Is Cameron a blatant hypocrite?

First topic message reminder :

Well surprise surprise, Cameron expressing uneasiness about unbridled market economy? Well where did I hear this all before?....O yes....Ed Milliband said it....why do you think he is now saying all of this? as I thought it was Cameron who said Ed was out of touch with the UK People? So why copy him then? Thought the Media was saying that Ed was failing?.......Well funny sort of failing when Cameron is following him?......Maybe this is why Ed is not laying out his economic policy with three years still left to go....maybe he can see Cameron coming after all? as it looks like we now have our first Cross dressing PM on our hands. What do you think?


The Prime Minister, by contrast, has a record of expressing uneasiness about the ugly side effects of an unbridled market economy. There are speeches dating back to the early years of opposition on poverty, social cohesion, corporate responsibility. Those interventions, casually dismissed by Labour as glib marketing exercises, are now being excavated from the Cameroon archive. Downing Street aides brandish them as evidence that the Conservative leader was talking about responsible capitalism when Miliband was still serving Gordon Brown, the man who many voters blame for letting the bankers off the leash.

The Labour leader has responded to this land grab with self-assuredness, touching on complacency. He expects the country to utter a mass snort of derision when Cameron says he wants to reform capitalism. "The public are not going to buy it," Miliband told the Guardian on 6 January. This confidence rests on the belief that Labour is the only party with sufficient depth of social conscience to talk credibly about injustice. Miliband's view is that only Labour can be trusted to administer austerity without wanton cruelty. As he said on 10 January: "Only Labour can deliver fairness when there is less money around."

Picking pockets
There are three problems with this approach. First, it implies a rebuke to those who voted for other parties. Second, it glosses over the party's patchy record on delivering fairness when there was plenty of money around. Third, most people dislike politicians equally and are unmoved by nostalgia for party tradition. There is hardly a less persuasive argument on responsible capitalism than the one that goes: "That lot say they want it because they are cynical opportunists; we say it because we have nobility of purpose inscribed in our souls."

There are many reasons why Cameron and Clegg might fail to build a fairer economy: the cuts, rising unemployment, the absence of growth. The circumstances promise to raise inequality and stifle opportunity faster than the coalition can imagine ways to offer redress.

Miliband believes that the obstacle is more fundamental, however. He thinks that the Lib Dems and Conservatives are prevented by ideological blinkers from seeing the true scale of the task; he supposes them unequal to the historical moment.

Yet, as Miliband's eyes are set on a far horizon where he thinks he can discern voters realising that the duty to fix the British economy belongs inevitably to Labour, Clegg and Cameron are going through his pockets for slogans and policies. The Labour leader is fond of saying that his opponents "just don't get it". When it comes to capitalism, it would be safer to assume that they do.

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2012/01/labour-cameron-miliband-party

Having just picked on a left leaning comedian and ignored a right leaning 'Musician'...

He now has the cheek to say he's going to take housing benefits from under 25 year olds..... thereby saving £4 billion....How much is lost via tax avoidance and tax evasion?

Of course he forgets that he has two homes paid for by benefits...1 No 10 Downing Street the other his London home paid out of his £17500 a year housing allowance (Benefit)

Good points astradt.

He's absolutely evil. I just can't believe how cruel, evil and hypocritical they all are. We're all in it together are we? I bloody well think not, you pack of utter stinking leeches! Idealogically driven bile is all they know!

People need to take to the streets and kick this shower out!

Clement Attlee and the Labour Party defeated Winston Churchill's Conservative Party in the 1945 general election and Attlee announced he would introduce the Welfare State outlined in the 1942 Beveridge Report. This included the establishment of a National Health Service in 1948 with taxpayer funded medical treatment for all. A national system of benefits was also introduced to provide 'social security' so that the population would be protected from the 'cradle to the grave'. The new system was partly built on the National Insurance scheme set up by Lloyd George in 1911.

The Tory Party have been fighting a rearguard action to reverse that decision for the past 64 years.

oftenwrong wrote:Clement Attlee and the Labour Party defeated Winston Churchill's Conservative Party in the 1945 general election and Attlee announced he would introduce the Welfare State outlined in the 1942 Beveridge Report. This included the establishment of a National Health Service in 1948 with taxpayer funded medical treatment for all. A national system of benefits was also introduced to provide 'social security' so that the population would be protected from the 'cradle to the grave'. The new system was partly built on the National Insurance scheme set up by Lloyd George in 1911.

The Tory Party have been fighting a rearguard action to reverse that decision for the past 64 years.

Interesting that the above was set up in a period of austerity - after WW2. Rationing didn't end till about 1954.
Now it is being demolished - because of austerity.

And I wrote a whole screed of points - and the .......................................electricity went off, and I lost it.

I lose it everytime I hear the word Tory!

Adele Carlyon wrote:I lose it everytime I hear the word Tory!

Are you sitting comfortably. Tory, Tory. Now, now. Calm down.

It's their policies that get me annnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeedddddddddddddddddddd. :bom:

Having just picked on a left leaning comedian and ignored a right leaning 'Musician'...

