David Cameron

[Hydro]

As a die-hard Conservative supporter I will always stand by David Cameron.

Since coming to power, tough decisions have been made. Decisions that were not an option, but fundamentally essential for the well being of the country. Economically and socially we were falling down the pan, and it was the job of the present Government to sort it out.

I do feel that Cameron has lost some of his drive, but nonetheless, I am a Conservative supporter first and foremost and if this Government is to continue successfully it is essential that all Conservatives stand by him. We may not agree with every choice, or every decision that he makes, but if we want to be re-elected come the next election we don't turn our backs on our leader, we support him, and stand firm as supporters of the Conservative Party.

Whether it be Osborne, Hague, May, Clark or Cameron, they all have my support. Today, tommorow and for the future ahead.

Up to this point you could be mistaken for an MP!

 

[valenta]

Not knowing David Cameron I think it would be unfair to judge whether I like or dislike him. He often comes across as a bit arrogant, but perhaps that is just his drive for his party to succeed.
I can draw a lot of comparisons between David Cameron and Tony Blair, they would probably both like to think they were quite swarve and have lots of charisma and tend to be a bit irritating.
The main difference between Tony Blair and David Cameron is the party which they stand for. So going on the party which David Cameron represents alone, I would have to say I disliked David Cameron.

 

[HST Power]

Up to this point you could be mistaken for an MP!

Yes, I'm trying to unseat the MP for Witney!

 

[Buttsy]

On a personal note, having grown up with 3 million unemployed and joined the working masses in the 80s, I have nothing but fear and revulsion for Conservative politics. It worries me that we will not see a true fair and social Britain again.

Fact: In 1976, following both Heath and Wilson, the gap between the poor and rich in this country was at it's narrowest point. Since then, both Conservaties and New Labour (Conservatives with a slight conscience) have taken further away from this point, yet they preach this rhetoric regualrly.

Since the belief that the market will provide, we have seen numerous stock market crashes, recessions, selling off of the family silver to boost funds and therefore ratings instantly and other such 'populist' moves. The market does not always provide and the mix that Wilson and Heath would have worked for Britain provided they could've ensured that unions did not have too much power to disrupt. This was the main failing of the 70s.

Consider now if you will that had the power companies not been sold off, we would be paying similar amounts but the profits going into the government coffers and helping reduce the debt. To get the same income from private companies, they have to produce 5x the profit (assumption 20% corporation tax).

Tony Benn, one of the last true politians, wanted the money recieved from North Sea Oil to be ring fenced to help in times of recession (true Keynsian theory). Had this been carried out, we would have approx £450 milliards (US billion) in credit and not so far in the s***. I realise that some of this would have been spent in previous recessions, so this is an estimated figure.

Please forgive me if my figures are slightly out, I'm remembering information from 'When The Lights Went Out' by Andy Beckett.

Give me Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner or even Ted Heath over any of the suits that occupy the 'mother of parliaments' currently. People who believe in people.

 

[SS4]

I understand that Cameron has some tough decisions to make (and by cutting essential public services he's not making them IMO). I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he demonstrated that we're all in it together.

What I cannot abide is that he always looks so smug when saying anything, as though he enjoys what he's doing.

 

[Oswyntail]

I understand that Cameron has some tough decisions to make (and by cutting essential public services he's not making them IMO).

We can all differ about policy, but at least he is trying to do something, and being consistent. Sadly, the interpretation differs from department to department. Another thread!

I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he demonstrated that we're all in it together.

How exactly does he do that? OK, he's rich (and we would all like to be rich). But I can't imagine that he does not understand the reality facing people (he has become PM after all, and climbing the greasy pole in opposition takes an awful lot of realpolitik - ignore Brown,Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home). Perhaps this is another thread too!

What I cannot abide is that he always looks so smug when saying anything, as though he enjoys what he's doing.

We can't help the way we look. Miliband always looks as if he has just seen a ghost; Balls looks utterly mad; Blair can't help smirking even when talking about massacres.

 

[HST Power]

....And if Cameron didn't enjoy what he was doing, then he should never have become the Prime Minister in the first place!

 

[Schnellzug]

35.2% of the vote.


.

yes, 35.3% of the popular vote, equating to approximately 22% of the electorate on a 61.3% turnout, up from 59.4% turnout in 2001.

Which is hardly very representative of the voice of the Nation, is it?

 

[Pumbaa]

Since coming to power, tough decisions have been made. Decisions that were not an option, but fundamentally essential for the well being of the country. Economically and socially we were falling down the pan, and it was the job of the present Government to sort it out.

