[Closed] Cameron rant.

Whoever was going to be in power, cut's were coming and no party was stating otherwise. But the savage nature of the current government's approach is more to do with ideology than economic recovery, also the lib dem claims that they can break all their promises and previous policies on the grounds they didn't know how 'bad' it was are nonsense, that was never hidden.
We are facing a time when each one of us will be having to alter our future expectations in relation to the response we will get from our Health, Social and welfare services; in terms of how long we will need to work and how well rewarded we will be for this work, and the impact that this will have on the quality of our lives. For a lot of us there will be chance to prepare for this and we will be able to attempt to ensure we provide for us and ours, but for many this is not the case,it will be the most vulnerable who are hit the hardest.

No one has suffered? How many folk are losing their jobs? How many folk are Having their pensions cut? how many folk are getting benefits cut?

There are no poor people in this country, well... none worth speaking of anyway. 😉

palliative.stare - Member
Whoever was going to be in power, cut's were coming and no party was stating otherwise. But the savage nature of the current government's approach is more to do with ideology than economic recovery,

The actions of [i]all[/i] politicians are to do with their ideology, it's just that you don't agree with that of the Tories.

druidh - your whole stance on this seems to be just pointing out if people agree or not with the government, rather than engaging in any form of discussion on the implications of what may/ will happen to people, which I can only assume means you are a bit of a dick.

druidh - your whole stance on this seems to be just pointing out if people agree or not with the government, rather than engaging in any form of discussion on the implications of what may/ will happen to people, which I can only assume means you are a bit of a dick.

Oh the irony. It actually hurts.

Whatever Druidh is he is not a dick - likes to light the blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance but that is a good point he made.

palliative.stare - Member
druidh - your whole stance on this seems to be just pointing out if people agree or not with the government, rather than engaging in any form of discussion on the implications of what may/ will happen to people, which I can only assume means you are a bit of a dick.

Your intelligent response obviously outdoes mine. I bow to your superiority.

Now then, instead of ranting about it on a forum, what are you [i]actually[/i] going to do about it?

what are you actually going to do about it?

As a social worker for people with dementia and through the voluntary work I do for a sexual health charity and football team for people with mental health problems,I'd say still not enough, but hey...

More than voted for any of the alternatives. It's just a shame that a lot of folk on this forum haven't woken up to that fact yet.

My Dad's a teacher, my girlfriend is a teacher and my Mum is a Health Visitor.

They are all constantly amazed by colleagues moaning about the Tories, before being asked "so who did you vote for?"

The response is usually "Oh, I voted Tory"

I hate to say it, but what ****ing planet are you on? What did you expect from the Tories? Public sector raises? Positive reforms in health? Teachers being allowed to teach rather than fill in all the useless, bureaucratic paperwork that means precisely f*ck-all? the public sector being given *shock!* a raise? A massive investigation into the (w)bankers who f*cked us over in the first place? A higher tax rate for those in the top 5%?

Don't be so stupid.

Instead we have the PMs batty boy from Bullingdon in the financial hot seat who has precisely no budget experience, apart from the fact he's being advised by one of the biggest tax dodgers in the country.*

The saving grace is that at least Cameron's cabinet does have a few political heavyweights in it that know their onions (even if the Liberal heavyweights are leaving in their droves.)

*Technically this isn't always true - Mr Green is very good about leaving the country when he needs to on his private jet to avoid becoming a UK resident.

But the savage nature of the current government's approach is more to do with ideology than economic recovery

as had been said by a senior tory adviser!!

Markie- it's the same jumped up morons like yourself that have landed us with this unpleasant government trying to undo all the work the last on did trying to fill the massive voids in the country left by Thatcher and Major. While the last government wasn't doing the best job the Conservatives are hell bent on destroying Britain now it's only just got back up to fighting strength.

The country is in a mess NOW and was BEFORE the coalition Government, how did that happen eh? O yes it was someone else's fault...

Pensions were being cut BEFORE this current government, it has just been speeded up so that we can all get in the real world and accept that there is simply not enough money in the pension pots. Labour would not have been so drastic due to the risk of alienating their core votes.

We needed to sort this mess out, and imo better now than later. have you seen the news this week about Eire, and the effect of Portugal and Spain on each other? They are in a mess because of many factors, not least because they didn't wake up to the fact quick enough. Imo if we still had Labour in charge we would be sailing along as before, oblivious to the fact and shit we were sailing into.

Also i could be wrong, but did the Tories not get roughly the same vote as Labour did last time out, but the constituencies are/were favoured towards Labour?

as had been said by a senior tory adviser!!