He now has the cheek to say he's going to take housing benefits from under 25 year olds..... thereby saving £4 billion....How much is lost via tax avoidance and tax evasion?

Of course he forgets that he has two homes paid for by benefits...1 No 10 Downing Street the other his London home paid out of his £17500 a year housing allowance (Benefit).

Have to agree with you on this one Astradt.......Badly conceived idea!!! Maybe Cameron and all the other coalition MP's will be giving up their housing allowances to then???!!!!!....I doubt it somehow

Is Cameron a blatant hypocrite?

Absolutely not. Hypocrisy involves blatant disregard of the facts.

The Man has absolutely no idea whatever of how normal people live, from hand-to-mouth. How could he?

Let them eat cake!

"The Man has absolutely no idea whatever of how normal people live, from hand-to-mouth. How could he?"

True and he is not bothered about becoming educated as to how "normal people live as it just would't interest him now would it?

Interesting that the above was set up in a period of austerity...Now it is being demolished - because of austerity.

No, trevor, the demolition of the NHS and the welfare state has nothing to do with austerity. It's because the Tories and their corporate backers are followers of the lunatic policies of the late Milton Friedman.

In Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (page 6), written in 2007, the policy is clearly explained. In short, Friedman told his followers to wait for a major crisis (in our case the global credit crunch), then sell off all state assets to private companies as rapidly as possible while citizens are still reeling from the shock. Then you have to quickly makes the changes permanent.

And we have the Liberal Democrats to thank for allowing the Tories, with the support of only 36% of those who bothered to vote, to do just that.

"In Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (page 6), written in 2007, the policy is clearly explained. In short, Friedman told his followers to wait for a major crisis (in our case the global credit crunch), then sell off all state assets to private companies as rapidly as possible while citizens are still reeling from the shock. Then you have to quickly makes the changes permanent."

How true that is as we experience exactly that from the bastards.

A quick research into the Romney campaign for the White House reveals precisely where Dave is getting his ideas from. The Republican Party is even more venomous than our shameless crew.

Ivan wrote:

Interesting that the above was set up in a period of austerity...Now it is being demolished - because of austerity.

No, trevor, the demolition of the NHS and the welfare state has nothing to do with austerity. It's because the Tories and their corporate backers are followers of the lunatic policies of the late Milton Friedman.

In Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (page 6), written in 2007, the policy is clearly explained. In short, Friedman told his followers to wait for a major crisis (in our case the global credit crunch), then sell off all state assets to private companies as rapidly as possible while citizens are still reeling from the shock. Then you have to quickly makes the changes permanent.

And we have the Liberal Democrats to thank for allowing the Tories, with the support of only 36% of those who bothered to vote, to do just that.

Ivan. I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.

My point however, badly phrased, was that the NHS etc managed to come into existence despite the austerity of the time, while the explanation given for its demise is the need for austerity.

Interesting paragraph from website - 'conflicting views of the Atlee governments 1945-51' http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/conflict.htm
Concern about 'our people' - the working classes - also underpinned the rapid introduction of welfare reform. In 1942 the Beveridge Report publicised the need for an overhaul of social security provision. Labour's National Insurance Act of 1946 provided for the first time a comprehensive safety net by bringing together benefits to insure against sickness, unemployment and old age. In housing, Labour faced the task of fitting a population enlarged by a million into properties reduced in number by 700,000 owing to bomb damage. After a slow start, one million new homes were built. Eighty per cent were council houses (rather than being built for private sale) - a clear reversal of Tory priorities in the 1930s. But the jewel in Labour's welfare crown was the National Health Service (NHS), which introduced free access to a wide range of hospital and general practitioner services. The Conservatives voted against the 1946 NHS Act, though opposition dwindled as the popularity of free medical care became obvious, especially among working-class women hitherto unable to insure themselves against ill-health. Labour charges that the Tories would dismantle the welfare state had to be strongly denied. In the words of one Tory MP, 'No one shoots Santa Claus'.

And who said 'Prophecies do not come true'.

Mel wrote:"In Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (page 6), written in 2007, the policy is clearly explained. In short, Friedman told his followers to wait for a major crisis (in our case the global credit crunch), then sell off all state assets to private companies as rapidly as possible while citizens are still reeling from the shock. Then you have to quickly makes the changes permanent."

How true that is as we experience exactly that from the bastards.

Hi Mel
very well pointed out my friend. maybe the two Tories can explain how public sector net borrowing is up to £18 billion up from £15 billion in 2011.

OW. From the above website.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/conflict.htm

Nye Bevan as the architect of the NHS refused to accept the case made by Hugh Gaitskell - Chancellor after Cripps resigned on medical grounds - that rearmament required spending cutbacks on the home front. Bevan's resignation over the breaching of the principle of a free health service symbolised an emerging division over future strategy that was to bedevil Labour for years to come. 'The End Is Nye' claimed Tory propagandists, and this proved the case for Attlee when a further small swing was sufficient to bring the Tories back to power at the election of October 1951

What did you say your age was?

