This, courtesy of George at Biased BBC, is an interesting way for a BBC reporter/presenter to describe a British party leader. It comes from a blogpost by Mark Mardell:
To watch David Cameron in action is as thrilling and as empty an experience as watching a Hollywood blockbuster.
It seems impossible that he can survive the forces ranged against him, but he buys time, survives for a precious minute, which gives him an hour, which gives him a day.
But there is a hollowness too, for it dawns on the viewer that this is all about survival, buying time until it is time to fight the next battle, but there is no plan, no plot, no narrative - which makes what happens after the election, if he wins, fascinating and troubling.
Now, he may be right or he may be wrong about our clueless PM but should he be saying it, especially given how damning it it?
During his time as the BBC's North America Editor Mark Mardell certainly made use of the extra license granted to BBC editors to editorialise, but now he's back in Blighty as presenter of The World at One and The World This Weekend - programmes that primarily deal with British politics - should he be allowed to keep that side of his journalism going?
Given how harmful such an analysis could be to David Cameron, especially as we near an election, shouldn't such sentiments be left to his guests, whether they be Mr Cameron's political opponents or newspaper pundits?
He may have been able to get away with that sort of thing with regards to U.S. politics (showing much more 'understanding' to President Obama than to his opponents), but he's going to have to be very careful about trying it here. UK politicians on the receiving end of such barbs could do something about it.