The inevitable consequence of blogging for the Spectator

I'm intrigued by the implications of Melanie Philips's latest post about Cameron's woes. She's pretty sure what voters want. They want less immigration, less Europe, more stirring up shit in the middle east, and some fast cuts to the deficit. Cameron's not giving them enough of it, and so they're flocking to the Lib Dems out of protest. In other words, they want it nasty, and Dave just sits there pretending to be all nice. The fool.

Now obviously it's a confused sort of protest, because it's not like the Lib Dems are nasty. They're really rather nice. In fact they're even nicer than Cameron pretends to be. So what gives? Mel knows:

The fact that Clegg is just the same is for the moment irrelevant: he is by definition not the leader of the two pain parties which have brought the country to its knees.

Ah. So they don't actually know anything about Nick Clegg, and in fact didn't even listen to him sounding all nice in the debate. They're just going for someone else, apparently blissfully unaware that there are a whole load of parties like UKIP that could fully satisfy all their nasty cravings.

What's interesting here is the implied theory of the public as Mel sees it: they're incredibly reactionary, but incapable of properly communicating this, not so much because they're embarrassed about it, as because they're also spectacularly stupid and ill-informed. I'm not sure Cameron will be asking her to replace Andy Coulson any time soon, but at least the woman seems to be in touch with her audience.