Ishizu

Bonjour ! Je vous mets ci-dessous un commentaire d'article en anglais que j'ai rédigé il y a peu. J'aurais aimé, si possible, que vous en corrigiez les fautes de grammaire et de langue afin de l'améliorer. Thanks in advance !

This article, taken from the weekly London-based magazine The Economist of July, 28th 2007, deals with the current political life in Great Britain. It especially centres on the sharply contrasting situation of the most famous two politicians of England, that’s to say David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party and of the Opposition since December 2005, and Gordon Brown, the former leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since June 2007. As a matter of fact, the journalist tackles a burning issue and wonders why Mr. Cameron – who was considered not so long ago as the most skillful Tory statesman since Margaret Thatcher – can’t avail himself of Mr. Blair’s unpopularity at the end of his mandate and of his opponent’s incompetence, whereas Mr. Brown – who seemed not so long ago overwhelmed by his incapacity and his predecessor’s heritage – enjoys such a repute among the British citizens. What’s more, the author of the article endeavours to account for this strange reversal by emphasing, on the one hand, the Opposition leader’s bad luck, and, on the other hand, the legacy of both Conservative and Labour parties and Gordon Brown’s current clever policies. Therefore, we shall draw attention to David Cameron’s problems with his fellow Members of Parliament and to his notoriousness in the electorate. What’s more, whe shall delineate how the journalist compares his situation to his opponent’s one and displays discretion in his analysis of Mr. Brown’s sudden success.



When he was promoted to the Opposition front bench, David Cameron had to struggle with the notoriety of the Tory party, that he tried to make less harsh and severe. As explains the journalist, the leader of the Conservatives strove to seem a young, new politician, who wanted to reposition the mainstream policies of his fellow MPs and to impart new vigour to their image. He paid particular attention to environmental issues or he denied promising the electors major tax cuts (the journalist seems to be in favour of this attitude, for he describes tax-cutting as an outdated, « erstwhile Tory principle »). Mr. Cameron even asserted that the United Kingdom had to reform grammar schools – selective secondary or preparatory schools which put the stress on a more traditional education – since they no longer offer an escape route for children from the poorest backgrounds. This viewpoint is clearly different from the usual, basical tenets of his party, and that’s why the journalist throws light upon two relevant words, which sound like a slogan for the politician : « newness » and « niceness ». Such unprecedented a behaviour proves inconsistent with the usual standpoints of the Tories, but it enabled Mr. Cameron to grow more popular, to reveal his proficiencies and to have the lead in the main opinion polls. Furthermore, the journalist suggests that the Labour party itself was afraid of the Tories’ leader, and some words as « talented » or the flattering comparison he draws with Margaret Thatcher (the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1990, who managed to reverse the economic decline of the country) bespeak his bias towards the candidate for the premiership.
Nonetheless, Mr. Cameron’s success proved fleeting, as the Labour party quickly regained its lead in the opinion surveys, and the author of the article, in harmony with the Tory leader’s admirers, highlights at least three phenomena which can account for such a turnabout. First and foremost, he underlines the bad luck that brought about this failure. In fact, the politician had scheduled a trip to Rwanda between June and July 2007, while terrifying floods stroke Yorkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Oxfordshire, and he was consequently charged with losing interest in the English citizens’ problems. Secondly, David Cameron had to cope with the legacy of his party and of its adverse image, since the Tories are often reproached with corruption, excessive harshness, greed and incompetence. In this respect, the journalist isn’t wary of mentioning the shortcomings of the Conservative party as a « radioactive legacy », a very strong phrase which calls attention to his cynicism. The author of the article even denounces the lack of discipline of Cameron’s fellow Member of Parliaments, and compares them to a « fractious rabble » (theses words also prove much disparaging and betoken the journalist’s prejudice against the mainstream behaviour of the party). He endeavours to provide an account of the Conservative defeat in the by-elections (a special election held between general elections to fill a vacancy, as for a parliamentary seat) by accusing David Cameron’s friends of deluding themselves. Indeed, according to him, they are still thinking it’s necessary to weaken the far-right, nationalist British National Front, and don’t understand that they have to convince their former electorate who defected to the Labour party. Such reproaches look quite fierce and vehement, since phrases like « free-falling » or « cocked up » (a very informal verb) express the strength of his feelings thanks to hyperbole. Last but not least, the journalist admits that Mr. Cameron may have mistaken when he tried to imitate Tony Blair’s political ploys, whereas the British people were tired of their Prime Minister. As a conclusion, the author of the article acknowledges that the English citizens can’t be prone to promoting the Tory candidature to premiership, for the Conservatives’ leader hardly inspires confidence.


Unlike David Cameron, Gordon Brown was much criticized and regarded as an incompetent politician a few months ago. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, he wasn’t an articulate speaker at all and the journalist even charges him with being « cumbersome » in the House of Commons (the elected house of the British Parliament, composed of six hundred and fifty-nine Members of Parliament, representing single member constituencies), for he often tells lame or crude jokes and witticisms. The author of the article doesn’t hesitate to laugh at him by alluding to one of his most famous quips, thus hinting that he doesn’t have the wisdom and the discretion of a real statesman. Moreover, he reminds us of the Labour Party notoriety at the end of Tony Blair’s mandate. As a matter of fact, British citizens were fed up with a Prime Minister who had been governing for ten years (from 1997 to 2007) and of his admirers, who are described with cynicism as « ayatollahs of Blairism », as if they were part of a high-ranking Moslem fanatic religious authority and didn’t allow anybody to question their political opinions.
Nevertheless, Mr. Blair’s legacy proved all the more beneficial that the Labour party was highly disciplined – the author of the article calls it « paranoic discipline ». This standpoint, couched in a derisive language, evidences their cohesion, their unity in front of their opponents, but it may overstate their stern, strict behaviour. The Prime Minister’s main virtue, according to him, lies in the fact that he quickly grasped the British citizens’ weariness towards Tony Blair and managed to appear as an innovator, who supported another policies. He is therefore compared all through the article to a conjurer who perfectly masters his « hat-trick[s] » and « manoeuvre[s] ». He benefited from some tragic events which occurred in the United Kingdom (the floods, the various attempts at terrorist attacks in 2007, the law about cannabis,…) to grow less sectarian and to appear as a plainspoken, friendly politician who admires the citizens’ everyday heroism in the British tabloid The Daily mail. That’s why the journalist creates a humorous effect by comparing the current Prime Minister to a « bare-knuckles campaigner » (a slangy phrase which refers to his fiercely implacable character) who contrives to be more popular with some « symbolic pledges », as opposed to concrete decisions. Notwithstanding, such a behaviour has convinced the electorate, who is charged with being oblivious : the voters have forgotten Mr. Brown’s shortcomings thanks to his amazing « sleight of hand ».



By way of conclusion, the author of the article addresses David Cameron as if they were close friends (he uses the emotional diminutive « Dave ») and gives him a piece of advice, trying to encourage him. The Tory leader has to be more self-confident and forward-looking ; if Gordon Brown decided to organize the general election now, his adversary probably would be in a difficult position. Nonetheless, the latter can stall for time, since the Prime Minister’s cabinet isn’t ready to face a difficult campaign.

Richnico

[quote=Ishizu;180172]Bonjour ! Je vous mets ci-dessous un commentaire d'article en anglais que j'ai rédigé il y a peu. J'aurais aimé, si possible, que vous en corrigiez les fautes de grammaire et de langue afin de l'améliorer. Thanks in advance !

This article, taken from the weekly London-based magazine The Economist of July, 28th 2007, deals with the (the definite article here is wrong. We are not talking about political life as a subject not as a specific) current political life in Great Britain. It especially centres on the sharply contrasting situation of the most famous two politicians of England, that’s to say David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party and of the Opposition since December 2005, and Gordon Brown, the former deputy leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since June 2007. As a matter of fact, the journalist tackles a burning issue and wonders why Mr. Cameron – who was considered not so long ago as the most skillful Tory statesman since Margaret Thatcher – can’t avail himself of Mr. Blair’s unpopularity at the end of his mandate and of his opponent’s incompetence, whereas Mr. Brown – who seemed not so long ago overwhelmed by his incapacity and his predecessor’s heritage – enjoys such a the indefinite article is not required here repute among the definite article here is wrong British citizens. That sentence is horrendously long and very difficult to follow !! What’s more, the author of the article endeavours to account for this strange reversal by emphasing, on the one hand, the Opposition leader’s bad luck, and, on the other hand, the legacy of both Conservative and Labour parties and Gordon Brown’s current clever policies. Therefore, we shall draw attention to David Cameron’s problems with his fellow Members of Parliament and to his notoriousness in the electorate. What’s more, we shall delineate awful choice of word - set out is simpler how the journalist compares his (to whom does "his" refer ? as is, it refers to the journalist) situation to his opponent’s one and displays discretion in his analysis of Mr. Brown’s sudden success.



When he was promoted to the Opposition front bench, David Cameron had to struggle with the notoriety of the Tory party, that he tried to make less harsh and severe. As the journalist explains, the leader of the Conservatives strove to seem a young, new politician, who wanted to reposition the mainstream policies of his fellow MPs and to impart new vigour to their image. He paid particular attention to environmental issues and he denied promising the electors major tax cuts (the journalist seems to be in favour of this attitude, for he describes tax-cutting as an outdated, « erstwhile Tory principle »). Mr. Cameron even asserted that the United Kingdom had to reform grammar schools – selective secondary schools which put the stress on a more traditional education – since they no longer offer an escape route for children from the poorest backgrounds. This viewpoint is clearly different from the usual, basic tenets of his party, and that’s why the journalist throws light upon two relevant words, which sound like a slogan for the politician : « newness » and « niceness ». Such unprecedented a (indefinite article is wrong here) behaviour proves inconsistent with the usual standpoints of the Tories, but it enabled Mr. Cameron to grow more popular, to reveal his proficiencies and to have the lead in the main opinion polls. Furthermore, the journalist suggests that the Labour party itself was afraid of the Tory leader, and some words as « talented » or the flattering comparison he draws with Margaret Thatcher (the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1990, who managed to reverse the economic decline of the country) bespeak his bias towards the candidate for the premiership.


I'll try and read the rest later !!

Ishizu

Thank you very much for your help, you're very friendly !

Richnico

Ishizu

Thank you once again, you're very nice with me !