Why the PH hatred of Call Me Dave?
Discussion
carinaman said:
Quangos?
He said they'd be culled. I am not sure that they have.
bit out of date, but that makes it even worse, no doubt they have increased in the last 4 years http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021729/So...He said they'd be culled. I am not sure that they have.
i believe the failure to address quangos was number 37 on his list of u-turns from here http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogspot.co.uk/...
t? wc98 said:
carinaman said:
Quangos?
He said they'd be culled. I am not sure that they have.
bit out of date, but that makes it even worse, no doubt they have increased in the last 4 years http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021729/So...He said they'd be culled. I am not sure that they have.
i believe the failure to address quangos was number 37 on his list of u-turns from here http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogspot.co.uk/...
Fact 2. The article you quote is from 2011
Fact 3. Over the course of this government, spending on Quangos has reduced
Public Administration Select Committee said:
The latest published and audited figures show annual spending reductions under the Public Bodies Reform Programme were an estimated £723 million in 2012-13 compared to 2010-11
That is from Nov 2014, the latest data I can findSo, as criticisms of Cameron go, that was a bit of a fail
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The start of the housing crisis was under Thatcher and her ill-thought out scheme to sell off the best of the council housing stock....and then to exclude the cash made from building more housing stocks to replace those that had been sold. Over time, the situation has become more and more acute, with less and less quality and good conditioned stock owned by councils up and down the length and breadth of the country needing more and more maintenance. 15 years ago in Edinburgh a 3 bed flat in the old town was around the £100k mark, now you'd be lucky to get one for £200k - salaries haven't doubled in that time.xjsdriver said:
15 years ago in Edinburgh a 3 bed flat in the old town was around the £100k mark, now you'd be lucky to get one for £200k - salaries haven't doubled in that time.
Why should salaries have doubled? The two aren't directly linked. A modest salary increase results in a disproportionately large increase in disposable income.anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's just one property though. Who knows what the owner might've had done to it between 2012 and 2014?If you look on the Land Registry site, prices for that postcode bounce around quite a bit. Number 20 sold for £171k in 2014, whereas number 37 sold for £207k back in 2011, for example.
Also, until the 2014 sale actually completes - it's not on the Land Reg site yet - you don't actually know what the agreed sale price was. I assume £230k was just the original asking price?
Typical Cameron.
FT said:
David Cameron has asked ministers to investigate if the intelligence agencies budget can be counted as “defence spending”, as Downing Street eyes creative accountancy to head off US criticism of military spending.
Amid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money.
Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08e9e07a-c746-11e4-8e1f-00144feab7de.htmlAmid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money.
Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
Yazar said:
Typical Cameron.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. If MI5 or GCHQ stop a terrorist atrocity, then they've done a pretty good job of defending the nation.FT said:
David Cameron has asked ministers to investigate if the intelligence agencies budget can be counted as “defence spending”, as Downing Street eyes creative accountancy to head off US criticism of military spending.
Amid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money.
Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08e9e07a-c746-11e4-8e1f-00144feab7de.htmlAmid anxiety in Washington that Britain’s defence budget will soon fall below Nato’s target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product, Mr Cameron has asked whether he can boost it without actually spending more money.
Oliver Letwin, head of policy at Number 10, has been asked to consider what kinds of spending can be categorised by Nato as “defence” expenditure in order to keep the UK close to the 2 per cent target, one government figure said.
Sir Nick Harvey, a former Liberal Democrat defence minister, said he was told to expect “all kinds of dodgy weaving and creative accounting” when Britain’s defence spending is expected to dip below the 2 per cent target next year.
NATO requirements were set up at a time when conventional warfare was pretty much the be all and end all of the discussion. That's not the case today, so priorities and funding should logically change.
This doesn't mean I don't loathe the tosser for lying to me.
Those agencies are an essential part of this Nation's defense mechanism. Apart from the more obvious which would wish us harm, those many scumbag would be terrorists the Nation has clutched to it's bosom have been flushed out well before they have been able to do their evil deeds. That was not simply luck or coincidence. Such defence mechanisms costs and it's money well spent.
turbobloke said:
Esseesse said:
What about including pensions in defence spending? Is that ok?
HM Treasury awaits your presence in a highly paid role 
FT said:
Ministry of Defence officials have already managed to boost the amount included in Nato calculations significantly this year. The ministry is to add war pensions, worth slightly more than £800m annually, to its Nato submission for 2015-16. This means UK spending will just meet the 2 per cent commitment this year.
The Tory party isn't fit for purpose. Sane conservatives should not endorse it.Esseesse said:
turbobloke said:
Esseesse said:
What about including pensions in defence spending? Is that ok?
HM Treasury awaits your presence in a highly paid role FT said:
Ministry of Defence officials have already managed to boost the amount included in Nato calculations significantly this year. The ministry is to add war pensions, worth slightly more than £800m annually, to its Nato submission for 2015-16. This means UK spending will just meet the 2 per cent commitment this year.
The Tory party isn't fit for purpose. Sane conservatives should not endorse it.
When parliament is dissolved at the end of this month CMD had better leave the blocks and run like hell to catch up with the army of lost voters. I'm not holding my breath.
Because he is a pathetic little weakling who is all talk and no action.
Tries to be everyones friend and makes none of the tough decisions. The 'we won't pay a single penny' £1.7billion EU fiasco, was a cringeworthy embarrassment of how spineless the bloke is.
I mean, how feeble do you have to be to not win an out-right majority against Red Ed!?
Tries to be everyones friend and makes none of the tough decisions. The 'we won't pay a single penny' £1.7billion EU fiasco, was a cringeworthy embarrassment of how spineless the bloke is.
I mean, how feeble do you have to be to not win an out-right majority against Red Ed!?
wc98 said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
That is from Nov 2014, the latest data I can find
So, as criticisms of Cameron go, that was a bit of a fail
the bit out of date bit at the beginning of my post left it open to recent figures changing the status ,but a bit of a fail it is.So, as criticisms of Cameron go, that was a bit of a fail
Apart from you saying "no doubt they would increase" when they haven't
And you suggesting a u-turn where the evidence is they did exactly what was promised
If that is not a fail to you, then I would suggest you take up supporting London Welsh RFC.
Reason number #9765
Call me Dave predictably comments innapropriately on the Clarkson situation.
The sitting PM can't defend someone on an action of whose facts are mere heresay, more so when he is a known friend so clear bias.
Cameron has a habit of it though- part of the "I'm one of the plebs" stratgey.
Call me Dave predictably comments innapropriately on the Clarkson situation.
The sitting PM can't defend someone on an action of whose facts are mere heresay, more so when he is a known friend so clear bias.
Cameron has a habit of it though- part of the "I'm one of the plebs" stratgey.
Yazar said:
Reason number #9765
Call me Dave predictably comments innapropriately on the Clarkson situation.
The sitting PM can't defend someone on an action of whose facts are mere heresay, more so when he is a known friend so clear bias.
Cameron has a habit of it though- part of the "I'm one of the plebs" stratgey.
One the one hand you criticise Cameron for not cutting enough, then criticise him for cutting defence spending too much.Call me Dave predictably comments innapropriately on the Clarkson situation.
The sitting PM can't defend someone on an action of whose facts are mere heresay, more so when he is a known friend so clear bias.
Cameron has a habit of it though- part of the "I'm one of the plebs" stratgey.
You also accuse him of having no backbone, and now criticise him for standing up for a friend.
Your debating ability is questionable at best when such hypocrisy is apparent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff