Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

boatlady wrote:The face I want to kick

 
Get into the queue boatlady, there are a few million others awaiting to do more than kick him in the face, some would want to hang up up by his B****CKS, myself I would rather like to force him to do a REAL hard days work like cleaning public toilets with a toothbrush  

We live in the Eltham borough of SE London. It's a marginal and our MP Clive Efford is a top notch MP. It was held by Bottomley before 1997 (Virginia's husband)

Clive's majority was greatly reduced in 2010. It's very important that we fight hard to keep this a Labour seat.

We need to save the 258 seats that Labour won in 2010 general election, then take around 100 off the Tories to give Ed a good majority in the HOC. I do not know what is going through the heads of Labour voters wanting to vote Tory because most of them know what the Tories really are Phillip.

Redflag wrote:We need to save the 258 seats that Labour won in 2010 general election, then take around 100 off the Tories to give Ed a good majority in the HOC.    I do not know what is going through the heads of Labour voters wanting to vote Tory because most of them know what the Tories really are Phillip.

Hi Redflag


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/13/reality-check-bourndary-reform

That is a really good article that i enjoyed reading!



   The current system is biased in a technical sense, not in a pejorative sense. It's biased in a technical sense because of a variety of factors: first, the constituencies are smaller, Labour gets more MPs for the same vote share than the Tories get. It's historical in the sense that Tory areas – the wealthy shires - have tended to have faster growing populations over longer periods, so they inevitably expand. It's not a deliberate bias.

   The second factor is low turn out. In traditionally Labour areas, often inner-city, poorer communities, the party actually benefits from lower turnout. The third area where Labour might have an advantage is in efficiency. Tories have traditionally had high and growing vote in their heartlands and only at the last election did they identify – with Lord Ashcroft's money – the importance of marginals. The current reforms might affect the first factor, but it will do nothing for the second two.

Didn't the tories try to change this in the last parliament but were blocked by the LibDims over something or other that they promised them but relayed on?

Phillip. The Lib Dems wouldn’t agree to the constituency boundary changes because Cameron reneged on the agreed plan to reform the House of Lords.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/03/david-cameron-drop-lords-reforms

I don’t envisage Labour losing any seats in England or Wales to the Tories, and Clive Efford shouldn’t have too much trouble in holding on to his seat in Eltham. Electoral Calculus is currently predicting that he will increase his majority from 4% to 11.8%:-

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_c_e.html#Eltham

We need to save the 258 seats that Labour won in 2010 general election, then take around 100 off the Tories to give Ed a good majority in the HOC.

Redflag. The flaws in that argument are:-
1. Labour is very likely to lose about 30 of its 41 seats in Scotland.
2. Much as we would like it, there’s no realistic prospect of Labour taking 100 seats off the Tories. Electoral Calculus is currently predicting 47 Labour gains from the Tories and 11 from the Lib Dems.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html

You still haven’t answered my question. Which would you prefer – Labour in power with a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the SNP, or Labour walking away and leaving Cameron in Downing Street until he’s ready to engineer another election which only the Tories could afford? Isn't it a no-brainer?

[quote="Ivan"]Phillip. The Lib Dems wouldn’t agree to the constituency boundary changes because Cameron reneged on the agreed plan to reform the House of Lords.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/03/david-cameron-drop-lords-reforms

I don’t envisage Labour losing any seats in England or Wales to the Tories, and Clive Efford shouldn’t have too much trouble in holding on to his seat in Eltham. Electoral Calculus is currently predicting that he will increase his majority from 4% to 11.8%:-

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_c_e.html#Eltham
[quote]

Hi Ivan

Thanks for sharing that! That's good to hear!

Ivan wrote:You still haven’t answered my question. Which would you prefer – Labour in power with a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the SNP, or Labour walking away and leaving Cameron in Downing Street until he’s ready to engineer another election which only the Tories could afford? Isn't it a no-brainer?

