in the Tory ranks" because of Clegg's opposition to lowering taxes, but it was neutral enough.
Columnist Kelvin MacKenzie is not at all neutral (well, he doesn't do neutral, of course). He lays into "Dave and his little mates" for daring to increase capital gains tax on rental income. He concludes: "Could I urge you, Mr Cameron, to tell the Cleggies to get stuffed."
His major point is that the Tory toffs don't understand the needs of working class Tory voters.
Again, this is a theme likely to be explored often in future in order to expose the fragility of the coalition. It means there are at least two splits for papers to pursue - the obvious one between the Tories and the Lib-Dems and then the one within the Tory party that centres on differences of social class.
Shouldn't Mr Cameron be quicker to remind Mr Clegg the Tories polled four million more votes than the Lib Dems?It is just one of the indicators of the paper's hostility to the Tory-Lib coalition.
There is also the two-page spread headlined THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAVE-IN: Cameron pledged to scrap Act... now Clegg champions it under ANOTHER coalition compromise.
And Stephen Glover weighs in with It's early days, I know, but if Mr Cameron keeps dumping cherished Tory beliefs, there'll be trouble...
Further on, on a "news" page, we reach a page lead Clegg's tax revolution: He wants to roll back the state - and then give councils more of our money! Below it is a sniffy piece by Quentin Letts about Clegg's first big speech as deputy prime minister headlined Cleggy, Dave's very own Private Pike...
There hasn't been a honeymoon period for the coalition in the Mail. It will have no truck with the Lib-Dem side of the partnership and will surely do all it can to unravel the parties.
Other infuriated Tory-supporting papers are likely to do the same, of course.
For example, today's leader in The Times calls on the Conservatives to honour their election manifesto by repealing the ban on foxhunting. The paper knows well enough that this is a no-no for the Lib-Dems, but reminds Cameron that his party "is the leading partner in this coalition" and that "the Tories should not run scared of their instincts."
Coming at Clegg from the opposite side is The Times's commentator David Aaronovitch, There's too much Old in this New Politics. He deconstructs Clegg's speech and finds it, and him, sorely wanting.
Similarly, in the Daily Telegraph, its sketch writer, Andrew Gimson, argues that the new politics is both confusing and a deception.
By contrast, the paper's leading article is altogether warmer towards Clegg. In A bold vision for better government, the paper welcomes much of the Lib-Dem leader's proposals, though it has reservations about the 55% hurdle to dissolve parliament before its five-year fixed term of office.
And The Sun? Its news report on the coalition pact refers to "fresh uproar in the Tory ranks" because of Clegg's opposition to lowering taxes, but it was neutral enough.
Columnist Kelvin MacKenzie is not at all neutral (well, he doesn't do neutral, of course). He lays into "Dave and his little mates" for daring to increase capital gains tax on rental income. He concludes: "Could I urge you, Mr Cameron, to tell the Cleggies to get stuffed."
His major point is that the Tory toffs don't understand the needs of working class Tory voters.
Again, this is a theme likely to be explored often in future in order to expose the fragility of the coalition. It means there are at least two splits for papers to pursue - the obvious one between the Tories and the Lib-Dems and then the one within the Tory party that centres on differences of social class.
0
comments