Let me translate that for you -

Since coming to power, wrong decisions have been made, which despite warnings from world leading economists both before and as recently as a month ago, Osborne has single handedly handed us an economy stagnating, ruined the recovery and stalled it, given us the highest level of unemployment since, err, the conservatives were last in power, and continuing to chip away at the state. These decisions were one of many options, and they were the wrong option for the well being of the select few and for the detriment of the many. Economically we were recovering, now we're falling down the pan. Socially they seem intent on taking us back to the 1970s.

Fed up with them already, somehow I told you so doesn't quite say it!

Oh lets not forget:

Cameron in Summer: "Britain's gang culture is responsible for these riots. We will clamp down on gangs".

Official report this week: Gangs had sod all to do with it.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
Which is hardly very representative of the voice of the Nation, is it?

Well yes, actually. A huge chunk of the "nation" apparently decided that, for whatever reason, they didn't care enough about the outcome to vote. Contrary to oft-expressed views, the make-up of Parliament generally does reflect the nation's choice, if you take the "can't give a monkey's" out.
[It would be rather fun if this apathetic lot were genuinely represented in Parliament. A third of MPs being of no political affiliation who couldn't care less about what they were doing]

 

[Schnellzug]

But I can't imagine that he does not understand the reality facing people (he has become PM after all, and climbing the greasy pole in opposition takes an awful lot of realpolitik - ignore Brown,Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home). Perhaps this is another thread too! .

sorry, but I really don't think that need be the case at all. The political profession, as I remarked earlier, once you get above grass-roots constituency level, is completely isolated from reality. Once you get there, what you're talking about all day is great abstracts about the Economy and the Euro and everything else; none of which ever involves any kind of sums of money measured in anything less than multiples of millions. And (without wanting to sound like a Class warrior or anything), he did, don't forget, come from a (some might say, perhaps unfairly, typically Tory) privileged background. I think it's very possible indeed that someone like him, could get to where he is today while having no idea at all about what it's like for The People, and without a shadow of a doubt, once he got there, he (and not just him, I'm sure it's the same for all who get to that level) have far more important things to do than worry about the Huddled Masses.

 

[Zoe]

In 1997 the Tory part was very unpopular and Labour won the election in a landslide. The question here is why Cameron was unable to win an outright majority despite the fact that Brown's government in 2010 was very unpopular.

 

[Mojo]

What's a ''world leading economist?'' Economics by its very nature is based on varying schools of thought. The majority (not all) of ''warnings'' that I have seen in the past 18 months have all come from Keynesian economics which is just a different school of thought to Monetarism and thus anything they say should surely not surprise or represent anything other than an opinion.

Anything a Keynesian says about this Government's policy is surely no more authoritative than a Socialist saying ''tax the rich,'' a fascist saying ''black people are inferior,'' a Catholic telling me about the wonders of God, a Eurosceptic telling me we should leave the EU or a Conservative telling me how rubbish Labour are.

 

[Schnellzug]

--

Well yes, actually. A huge chunk of the "nation" apparently decided that, for whatever reason, they didn't care enough about the outcome to vote. Contrary to oft-expressed views, the make-up of Parliament generally does reflect the nation's choice, if you take the "can't give a monkey's" out.
[It would be rather fun if this apathetic lot were genuinely represented in Parliament. A third of MPs being of no political affiliation who couldn't care less about what they were doing]

Ah, but no. It's not Apathy, that's such a convenient catch-all term that enables people to look down their noses at anyone who doesn't believe in the party system. I'm afraid that the Apathy argument won't wash any more. Given that the only alternatives one can opt for, if one does not believe that either one lot (Labour) or the other lot (the conservatives) know anything at all about what the concerns of the Common people are any more, or that opting for one lot over the other lot would make the slightest difference to anything, are various single-issue obssessives like UKIP or (even worse) BNP, [since the Lib dems have committed suicide as an alternatve], I think it's a perfectly valid choice to opt for "none of the above", if one no longer believes that the party system has anything to offer any more. In fact, you could say that by just going "well, I've always voted Labour or Tory", that's a kind of apathy, since one doesn't have to think about the issues but just tick the same box you always have.

 

[HST Power]

Let me translate that for you -

Since coming to power, wrong decisions have been made, which despite warnings from world leading economists both before and as recently as a month ago, Osborne has single handedly handed us an economy stagnating, ruined the recovery and stalled it, given us the highest level of unemployment since, err, the conservatives were last in power, and continuing to chip away at the state. These decisions were one of many options, and they were the wrong option for the well being of the select few and for the detriment of the many. Economically we were recovering, now we're falling down the pan. Socially they seem intent on taking us back to the 1970s.

Fed up with them already, somehow I told you so doesn't quite say it!

Oh lets not forget:

Cameron in Summer: "Britain's gang culture is responsible for these riots. We will clamp down on gangs".

Official report this week: Gangs had sod all to do with it.

Economically we are backed by the IMF and OCED, who admitted that albeit the unexpected rise in inflation and slow economic growth no changes were needed to the coalition Government's spending plans. Say no more.

