Is Cameron an utter failure?

[NobleGuy]

Derek Smith said:

NobleGuy said:

Derek Smith said:

NobleGuy said:

Derek Smith said:

Cameron has invented the Government Digital Service. This unit has taken over from nothing so is entirely new. It advertised for 42 (that's forty-two) IT posts, and a total salary of 3.5m pa. And then there are the admin roles. So much for the bonfire of the quangos.

But then it has already produced a report, the intent of which is to clarify the law on cookies. Which it doesn't.

Are you suggesting that this is somehow indicative of his uselessness....? We could go back over Labour's efforts in the IT world if you want your eyes to water at the thought of their unprecedented level of waste.

I have no doubt that Labour are going to get back in unless things start improving soon, but it's probably going to have more to do with people's inexplicable amnesia along with genuine stupidity.

I'm not sure what what labour has to do with Cameron's promise. DC said he would instigate a bonfire of the quangos, which he didn't. Instead he creates a new one. I don't see how labour's performance changes or mitigates his.

Your post suggests £3.5m is a head-exploding amount of money, whereas in reality it's small change.
Especially compared to what, £25 or so billion?

Did you vote for him on the basis of him getting rid of quangos?

He identified quangos as a leach on society. He promised to get rid of them. He has not done so ans has, indeed, started a number of othem. The point is not whether £3.5m is a small amount of money, it is that he has failed on one of his promises. I don't think this is one that he can blame on the lib/dems. I know the business to a small extent and what I know is that such a quango can be delayed, like they do in other countries.

The major point though is that it is money. One thing I have learned when trying to balance personal income/expenditure is that there are no 'small change'. You spend nothing you don't have to. If it doesn't bring in more that you are paying out, it goes. On top of that, this IT qungo, plus that other one he's allowed to continue, and that other one, oh! and that one over there, soon adds up. And is adding up.

There is small change. Everybody spends money on things they don't need. How do you explain the personal debt mountain (just so people can keep up with Jones's and have that new Audi, extension, etc., etc.)? It's not a popular theory, but the lending and debt crisis (and the recession) is at least equally down to the idiots that have spent and borrowed and spent and borrowed and spent and borrowed some more.

The thing is, the cuts that are trying to do the very thing you're talking about are going to be the reason that Labour return to power at the next election. People see cuts, they see a tough time now and ahead and they cry about it even though the alternative is to proceed into financial oblivion.

Quangos are not the problem here.

[AJS-]

NobleGuy said:

Quangos are not the problem here.

This particular quango with it's relatively modest budget as quangos go (and 3.5 million is not small change) is not the problem, but the general reflex action of setting up a quango and pouring government money into every aspect of our lives very much is the problem.

Personal debt is more easily dealt with - Audis and flash houses can be repossessed and sold on at a more realistic market value.

Government debt is another matter.

[frosted]

Johnnytheboy said:

Sorry if it's not been covered, but Cameron's main failure occurred pre-2010 in failing to get enough people to vote for him.

Much if this government's failure has been due to the lib dems stopping them doing anything important.

Tell me you dont really believe that!

Anyway, how long till we have elections, I cant see this Government lasting much longer with everything going against them, like the euro, perjury and fraud.

[eharding]

frosted said:

Tell me you dont really believe that!

Anyway, how long till we have elections, I cant see this Government lasting much longer with everything going against them, like the euro, perjury and fraud.

Unless the Lib Dems have a collective death-wish, just under another three years to go.

[Johnnytheboy]

frosted said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Sorry if it's not been covered, but Cameron's main failure occurred pre-2010 in failing to get enough people to vote for him.

Much if this government's failure has been due to the lib dems stopping them doing anything important.

Tell me you dont really believe that!

Anyway, how long till we have elections, I cant see this Government lasting much longer with everything going against them, like the euro, perjury and fraud.

I do. Sure, I'm simplifying a bit - I don't think CMD is the best leader the Tories could have, but he'll do.

But most of the things about the coalition that have struck me as failures have been where the LibDems have stuck their oar in and either vetoed or fatally diluted a good policy.

But then I'm what you might call a core-vote tory, so I would say that, wouldn't I?

[Asterix]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151864/A-...

Sorry for the DM link.

Why, why, why, why, why would he do something so damn stupid?

[Justayellowbadge]

Asterix said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151864/A-...

Sorry for the DM link.

Why, why, why, why, why would he do something so damn stupid?

"So, Tony, what would you do, A or B?"

"Gosh, Dave, definitely B."

"Great, thanks Tone, love to Cherie. Bye now. Nick! We're doing A."

[Apache]

Not an Utter Failure....just a dismal one FFS, now how did it go? 'a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour?'

[loafer123]

Asterix said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151864/A-...

Sorry for the DM link.

Why, why, why, why, why would he do something so damn stupid?

Personally I think Blair is an odious charlatan, but you'd be stupid to not tap into his knowledge and experience.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Obama talks to Bush occasionally.

[Asterix]

loafer123 said:

Asterix said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151864/A-...

Sorry for the DM link.

Why, why, why, why, why would he do something so damn stupid?

Personally I think Blair is an odious charlatan, but you'd be stupid to not tap into his knowledge and experience.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Obama talks to Bush occasionally.

Fair enough - I seem to be saying that quite a lot today - but I'd argue that Bush isn't held with the same utter contempt in the US the way Blair is in the UK.

Edited by Asterix on Wednesday 30th May 13:36

[loafer123]

Asterix said:

...but I'd argue that Bush isn't held with the same utter contempt in the US the way Blair is in the UK.

I certainly agree with you on that.

[Oilchange]

...know thine enemy

[AJS-]

Asterix said:

I'd argue that Bush isn't held with the same utter contempt in the US the way Blair is in the UK.

Unfortunately I think you'd be wrong. Some people still think Blair was good. Really.

I don't understand why, but then I never got the whole Blair thing anyway, even in 1997, when I was 18 and a good deal of my contemporaries thought he was a breath of fresh air, and some even thought he had good ideas.

The only thing I can find to say anywhere near being in his favour is that he is a slick media operator and a good speaker, and that seems to be more important to most people than little things like illegal wars, bankrupt exchequers or using the Premiership to make himself a multimillionaire.

[NobleGuy]

AJS- said:

NobleGuy said:

Quangos are not the problem here.

This particular quango with it's relatively modest budget as quangos go (and 3.5 million is not small change) is not the problem, but the general reflex action of setting up a quango and pouring government money into every aspect of our lives very much is the problem.

I think, in terms of govt finances, £3.5m is even less than small change

AJS- said:

Personal debt is more easily dealt with - Audis and flash houses can be repossessed and sold on at a more realistic market value.

Unfortunately 'realistic market value' usually means 'at a loss'.
The economy is on it's knees because of personal debt.

[loafer123]

Someone on here mentioned that Cameron had claimed that if we hadn't stayed out of the Stability Pact we would have to be contributing €14.5bn to the rescue of the Spainish Banks.

Is that true? If so, he's earnt his crust this week...

[AJS-]

NobleGuy said:

AJS- said:

NobleGuy said:

Quangos are not the problem here.

This particular quango with it's relatively modest budget as quangos go (and 3.5 million is not small change) is not the problem, but the general reflex action of setting up a quango and pouring government money into every aspect of our lives very much is the problem.

I think, in terms of govt finances, £3.5m is even less than small change

AJS- said:

Personal debt is more easily dealt with - Audis and flash houses can be repossessed and sold on at a more realistic market value.

Unfortunately 'realistic market value' usually means 'at a loss'.
The economy is on it's knees because of personal debt.

Of course it will be a loss, they paid way too much and lent far too easily. That's the nature of making a mistake really.

£3.5m would pay the wage bill for a company of 1,000 people for a year. Is this quango employing 1,000 people? What the hell do they all do? It's more than most successful, high income earners will earn in their entire life. So are they employing the best and the brightest, and paying them big six figure incomes? And why?

Yes it is a small drop in the vast ocean of utter waste that is our public sector, where you need to be in the tens of billions to even register, but all that really tells you is what a colossal scale this waste has reached.

[alock]

AJS- said:

£3.5m would pay the wage bill for a company of 1,000 people for a year.

£3.5m divided by 1000 is £3500. That's a very low salary even with zero overheads.

£3.5m will typically run a company of about 50 people with wages ranging between £20K and £100K

[AJS-]

alock said:

AJS- said:

£3.5m would pay the wage bill for a company of 1,000 people for a year.

£3.5m divided by 1000 is £3500. That's a very low salary even with zero overheads.

£3.5m will typically run a company of about 50 people with wages ranging between £20K and £100K

Haha. I cocked my sums up!

[NobleGuy]

AJS- said:

alock said:

AJS- said:

£3.5m would pay the wage bill for a company of 1,000 people for a year.

£3.5m divided by 1000 is £3500. That's a very low salary even with zero overheads.

£3.5m will typically run a company of about 50 people with wages ranging between £20K and £100K

Haha. I cocked my sums up!

See, this govt lark isn't so easy

[markcoznottz]

AJS- said:

Asterix said:

I'd argue that Bush isn't held with the same utter contempt in the US the way Blair is in the UK.

Unfortunately I think you'd be wrong. Some people still think Blair was good. Really.

I don't understand why, but then I never got the whole Blair thing anyway, even in 1997, when I was 18 and a good deal of my contemporaries thought he was a breath of fresh air, and some even thought he had good ideas.

The only thing I can find to say anywhere near being in his favour is that he is a slick media operator and a good speaker, and that seems to be more important to most people than little things like illegal wars, bankrupt exchequers or using the Premiership to make himself a multimillionaire.

The labour government were good at only one thing, tax and spend, despite blairs rhetoric of being a Tory lite. Unfortunately due to a combination of events, none of his making, luck you might say, noone noticed. Rising house prices, endless credit, cheap fuel, food, imported Chinese tat, and new things to distract people, Internet, mobile phones. X factor etc. Everything has flat lined now, there is no optimism, and if peoPle have no hope that is very dangerous.