Bruce Anderson is comparing to Charles de Gaulle:
As any Tory should be, he is also rooted in Britain. De Gaulle said that throughout his life, he always had a certain idea of France. That is not how we British talk, which is both fortunate and unfortunate. Unfortunate, in that it could produce magnificent prose; fortunate, in that in France, the grandiloquence is the product of embattlement, invasion and the consequent soul-searching, which we complacent Brits have been lucky enough to avoid, thanks to the Channel. But in a reticent English way, Mr Cameron could echo de Gaulle.
In a few days, he, like de Gaulle, may have the chance to turn his ideas into a programme for national recovery. Success is far from certain. The next government will not only have to cut spending and raise taxes. If grim, endless austerity is to be averted, it will have to rely on renewed economic growth, yet the components of that growth are hard to identify. It would be absurd to dismiss Mervyn King's doubts.
I have to say that I find Anderson's comparison as funny as it is ridiculous for it is indicative of his ignorance of French history and about Charles de Gaulle who was a war hero who came to politics late in life after fighting the Nazis and taking some time to find his voice in politics. David Cameron knows nothing about war (it isn't a bad thing in my book) and has been in politics all of his adult life. In short, comparing David Cameron to Charles de Gaulle is as imaginative and accurate as asserting that Scott Brown, the newly elected senator of Massachusetts is the new Churchill.
Comments