Socially, we are not trying to recast the 1970s. Our reforms to the welfare and social system are about making work pay and getting people back onto their feet and into jobs. If the plans (as set out by Ian Duncan Smith) get through Parliament, they will do exactly that. Lets face it, we can't have a recovery without people working and contributing to the growth of our economy. Therefore, the social/welfare changes have been established to get those who are perfectly capable of working out the door in coat and hat, heading down to the office.

Nor do I believe that gangs played the most important part in the riots. Only 13% of those arrested were in gangs. It was rather the immigration system that looked shambolic when the statistics were published, and we all know who opened the gates on Europe, don't we?

 

[SS4]

Economically we are backed by the IMF and OCED, who admitted that albeit the unexpected rise in inflation and slow economic growth no changes were needed to the coalition Government's spending plans. Say no more.

Socially, we are not trying to recast the 1970s. Our reforms to the welfare and social system are about making work pay and getting people back onto their feet and into jobs. If the plans (as set out by Ian Duncan Smith) get through Parliament, they will do exactly that. Lets face it, we can't have a recovery without people working and contributing to the growth of our economy. Therefore, the social/welfare changes have been established to get those who are perfectly capable of working out the door in coat and hat, heading down to the office.

Indeed not. So why are the government cutting jobs despite a lack of take-up in the private sector?

 

[Zoe]

One of the changes to benefits is the restriction of housing benefit (or Local Housing Allowance as it is now) to the single room in a shared house rate for anyone under 35. I have read about quite a few landlords serving notice on tenants that are under 35 as a result of this. It's not going to help people get a job if they don't have anywhere to live.

 

[Temple Meads]

I don't like the greasy, slimy idiot, but I don't think anyone else could really do any better..

 

[DarloRich]

Socially, we are not trying to recast the 1970s. Our reforms to the welfare and social system are about making work pay and getting people back onto their feet and into jobs. If the plans (as set out by Ian Duncan Smith) get through Parliament, they will do exactly that. Lets face it, we can't have a recovery without people working and contributing to the growth of our economy. Therefore, the social/welfare changes have been established to get those who are perfectly capable of working out the door in coat and hat, heading down to the office.
QUOTE]

But people are not working! We have 2.57 million people out of work. Where is this great private sector lead recovery we have been promised? Where are these "entrepreneurs" who will save us? Where are the new industries and job opportunities flooding into the run down areas of this country? Where are they? Where? What is the future 18th Baronet of Ballintaylor and Ballylemon doing to help? What is Dave, the grandson of a baronet, doing to get normal people jobs?

I detest Cameron with a passion. Do you think he has ever had to decide between having the lights on and eating? Do you think he has ever wondered how he will put food on his table at the end of the month or keep the roof over his head? I doubt it. Yet he tells us all to tighten our belts. Him, a millionaire, tells US to cut our own budgets even more! I would say Dave, is there any chance of borrowing one of your belts for a few days?

Not one of them seems to understand why in areas like Stockton or Gateshead you have 10,000 people working for the public sector. Not one of them looks at what has brought a once proud, hard working, productive area which drove this country and the empire forward to such a situation.

But ,don’t forget, we are all in this together ( but some of us are more in it than others!)

I am not stupid enough to think that cuts are not required. Of course they are; but in typical Tory style they fall on those least able to bear the cost. I notice that there are no plans to tax higher earners just a little bit more to help the rest of us, I notice there are no plans to make rich companies pay just a little bit more of their vast profits to help the rest of us, I notice there are no plans to punish the bankers, or curb bonus payments to higher level management? Why, if we are all in it together can we not ALL share the pain?

Apologies for the rant but it angers me that some Conservatives seem to lack the critical understanding to see what their policies and ideas do to those least able to bear the cost. (Or perhaps they do know and don’t care because they are ok?) I just think it is wrong. Perhaps I am a terrible pinko-liberal left wing loony but I just want things to be equally hard on everyone in this country.

 

[Oswyntail]

--
..., I think it's a perfectly valid choice to opt for "none of the above", if one no longer believes that the party system has anything to offer any more.....

So, what are "The Common People" going to do about it (if your , IMHO somewhat romantic, view is correct? "Systems" can be changed, best from within, so what are they doing? Camping outside St Paul's (and going home at night, clutching their Starbuck's)? It is too easy to say "none of the above" and "we can't do anything, it's the discredited system". In fact (though you wouldn't get any idea of this from the media, left or right) we are in the early stages of a massive attempt to change the system, by way of a Coalition, co-operation and discussion, not confrontation and insult; most of the media, the labour Party and the Tory right are trying to sabotage things by ramping up the worst aspects of the old system ("Relaunch of the Nasty Party", "Disastrous cabinet splits"). I simply say give them a chance.

 

[Zoe]

I notice there are no plans to punish the bankers, or curb bonus payments to higher level management?

The Tories talk about individual responsibility, the argument here is that although the banks offered the credit, people didn't have to take it.

 

[DarloRich]

The Tories talk about individual responsibility, the argument here is that although the banks offered the credit, people didn't have to take it.

Agreed - however the banks could have used a bit more screening on what they were lending and to whom!

 

[sprite]

The Tories talk about individual responsibility, the argument here is that although the banks offered the credit, people didn't have to take it.

Then why does everyone other than the bankers have to pay for the mistakes of the banks for offering the credit to people they must have known were unlikely to be able to pay back. Or if you feel the bankers were conned, why does the average person in the street have to pay for someone else taking credit they couldn't repay?

Surely its the indivudals (counting the banks as individuals as they should follow their own guidlines no matter which staff member offered the credit) who should settle the debts.

What is occuring is a bigger (more convoluted) version of :

Person A offers Person B1 £500.
Person B1 squanders the money and cannot repay person A.
Person A goes to some "moderator" saying that he needs the money back but B1 cannot afford it.
The moderator sits around for a bit and decides that he can afford to pay back Person A, as he is responsible for Person B1.
BUT Person B1 gives some money to the moderator, as do Persons B2 - B50.
The moderator pays back the £500 using £10 from persons B1,B2...B50.
So 49 people who had NOTHING to do with person A and Person B1's agreement are paying, becuase a moderator they all give money to decided they will.
Throw in the fact that the money given to the moderator was supposed to be used to protect Group B (Persons B1-B50), educate them and provide healthcare to them but now isn't their becuase Person A wanted it.

Seems terribly fair doesn't it.

 

[Zoe]

Then why does everyone other than the bankers have to pay for the mistakes of the banks for offering the credit to people they must have known were unlikely to be able to pay back.

It was either bail the banks out or let them fail and watch the financial system collapse. We can't know for sure but I expect even Cameron would have bailed the banks out had he been in power at the time.

 

[Hydro]

Says a lot about the financial system really...or more to the point, the people within the financial system.

 

[DarloRich]

I think i might dislike Nick Clegg MORE than Dave! The sell out. There is one thing i hate more than a Tory and that is a traitor. He sold us all down the river for a sniff of power. The bar steward!

 

[SS4]

Then why does everyone other than the bankers have to pay for the mistakes of the banks for offering the credit to people they must have known were unlikely to be able to pay back. Or if you feel the bankers were conned, why does the average person in the street have to pay for someone else taking credit they couldn't repay?

Surely its the indivudals (counting the banks as individuals as they should follow their own guidlines no matter which staff member offered the credit) who should settle the debts.

What is occuring is a bigger (more convoluted) version of :

Person A offers Person B1 £500.
Person B1 squanders the money and cannot repay person A.
Person A goes to some "moderator" saying that he needs the money back but B1 cannot afford it.
The moderator sits around for a bit and decides that he can afford to pay back Person A, as he is responsible for Person B1.
BUT Person B1 gives some money to the moderator, as do Persons B2 - B50.
The moderator pays back the £500 using £10 from persons B1,B2...B50.
So 49 people who had NOTHING to do with person A and Person B1's agreement are paying, becuase a moderator they all give money to decided they will.
Throw in the fact that the money given to the moderator was supposed to be used to protect Group B (Persons B1-B50), educate them and provide healthcare to them but now isn't their becuase Person A wanted it.

Seems terribly fair doesn't it.

Don't forget that instead of paying back the moderator person A is paying themselves a nice little bonus

 

[Zoe]

I think i might dislike Nick Clegg MORE than Dave! The sell out. There is one thing i hate more than a Tory and that is a traitor. He sold us all down the river for a sniff of power. The bar steward!

Personally I agree with you but the other point of view is that he had no choice as had he not done so then Cameron would still have been most likely to command the majority of the house and so would have formed a government. He could then have called another election where he may well have won a majority.

 

[SS4]

I think i might dislike Nick Clegg MORE than Dave! The sell out. There is one thing i hate more than a Tory and that is a traitor. He sold us all down the river for a sniff of power. The bar steward!

Agreed, I expected this off Cameron et al but not that Clegg would collude and worse yet I cannot change anything because I live in a safe Labour seat!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally I agree with you but the other point of view is that he had no choice as had he not done so then Cameron would still have been most likely to command the majority of the house and so would have formed a government. He could then have called another election where he may well have won a majority.

He wouldn't have had a majority though. I think it would have been better for the Lib Dems to sit independently and vote on issues accordingly. He could have called another election yes but without Brown who'd have known what Labour could have done

 

[BlythPower]

Just in case the old 'the gap between rich and poor got wider under Labour' chestnut gets wheeled out again, here's a handy cut-out-and-keep graph which should help explain: