Is David Cameron a moron from the outer reaches of the universe? (Part 1)

atv wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:[quote="atv I have replied many times myself about the so called massive UK deficit that was left by the so-called last government...This argument is very old and does not stack up...you need to look at the world banking crisis for the majority of the UK debt after 2008...the real facts are will documented now

The Labour government had overspent under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. An inherited budget surplus had become a regular budget deficit, predictions of economic growth were overly optimistic, and plans for public spending were unaffordable. When the financial crisis and recession of 2007–2009 hit, Mr. Brown, true to his prejudices and convictions, then spent much more. This dramatically worsened the state of public finances without avoiding recession.
The U.K. budget deficit in Labour’s last year rose to 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest in the country’s peacetime history and the largest structural deficit in Europe.
Robin Harris writes for The Heritage Foundation, from where this article is adapted.

MYTH: Government debt is the highest it's ever been

The UK's government debt is at around 70 per cent of GDP (the total amount of goods and services produced in one year). That is certainly high, but it is far from unprecedented.

Government debt never fell below 100 per cent of GDP between 1920 and 1960. It is only in the past decade or so that it has become normal to think of government debt being stable at around 40 per cent of GDP.

It is worth noting that government debt reached 250 per cent of GDP around the end of the second world war, as the result of a 'once in a generation' economic and political crisis. It is certainly arguable that we are now living through a similarly momentous crisis.

MYTH: The UK's debt crisis is one of the worst in the world

Just as the current level of government debt is not unprecedented historically, neither is it substantially higher than that of other countries.

IMF data (IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2010) shows the UK has the lowest government debt as a proportion of GDP among the G7 countries (the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Japan, Italy and France).

Much has been made by Cameron and Osborne of Gordon Brown's 'imprudent borrowing record'. They say that before the spending to stabilise the financial system, public debt was high.

But again, IMF comparisons of the level of public debt prior to 2007 showed the UK in a much better position than many comparable countries, such as France, Canada, the US and even Germany, the home of fiscal rectitude.

MYTH: Government debt is 'unsustainable'

The sustainability of government debt is not just dictated by its size, but by its make up. We have already seen that government debt is at a comparable level to other similarly sized economies. Where the UK is in a much stronger position, however, is in the nature of its debt.

While countries such as Greece tend to owe money to external financiers, the vast majority of UK debt - about 70 to 80 per cent - is held within the country.

And the UK's debt is not so short term. Countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal have average debt maturity rates of between six to eight years, but UK government debt stands out among international comparisons as being much longer term at well over 12 years on average.

This means that the UK has to ask the financial markets to refinance its debts much less frequently, making it less vulnerable to short-term speculative pressures and much more able to continue to finance its debts on a sustainable basis.

MYTH: The government shouldn't get into debt, just as your own household shouldn't

This overlooks the fact that, for the past 30 years, governments have positively encouraged households to get into debt.

In fact, it can be prudent for households to take on debt - particularly if they are borrowing to pay for something (a house or educational qualification) that might reasonably be expected to improve the household's income and well being in the long run.

In just the same way it is often sensible for governments to take on debt to pay for investments (such as housing or transport infrastructure) that will make the economy work better and so pay for themselves over the longer term.

But the public economy is also different from the household economy. What might make sense for a household could, for the government, deepen a recession. When times are hard households tend to tighten their belts - reducing their spending and borrowing. But if everyone does this at the same time, the effect is counterproductive: total demand for goods and services falls, which makes it harder for businesses and individuals to generate an income, and everyone ends up worse off.

This is exactly what is happening now, which is why it is essential for the government to compensate for households' reluctance to spend and invest.

MYTH: Public spending got 'out of control' under Labour

It is true that the Labour government gradually raised public spending in the early part of the decade, but it was from what were historically very low levels.

Levels of public spending are now about the same as they were in the early 1990s, at the time of the last economic crisis. This is because spending always rises during a recession as a result of welfare spending on unemployment.

In fact, levels of public spending as a proportion of GDP were much lower for most of the 2000s than they were than at any point since the 1960s.

Where Labour did spend more in the years after 2000, it was necessary to repair the visible effects of long-term under-investment. Who can forget schools and hospitals with buckets in the corner to catch the leaks, or grim city centre landscapes with crowds of homeless people sleeping rough?

Labour's increased spending also addressed workforce shortages in schools and the NHS, where more staff were needed to raise educational standards and care for an ageing population.