After seeing last nights Scottish Leaders debate IVAN I tend to think that there is definitely truth in what was said in yesterdays Daily Record, about the SNP and the Tories being in cahoots to stop Ed & the Labour party being the biggest party in Westminister, it would mean that if the Tories get enough seats they would be the biggest therefore would get the chance to form the next gov't YES/NO.

I know what it would mean for the UK Scots would demand to leave the UK leaving my friends & family to a permanant Tory gov't (Heaven Help us All)       So all I will say is Come on England Ed & the people of the UK need you to give Davy boy and his Spivs + Lib-Dems a good kicking on the 7th May.

Opinion appears divided.

From what I have seen, I believe the SNP would support a Labour Party which was short of an overall majority. They may play a long game to achieve independence ( which they will probably have in the next 10-20, years or so anyway) but I cannot believe Sturgeon or Salmond would be seen to assist the Tories to govern at Westminster - such a move would diminish their personal credibility to an extent which could not justify even the prize of a boost for eventual independence , occasioned by the sight of a Tory Government persuading Scotland it just had to break away.

But, being only an Englishman, what would I know...?

I understand where your coming from PH, but Sturgeon is telling us Scots to vote SNP denying Labour seats here in Scotland which could mean that the Tories get the most seats in England which would mean that he would get first go at forming a gov't.

Then we all know that Davy boy would form a alliance with Ukip, then all HELL would be let loose and really worries me remember the riots of 2011.

".... remember the riots of 2011." If there hasn't been civil commotion arising from things like bedroom tax and spiteful sanctions, we can probably rest easy at the prospect of UKIP supporting a Tory administration. They're two sides of the same coin really.

Here is your new 'ministerial car' for after 7 May , Mr Cameron



Happy motoring - you bastard...

You know something OW, IMHO, I actually think that David Cameron is a worse leader to the poor than Thatcher was, as did we need all these food banks ETC when she was in power?

Cameron is just the front man for some very selfish people, Stu. Our votes next month will render him an insignificant historical footnote.

Probably true bobby as I was out on strike so much when she was in power, the evil witch.

Cameron says that Conservatives are the natural party for the working man. So it won't matter whether people vote for him or the other lot, will it? He has also said that Tories can be trusted with the economy, though not everybody agrees. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/albert-edwards-the-uk-economy-is-a-ticking-time-bomb/ar-AAaZ9Cc

As long as the working man is earning over £150.000 a year eh OW?

Out of the Mouths of Babes...



" Yes, I see - but can you actually spell ' duplicitous and untrustworthy'...?"

NO but mummy said that we could have extra sweets today if I said that you were a wanker.

Well that sums up Cameron altogether Claudine.

You're not wrong, Claudine

Another fire sale of social housing will make the housing shortage even worse and increase the numbers of homeless - including no doubt some of those who buy their social housing and then find they can't keep up the mortgage

Homeless, homeless, homeless, that is all we get to hear under this damned tory government is it not boatlady?

For some reason best known to our site owners, most threads (but not all) lock after 990 replies and start a second instalment. This thread, which has been running for over three years, is one such. Maybe it’s too soon to be writing Cameron’s political obituary here, but we can hope that he will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Cameron is William IV's great-great-great-great-great grandson, which makes him a fifth cousin, twice removed, of Mrs Windsor. He’s also extremely wealthy, with estimates that he and his wife are between them ‘worth’ (for want of a better word) over £30 million, but that’s never stopped him claiming money for expenses and an unnecessary mortgage. It’s no wonder that he’s so keen to cut inheritance tax! In the interests of transparency, he did promise to make public his tax returns, but that never happened.

When Cameron became Tory leader in 2005, Ian King, the business editor of ‘The Sun’, described him as a "poisonous, slippery individual", a remark which has been validated during the last five years. Jeff Randall, the former BBC business editor, said he would not trust Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money", adding that “he never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative”. Cameron’s hypocrisy was soon in evidence; he urged the Tories to select more women candidates for Parliament, even though he was a regular member of White’s, a posh all-male club. That’s one of many things which Cameron would like us to forget, along with his remark in 2008 that “Labour’s greatest failure has been too much regulation of the banks”, and his promise to match Labour’s spending “pound for pound”.

Cameron wanted to be prime minister because he thought he’d “be good at it”. Well he certainly got that wrong. He’s been responsible for major rises in poverty, hunger, homelessness and suicide as a consequence of his welfare reforms. His changes to the NHS have proven chaotic, and his free schools have paved the way for several corruption scandals. His relationships with high-profile media figures, whose employees were breaking the law, has never been addressed adequately. Economically, the government has contrived a success story, but the reality is that it failed on all of its vaunted measures, yet oversaw major tax cuts for the wealthiest people.

Cameron is a dangerous and incompetent politician, an intellectual lightweight who makes up policy on the hoof. He doesn’t have any coherent vision, but subscribes to Osborne’s vague, ultra Thatcherite concept of a state rolled back to pre-1930s levels. The Tories will always be the lying, mendacious, greedy, grasping, back-stabbing, two faced specimens who know the cost of everything, the value of nothing, and who set the bar really low when it comes to values in our society. They're always prepared to give with one hand, take with the other, and kick you with both feet when you're down. Cameron promised to modernise the Tories, but instead he presided over the most right-wing and most vicious UK government in living memory.

Ivan: That was so so good.

Nice reminder of what we're all about today

Cameron is William IV's great-great-great-great-great grandson, which makes him a fifth cousin, twice removed, of Mrs Windsor

And I am (so some argue) descended from Dafydd Gam, Crooked Davy, who tried to assassinate our last Prince, Owain, and died defending bloody Henry V at Aginncourt. Fair play to the Queen - none of us can be held responsible for these shameful connexions!

oftenwrong wrote:Cameron is just the front man for some very selfish people, Stu.  Our votes next month will render him an insignificant historical footnote.

Oh, well! Better luck next time then.

However it now seems likely that (Cousin-of-The-Queen) David Cameron is more likely to go down in history as the Last Prime Minister of a United Kingdom, and also the one who cast Britain adrift from our European customers.

A reputation likely to endure equally to someone who once burnt some cakes.

someone who once burnt some cakes

Was that Delia Smith's husband? I don't want to look it up on Google in case I end up with a load of cookies on my computer.....

Claudine wrote:I sat back and watched Cameron's big vote grab centred around social housing and I concluded that he is completely amoral. His plan is so cynical and short-sighted that it beggars belief.

I think Claudine the housing associations will be taking Davy boy to Court over the sale of there houses, and I hope they fight him tooth &nail to stop this spodity people will find out he only said it so they would vote for him then heaven help him, already there are people out on the streets protesting outside No10 his fruadulent home.

I have come to the awful concluion, that our Davy boy is far cleverer than he lets on, well to get the unemployed and the people who are on he invalidity benefits and all other kinds of benefits to vote for him and give him such a large majority takes some doing does it not? also knowing that he is going to privatise just about everything in sight, but worst of all the NHS.
How did a tory leader of a party that has broken so many promises manage this? he is cleverer than maggie t that is for sure, and I can see him being in power until after the tories have won the next election I am sorry to say.

In yesterdays Daily Mirror there s not just foodbanks in the UK, there now is FUEL banks you can get a one off card for £49.00 to be used for gas & electric or just used for one of these energies.

Yes Redflag,I read that myself including an article where people have cold baths, and only use candes for light,and things like that so that their fuel bills are only £10-£15 a quarter, I use to have a friend who did that too,we use to call him scruffy mike,as there was no reaon for him to do it,as he had thousands in the bank.

Having Become Tired of the Same Old Traditions...

(bbc)

"... I wouldn't take too much notice of all this, incidentally - it was written by somebody who is even less reliable than that Mr Sepp Blatter..."

Tongue-in-cheek is a figure of speech used to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended.

But you can't fight "tradition".

Exactly OW, tradition is tradition is it not,and what we in this country are note for,no matter what some may think of it.

It's certainly traditional to cock a snook at tradition - or to speculate that some -even at its very centre - might have tired of it....