Adele Carlyon wrote:He's absolutely evil. I just can't believe how cruel, evil and hypocritical they all are. We're all in it together are we? I bloody well think not, you pack of utter stinking leeches! Idealogically driven bile is all they know!

People need to take to the streets and kick this shower out!

100% agree with every word of this

Ivan wrote:

Interesting that the above was set up in a period of austerity...Now it is being demolished - because of austerity.

No, trevor, the demolition of the NHS and the welfare state has nothing to do with austerity. It's because the Tories and their corporate backers are followers of the lunatic policies of the late Milton Friedman.

In Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (page 6), written in 2007, the policy is clearly explained. In short, Friedman told his followers to wait for a major crisis (in our case the global credit crunch), then sell off all state assets to private companies as rapidly as possible while citizens are still reeling from the shock. Then you have to quickly makes the changes permanent.

And we have the Liberal Democrats to thank for allowing the Tories, with the support of only 36% of those who bothered to vote, to do just that.

Good reply Ivan

David Cameron's spin doctor Craig Oliver helped his BBC News presenter wife Joanna Gosling run an 'avoidance' scheme that could have denied thousands away from the tax man.
Joanna Gosling, could have made an extra £22,000 a year by being paid through a private company the pair set up.
The bloody hypocrite Cameron said comedian Jimmy Carr was 'morally wrong' for putting millions in an offshore tax dodging scheme.

It seems Cameron is surrounded by Tory staff who vigerously use the tax avoidance schemes, including Philip Green who Cameron brought in to advise the government on financial matters would you believe?

The bloody neck of the man has no end to it, blatant hypocrite that he is.

Graham Aaronson QC, a top lawyer designing anti-tax avoidence rules, who has recommended banning ‘aggressive’ bill-reducing arrangements such as Jimmy Carr’s, said such practices were particularly wrong in an era of austerity.
The tax-specialist barrister said that when he learned of the comedian’s K2 scheme - which helps members lower cut payments to about 1 per cent - it made his ‘blood boil’.
He believes that ensuring the wealthy cannot ‘play fast and loose’ with their responsibility to contribute to the running of the country is essential to maintaining public order.
‘People on the street don’t want these schemes to go ahead, there will be riots on the streets if the government fails to tackle wealthy tax dodgers"he said in an interview with The Times.

The Question is, will Cameron listen? IMO not on yer Nelly.

Foolproof tax avoidance schemes are the exact parallel of foolproof systems for betting on the horses.

If the creators are so clever, why are they sharing that information?

astradt1 wrote:Having just picked on a left leaning comedian and ignored a right leaning 'Musician'...

He now has the cheek to say he's going to take housing benefits from under 25 year olds..... thereby saving £4 billion....How much is lost via tax avoidance and tax evasion?

Of course he forgets that he has two homes paid for by benefits...1 No 10 Downing Street the other his London home paid out of his £17500 a year housing allowance (Benefit)

How much is lost via tax avoidance and tax evasion? about £49.9 billion per year is the answer. but then its far better to hit the weak and run away from the strong is it not? plus we are talking about the Tory parties friends who do a spot of tax evasion are we not?

It isn't "dishonest" to buy goods and services at the cheapest price you can find, so why should economising on your tax-exposure carry such moral opprobrium?

The remedy lies in the system, but the cost to the Nation of simply recording, calculating and collecting VAT/PAYE/NI is an eye-watering amount.

oftenwrong wrote:Clement Attlee and the Labour Party defeated Winston Churchill's Conservative Party in the 1945 general election and Attlee announced he would introduce the Welfare State outlined in the 1942 Beveridge Report. This included the establishment of a National Health Service in 1948 with taxpayer funded medical treatment for all. A national system of benefits was also introduced to provide 'social security' so that the population would be protected from the 'cradle to the grave'. The new system was partly built on the National Insurance scheme set up by Lloyd George in 1911.

The Tory Party have been fighting a rearguard action to reverse that decision for the past 64 years.

A first class summary of the last 64 years over this issue OW. In fact Churchill was so against it he tried to put a eduction bill in front of the Beveride report.

oftenwrong wrote:It isn't "dishonest" to buy goods and services at the cheapest price you can find, so why should economising on your tax-exposure carry such moral opprobrium?

The remedy lies in the system, but the cost to the Nation of simply recording, calculating and collecting VAT/PAYE/NI is an eye-watering amount.

For me I do not care one jot if its moral or not. We have pasted tax laws and I expect companies to argue about what they pay. but its not up too this companies to then state they do not like what was agreed and to walk away with paying £1 pound a year. to me I would not even have one moral worry or sleepless night about sticking these people on a airplane and send them to some tax haven. as if there not going to pay there way they are not interested in the UK Economy and i have no need of them. as i would not carry them or there tax exposure. so in that case let pack them off. as there will be people who will have no problem in replacing them. either pay what is fair or go. No moral issue at all for me. dead simple

A one-percent increase is enough to describe the British Economy as in recovery. Who could complain?




Remember hitch-hiking?