Is Cameron an utter failure?
Discussion
DickHerpes said:
The standard PH response to any claims that Cameron is under performing is that Gordon Brown would have been worse. So that's that put to bed. Personally I don't think he's been that great, but I didn't expect more and I did vote Conservative.
As an ex Tory voter, I'd say that Cameron is on a par with Brown. If brown were still PM now, I'm not sure what difference it would make, aside from a lot of entertaining posts on here. Cameron talks, and sometimes says what some want to hear, but then (unlike Thatcher perhaps), nothing - it's like he's buying breathing space for the next set of nothingness. He does remind me of an android, an EU automaton, perhaps...With that in mind, UKIP it is – it doesn’t matter if that allows Labour to get in because we already, to all intents and purposes have a Labour/left wing government in power right now.
Cameron hasn’t the backbone or wherewithal to do what’s best for the country it seems, and he will pay dearly for that – yet, surrounded by his out of touch advisers and cronies, does he even realise this?
I don't know what the answer is to make the UK a more respected and better country for the majority, but I know one thing, Cameron's government certainly isn't it.
oyster said:
Perhaps if we paid our MPs a decent six-figure salary we might attract some bright people out of the private sector to become MPs.
I consider myself to be distinctly normal in terms of my ability and success and yet earn more than an MP.
Including expenses without receipts, gold plated pension, parachute payment etc etc...?I consider myself to be distinctly normal in terms of my ability and success and yet earn more than an MP.
oyster said:
Perhaps if we paid our MPs a decent six-figure salary we might attract some bright people out of the private sector to become MPs.
I consider myself to be distinctly normal in terms of my ability and success and yet earn more than an MP.
It's a good question and probably deserves its own thread.I consider myself to be distinctly normal in terms of my ability and success and yet earn more than an MP.
You could for example base it on a multiple of median net income - 25x GBP20,000 Net ?
This would be attractive enough to make it worth doing, but still tied to both average earnings and reasonable taxation.
But MPs are meant to represent their respective communities, so would a high salary go against that, and detatch them from the realites of life for the majoritry of the population? Does "being in it for the money" matter if they can deliver an efficient government rather than someone taking the job to make a difference?
I can see the it being a good idea if implemented correctly.
Police State said:
eharding said:
sjn2004 said:
Actually you need to be able to support yourself if you go to another member state. Turning up jobless and penniless is not part of the game and you can be repatriated so why are 100,000's getting away with it?
Still waiting. Names. Two dozen of.Can't be difficult, can it?
Police State said:
I'm gonna stick my neck out here:
without wishing to sound 'too personal', you live in a fairly middle class area, drive a nice motor, and fund a private plane. I would suggest your life is fairly comfy and relatively cloistered such that you don't know; don't see; and don't hear of the realities of our east european friends criminal activities. I would therefore suggest that it is you that really hasn't a clue as to how relatively entrenched said activities are. Perhaps you may take a different view when the harsh realities of what you are seemingly in denial of directly affect you. It may be your RR on a container to Estonia, your bank account emptied; your house burgled,and so on...
But be assured, the essence of what the Op posted is utterly true.
PS: I forgot to add they may even be brazen enough to 'make use' of your plane for a nice little earner...
I spend a lot of time in Goole/Doncaster/Hull and North Lincolnshire, which is where most of the Polish, Slovakian, Hungarian, Romanian, Czech, etc immmigrats live and work.without wishing to sound 'too personal', you live in a fairly middle class area, drive a nice motor, and fund a private plane. I would suggest your life is fairly comfy and relatively cloistered such that you don't know; don't see; and don't hear of the realities of our east european friends criminal activities. I would therefore suggest that it is you that really hasn't a clue as to how relatively entrenched said activities are. Perhaps you may take a different view when the harsh realities of what you are seemingly in denial of directly affect you. It may be your RR on a container to Estonia, your bank account emptied; your house burgled,and so on...
But be assured, the essence of what the Op posted is utterly true.
PS: I forgot to add they may even be brazen enough to 'make use' of your plane for a nice little earner...
Edited by Police State on Tuesday 15th May 23:54
I know a lot of them personally through work and personal life.
I also know about a lot of crime through the police work I do (not a policeman).
Finally I know you are talking rubbish.
AJS- said:
I was going to say it depends what you measure him against, but then I realised that if it's anything other than Nick Clegg, he looks a bit of t
t.