Not by Dave or Nick then?????

have you seen the news this week about Eire, and the effect of Portugal and Spain on each other?

have you seen what a senior tory adviser said about the chancellors rhetoric?

have you seen the news this week about Eire, and the effect of Portugal and Spain on each other?

have you seen what a senior tory adviser said about the chancellors rhetoric?

Whats that got to do with Spain, Portugal and Eire?

We are heading back to the dark old days of worker exploitation.

Already seen it with my company, no new people, just try to screw down the existing workforce to work more with antisocial hours. if you complain just get told there are many others who will do your job or you know where the door is.
Messed with my pension, working hours, struggle to book leave at a time I actually want it and all in the name of profit

Benefit cuts that will force people from their homes, particularly flats in better parts of London that they want to sell off

Personally had enough and hopefully off to uni (might even get a loan before the fees go up)at the grand old age of 52 then want to spend the last years of my working life giving something back. Intend to work either at CAB or as a debt/housing counsellor to try and help people out who are in the shit through no fault of their own.

The lib/dems will never get many votes again after the Student Loan debacle, think they have had their fifteen minutes of fame and the only decent thing would be to vote against their paymasters.

Instead we have the PMs batty boy from Bullingdon in the financial hot seat who has precisely no budget experience

That's nowt, the opposition bloke is an ex-postie! 😉

That's nowt, the opposition bloke is an ex-postie!

😆

We're all doomed! Doooomed I tell you!

As a social worker for people with dementia and through the voluntary work I do for a sexual health charity and football team for people with mental health problems,I'd say still not enough, but hey.

try hanging out with normal people to get a bit of perspective of life in the real world?

blue touchpaper lit, standing well abck

blue touchpaper lit, standing well abck

Oh, you didn't really mean normal people, you meant moron's like yourself? 😉 I always really considered folk with mental health problems and their familes to be pretty normal.

Instead we have the PMs batty boy from Bullingdon in the financial hot seat who has precisely no budget experience, apart from the fact he's being advised by one of the biggest tax dodgers in the country.*

AFAIK Osborne's not gay. Not only that, he's got a 2.1 in modern history from one of Britain's top universities - and I'd be very surprised if that degree didn't include a large amount of economic history. He's actually fairly well qualified as politicians go, certainly better than the Trotskyist ex-lawyer who preceeded him. The worst thing that can be said about his qualifications is perhaps that one Gordon Brown is also an ex-history student...

he's got a 2.1

Well he must be a genius then!

Mogrim - you cannot deny Osbourne sis a political lightweight with no nous or sense.

For someone with a history degreee he has very little grasp of it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

AFAIK Osborne's not gay. Not only that, he's got a 2.1 in modern history from one of Britain's top universities - and I'd be very surprised if that degree didn't include a large amount of economic history. He's actually fairly well qualified as politicians go, certainly better than the Trotskyist ex-lawyer who preceeded him. The worst thing that can be said about his qualifications is perhaps that one Gordon Brown is also an ex-history student...

I didn't say he was gay. But how much do you know about the Bullingdon Club, and how much do you know about Cameron and Osborne's relationship?

So he's a historian. And managing the budget. That's OK then...

Hang on - my cousin got a first in maths from Oxford. Maybe I should ask him to step up to the challenge instead - he'd be more qualified. Oh no, sorry. He didn't have enough money to be in the 'right clubs' and is now a teacher instead.

Come to think of it, so is his brother who ironically also got a 2:1 in History from Oxford. Maybe I should ask him his views on the budget - he's obviously well qualified in that area.

Mogrim - you cannot deny Osbourne sis a political lightweight with no nous or sense.

The fact that he's made it to Chancellor seems to imply he can't be that much of a lightweight.

I didn't say he was gay. But how much do you know about the Bullingdon Club, and how much do you know about Cameron and Osborne's relationship?

You called him a "batty boy", which is homophobic slang for a gay man.

Come to think of it, so is his brother who ironically also got a 2:1 in History from Oxford. Maybe I should ask him his views on the budget - he's obviously well qualified in that area.

He's as qualified as Gordon Brown and George Osborne, whether he'd do a better or worse job I have no idea. But arguing that Osborne is [b]unqualified[/b] strikes me as unfair - other than an ex-chancellor, who really is qualified to run a country's economics?

Tell me TJ - why did you only include [b]part[/b] of the quote?

“For the vast majority of people in the country today they have never had it so good ever since this recession — this so-called recession — started, [u]because anybody, most people with a mortgage who were paying a lot of money each month, suddenly started paying very little each month. That could make three, four, five, six hundred pounds a month difference, free of tax.[/u]”

Tell me, is that comment untrue?

UK base interest rate changes since 2007:

2010
10 Jun 09
0.5%
2009
05 Mar 09
0.5%
05 Feb 09
1.0%
08 Jan 09
1.5%
2008
04 Dec 08
2.00%
06 Nov 08
3.00%
08 Oct 08
4.50%
10 Apr 08
5.00%
07 Feb 08
5.25%
10 Jan 08
5.50%

2007
06 Dec 07
5.50%
05 Jul 07
5.75%
10 May 07
5.50%
11 Jan 07
5.25%

(edited from year 2000 to not take up whole page)

[i]Home buyers in November needed to use less of their income to cover their mortgage interest than at any time for more than five years, according to new data released today by the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

In particular, home movers are experiencing a low debt burden by historical standards. They typically needed only 10.6% of gross income in November 2009 to cover mortgage interest payments, down from 11.1% in October. Other than a brief low of 10.2% in the middle of 1996, this is the lowest debt burden on home movers since the CML started recording this data in 1974.

The debt burden on first time buyers also reduced, with 14.4% of gross income needed in November, down from 15.1% in October - the lowest it has been since May 2004.[/i]

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2512

Zulu - if refer you to [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-it-all-about-all-this-arguing-on-here-serious-question ]this thread[/url]

My lesson is that it is completely pointless attempting to debate with you

Nothing but cant, ad hominen attacks and misrepresentations will come from you and all that happens is my blood presumer rises.

So there is no point in you attacking me - you will be ignored.

Ad Hominem?
Misrepresentation?
Debate?
Attacking you?

[b]I asked you two very simple polite questions TJ [/b]

i) Why did you only include part of the quote?
ii) Tell me, is that [full] comment untrue?

If you repeatedly ignore pertinent, polite questions which question either the fact or motive of your posts when somebody asks them, then I think other people can and will draw their own conclusions as to why you choose to evade answering!

He's as qualified as Gordon Brown and George Osborne, whether he'd do a better or worse job I have no idea. But arguing that Osborne is unqualified strikes me as unfair - other than an ex-chancellor, who really is qualified to run a country's economics?

Maybe a senior front bench politician that has seen a few budgets through already?

Or to put it another way - I need a pipe fixed. Who do I call?

A. An experienced plumber
B. An experienced builder who has been in the trade for a long time and can turn his hand to most things
C. A young historian

You called him a "batty boy", which is homophobic slang for a gay man.

If you wish to read it that way. You obviously aren't familiar with the wonderful Etonian tradition of 'fagging' or the equally fine up-standing Bullingdon tradition 'de-bagging'.

I'm not saying that Georgie boy is gay, but I am saying that while he was hanging off Cameron's coat-tails in Oxford as David made waves, I've no doubt he was fine and upstanding in the finest of proper English public school traditions.

zulu fella, most of the people most hit by tory benefit cuts and cuts in low paid public sector jobs wont have mortgages.

have you seen the news this week about Eire, and the effect of Portugal and Spain on each other?

have you seen what a senior tory adviser said about the chancellors rhetoric?

Whats that got to do with Spain, Portugal and Eire?

I was under the impression you were mistakenly trying to align the UK economic problems with those of the countries you mentioned. The words uttrered by the Tory Adviser show us that the government is building the rhetoric to make us belive the UK's problems are of the scale of those countries and so the cuts on a massive scale are necessary rather than for some part at least idealogical.

a_a

Respectfully - he didn't say that though did he? He said that "[i]the vast majority of people in the country today[/i]" - [b]not[/b] [i]"most of the people most hit by tory benefit cuts[/i]"

I'd put it to you that his comments were, technically, correct!

regards your comment on "building the rhetoric", If you also look further into the reporting of the issue - you'll also see the following:

Lord Young also indicated that the Coalition had deliberately overstated the impact of spending cuts to “protect the pound”.He said that there had been a danger of the value of the pound collapsing after the general election. “The fact that we seemed to be going through such big cuts really meant that the pound was saved, so far,” he said. “If you actually look at the cuts after four years we will be back with government spend[ing] the same as it was in ’07.”

Respectfully - he didn't say that though did he? He said that "the vast majority of people in the country today" - not "most of the people most hit by tory benefit cuts"

I'd put it to you that his comments were, technically, correct!

do the vast majority of people in the country have mortagages? Depends on how you define vast I suppose. On the second point, it hasnt done their agenda any harm either has it?

So....I'm guessing people aren't bragging about houses prices ad infinitum in the UK any more?

You reap what you sow doods. Any way, in a few years time all will be rosy again......and.....then.....boooooom again 😉

I'm not fan of Cameron, but I see nothing wrong with anything at the end of the original link: him praising the school his child had attended, what's wrong with that?

Cuts? Yep, cuts everywhere, and everything cut is a loss; but as it happens it looks like school budgets have escaped the worst of it.

As for having a lightweight as chancellor, rather than someone like Ken Clarke, well, that's the xenophobic Tories for you, pass over someone with experience because he openly excepts that being part of Europe is essential for the UK economy.

Oh, and yes, a very small section of eligible voters voted Tory, but that doesn't change the fact that they did get the most votes. Maybe at the next election that'll be different, let's hope so, but that's down to people getting of their lazy arses and voting for other parties/candidates.

Oh, and yes, a very small section of eligible voters voted Tory

well to clarify,
in 2010, Tory votes of 10,703,754 out of 29,691,780 = 36%
in 1995, Labour votes of 9,552,436 out of 27,148,510 = 35%

but in TJland, that's so completely not the same.

Markie - Member

Fewer MPs sounds a great idea to me and as for the Lords, if Labour couldn't make it elected in the amount of time they had, why should the Coalition.

.

Why is fewer MPs a "great idea" ?

I haven't heard a single good reason why reducing the amount of MPs from 650 to 600 is a great idea.

And if [i]"less"[/i] is [i]"better"[/i] then why settle on 600 ? Why not 300, or 100, or 50, or even 5.....eh ?

And why doesn't that rule apply to Lords ?

Because whilst there are 650 MPs in the House of Commons at the moment, there are 744 peers in the House of Lords.

And this government keeps creating more........another 50 new Lords announced only today :

[url= http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_new_peers ]New peers announced for Britain's House of Lords[/url]

So how come we can have [u]MORE[/u] unelected members in Parliament than elected members ?
.............and the gap, thanks to this government, is soon to become bigger.

.

[i][b]"if Labour couldn't make it elected in the amount of time they had, why should the Coalition"[/b][/i]

That has got to be the worst excuse ever.

You're not saying that it's a bad idea, just that because one bunch of politicians didn't do it, then for that reason alone, the next bunch of politicians shouldn't bother either - no matter how good the idea is.

Of course New Labour should have sorted out the House of Lords, and it's a scandal that they didn't. But are you really suggesting that it is completely unrealistic to expect the Tories to do any better ?

Obviously I agree with you Markie, but I am quite frankly stunned that a Tory like yourself should be arguing "don't expect this government to do any better than New Labour"

Which is something I've been arguing for years.

mm Interestng thread
Good use of stats to not use seats but a reasonable point re the election had not seen that figure before.
Cameron has not exploited his sons death but sadly it appears to have not made him the one nation Tory I hoped for.

We had similiar debates when Labour were in power we will have them for ever it seems silly to suggest that because I remain left wing I am bitter because the Tories won

the people have spoken the b@stards

George got that expensive education at that cost and only got a 2:1 An ok result but cosidering how much better private educated people fair it is a realtively poor result IMHO dave got a first for example. Works hard but nothing exceptional.

ernie_lynch - Member

I haven't heard a single good reason why reducing the amount of MPs from 650 to 600 is a great idea.

Well, it would certainly be cheaper. 😀

Because whilst there are 650 MPs in the House of Commons at the moment, there are 744 peers in the House of Lords.

And this government keeps creating more........another 50 new Lords announced only today :

Ah - the last lot didn't create any peers then?

"if Labour couldn't make it elected in the amount of time they had, why should the Coalition"

That has got to be the worst excuse ever.

You're not saying that it's a bad idea, just that because one bunch of politicians didn't do it, then for that reason alone, the next bunch of politicians shouldn't bother either - no matter how good the idea is.

Mibbe the last lot didn't manage either as it's a bit more complex than they at first thought? Has anyone actually come up with a decent alternative yet?

Ah - the last lot didn't create any peers then?

Junkyard - Member

Got your political dig/point there but are you in favour or not of more peers?

I guess we have to create a few more to replace the ones that are dying off? I'm all in favour of a good alternative though. What's the best option - get Simon Cowell to run an X Factor-type show every Sunday and have the populace vote?

I think he has no balls.

😆

I guess we have to create a few more to replace the ones that are dying off?

So you don't fancy a House of Lords on the cheap then ?

As the HoL is not elected and it's members don't have constituencies to represent, I guess that almost any arbitrary number would do. I am against hereditary peers, not sure that life peers are the right thing either. I always reckoned that it was useful to have one body whose views weren't always coloured by the fact that they had to be re-elected every 4-5 years.