Why the PH hatred of Call Me Dave?

[anonymous-user]

Claudia Skies said:

...he said, completely missing the point that the UK population is rising massively faster than the supply of houses.

Well we are letting 250,000 more in a year when Cameron promised it should be only tens of thousands (another Cameron failure).
Help To Buy 2, effectively gave people who hadn't saved a 25% deposit, a reason to pile into the overheated market, increasing demand, but not supply. That is why I saw properties jump by 20k in just a couple of months. We didn't just suddenly get a shortage of homes in two months!
Then that is forgetting with low interest rates, and Buy to Let Investors bundling into the property market to fund their retirements, and taking even more property off the market.
Cheap credit is also another reason why properties have rocketed.

Prior to Help to Buy, no-one was mentioning housing crisis, they are now, as more and more people are using property as an investment vehicle.

The rich get richer, and the middle and working classes get shoved into small shoe boxes or rented accommodation.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Yazar said:

Its not foreign aid.

It is a country that used to be an empire ensuring its legalised bribes are set in stone, to maintain its weakening influence. Something that will have been lobbied hard for by party donors at anonymous supper clubs.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite extraordinary posts.

So I think that partly answers the OPs question.

Because many on here have little contact with reality

[Einion Yrth]

I don't hate him; I don't trust him and I don't think we share much in terms of political ideals but I don't hate him. If I were feeling particularly charitable that day I might cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. It would be the neighbourly course of action.

[anonymous-user]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Quite extraordinary posts.

So I think that partly answers the OPs question.

Because many on here have little contact with reality

I was on the verge of buying a property, then Help to Buy 2 came in and within 2 months properties in my area went up by 20K.

I had done the right thing saving a large deposit, with the idea of taking on a 120k mortgage. Following Help to Buy 2 the properties just spiralled as joint holders on 4.5x incomes piled into the market with the help of the government. Mervyn King, Vince Cable and the IMF all warned it would happen.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th March 22:19

[Pit Pony]

Einion Yrth said:

I don't hate him; I don't trust him and I don't think we share much in terms of political ideals but I don't hate him. If I were feeling particularly charitable that day I might cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. It would be the neighbourly course of action.

if there was a like button, you'd get my vote.

[turbobloke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Quite extraordinary posts.

So I think that partly answers the OPs question.

Because many on here have little contact with reality

Yours just joined the list, and whatever contacts you have with whatever else are entirely your business. By the same token you know very little if anything about others and if you base other judgements on such a dearth of accurate information then the best of luck to you as you'll need it.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

but the Tories tend to side with science so no surprise.

Climate science isn't science.

I would suggest that you Google "The Scientific Method". This has been around for almost 400 years. it says a few things, but the most important thing is that if you make a prediction based on a theory, and observations show that your predictions were wrong - then your theory is wrong.

So... Theory, Prediction, Observation.

If the observation contradicts the prediction, then your theory is rubbish.

All the predictions that so called "climate scientists" made have failed. The world has not warmed for 18 years and four months, despite the fact that CO2 has increased.

The only compelling argument that the alarmists have is that they can claim "concensus". When the Royal Society was founded in 1660, they adopted a motto. It was "Nullius in verba".

Clearly, no real scientist who knows anything about science would ever ask you to believe him/her because there was a consensus. They would only ask you to believe them on the evidence. Phil Jones, in the climategate e-mails, said that he would sooner delete the raw data than make it public.

I don't know what age you are, but you might remember the Cold Fusion incident. A couple of scientists thought that they were close to the holy grail of energy production - Cold Fusion. This would have meant unlimited, almost free, electricity.

They were true scientists, even if they were mistaken. They released their data and their methods so that other scientist could try to replicate their results. Other scientists tried, and failed, and their hypothesis was confined to the dustbin of history. This was a perfect example how science should work.

This has never happened in climate science. Phil Jones threatened to delete his data if FOI requests looked likely to succeed. Michael Mann tried to hide the fact that he spliced real temperatures onto proxy data.

Everywhere we look in climate science we see charlatans that are obstructing proper enquiry.

JustAnotherLogin said:

He is in favour of business (and hence EU).

The list goes on

I run a company, and our profits would increase if we were freed from the EU. If you are pro business, then I would think that you are more likely to want to exit the EU.

I export to the EU, and the reduction in costs would more than offset any potential increases in duty.

[Gecko1978]

don4l said:

His promise to re-negotiate our terms of membership of the EU are totally disingenuous. He cannot repatriate any powers to Britain, and he knows this. The reason that he cannot achieve his stated aim is quite simple. It can be found in the Treaty of Rome. You don't have to spend much time studying the treaty to find the problem. All you need to do is read the first bit of the first sentence.

Here it is:-

First sentence of the Treaty of Rome 1957 said:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED

to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

Since 1957, every change has been in pursuit of this goal - "ever closer union". Powers have never been handed back to member states, they have always shifted towards Brussels. Dave knows this, and yet he is allowing Conservative supporters to think that he will take some powers back!

Any repatriation of powers would breach the Treaty, and therefore they cannot happen. They would be illegal.

So, Dave knows that he cannot succeed in his "re-negotiation". He is trying to con traditional Tories.

"Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me".

while the above is true its also true that Labour will never offer a vote on Rurope and none of the other parties stand a chance of getting a majority. The torys have kept the show on the road no massive Greek Irish Spanish (recall food riots on tv not riots for new trainers) economic melt down.

What would labor do exactluy...more non job creation more benefit bribes more borrowing highers tax's none of these appeal at all where as Cameron does not offer me a Ferrari an 0% tax but he does not offer the other st either an thus I have no choice I cant vote for higher tax's more debt and a st future for my kids

[Mobile Chicane]

Claudia Skies said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

...he said, completely missing the point that the UK population is rising massively faster than the supply of houses.

There is no shortage of UK property in general. Merely a shortage of property which is available to owner-occupy.

[mph1977]

don4l said:

I run a company, and our profits would increase if we were freed from the EU. If you are pro business, then I would think that you are more likely to want to exit the EU.

I export to the EU, and the reduction in costs would more than offset any potential increases in duty.

by retunring to C19th standards of workforce protection , training and social protection ?

[don4l]

Gecko1978 said:

don4l said:

His promise to re-negotiate our terms of membership of the EU are totally disingenuous. He cannot repatriate any powers to Britain, and he knows this. The reason that he cannot achieve his stated aim is quite simple. It can be found in the Treaty of Rome. You don't have to spend much time studying the treaty to find the problem. All you need to do is read the first bit of the first sentence.

Here it is:-

First sentence of the Treaty of Rome 1957 said:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,
DETERMINED

to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

Since 1957, every change has been in pursuit of this goal - "ever closer union". Powers have never been handed back to member states, they have always shifted towards Brussels. Dave knows this, and yet he is allowing Conservative supporters to think that he will take some powers back!

Any repatriation of powers would breach the Treaty, and therefore they cannot happen. They would be illegal.

So, Dave knows that he cannot succeed in his "re-negotiation". He is trying to con traditional Tories.

"Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me".

while the above is true its also true that Labour will never offer a vote on Rurope and none of the other parties stand a chance of getting a majority. The torys have kept the show on the road no massive Greek Irish Spanish (recall food riots on tv not riots for new trainers) economic melt down.

What would labor do exactluy...more non job creation more benefit bribes more borrowing highers tax's none of these appeal at all where as Cameron does not offer me a Ferrari an 0% tax but he does not offer the other st either an thus I have no choice I cant vote for higher tax's more debt and a st future for my kids

Labour would screw things up a little bit more than the Tories. They wouldn't be able to do too much damage because GILT rates would go through the roof. It would be a bit like the 1970's when the IMF was called in. The government would be forced to cut spending because nobody would lend them any money.

This is why I wouldn't have been too worried if Labour had won in 2010. They left a "note" to say that there wasn't any money left. Money became available because the markets thought that the Conservatives would be more careful/prudent. Sadly, this meant that they were able to be less prudent.

[Gecko1978]

and yet we are better for that. when the vault is empty you should not be calling up wonga for a sub to pay your feckless mates should you and Labour would and will do that. Also if UK Bonds attacted higher haircut / rates it would make govermenbt spending of which some has to take place much more expensive so rather than austerity we would just have no new goverment projects. it would be like the 70s again

[Johnnytheboy]

I don't hate him but I am very, very tired of his administration announcing things that they have no intention of doing, the motorway 80 limit being just the first one to spring to mind.

Oh yes and English votes for English laws, like that was ever going to happen.

[don4l]

Johnnytheboy said:

I don't hate him but I am very, very tired of his administration announcing things that they have no intention of doing, the motorway 80 limit being just the first one to spring to mind.

Oh yes and English votes for English laws, like that was ever going to happen.

That's a good point.

He was going to end the "war on motorists".

Am I the only one who hasn't seen a suspension of hostilities?

Has he made as many false promises as Harold Wilson?

[MGJohn]

Actually, Desperate Dave has played a bit of a blinder with his "Will he, won't he" stance on the TV Debate. This non-event has consumed much media airtime deflecting media attention away from far more important matters which will affect the way folks will vote.

Yes, all clever stuff .. It will blow over though despite his efforts to spin it out over the longer term...

[Esseesse]

He's a fake, PR man of a politician. He despises conservative values and adores the EU. Yes I know the Tory party have historically been pro-EU, the Tory party for a long time have been useless... but back then people couldn't inform themselves through the internet, and the threat to the UK by the EU was not apparent.

2010 was the first time for a generation worth of conservatives to have a 'conservative' PM. A large number I suspect will feel conned and will find it hard to support the Torys again.

Conservative minded voters should not allow themselves to be deceived into voting for the Tory party, if it were wiped out there may be a chance of a truly determined conservative party emerging with the backbone required to stand up to the Fabians.

[mph1977]

Esseesse said:

He's a fake, PR man of a politician. He despises conservative values and adores the EU. Yes I know the Tory party have historically been pro-EU, the Tory party for a long time have been useless... but back then people couldn't inform themselves through the internet, and the threat to the UK by the EU was not apparent.

2010 was the first time for a generation worth of conservatives to have a 'conservative' PM. A large number I suspect will feel conned and will find it hard to support the Torys again.

Conservative minded voters should not allow themselves to be deceived into voting for the Tory party, if it were wiped out there may be a chance of a truly determined conservative party emerging with the backbone required to stand up to the Fabians.

to paraphrase he's insufficiently powerfully built , doesn't posess a goattee, understands that the UK's place in within the EU rather than isolationist position built on jingoism, delusion aobut our indepedent position and the likelihood of renewed commonwealth trade, xenophobia and borderline sociopathy masquerading as libertarianism.

[krallicious]

Hate is too stronger word. Distrust/not keen on/loath maybe but compared to the competition, he is far more palatable.

I can only hope that Labour, the Greens, Libs, SNP etc do not even get a sniff of power as we will be even more fked than we are now (even though things are looking better).

An outright win is not going to happen for the Cons but another coalition, this time with UKIP, could prove more fruitful than the current one.

[oyster]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Yazar said:

He is a fake.


He stands for nothing, has no convictions, believes in nothing.

And at the same he is criticised for things like keeping spending money on foreign aid

It would undoubtedly be politically popular. But he doesn't. Might that be because of his own convictions? If not why is it?

In truth his policies are in general true to conservative history.

They just aren't the convictions or the policies that some very vocal members on here would like. He is undoubtedly on the pro-EU side of the fence, but in truth the Tory party has been (overall) for a long time. He is in favour of green policies, but the Tories tend to side with science so no surprise. He is in favour of business (and hence EU).

The list goes on

Bingo!
Many here haven't a clue about conservatism before 1975 and after 1990.
Cameron is every inch a Tory. Not a Thatcherite Tory sure, but very much a traditional Tory.

[jogon]

So what is your thoughts of a ConLab coalition been muted around by some tory MPs?