Hasn't balanced the budget.
Hasn't tackled welfare dependency.
Hasn't repatriated any significant powers from the EU.
Hasn't tackled immigration.
Which makes me wonder, what has he actually done?
Well admittedly he hasn't spent quite as much as Labour would have done, which means Milliband and his merrys can snipe at his "mean" cuts and his "out of touch" tax rises (as though spending our own money was a mark of generosity, and being "in touch" meant being a destitute slob who lives on Gregg's pasties... But never mind, people are stupid.)
So Cameron's contribution to the sinking ship Britannia has been a half hearted spell on the bilge pump that means we're only up to our waist when it should have been up to our chest by now. This means that when Labour get re-elected in a couple of years they will be able to screw things up even more, and we will be even further past the point of no return.
The 2010 election was a good one to lose, and had Cameron led his party to provide a genuine alternative to the tax, spend, regulate mantra of the last 15 years then he could have either won with a mandate to do something worthwhile, or lost it to good effect. Yes Britain would be a more chaotic and indebted place right now, but he would be poised to be prime minister with a strong majority and a country crying out for deep rooted change.
As things stand we have no prospect of anything useful happening in the near future. So yes, Cameron has failed.
Doesn't hindsight make life so much easier for you t.Hasn't balanced the budget.
Hasn't tackled welfare dependency.
Hasn't repatriated any significant powers from the EU.
Hasn't tackled immigration.
Which makes me wonder, what has he actually done?
Well admittedly he hasn't spent quite as much as Labour would have done, which means Milliband and his merry
s can snipe at his "mean" cuts and his "out of touch" tax rises (as though spending our own money was a mark of generosity, and being "in touch" meant being a destitute slob who lives on Gregg's pasties... But never mind, people are stupid.)So Cameron's contribution to the sinking ship Britannia has been a half hearted spell on the bilge pump that means we're only up to our waist when it should have been up to our chest by now. This means that when Labour get re-elected in a couple of years they will be able to screw things up even more, and we will be even further past the point of no return.
The 2010 election was a good one to lose, and had Cameron led his party to provide a genuine alternative to the tax, spend, regulate mantra of the last 15 years then he could have either won with a mandate to do something worthwhile, or lost it to good effect. Yes Britain would be a more chaotic and indebted place right now, but he would be poised to be prime minister with a strong majority and a country crying out for deep rooted change.
As things stand we have no prospect of anything useful happening in the near future. So yes, Cameron has failed.
How many of the above items you think Cameron has failed on were actually in the Coalition agreement?
oyster said:
Police State said:
eharding said:
sjn2004 said:
Actually you need to be able to support yourself if you go to another member state. Turning up jobless and penniless is not part of the game and you can be repatriated so why are 100,000's getting away with it?
Still waiting. Names. Two dozen of.Can't be difficult, can it?
oyster said:
AJS- said:
I was going to say it depends what you measure him against, but then I realised that if it's anything other than Nick Clegg, he looks a bit of tt.
Hasn't balanced the budget.
Hasn't tackled welfare dependency.
Hasn't repatriated any significant powers from the EU.
Hasn't tackled immigration.
Which makes me wonder, what has he actually done?
Well admittedly he hasn't spent quite as much as Labour would have done, which means Milliband and his merrys can snipe at his "mean" cuts and his "out of touch" tax rises (as though spending our own money was a mark of generosity, and being "in touch" meant being a destitute slob who lives on Gregg's pasties... But never mind, people are stupid.)
So Cameron's contribution to the sinking ship Britannia has been a half hearted spell on the bilge pump that means we're only up to our waist when it should have been up to our chest by now. This means that when Labour get re-elected in a couple of years they will be able to screw things up even more, and we will be even further past the point of no return.
The 2010 election was a good one to lose, and had Cameron led his party to provide a genuine alternative to the tax, spend, regulate mantra of the last 15 years then he could have either won with a mandate to do something worthwhile, or lost it to good effect. Yes Britain would be a more chaotic and indebted place right now, but he would be poised to be prime minister with a strong majority and a country crying out for deep rooted change.
As things stand we have no prospect of anything useful happening in the near future. So yes, Cameron has failed.
Doesn't hindsight make life so much easier for you t.Hasn't balanced the budget.
Hasn't tackled welfare dependency.
Hasn't repatriated any significant powers from the EU.
Hasn't tackled immigration.
Which makes me wonder, what has he actually done?
Well admittedly he hasn't spent quite as much as Labour would have done, which means Milliband and his merry
s can snipe at his "mean" cuts and his "out of touch" tax rises (as though spending our own money was a mark of generosity, and being "in touch" meant being a destitute slob who lives on Gregg's pasties... But never mind, people are stupid.)So Cameron's contribution to the sinking ship Britannia has been a half hearted spell on the bilge pump that means we're only up to our waist when it should have been up to our chest by now. This means that when Labour get re-elected in a couple of years they will be able to screw things up even more, and we will be even further past the point of no return.
The 2010 election was a good one to lose, and had Cameron led his party to provide a genuine alternative to the tax, spend, regulate mantra of the last 15 years then he could have either won with a mandate to do something worthwhile, or lost it to good effect. Yes Britain would be a more chaotic and indebted place right now, but he would be poised to be prime minister with a strong majority and a country crying out for deep rooted change.
As things stand we have no prospect of anything useful happening in the near future. So yes, Cameron has failed.
How many of the above items you think Cameron has failed on were actually in the Coalition agreement?
It was easy to see in April 2010 as well
2 years ago AJS- said:
ClintonB said:
If I had to vote for slimy Dave & his merry men, I would, but only because voting for Winky & Co is without doubt the quickest way to destroy what is left of this country. Mind you, might get me off my arse and leaving pronto.
Unfortunately at this point I think that's a good thing. Cameron is only a slower way to destroy the country. The sooner it's destroyed completely the sooner we can rebuild it better.Politics is all about compromise, I know that. But Cameron compromised too much. He abandoned any sort of Tory principles for the sake of winning an election, and found himself with neither.
Appointing Andy Coulson as his press secretary was a crazy, kamikaze appointment by Cameron which anyone with an ounce of sense could see was a bad idea.
Cameron was warned explicitly by Alan Rusbridger about appointing Andy Coulson.
When Rebekah Brooks finally resigned Cameron was still fully in support of her, texting her to say so.
He had plenty of warning about staying as far from the Murdoch organisation as possible yet Cameron made the poitive decsion to do the opposite and get as close as he could.
Before the entirely predictable "But Labour were just the same", this thread is about Cameron. If someone starts a thread about Labour I'll criticise them.
Cameron was warned explicitly by Alan Rusbridger about appointing Andy Coulson.
When Rebekah Brooks finally resigned Cameron was still fully in support of her, texting her to say so.
He had plenty of warning about staying as far from the Murdoch organisation as possible yet Cameron made the poitive decsion to do the opposite and get as close as he could.
Before the entirely predictable "But Labour were just the same", this thread is about Cameron. If someone starts a thread about Labour I'll criticise them.
crankedup said:
oyster said:
Police State said:
eharding said:
sjn2004 said:
Actually you need to be able to support yourself if you go to another member state. Turning up jobless and penniless is not part of the game and you can be repatriated so why are 100,000's getting away with it?
Still waiting. Names. Two dozen of.Can't be difficult, can it?
I said of the scummy people I see, I did not say those people were scummy. There's a world of difference.
rohrl said:
Appointing Andy Coulson as his press secretary was a crazy, kamikaze appointment by Cameron which anyone with an ounce of sense could see was a bad idea.
Cameron was warned explicitly by Alan Rusbridger about appointing Andy Coulson.
When Rebekah Brooks finally resigned Cameron was still fully in support of her, texting her to say so.
He had plenty of warning about staying as far from the Murdoch organisation as possible yet Cameron made the poitive decsion to do the opposite and get as close as he could.
Before the entirely predictable "But Labour were just the same", this thread is about Cameron. If someone starts a thread about Labour I'll criticise them.
Can you point me to the PH thread or multiple press articles where Cameron was advisoed against this?Cameron was warned explicitly by Alan Rusbridger about appointing Andy Coulson.
When Rebekah Brooks finally resigned Cameron was still fully in support of her, texting her to say so.
He had plenty of warning about staying as far from the Murdoch organisation as possible yet Cameron made the poitive decsion to do the opposite and get as close as he could.
Before the entirely predictable "But Labour were just the same", this thread is about Cameron. If someone starts a thread about Labour I'll criticise them.
Or is this yet another expert post based on hindsight?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff