Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
It is a fantasy perpetuated in the mad minds of frenzied Kippers that Labour and Tories are the same. They are clearly not. Voting to put in :Labour is a total nihilistic act by anybody who votes UKIP. No doubt the most frenzied in UKIP are nihilists (amongst other things) but I would rather not be dragged down with them. My own suspicion is that UKIP give the meanest most extreme minded people in the country a bit of a thrill and not much else matters. Certainly what UKIP peddle about the EU (something it used to be interested in) is founded on a big lie.
I know I'll regret this, but I'll bite. Which exact 'lie' is that pray tell?
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
I say unto you once more: Since Blair and Cameron arrived on the political stage, there is really very little difference between modern Labour and Tory parties.
Apart from one will have a referendum on EU membership and one won't. Cue frenzied Cameron liar posts.
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
I say unto you once more: Since Blair and Cameron arrived on the political stage, there is really very little difference between modern Labour and Tory parties.
Apart from one will have a referendum on EU membership and one won't. Cue frenzied Cameron liar posts.
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
How does that work? All this leaves aside that Labour is pro immigration and multi culturalism and rabidly pro the EU. Someone needs to explain how any of this works.
It works this way:
Labour is pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
Tories are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
L/Dems are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
The Lab/Lib/Con party is all the same and there is no difference between the parties except nuance.
Vote UKIP and get UKIP: and Flightpath you keep on crashing
Vote UKIP in CON-LAB battlegrounds and you are likely to get Labour.
I also wrote earlier:
Since Blair and Cameron arrived on the political stage, there is really very little difference between modern Labour and Tory parties.
That is a plain silly comment.
The perspective depends on where you are standing. What are the big issues that divide the current Conservative and Labour parties? From where I am I see some fag-paper wide gaps and lots of huff and puff, but not much else - certainly nothing that would affect me and mine terribly much.
Mind you, Labour haven't actually come up with any policies as yet, but we know that the Labour Party manifesto is worthless. The last Labour government even went to court to defend the fact that they can say any old rubbish before the election and are not in the least bit bound by any of it. On to of that we have the possibility of another coalition government in which the leader of the minority party gets control of the brake - can't make anything happen but he/she can stop things happening.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
Completely off topic but after their most recent win Yorkshire have 9 batsmen with an county average of over 40 - and Joe Root is the 8th best! Must be some kind of record.
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
It is a fantasy perpetuated in the mad minds of frenzied Kippers that Labour and Tories are the same. They are clearly not. Voting to put in :Labour is a total nihilistic act by anybody who votes UKIP. No doubt the most frenzied in UKIP are nihilists (amongst other things) but I would rather not be dragged down with them. My own suspicion is that UKIP give the meanest most extreme minded people in the country a bit of a thrill and not much else matters. Certainly what UKIP peddle about the EU (something it used to be interested in) is founded on a big lie.
The Conservatives are bit better than Labour. Cameron is a bit better than Milliband. That's all.
If one lives in a safe seat, or a seat that UKIP have a chance of winning, there's no downside to voting UKIP.
11.8.14 LAB 331 (330) CON 261(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 268 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
How does that work? All this leaves aside that Labour is pro immigration and multi culturalism and rabidly pro the EU. Someone needs to explain how any of this works.
It works this way:
Labour is pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
Tories are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
L/Dems are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
The Lab/Lib/Con party is all the same and there is no difference between the parties except nuance.
Vote UKIP and get UKIP: and Flightpath you keep on crashing
Vote UKIP in CON-LAB battlegrounds and you are likely to get Labour.
I also wrote earlier:
Since Blair and Cameron arrived on the political stage, there is really very little difference between modern Labour and Tory parties.
That is a plain silly comment.
The perspective depends on where you are standing. What are the big issues that divide the current Conservative and Labour parties? From where I am I see some fag-paper wide gaps and lots of huff and puff, but not much else - certainly nothing that would affect me and mine terribly much.
Mind you, Labour haven't actually come up with any policies as yet, but we know that the Labour Party manifesto is worthless. The last Labour government even went to court to defend the fact that they can say any old rubbish before the election and are not in the least bit bound by any of it. On to of that we have the possibility of another coalition government in which the leader of the minority party gets control of the brake - can't make anything happen but he/she can stop things happening.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
It's like the dispute between Swift's Big-Enders and Little-Enders.
11.8.14 LAB 331 (330) CON 261(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM) Last weeks BJESUS in brackets BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) Using current polling adjusted for 268 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
How does that work? All this leaves aside that Labour is pro immigration and multi culturalism and rabidly pro the EU. Someone needs to explain how any of this works.
It works this way:
Labour is pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
Tories are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
L/Dems are pro immigration, supports the EU, loves multiculturalism and does untold damage to the country.
The Lab/Lib/Con party is all the same and there is no difference between the parties except nuance.
Vote UKIP and get UKIP: and Flightpath you keep on crashing
Tories are not pro immigration. Tories have campaigned against the damage to multiculturalism http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-my-war-on-multiculturalism-2205074.html (Cameron: 'My war on multiculturalism) Tories are no 'pro EU' they voted against Lisbon and do not believe in 'ever closer union' or the euro and are pledged to offer a referendum about continued membership on renegotiated terms. The tories are not doing untold damage to the country... they have reformed education health welfare and pensions and been attacked all along the line by Labour. they are cutting public sector jobs in the teeth of labour and trade union opposition they do not for instance support ever closer EU union and promise a referendum on continued membership.
Your words display what a fantasy world you live in. Indeed they are words which never even get off the ground they are so beyond the reality.
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
It is a fantasy perpetuated in the mad minds of frenzied Kippers that Labour and Tories are the same. They are clearly not. Voting to put in :Labour is a total nihilistic act by anybody who votes UKIP. No doubt the most frenzied in UKIP are nihilists (amongst other things) but I would rather not be dragged down with them. My own suspicion is that UKIP give the meanest most extreme minded people in the country a bit of a thrill and not much else matters. Certainly what UKIP peddle about the EU (something it used to be interested in) is founded on a big lie.
The Conservatives are bit better than Labour. Cameron is a bit better than Milliband. That's all.
If one lives in a safe seat, or a seat that UKIP have a chance of winning, there's no downside to voting UKIP.
Voting kipper last time kept balls deep in the palace of Westminster.
Alex Salmond’s plan for a separate Scotland’s currency is mired deeper in confusion after he said keeping the pound without the Bank of England’s support would only be a stopgap.
The First Minister said a viable "transition option" was Scotland continuing to use sterling even if the UK parties continue to reject a Eurozone-style currency union.
But, speaking with a month to go before the September 18 referendum, he refused to say which of the two long-term options – the euro or a new currency – Scotland would move to after the transition period or how long that would be
"Parents need to learn to say no to their children and "use the off switch" to stop them spending too much time watching television or going on the internet, David Cameron has said."
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
Anyone who thinks that has got a nasty shock coming if, God forbid, we do end up with a Miliband government.
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government. Since the main complaint of the Kippers, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, is that Cameron hasn't gone fast enough in the direction they want, it is eccentric to say the least to be viewing with equanimity the possibility of going backwards on all these areas.
It's a bit like saying Sarkozy was the same as Hollande. That's not how it looks now, is it? And yet the Sarkozy government was nothing like as radical, effective or well-run as the Cameron government is. We can, however, be very confident that Miliband will match Hollande for incompetence and lack of realism.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
"Parents need to learn to say no to their children and "use the off switch" to stop them spending too much time watching television or going on the internet, David Cameron has said."
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
Anyone who thinks that has got a nasty shock coming if, God forbid, we do end up with a Miliband government.
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government. Since the main complaint of the Kippers, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, is that Cameron hasn't gone fast enough in the direction they want, it is eccentric to say the least to be viewing with equanimity the possibility of going backwards on all these areas.
It's a bit like saying Sarkozy was the same as Hollande. That's not how it looks now, is it? And yet the Sarkozy government was nothing like as radical, effective or well-run as the Cameron government is. We can, however, be very confident that Miliband will match Hollande for incompetence and lack of realism.
Mr. Nabavi, yes we keep hearing this but with two exceptions what has actually changed. Mr Flightpath echoes your point below. However, on all the issues you mention save, possibly education and welfare where are the big differences. On those two exceptions how different would a Miliband government be on welfare, or, even, education.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
Anyone who thinks that has got a nasty shock coming if, God forbid, we do end up with a Miliband government.
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government. Since the main complaint of the Kippers, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, is that Cameron hasn't gone fast enough in the direction they want, it is eccentric to say the least to be viewing with equanimity the possibility of going backwards on all these areas.
It's a bit like saying Sarkozy was the same as Hollande. That's not how it looks now, is it? And yet the Sarkozy government was nothing like as radical, effective or well-run as the Cameron government is. We can, however, be very confident that Miliband will match Hollande for incompetence and lack of realism.
No, it will just go in the same direction but a bit faster.
That's how it looks to me. Thinking about things the president actually has control over, how are they different, specifically?
Tax, tax and tax, and of course employment reform.
But yes, as I said, Sarkozy was nothing like as radical as Cameron. Even despite the fact that there is far more difference between Cameron and Miliband than between Sarkozy and Hollande, the dismal results of even the small steps that France has taken in the wrong direction (or, to be more precise, the acceleration of going in the wrong direction) are already showing through very clearly.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
Anyone who thinks that has got a nasty shock coming if, God forbid, we do end up with a Miliband government.
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government. Since the main complaint of the Kippers, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, is that Cameron hasn't gone fast enough in the direction they want, it is eccentric to say the least to be viewing with equanimity the possibility of going backwards on all these areas.
It's a bit like saying Sarkozy was the same as Hollande. That's not how it looks now, is it? And yet the Sarkozy government was nothing like as radical, effective or well-run as the Cameron government is. We can, however, be very confident that Miliband will match Hollande for incompetence and lack of realism.
LibLabCon! Etc etc. the last refuge of the simpleton.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Spot on Mr L, it's the recent trend to non-stop dabbling and activity instead of action that's a real pain. Spinners think everything needs a policy, whereas quite often the correct policy is STFU and let people get on with their lives.
Kippers really are a bunch of miserable old gits aren't they?
I'm a UKIP voter and I'm 27. One of my main problems with the government is the funding for lending scheme and help to buy.At best they are very cynical policies. At worst they are potentially catastrophic. I used to think that the Tories did what was right and not what they thought would get them votes. I was wrong.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Read the papers, he obviously didn't raise it high enough.
Mr. Nabavi, yes we keep hearing this but with two exceptions what has actually changed. Mr Flightpath echoes your point below. However, on all the issues you mention save, possibly education and welfare where are the big differences. On those two exceptions how different would a Miliband government be on welfare, or, even, education.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
I rarely blame Clegg and the LibDems for holding back the government. In general, they haven't - this has been a remarkably radical government, the most radical and effective first term, other than Maggie's, for 50 years. I really don't think that a majority Conservative government could have realistically gone much faster or further, given the constraints of what is politically feasible in a time of fiscal contraction.
The most remarkable thing about it has been number of different fronts that they have been active on. The education reform alone are a major achievement. So is the complete overhaul of the welfare system - the biggest since WWII (albeit not yet fully implemented). Osborne has been a great reforming Chancellor, with the introduction of the OBR, reform of banking regulation, really getting down to tackling tax avoidance, and the overhaul of public procurement - behind the scenes, to be sure, but hugely important. Plus it looks as though Cameron will have made great strides in sorting the running sore of the Scottish mess Blair bequeathed, and seen off voting reform for a generation,. With a fair wind and a second term, he may even be on the way to sorting out the biggest running sore of all, namely the EU, which I had thought was a completely intractable problem.
Of course there are some areas of failure or of little progress. The Strategic Defence Review was a bit of a mess, and energy policy has been a disappointment, storing up problems to come (that one may be down to the LibDems).
Mr. Nabavi, yes we keep hearing this but with two exceptions what has actually changed. Mr Flightpath echoes your point below. However, on all the issues you mention save, possibly education and welfare where are the big differences. On those two exceptions how different would a Miliband government be on welfare, or, even, education.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
I rarely blame Clegg and the LibDems for holding back the government. In general, they haven't - this has been a remarkably radical government, the most radical and effective first term, other than Maggie's, for 50 years. I really don't think that a majority Conservative government could have realistically gone much faster or further, given the constraints of what is politically feasible in a time of fiscal contraction.
The most remarkable thing about it has been number of different fronts that they have been active on. The education reform alone are a major achievement. So is the complete overhaul of the welfare system - the biggest since WWII (albeit not yet fully implemented). Osborne has been a great reforming Chancellor, with the introduction of the OBR, reform of banking regulation, really getting down to tackling tax avoidance, and the overhaul of public procurement - behind the scenes, to be sure, but hugely important. Plus it looks as though Cameron will have made great strides in sorting the running sore of the Scottish mess Blair bequeathed, and seen off voting reform for a generation,. With a fair wind and a second term, he may even be on the way to sorting out the biggest running sore of all, namely the EU, which I had thought was a completely intractable problem.
Of course there are some areas of failure or of little progress. The Strategic Defence Review was a bit of a mess, and energy policy has been a disappointment, storing up problems to come (that one may be down to the LibDems).
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Spot on Mr L, it's the recent trend to non-stop dabbling and activity instead of action that's a real pain. Spinners think everything needs a policy, whereas quite often the correct policy is STFU and let people get on with their lives.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM and yet Mr Nabavi is trying to frighten me that unless we all do the right thing we will end up with a non-Conservative PM.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Spot on Mr L, it's the recent trend to non-stop dabbling and activity instead of action that's a real pain. Spinners think everything needs a policy, whereas quite often the correct policy is STFU and let people get on with their lives.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM and yet Mr Nabavi is trying to frighten me that unless we all do the right thing we will end up with a non-Conservative PM.
I'm afraid Richard's fear-mongering is of a low quality, which probably indicates he's a nice chap at heart.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
However Cameron has struggled to deal with his disaffected righties the ones like you and I who are currently on vote strike. They've tried abuse, fear and spin and all have failed. Whereas the thing that might work such as having some guiding principles they've avoided like the plague.
That's how it looks to me. Thinking about things the president actually has control over, how are they different, specifically?
Tax, tax and tax, and of course employment reform.
There was the famous symbolic top tax rate electoral pander on a small number of people who will mostly avoid it, but apart from that the tax policies don't look particularly different. On labour market reform Hollande seems to be bolder than Sarkozy if anything, although I supposed you could argue that Sarkozy would have been doing more if he'd still been in the job as the economy continued to slide than he had done in his first term.
Alex Salmond’s plan for a separate Scotland’s currency is mired deeper in confusion after he said keeping the pound without the Bank of England’s support would only be a stopgap.
The First Minister said a viable "transition option" was Scotland continuing to use sterling even if the UK parties continue to reject a Eurozone-style currency union.
But, speaking with a month to go before the September 18 referendum, he refused to say which of the two long-term options – the euro or a new currency – Scotland would move to after the transition period or how long that would be
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Read the papers, he obviously didn't raise it high enough.
Well I did ask what the policy was, and if you can't answer me it clearly can't have been that important. Did Cameron say those things attributed to him in the article? If he did I think my criticism of him stands. He might perhaps do better to say less and talk only about those things a PM should talk about, heavyweight issues of national and international importance. Frankly how long someone's child spends on the internet is none of his business and speaking about it just makes him look like a lightweight pillock (which I suppose might be fair).
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
So if Labour had a sensible leader Kippers would vote to stop him. But because Labour have a left wing leader with a marxist background and would do untold damage to the country - Kippers will vote to put him in power?
I wrote earlier in the day:
Isn't it negative campaigning of the worst kind for supporters of Party A to tell supporters of Party B that to vote B will let Party C in?
You have to give B supporters a positive reason to vote A.
We can all asee the dog whistles that UKIP give. But really... on evey fundamental pillar that UKIP stand for they will see the country royally shafted by labour - so they vote to put labour in?
I say unto you once more: Since Blair and Cameron arrived on the political stage, there is really very little difference between modern Labour and Tory parties.
You can keep saying it but it does not mean its true. Indeed we can see the differences between the Tories and the socialist poor relations, the LDs, quite easily.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
There was the famous symbolic top tax rate electoral pander on a small number of people who will mostly avoid it, but apart from that the tax policies don't look particularly different. On labour market reform Hollande seems to be bolder than Sarkozy if anything, although I supposed you could argue that Sarkozy would have been doing more if he'd still been in the job as the economy continued to slide than he had done in his first term.
Hollande has been forced by reality to partially reverse his previous anti-business stance, but of course it is far, far too little. Miliband's trajectory will be similar, if he becomes PM.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
@Alanbrooke - I look forward (if that is the right word) to revisiting this topic in about three or four years' time, if Miliband does become PM. There won't be anyone other than diehard Labour supporters disagreeing with me then.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
I'd sort of agree with you Richard, she was a radical ; whereas Cameron's more John Major without the interesting sex life.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Spot on Mr L, it's the recent trend to non-stop dabbling and activity instead of action that's a real pain. Spinners think everything needs a policy, whereas quite often the correct policy is STFU and let people get on with their lives.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM and yet Mr Nabavi is trying to frighten me that unless we all do the right thing we will end up with a non-Conservative PM.
I'm afraid Richard's fear-mongering is of a low quality, which probably indicates he's a nice chap at heart.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
However Cameron has struggled to deal with his disaffected righties the ones like you and I who are currently on vote strike. They've tried abuse, fear and spin and all have failed. Whereas the thing that might work such as having some guiding principles they've avoided like the plague.
Mr Brooke, I am no longer on vote strike. I have jumped ship and will be campaigning for UKIP.
Herself is horrified and has threatened to withhold her marital favours, but when pressed she couldn't actually remember what they are. The brute is in a full scale sulk and generally life chez Llama is not as placid as it normally is. However, I am not to be moved on this Cameron and his lackey Nick Herbert (though that is a bit unfair Herbert don't like him either) will get nothing but resistance from me.
UKIP voters are older and more bitter than most. They don't do "optimism".
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants.
These older working class type UKIP voters that get talked about don't give a flying **** about the present. They care about their kid's and grandkid's future (or lack of it currently).
And how does undermining their kids/grandkids opportunities to live and travel and work across a market 5 times greater than the UK's help that. Anecdata: there's a guy in my town who is a street cleaner for the council - his daughter lives in Spain teaching English.
I know of many EU immigrants competing in the jobs market with me driving down wages and living costs up. I don't know anyone who works in the EU, I know people who have worked in HK, Russia, NY, Australia etc.
Again banning foreign ownership of residential property would be both the right and popular policy.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
There is a lot of difference between talking about parental authority and the government taking on an in loco parentis role and formulating policy. Cameron should keep his damn nose out of it and go back to letting the country slide gently into bankruptcy which seems to be all he is good at
There was the famous symbolic top tax rate electoral pander on a small number of people who will mostly avoid it, but apart from that the tax policies don't look particularly different. On labour market reform Hollande seems to be bolder than Sarkozy if anything, although I supposed you could argue that Sarkozy would have been doing more if he'd still been in the job as the economy continued to slide than he had done in his first term.
Hollande has been forced by reality to partially reverse his previous anti-business stance, but of course it is far, far too little. Miliband's trajectory will be similar, if he becomes PM.
"Anti business". Like it.
Austerity for normal people and tax cuts for the very rich, the Tory way, the Cameron way, is the only way, eh.
@Alanbrooke - I look forward (if that is the right word) to revisiting this topic in about three or four years' time, if Miliband does become PM. There won't be anyone other than diehard Labour supporters disagreeing with me then.
what do you think the difference will be ?
righties castigate Cameron for his spin and limp politics and will do the same for Miliband since he's following the same path. Do you think we'll be praising Miliband just because he's following Cameron's policies ?
the only difference will be you'll be joining in the criticism since it's a red rosette not a blue one.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
Piffle, Mr. Nabavi, pure piffle. Hang on though. I have to go and make Herself a cup of tea and get The Brute his mid evening cheese. I'll be back shortly to give my reasons. For the moment, piffle!
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
.
.
.
I know I'll regret this, but I'll bite. Which exact 'lie' is that pray tell?
Its a simple lie. And to be fair the other parties that want us to stay in the EU keep quiet about it as well. The lie is that we will be different outside the EU. We will in fact be very little different outside the EU. Which is why if we were to be like Norway and in the EEA and not the EU I would not be bothered. I am just clear in my mind that it would not make much difference to our lives. To preserve our access to the single market and thus jobs and inward investment we would, just like Norway still obey single market rules and pay sums to EU regional funds and indeed still be part of free movement of labour. Thats what the single market is about --- its what any 'trade deal' with the EU would be about. We should also remember that Norway is also in Schengen. If we walked out of the EU it seems to me quite likely that Schengen (which most of the rest of Europe is part of) would be on the agenda. So at best leaving the EU would be no different, less political involvent but no say on the rules we ould have to obey. Its this which those who want us to stay in emphasise- that we have political influence in Europe. Its why they do not like to talk about it. The other alternative is it could even be worse if we were pushed into Schengen.
UKIP lie by saying we would all be wonderful and some how free and that the EU will fall over themselves to be nice to us after we walked out. This is a pig in a poke - consider - will the English electorate encourage their leaders to make sacrifices on their behalf to Salmond if he walked out of the UK?
Me? I am not fussed about being in the EEA - we should keep the benefits of the single market without the political palaver. But please nobody lie to me by saying it would be much different to now But Schengen? No. Thats why we need to stay in and negotiate.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
Or he could be raising the profile of a policy announced today.
What policy would that be? Why should it be of an concern of HMG how long my child or grandchild spends on the internet or watching television? Why should HMG even think it has a right or a need to create a policy in this area?
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
Well said.
Politicians' urge to micro-manage our lives is infuriating. Good parents already know this and useless ones are hardly going to listen to the PM.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government
This was a Party Political Broadcast by Richard Nabavi on behalf of the Labour Party.
Mr. Nabavi, yes we keep hearing this but with two exceptions what has actually changed. Mr Flightpath echoes your point below. However, on all the issues you mention save, possibly education and welfare where are the big differences. On those two exceptions how different would a Miliband government be on welfare, or, even, education.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
....
chortle
so much troll bait in one post ;-)
Thats a very poor response. The fact is Mr Navabi is right. We have seen how labour behaved with massive majorities (and with a leader allegedly in favour of reform) when they had a chance. They ran away. Simply saying 'labour would do the same' is no sort of answer at all when they have opposed all the tories reforms and have form on doing nothing themselves and have a leader elected by the unions. Witchdoctors in Papua New Guinea have a better chance of predicting the future than you do on current form.
To be honest all this 'they are all the same' nonsense (when all the evidence is to the contrary) is getting tiresome. I find it difficult to see how people expect to be taken seriously. To be doubly honest its hard not to be rude and I'm sorry if I am. But as Mr Nabavi expounds, all the facts are to the contrary.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
I'd sort of agree with you Richard, she was a radical ; whereas Cameron's more John Major without the interesting sex life.
Thatcher was an old-fashioned Manchester Liberal. There was nothing remotely Conservative about her. She used the Tory party and hollowed it out. The Tories are still working out the consequences of that now and still don't really know what they are for.
Cameron - for someone who apparently studied PPE at Oxford - seems remarkably lacking in any sort of political, philosophical or economic knowledge at all. He seems to have no idea at all about what sort of country he wants to govern. It's all platitudes and to the extent that he says anything remotely interesting or worthwhile there is no follow-through at all.
It's like having some sort of demented auntie in the room: "Ooh, those Islamists are bad, we must do something about them; and families - we must be nice to them. Why is Johnnie always on his computer? He looks tired. And that cheese you buy isn't good for you. Oh well. That was a nice chat. I'm off home now."
Take today: policies should be looked at for their impact on families. Amazing. 4 and a bit years into government and he says this. And no doubt expects some credit for it. As opposed to the derision it deserves - not because the sentiment isnt' worthwhile - but because this should have been thought about in opposition and been a leitmotif of all his policies while in government as opposed to some statement dreamt up at the fag end of a Parliament because some focus group told him that it might go down well with women.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
Correct. Cameron and Osborne have borrowed more in 4 years than Brown and Blair did in 13.
Mr. Nabavi, yes we keep hearing this but with two exceptions what has actually changed. Mr Flightpath echoes your point below. However, on all the issues you mention save, possibly education and welfare where are the big differences. On those two exceptions how different would a Miliband government be on welfare, or, even, education.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
....
chortle
so much troll bait in one post ;-)
Thats a very poor response. The fact is Mr Navabi is right. We have seen how labour behaved with massive majorities (and with a leader allegedly in favour of reform) when they had a chance. They ran away. Simply saying 'labour would do the same' is no sort of answer at all when they have opposed all the tories reforms and have form on doing nothing themselves and have a leader elected by the unions. Witchdoctors in Papua New Guinea have a better chance of predicting the future than you do on current form.
To be honest all this 'they are all the same' nonsense (when all the evidence is to the contrary) is getting tiresome. I find it difficult to see how people expect to be taken seriously. To be doubly honest its hard not to be rude and I'm sorry if I am. But as Mr Nabavi expounds, all the facts are to the contrary.
when you've finished dry humping Richards leg, try some arguments the next time.
Maybe a lot of UKIP voters don't believe that Ed Miliband is going to win the election whatever happens, which gives them more freedom to support the party. If Labour had a more impressive leader more of them would consider voting Tory to stop it happening.
.
.
.
I know I'll regret this, but I'll bite. Which exact 'lie' is that pray tell?
Its a simple lie. And to be fair the other parties that want us to stay in the EU keep quiet about it as well. The lie is that we will be different outside the EU. We will in fact be very little different outside the EU. Which is why if we were to be like Norway and in the EEA and not the EU I would not be bothered. I am just clear in my mind that it would not make much difference to our lives. To preserve our access to the single market and thus jobs and inward investment we would, just like Norway still obey single market rules and pay sums to EU regional funds and indeed still be part of free movement of labour. Thats what the single market is about --- its what any 'trade deal' with the EU would be about. We should also remember that Norway is also in Schengen. If we walked out of the EU it seems to me quite likely that Schengen (which most of the rest of Europe is part of) would be on the agenda. So at best leaving the EU would be no different, less political involvent but no say on the rules we ould have to obey. Its this which those who want us to stay in emphasise- that we have political influence in Europe. Its why they do not like to talk about it. The other alternative is it could even be worse if we were pushed into Schengen.
UKIP lie by saying we would all be wonderful and some how free and that the EU will fall over themselves to be nice to us after we walked out. This is a pig in a poke - consider - will the English electorate encourage their leaders to make sacrifices on their behalf to Salmond if he walked out of the UK?
Me? I am not fussed about being in the EEA - we should keep the benefits of the single market without the political palaver. But please nobody lie to me by saying it would be much different to now But Schengen? No. Thats why we need to stay in and negotiate.
Well it may be, it may not be. The difference is, it would be our choice.
I don't know about others but I see leaving the EU as the beginning of the challenges our nation faces, not the end. But begin we must!
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
I'd sort of agree with you Richard, she was a radical ; whereas Cameron's more John Major without the interesting sex life.
Thatcher was an old-fashioned Manchester Liberal. There was nothing remotely Conservative about her. She used the Tory party and hollowed it out. The Tories are still working out the consequences of that now and still don't really know what they are for.
Cameron - for someone who apparently studied PPE at Oxford - seems remarkably lacking in any sort of political, philosophical or economic knowledge at all. He seems to have no idea at all about what sort of country he wants to govern. It's all platitudes and to the extent that he says anything remotely interesting or worthwhile there is no follow-through at all.
It's like having some sort of demented auntie in the room: "Ooh, those Islamists are bad, we must do something about them; and families - we must be nice to them. Why is Johnnie always on his computer? He looks tired. And that cheese you buy isn't good for you. Oh well. That was a nice chat. I'm off home now."
Take today: policies should be looked at for their impact on families. Amazing. 4 and a bit years into government and he says this. And no doubt expects some credit for it. As opposed to the derision it deserves - not because the sentiment isnt' worthwhile - but because this should have been thought about in opposition and been a leitmotif of all his policies while in government as opposed to some statement dreamt up at the fag end of a Parliament because some focus group told him that it might go down well with women.
quite so on both points.
Thatcher left a toxic legacy for her successors and Cameron just is loads of activity with precious little follow through.
Cameron has ambitions for Cameron, less so for the UK.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Okay, I'll bite. So the 2010 UKIP manifesto did not include stupid populist gestures? Like trying to depict the liveries trains should have?
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
The economy isnt stable for most of us though...this so called economic miracle of Camerons isn't touching most of us as we see the buying power of our wages diminish. I really don't care how wonderful GDP is nationally . It is not filtering down to the vast majority of us and most of us know that the inflation figures are a crock of shite as we see are rent, travel, power bills, council tax bills etc all go up by more than our wages. National GDP rising benefits me in no way at all if I am not getting a slice of that rise.
So tell me again how having less spending power benefits my family?
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
Piffle, Mr. Nabavi, pure piffle. Hang on though. I have to go and make Herself a cup of tea and get The Brute his mid evening cheese. I'll be back shortly to give my reasons. For the moment, piffle!
If you are still then, Mr N, I think Zen Pagan up-thread sums up the point quite well. Saying parents are responsible for the behaviour of the children (at statement of the bleedin' obvious in past generations, but let it go) is somewhat different from a PM saying that parents need to say, "No" and control the "Screen Time" of their children.
This is why the assumption that Kippers are all going to suddenly flock to the Tories has never made any sense. They just don't agree with the Tories on the economy at all. They don't care about whether the deficit is cut or not, all the polls show they're more against austerity than average, and because they're (typically) so poor they don't have any time for the fear of Labour tax rises campaign that the Tories will be running. So for what reason would a typical UKIP voter move to the Tories when they don't agree with Tory economic policies, and when on social issues UKIP offer them more "full-fat" rightwing stances?
The political world has completely misunderstood UKIP voters from the beginning, based solely on the fact that many of them voted Tory in 2010 (failing to take account of the fact that the Tories that time pulled in many floating voters who did not consider themselves to be instinctive Tory "identifiers").
I disagree with this -I think the majority of Kippers still want the deficit (and indeed the national debt) cut, and are really worried about the state of the nation's finances. That's why they don't support the Tories -the Tories have failed to eat into the deficit, and the debt is increasing at a catastrophic rate.
The opinion polls don't back this up. When those polls are done which ask people what their biggest priorities are, UKIP voters rank "cutting the deficit/debt" extremely low (in fairness, they rank most economic issues low and generally are more focussed on social/cultural things). When asked specifically about spending cuts, UKIP supporters on average come out much closer to Labour supporters' numbers than they are to Tory supporters'.
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
Sorry for calling you a UKIPper.
But you see the point: the 'stupid populist gestures' criticism you throw at Cameron can be thrown at *all* politicians, including Thatcher and Blair. They need to win in order to implement policies, and for that they need to attract voters.
The 'broad coalition'(s) of the Conservative and Labour parties have both been stretched to breaking point, just as they always have been. The people on the peripheries need to think about why the majority of people disagree with them. Perhaps it is because the people on the peripheries are visionaries and looking forward, or perhaps because they are being left behind as society evolves and, I dare to add, improves.
Cameron's 2010 Conservative Party is a very different beast to Thatcher's 1979 party, or Macmillan's 1957 party, yet alone Baldwin's in 1923. Society moves on, and the party needs to move with them or it will die.
Which is the 'true' Conservative party?
So, in a spirit of inquisitiveness, what could politicians offer you and your family that would make you vote for them? What would be your ideal policy platform?
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
Both are right. He's not 'Red Ed' in the sense of the old Labour stalwarts of the seventies and eighties, but what will happen is that with his unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures (indeed he already has done so). Those will disrupt the economy and investment, prompting a collapse in investment and business confidence. That will hit growth and tax revenues, and that means he'll have to cut spending further than Osborne was planning, in order to preserve confidence.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
snip
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
The economy isnt stable for most of us though...this so called economic miracle of Camerons isn't touching most of us as we see the buying power of our wages diminish. I really don't care how wonderful GDP is nationally . It is not filtering down to the vast majority of us and most of us know that the inflation figures are a crock of shite as we see are rent, travel, power bills, council tax bills etc all go up by more than our wages. National GDP rising benefits me in no way at all if I am not getting a slice of that rise.
So tell me again how having less spending power benefits my family?
A lot of people feel like that, makes you wonder who exactly is benefiting from Cameron and Osborne's miracle tractor stats. Millionaires and big businesses have had whopping tax cuts. Couldn't be them could it?
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
You make several mistakes in your assumptions about me, but I will let that pass.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
If you are still then, Mr N, I think Zen Pagan up-thread sums up the point quite well. Saying parents are responsible for the behaviour of the children (at statement of the bleedin' obvious in past generations, but let it go) is somewhat different from a PM saying that parents need to say, "No" and control the "Screen Time" of their children.
What Cameron said is below - if you are able to get a philosophy of governing from that then I think you are trying too hard to be offended.
"As for my own children, I am sure there are times when they have been disappointed because they haven't been able to do something or see something," Mr Cameron said.
"But that is part of what being a parent is about, is being able to deploy the use of the word 'no' and even sometimes to deploy the use of the off switch on the television, as unpopular as that might be - and sometimes ineffectual because they find another screen somewhere that is switched on."
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
Piffle, Mr. Nabavi, pure piffle. Hang on though. I have to go and make Herself a cup of tea and get The Brute his mid evening cheese. I'll be back shortly to give my reasons. For the moment, piffle!
If you are still then, Mr N, I think Zen Pagan up-thread sums up the point quite well. Saying parents are responsible for the behaviour of the children (at statement of the bleedin' obvious in past generations, but let it go) is somewhat different from a PM saying that parents need to say, "No" and control the "Screen Time" of their children.
I bet it does not occur to many parents. In my day it was just the TV, with computers coming in when I was eleven. Nowadays kids have tablets at three, mobiles at six, computers at nine, as well as TVs in their room. These devices are all utterly commoditised.
Warning parents about this makes sense to me, especially as it is easy for children to hide time spent on devices, and especially on what they are viewing.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
"Hugh">UKIP voters are older and more bitter than most. They don't do "optimism".
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants.
Good luck Gidders.
My rage is at people like you,who want mass immigration but don't share in living in mass immigration area's.
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
Sorry for calling you a UKIPper.
But you see the point: the 'stupid populist gestures' criticism you throw at Cameron can be thrown at *all* politicians, including Thatcher and Blair. They need to win in order to implement policies, and for that they need to attract voters.
The 'broad coalition'(s) of the Conservative and Labour parties have both been stretched to breaking point, just as they always have been. The people on the peripheries need to think about why the majority of people disagree with them. Perhaps it is because the people on the peripheries are visionaries and looking forward, or perhaps because they are being left behind as society evolves and, I dare to add, improves.
Cameron's 2010 Conservative Party is a very different beast to Thatcher's 1979 party, or Macmillan's 1957 party, yet alone Baldwin's in 1923. Society moves on, and the party needs to move with them or it will die.
Which is the 'true' Conservative party?
So, in a spirit of inquisitiveness, what could politicians offer you and your family that would make you vote for them? What would be your ideal policy platform?
I think you've missed the thread sequence, the "stupid gesture" comment was Mr Nabavi talking about EdM and I threw it back at Richard re Cameron who like any politician isn't above doing the ridiculous.
However on the rest of your post Cameron's problem is he just can't get the 8-10% of righties on board to win an election he either doen't inspire or maybe he's just not that good at politics.
As for who I'd vote for there;s nobody really at the moment who's policies grab the throat, partly because none of them really have any guiding principles.
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
Mr. Hopkins, the debt is increasing by about £100bn a year it will shortly reach £1.5tn and there is no suggestion that it will stop growing let alone start to be paid off in the foreseeable future. If Cameron and his clique do get a second term the interest on the debt will be the fourth biggest item of expenditure, behind Health, Welfare and Education. If that is your idea of debt being managed I'd sure hate to think of what you see as unmanaged debt.
As for a stable economy, well nobody wants that. We want an economy that delivers growing prosperity. Unfortunately the Cameron Clique have concentrated on one measure, raw GDP, which says nothing about how much more wealthy the country is getting. I doubt they know that , but they are not alone. As we move into 2015 the UKs biggest eport is the same as it ahs been for yonks, our wealth.
You say that short-term give-away gimmicks are not to the countries best interests. I agree. Now, how about a bet as to whether Osborne includes any in his last budget?
I hesitate to intrjude on the Tory-UKIP debate, but it seems to me that you're all taking Cameron's remarks too seriously. He is plainly just trying to win back some of the "one of us" votes - he hopes that Telegraph readers will nod and say "He seems quite a sound fellow, actually", not that they literally will feel that he is a natural source of advice on parenting, let alone that he will actually do anything to change the way they behave. It's equivalent to those staged shots where you get photographers to show you eating a bacon buttie, demonstrating that you're an ordinary sort of bloke.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
You make several mistakes in your assumptions about me, but I will let that pass.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
Osborne isn't even dealing with the deficit let alone the debt.
Currently there aren't any real choices for me in what's on offer.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary. snip
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
The economy isnt stable for most of us though...this so called economic miracle of Camerons isn't touching most of us as we see the buying power of our wages diminish. I really don't care how wonderful GDP is nationally . It is not filtering down to the vast majority of us and most of us know that the inflation figures are a crock of shite as we see are rent, travel, power bills, council tax bills etc all go up by more than our wages. National GDP rising benefits me in no way at all if I am not getting a slice of that rise.
So tell me again how having less spending power benefits my family?
A lot of people feel like that, makes you wonder who exactly is benefiting from Cameron and Osborne's miracle tractor stats. Millionaires and big businesses have had whopping tax cuts. Couldn't be them could it?
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
You make several mistakes in your assumptions about me, but I will let that pass.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
Osborne isn't even dealing with the deficit let alone the debt.
Currently there aren't any real choices for me in what's on offer.
And therein lies the rub - by deserting the Tories you make an even worse option that much more likely.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
You make several mistakes in your assumptions about me, but I will let that pass.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
Osborne isn't even dealing with the deficit let alone the debt.
Currently there aren't any real choices for me in what's on offer.
And therein lies the rub - by deserting the Tories you make an even worse option that much more likely.
The Tories don't own me.
If they want my vote they should try working for it.
A proper Conservative PM would already know that. He/she might even think before rushing off to send out their latest press release involving the Government in something that they have no business even thinking about. Cameron is clearly not a Conservative PM.
By that definition Maggie was not a Conservative PM.
Oh, go on then, Mr Nabavi, I'll bite. Tell me what it was that made Mrs. Thatcher not a Conservative PM.
Well, you seem to think she wasn't. She was always talking about parental responsibilities, which according to you is proof of not being a Conservative.
I'd sort of agree with you Richard, she was a radical ; whereas Cameron's more John Major without the interesting sex life.
Thatcher was an old-fashioned Manchester Liberal. There was nothing remotely Conservative about her. She used the Tory party and hollowed it out. The Tories are still working out the consequences of that now and still don't really know what they are for.
Cameron - for someone who apparently studied PPE at Oxford - seems remarkably lacking in any sort of political, philosophical or economic knowledge at all. He seems to have no idea at all about what sort of country he wants to govern. It's all platitudes and to the extent that he says anything remotely interesting or worthwhile there is no follow-through at all.
It's like having some sort of demented auntie in the room: "Ooh, those Islamists are bad, we must do something about them; and families - we must be nice to them. Why is Johnnie always on his computer? He looks tired. And that cheese you buy isn't good for you. Oh well. That was a nice chat. I'm off home now."
Take today: policies should be looked at for their impact on families. Amazing. 4 and a bit years into government and he says this. And no doubt expects some credit for it. As opposed to the derision it deserves - not because the sentiment isnt' worthwhile - but because this should have been thought about in opposition and been a leitmotif of all his policies while in government as opposed to some statement dreamt up at the fag end of a Parliament because some focus group told him that it might go down well with women.
Huzzah! Spiffing post, Mrs Free. Cameron is a knob and doesn't deserve to be re-elected for the reasons you have so eloquently given.
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
Mr. Hopkins, the debt is increasing by about £100bn a year it will shortly reach £1.5tn and there is no suggestion that it will stop growing let alone start to be paid off in the foreseeable future. If Cameron and his clique do get a second term the interest on the debt will be the fourth biggest item of expenditure, behind Health, Welfare and Education. If that is your idea of debt being managed I'd sure hate to think of what you see as unmanaged debt.
As for a stable economy, well nobody wants that. We want an economy that delivers growing prosperity. Unfortunately the Cameron Clique have concentrated on one measure, raw GDP, which says nothing about how much more wealthy the country is getting. I doubt they know that , but they are not alone. As we move into 2015 the UKs biggest eport is the same as it ahs been for yonks, our wealth.
You say that short-term give-away gimmicks are not to the countries best interests. I agree. Now, how about a bet as to whether Osborne includes any in his last budget?
I could make many criticisms of Cameron/Osborne, but I'm also a realist about where we were as a country in 2010 and what is politically achievable.
Short-term give-aways may be bad, but that doesn't mean they won't happen just before a GE.
the debt isn't being managed it's going up. the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
Fine. Perhaps UKIP can suggest they slash every benefit going, increase taxes, and sort out the debt overnight. Trouble is, UKIP would shortly find themselves with no MPs at all.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, there you go again - anyone on the right who disagrees with Cameron is a kipper.
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
You make several mistakes in your assumptions about me, but I will let that pass.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
Osborne isn't even dealing with the deficit let alone the debt.
Currently there aren't any real choices for me in what's on offer.
And therein lies the rub - by deserting the Tories you make an even worse option that much more likely.
The Tories don't own me.
If they want my vote they should try working for it.
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
Sorry for calling you a UKIPper.
But you see the point: the 'stupid populist gestures' criticism you throw at Cameron can be thrown at *all* politicians, including Thatcher and Blair. They need to win in order to implement policies, and for that they need to attract voters.
The 'broad coalition'(s) of the Conservative and Labour parties have both been stretched to breaking point, just as they always have been. The people on the peripheries need to think about why the majority of people disagree with them. Perhaps it is because the people on the peripheries are visionaries and looking forward, or perhaps because they are being left behind as society evolves and, I dare to add, improves.
Cameron's 2010 Conservative Party is a very different beast to Thatcher's 1979 party, or Macmillan's 1957 party, yet alone Baldwin's in 1923. Society moves on, and the party needs to move with them or it will die.
Which is the 'true' Conservative party?
So, in a spirit of inquisitiveness, what could politicians offer you and your family that would make you vote for them? What would be your ideal policy platform?
I think you've missed the thread sequence, the "stupid gesture" comment was Mr Nabavi talking about EdM and I threw it back at Richard re Cameron who like any politician isn't above doing the ridiculous.
However on the rest of your post Cameron's problem is he just can't get the 8-10% of righties on board to win an election he either doen't inspire or maybe he's just not that good at politics.
As for who I'd vote for there;s nobody really at the moment who's policies grab the throat, partly because none of them really have any guiding principles.
Fairy nuff - I disagree with some of that, but understand where you are coming from.
Although I asked about what *policies* you would vote for, rather than which party.
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
Big deal the tax cuts didnt in anyway come near covering the increase in my tax bill from the vat increase , alcohol duty, fuel duty, green taxes, council taxes etc that is before we even get into things like the tranport fare hikes etc.
As to civil servants why do you think I think its a good thing they havent had their wages cut. Frankly it is one of the first things we should have done along with calling a halt to final salary pensions for them going forward. The average council currently spends 18% of its council tax take on employer contributions for christ sake.
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
Sorry for calling you a UKIPper.
But you see the point: the 'stupid populist gestures' criticism you throw at Cameron can be thrown at *all* politicians, including Thatcher and Blair. They need to win in order to implement policies, and for that they need to attract voters.
The 'broad coalition'(s) of the Conservative and Labour parties have both been stretched to breaking point, just as they always have been. The people on the peripheries need to think about why the majority of people disagree with them. Perhaps it is because the people on the peripheries are visionaries and looking forward, or perhaps because they are being left behind as society evolves and, I dare to add, improves.
Cameron's 2010 Conservative Party is a very different beast to Thatcher's 1979 party, or Macmillan's 1957 party, yet alone Baldwin's in 1923. Society moves on, and the party needs to move with them or it will die.
Which is the 'true' Conservative party?
So, in a spirit of inquisitiveness, what could politicians offer you and your family that would make you vote for them? What would be your ideal policy platform?
I think you've missed the thread sequence, the "stupid gesture" comment was Mr Nabavi talking about EdM and I threw it back at Richard re Cameron who like any politician isn't above doing the ridiculous.
However on the rest of your post Cameron's problem is he just can't get the 8-10% of righties on board to win an election he either doen't inspire or maybe he's just not that good at politics.
As for who I'd vote for there;s nobody really at the moment who's policies grab the throat, partly because none of them really have any guiding principles.
Fairy nuff - I disagree with some of that, but understand where you are coming from.
Although I asked about what *policies* you would vote for, rather than which party.
Policies I'd like to see:
tax reform break up the big banks free uni fees programme regenerate manufacturing and R&D reduction in government generally\roll back the state federalised UK proper infrastructure programe - housing, roads, airports EU vote in\out
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
Big deal the tax cuts didnt in anyway come near covering the increase in my tax bill from the vat increase , alcohol duty, fuel duty, green taxes, council taxes etc that is before we even get into things like the tranport fare hikes etc.
As to civil servants why do you think I think its a good thing they havent had their wages cut. Frankly it is one of the first things we should have done along with calling a halt to final salary pensions for them going forward. The average council currently spends 18% of its council tax take on employer contributions for christ sake.
I think you should run some of those through a fact checker since 2010.
vat increase, less than you think, alcohol duty, ditto fuel duty ditto green taxes, Up, I expect but don't know council taxes less than you expect
"UKIP voters are older and more bitter than most. They don't do "optimism".
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants."
I understand this view, but maybe it's wrong. Maybe, for example, many UKIP supporters are actually what you might call 60s/70s futurists. They're not against the future per se, just against the particular form the future is taking at the moment. They wanted one type of future but got another.
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
Big deal the tax cuts didnt in anyway come near covering the increase in my tax bill from the vat increase , alcohol duty, fuel duty, green taxes, council taxes etc that is before we even get into things like the tranport fare hikes etc.
As to civil servants why do you think I think its a good thing they havent had their wages cut. Frankly it is one of the first things we should have done along with calling a halt to final salary pensions for them going forward. The average council currently spends 18% of its council tax take on employer contributions for christ sake.
I think you should run some of those through a fact checker since 2010.
vat increase, less than you think, alcohol duty, ditto fuel duty ditto green taxes, Up, I expect but don't know council taxes less than you expect
I remains the fact that prices have risen more than wages whichever way you try to cut it. Some of this is inevitable given the mess inherited, but a large chunk remains self inflicted.
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
Big deal the tax cuts didnt in anyway come near covering the increase in my tax bill from the vat increase , alcohol duty, fuel duty, green taxes, council taxes etc that is before we even get into things like the tranport fare hikes etc.
As to civil servants why do you think I think its a good thing they havent had their wages cut. Frankly it is one of the first things we should have done along with calling a halt to final salary pensions for them going forward. The average council currently spends 18% of its council tax take on employer contributions for christ sake.
I think you should run some of those through a fact checker since 2010.
vat increase, less than you think, alcohol duty, ditto fuel duty ditto green taxes, Up, I expect but don't know council taxes less than you expect
As you have no idea how much I think any of those things come to then I suggest you keep your opinion about whether they are less than I think to yourself.
My point is that cumulatively they more than cancel out any increase in the the tax threshold. When you add that to all the rest that has gone up by more than the supposed rate of inflation and the miniscule payrises for most then its no wonder just about everyone I know is worse off now than they were in 2010 in real terms.
I am staggered by the negativity that on here regarding the UK and how this is the worst government in history. I really don't think you realise how lucky you are to be in the UK at this time. Look around the world and tell me who has a better government, better growth, lower crime , falling unemployment, complete freedom of speech etc. I think the UK is thriving at the moment and the government must take some credit for that, just look at the state France is in, imagine the moaning on here if the UK was in Frances position. My firm took on four apprentices today, the smiles on their faces demonstrated that the UK is a good place to be right now. In the typical British way the moaning never stops.
I bet it does not occur to many parents. In my day it was just the TV, with computers coming in when I was eleven. Nowadays kids have tablets at three, mobiles at six, computers at nine, as well as TVs in their room. These devices are all utterly commoditised.
Warning parents about this makes sense to me, especially as it is easy for children to hide time spent on devices, and especially on what they are viewing.
If children have mobile devices so early that is the parents choice, it is not as if the nipper his using his credit card to but himself an IPad and an internet account.
I have to say I take a more relaxed view than most about children and the Internet and I followed my ideas as my son was growing up. He was born in 1993 into a household that was an early adopter of the Internet and computing. He could, sitting on my knee, type his name before he could hold a pen. He was on the Internet ferreting out information for himself about things he was interested in from about the age of 8. We never put in any bars or barriers, save some heavy duty anti-virus stuff, he was connected to our network after all. We did, usually over the dinner table, have free and frank discussions about internet issues such as pornography and I am sure he rushed off to his computer to check out what we had been discussing. At 21 he seems perfectly well balanced, he can read and write, is sober and well behaved. Mind you, he was also brought up in a Christian household and as a regular churchgoer, so there was always a moral framework in which the ideas he found on the internet could be placed.
Where Cameron gets off on his limiting screen time I don't know.
I am staggered by the negativity that on here regarding the UK and how this is the worst government in history. I really don't think you realise how lucky you are to be in the UK at this time. Look around the world and tell me who has a better government, better growth, lower crime , falling unemployment, complete freedom of speech etc. I think the UK is thriving at the moment and the government must take some credit for that, just look at the state France is in, imagine the moaning on here if the UK was in Frances position. My firm took on four apprentices today, the smiles on their faces demonstrated that the UK is a good place to be right now. In the typical British way the moaning never stops.
#
Terribly sorry mr Currystar I should of realised that getting poorer and poorer year after year in real terms, having more and more of my money squandered by politicians on total shit and having my civil liberties removed one by one shouldn't be a reason to complain because after all is said and done I am not French.
Please sir could you kindly tell me when I am allowed to complain? Perhaps it will be when the government decides all my organs belong to it and starts auctioning them on EBay...no still not as bad as being French I guess.
Comments
Mind you, Labour haven't actually come up with any policies as yet, but we know that the Labour Party manifesto is worthless. The last Labour government even went to court to defend the fact that they can say any old rubbish before the election and are not in the least bit bound by any of it. On to of that we have the possibility of another coalition government in which the leader of the minority party gets control of the brake - can't make anything happen but he/she can stop things happening.
I don't think the idea that there is very little difference between Conservative and Labour is silly.
If one lives in a safe seat, or a seat that UKIP have a chance of winning, there's no downside to voting UKIP.
11.8.14 LAB 331 (330) CON 261(262) LD 34(34) UKIP 0(0) Others 24 (Ed is crap is PM)
Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 268 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
Tories have campaigned against the damage to multiculturalism
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-my-war-on-multiculturalism-2205074.html
(Cameron: 'My war on multiculturalism)
Tories are no 'pro EU' they voted against Lisbon and do not believe in 'ever closer union' or the euro and are pledged to offer a referendum about continued membership on renegotiated terms.
The tories are not doing untold damage to the country...
they have reformed education health welfare and pensions and been attacked all along the line by Labour.
they are cutting public sector jobs in the teeth of labour and trade union opposition
they do not for instance support ever closer EU union and promise a referendum on continued membership.
Your words display what a fantasy world you live in. Indeed they are words which never even get off the ground they are so beyond the reality.
You would have thought that the Prime Minister would have more urgent and more important things to worry about. In fact I'm certain he does, that he doesn't just goes to show how unfit for high office he actually is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/11041468/David-Cameron-Parents-must-learn-to-use-the-off-switch-and-limit-their-childrens-screen-time.html
Basically on every front - the economy, employment, the deficit, welfare, education, health, public procurement, the EU, immigration - a Miliband government will go in the opposite direction to a Cameron government. Since the main complaint of the Kippers, inasmuch as they are coherent at all, is that Cameron hasn't gone fast enough in the direction they want, it is eccentric to say the least to be viewing with equanimity the possibility of going backwards on all these areas.
It's a bit like saying Sarkozy was the same as Hollande. That's not how it looks now, is it? And yet the Sarkozy government was nothing like as radical, effective or well-run as the Cameron government is. We can, however, be very confident that Miliband will match Hollande for incompetence and lack of realism.
It is all very well blaming the lack of progress on the fact that Clegg has his hand on the break but that only works if one can believe that Cameron and Co would have done anything much different given a free hand. Would he? Well lets us consider what he has said from Heir to Blair onwards then consider what he has done. I don't think he would and I cannot be panicked by the threat of a PM who in real terms is no different from the current one.
But yes, as I said, Sarkozy was nothing like as radical as Cameron. Even despite the fact that there is far more difference between Cameron and Miliband than between Sarkozy and Hollande, the dismal results of even the small steps that France has taken in the wrong direction (or, to be more precise, the acceleration of going in the wrong direction) are already showing through very clearly.
I think there are lessons to be learnt here – always chose an Embassy with a decent garden.
If a child wants to spend four hours reading a book on astronomy would Cameron say that is wrong? However, if the same child wants to spend four hours learning about astronomy and the way the solar system hangs together from a multi-media experience including written text, videos, interactive quizzes and what ever else some clever people can think up to engage a child's interest, suddenly that is dangerous and needs a government policy!
Cameron is PM an should stick to worrying about those things a PM needs and is paid to worry about. If he is unsure I'll send him a list.
The most remarkable thing about it has been number of different fronts that they have been active on. The education reform alone are a major achievement. So is the complete overhaul of the welfare system - the biggest since WWII (albeit not yet fully implemented). Osborne has been a great reforming Chancellor, with the introduction of the OBR, reform of banking regulation, really getting down to tackling tax avoidance, and the overhaul of public procurement - behind the scenes, to be sure, but hugely important. Plus it looks as though Cameron will have made great strides in sorting the running sore of the Scottish mess Blair bequeathed, and seen off voting reform for a generation,. With a fair wind and a second term, he may even be on the way to sorting out the biggest running sore of all, namely the EU, which I had thought was a completely intractable problem.
Of course there are some areas of failure or of little progress. The Strategic Defence Review was a bit of a mess, and energy policy has been a disappointment, storing up problems to come (that one may be down to the LibDems).
so much troll bait in one post ;-)
But one minute the Cameroons are squealing Red Ed at righties and the next they're telling lefties that the markets won't let Ed do anything. Both can't be right.
However Cameron has struggled to deal with his disaffected righties the ones like you and I who are currently on vote strike. They've tried abuse, fear and spin and all have failed. Whereas the thing that might work such as having some guiding principles they've avoided like the plague.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
Herself is horrified and has threatened to withhold her marital favours, but when pressed she couldn't actually remember what they are. The brute is in a full scale sulk and generally life chez Llama is not as placid as it normally is. However, I am not to be moved on this Cameron and his lackey Nick Herbert (though that is a bit unfair Herbert don't like him either) will get nothing but resistance from me.
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants.
Good luck Gidders.
Again banning foreign ownership of residential property would be both the right and popular policy.
Austerity for normal people and tax cuts for the very rich, the Tory way, the Cameron way, is the only way, eh.
righties castigate Cameron for his spin and limp politics and will do the same for Miliband since he's following the same path. Do you think we'll be praising Miliband just because he's following Cameron's policies ?
the only difference will be you'll be joining in the criticism since it's a red rosette not a blue one.
And what was flying in an aircraft an election day other than en exceptionally stupid gesture (although as Farage came third, I'll grant you that it was hardly 'populist').
If Labour and Conservatives are cheeks of the same arse, then UKIP are the hole in between. Although I must admit to finding it hard to work out what the Lib Dems or Greens are in this analogy. ;-)
The lie is that we will be different outside the EU.
We will in fact be very little different outside the EU. Which is why if we were to be like Norway and in the EEA and not the EU I would not be bothered. I am just clear in my mind that it would not make much difference to our lives.
To preserve our access to the single market and thus jobs and inward investment we would, just like Norway still obey single market rules and pay sums to EU regional funds and indeed still be part of free movement of labour. Thats what the single market is about --- its what any 'trade deal' with the EU would be about.
We should also remember that Norway is also in Schengen. If we walked out of the EU it seems to me quite likely that Schengen (which most of the rest of Europe is part of) would be on the agenda.
So at best leaving the EU would be no different, less political involvent but no say on the rules we ould have to obey. Its this which those who want us to stay in emphasise- that we have political influence in Europe. Its why they do not like to talk about it.
The other alternative is it could even be worse if we were pushed into Schengen.
UKIP lie by saying we would all be wonderful and some how free and that the EU will fall over themselves to be nice to us after we walked out. This is a pig in a poke - consider - will the English electorate encourage their leaders to make sacrifices on their behalf to Salmond if he walked out of the UK?
Me? I am not fussed about being in the EEA - we should keep the benefits of the single market without the political palaver. But please nobody lie to me by saying it would be much different to now
But Schengen? No. Thats why we need to stay in and negotiate.
Politicians' urge to micro-manage our lives is infuriating. Good parents already know this and useless ones are hardly going to listen to the PM.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
This was a Party Political Broadcast by Richard Nabavi on behalf of the Labour Party.
Simply saying 'labour would do the same' is no sort of answer at all when they have opposed all the tories reforms and have form on doing nothing themselves and have a leader elected by the unions. Witchdoctors in Papua New Guinea have a better chance of predicting the future than you do on current form.
To be honest all this 'they are all the same' nonsense (when all the evidence is to the contrary) is getting tiresome. I find it difficult to see how people expect to be taken seriously. To be doubly honest its hard not to be rude and I'm sorry if I am. But as Mr Nabavi expounds, all the facts are to the contrary.
Cameron - for someone who apparently studied PPE at Oxford - seems remarkably lacking in any sort of political, philosophical or economic knowledge at all. He seems to have no idea at all about what sort of country he wants to govern. It's all platitudes and to the extent that he says anything remotely interesting or worthwhile there is no follow-through at all.
It's like having some sort of demented auntie in the room: "Ooh, those Islamists are bad, we must do something about them; and families - we must be nice to them. Why is Johnnie always on his computer? He looks tired. And that cheese you buy isn't good for you. Oh well. That was a nice chat. I'm off home now."
Take today: policies should be looked at for their impact on families. Amazing. 4 and a bit years into government and he says this. And no doubt expects some credit for it. As opposed to the derision it deserves - not because the sentiment isnt' worthwhile - but because this should have been thought about in opposition and been a leitmotif of all his policies while in government as opposed to some statement dreamt up at the fag end of a Parliament because some focus group told him that it might go down well with women.
the underlying fundamentals of the economy haven't been addressed so we're anything but stable.
It amazes me how 13 years of Blair have dulled conservative senses as to what they should expect from a government. The current crop have no ambition for this country.
I don't know about others but I see leaving the EU as the beginning of the challenges our nation faces, not the end. But begin we must!
Thatcher left a toxic legacy for her successors and Cameron just is loads of activity with precious little follow through.
Cameron has ambitions for Cameron, less so for the UK.
So tell me again how having less spending power benefits my family?
Oh, wait.
But you see the point: the 'stupid populist gestures' criticism you throw at Cameron can be thrown at *all* politicians, including Thatcher and Blair. They need to win in order to implement policies, and for that they need to attract voters.
The 'broad coalition'(s) of the Conservative and Labour parties have both been stretched to breaking point, just as they always have been. The people on the peripheries need to think about why the majority of people disagree with them. Perhaps it is because the people on the peripheries are visionaries and looking forward, or perhaps because they are being left behind as society evolves and, I dare to add, improves.
Cameron's 2010 Conservative Party is a very different beast to Thatcher's 1979 party, or Macmillan's 1957 party, yet alone Baldwin's in 1923. Society moves on, and the party needs to move with them or it will die.
Which is the 'true' Conservative party?
So, in a spirit of inquisitiveness, what could politicians offer you and your family that would make you vote for them? What would be your ideal policy platform?
Well I'm not so when you have some conservative arguments come back to me and I'll happily disucss them.
In the mean time if you want to learn about kipper policies try isam, MikeK or Richard Tyndall.
I did not say that you were a kipper. However, your arguments are closer to them than any other party.
If not UKIP, who else are you going to support who has (in your opinion) "proper" Conservative policies and will deal with the debt faster?
"As for my own children, I am sure there are times when they have been disappointed because they haven't been able to do something or see something," Mr Cameron said.
"But that is part of what being a parent is about, is being able to deploy the use of the word 'no' and even sometimes to deploy the use of the off switch on the television, as unpopular as that might be - and sometimes ineffectual because they find another screen somewhere that is switched on."
Warning parents about this makes sense to me, especially as it is easy for children to hide time spent on devices, and especially on what they are viewing.
Only, their website seems to think they're very much alive: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk
Does that come under every benefit going?
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants.
Good luck Gidders.
My rage is at people like you,who want mass immigration but don't share in living in mass immigration area's.
However on the rest of your post Cameron's problem is he just can't get the 8-10% of righties on board to win an election he either doen't inspire or maybe he's just not that good at politics.
As for who I'd vote for there;s nobody really at the moment who's policies grab the throat, partly because none of them really have any guiding principles.
As for a stable economy, well nobody wants that. We want an economy that delivers growing prosperity. Unfortunately the Cameron Clique have concentrated on one measure, raw GDP, which says nothing about how much more wealthy the country is getting. I doubt they know that , but they are not alone. As we move into 2015 the UKs biggest eport is the same as it ahs been for yonks, our wealth.
You say that short-term give-away gimmicks are not to the countries best interests. I agree. Now, how about a bet as to whether Osborne includes any in his last budget?
As we know, such things always go well.
Currently there aren't any real choices for me in what's on offer.
He's bright and well-meaning enough, of course. But that doesn't mean he won't be a disaster.
with unique combination of total inexperience about business and a very high level of intellectual self-confidence, he will make some stupid populist gestures
you've just descibed Cameron 2010 as does your summary.
snip
I wouldn't know JJ I'm not a kipper. Quite why anyone on the right criticising Cameron is automatically labelled a kipper is beyond me.
As I've said repreatedly on here Cameron just can't manage a broad coalition and since he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family I have no intention of voting for him. Is that difficult for you to understand ?
"he's offering next to bugger all for me and my family"
Having a stable economy with the debt being managed is a benefit to your family; a few give-away short-term gimmicks are not.
The economy isnt stable for most of us though...this so called economic miracle of Camerons isn't touching most of us as we see the buying power of our wages diminish. I really don't care how wonderful GDP is nationally . It is not filtering down to the vast majority of us and most of us know that the inflation figures are a crock of shite as we see are rent, travel, power bills, council tax bills etc all go up by more than our wages. National GDP rising benefits me in no way at all if I am not getting a slice of that rise.
So tell me again how having less spending power benefits my family?
A lot of people feel like that, makes you wonder who exactly is benefiting from Cameron and Osborne's miracle tractor stats. Millionaires and big businesses have had whopping tax cuts. Couldn't be them could it?
No - but you conveniently forget the tax cuts for ordinary folk through the rises in the personal allowance. You forget that in most of austerity Europe civil servants wages were cut by anything from 5 - 20%. Things may not be great here but if you think the grass is greener in Hollandes's France you are sadly mistaken.
If they want my vote they should try working for it.
Short-term give-aways may be bad, but that doesn't mean they won't happen just before a GE.
Although I asked about what *policies* you would vote for, rather than which party.
As to civil servants why do you think I think its a good thing they havent had their wages cut. Frankly it is one of the first things we should have done along with calling a halt to final salary pensions for them going forward. The average council currently spends 18% of its council tax take on employer contributions for christ sake.
Policies I'd like to see:
tax reform
break up the big banks
free uni fees
programme regenerate manufacturing and R&D
reduction in government generally\roll back the state
federalised UK
proper infrastructure programe - housing, roads, airports
EU vote in\out
That's probably enough for one term !
vat increase, less than you think,
alcohol duty, ditto
fuel duty ditto
green taxes, Up, I expect but don't know
council taxes less than you expect
They have a fuzzy rage directed at everything, but they're not that sure what they're really angry about, except that it has something to do with immigrants."
I understand this view, but maybe it's wrong. Maybe, for example, many UKIP supporters are actually what you might call 60s/70s futurists. They're not against the future per se, just against the particular form the future is taking at the moment. They wanted one type of future but got another.
My point is that cumulatively they more than cancel out any increase in the the tax threshold. When you add that to all the rest that has gone up by more than the supposed rate of inflation and the miniscule payrises for most then its no wonder just about everyone I know is worse off now than they were in 2010 in real terms.
I have to say I take a more relaxed view than most about children and the Internet and I followed my ideas as my son was growing up. He was born in 1993 into a household that was an early adopter of the Internet and computing. He could, sitting on my knee, type his name before he could hold a pen. He was on the Internet ferreting out information for himself about things he was interested in from about the age of 8. We never put in any bars or barriers, save some heavy duty anti-virus stuff, he was connected to our network after all. We did, usually over the dinner table, have free and frank discussions about internet issues such as pornography and I am sure he rushed off to his computer to check out what we had been discussing. At 21 he seems perfectly well balanced, he can read and write, is sober and well behaved. Mind you, he was also brought up in a Christian household and as a regular churchgoer, so there was always a moral framework in which the ideas he found on the internet could be placed.
Where Cameron gets off on his limiting screen time I don't know.
Terribly sorry mr Currystar I should of realised that getting poorer and poorer year after year in real terms, having more and more of my money squandered by politicians on total shit and having my civil liberties removed one by one shouldn't be a reason to complain because after all is said and done I am not French.
Please sir could you kindly tell me when I am allowed to complain? Perhaps it will be when the government decides all my organs belong to it and starts auctioning them on EBay...no still not as bad as being French I guess.