Rather than cutting such spending, the crisis could be an opportunity to build the infrastructure of a more energy-efficient, green economy. That would prepare us for the longer-term structural barriers to growth presented by climate change and the depletion of natural resources.


ECONOMIC MYTHS

MYTH: The UK has a big public sector compared to other countries

Public spending in the UK is lower as a proportion of the economy than in the likes of France, Italy, Austria and Belgium, as well as the Scandinavian countries (OECD World Factbook 2010).

And spending on core areas such as health and education remains comparable or low in relation to other OECD (broadly speaking, 'rich') countries.

For example, the UK spent just 8.4 per cent of its GDP on health in 2007, roughly half that spent in the United States (once the large private sector is taken into account) and well behind Germany, France and most other west European nations.

On education, the UK again spends less per pupil than most comparable OECD countries.

The UK is not profligate in public spending and does not have an oversized public sector compared to similar countries.

MYTH: Spending on the public sector is 'crowding out' private sector growth

It is argued that public spending comes at the expense of overall growth, because potential investment is being re-directed into taxation to fund an 'unproductive' public sector. But in fact investment in public infrastructure and services is essential to private sector productivity, and so is no less critical to future growth than private sector investment.

Furthermore, the UK is not a highly taxed economy. The OECD's comparative figures on taxation as a proportion of overall economic output show the UK way down the list, only just above the average.

It is sometimes suggested that taxes hit the private sector in such a way as to discourage job growth. Again, though, the data shows the UK to have very low levels of taxation per job: far lower than the OECD average.

The second way in which the public sector might be said to be crowding out private sector growth is by taking workers it needs, but this would only really be the case where the labour market was operating close to full employment.

With the unemployment rate at about 8 per cent, this is clearly not the case. and in many areas of public provision - from child protection, to education and training, to care for the elderly - there is a pressing need for more, not fewer, public service workers.

Finally, some argue that public investment 'crowds out' private investment, because government borrowing pushes up interest rates and inflation. But there is no evidence that this is currently a problem - real interest rates are low, and the economy is still operating well below its potential output, which means there is lots of room for non-inflationary public sector expansion.

In fact, in current circumstances, public spending is more likely to stimulate private sector investment by maintaining levels of demand and preventing a deeper collapse of economic activity.

MYTH: Public sector workers are overpaid

It is true that very recently average wages in the public sector have moved marginally above those in the private sector. This is mainly because privatisation has pushed many low-paid jobs out to the private sector.

The trend is not that public sector wages have risen sharply, but that private sector wages have fallen - a characteristic of the economic crisis. If we take a longer view, since the 1990s average public sector pay has not seen significantly more growth than the public sector.

And when private sector wages are split up to consider different sector and occupational patterns, a rather different picture emerges. Wage rates differ widely, with the average pulled down by very low wage sectors such as distribution, retail and hospitality.

What the data shows, therefore, is not that public sector workers are overpaid, but that some private sector workers are severely underpaid.

MYTH: The financial crisis was caused by a lack of money in circulation

This one is true to some extent, but it requires careful explanation. The system of finance capitalism pursued in the UK and US since the 1970s has continuously recycled economic surpluses away from the poor toward the rich. In both countries, the share of economic output taken up by wages (as opposed to profit) has fallen, and inequality has risen. The very affluent have got wealthier, at the expense of the rest of the population. In 2007/08 the richest tenth of the population had more than 30 per cent of total income ('Income Inequalities', poverty.org.uk).

In the post-war period, part of the role of the state was to redistribute economic surpluses to the wider population so that they could keep spending on goods and services. This was seen as so important precisely because large inequalities had been identified as one cause of the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent depression.

For a while, the problem that rising inequality presented for growth was overcome by the use of credit and the super-exploitation of workers in the developing world, which allowed consumers to keep buying cheap products. This is one of the factors that fed the debt crisis.

So, yes, there is not enough money in circulation - but this is precisely because it has been captured by the super-rich.

MYTH: Cutting public spending will help us avoid economic disaster

A range of economists, from Larry Elliott of the Guardian to Nobel prize winning professors like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, are warning that making cuts now raises the very real possibility of undermining the fragile economic recovery.

As every first year economics student knows, there are four main components of economic growth: (1) exports; (2) investment; (3) household spending; and (4) government spending.

Over the past two years, governments around the world have stepped in to bridge the gap in the first three by providing debt-financed public sector stimulus packages. There is precious little evidence that the private sector or households are ready or able to step up their activity to fill the gap, or that exports will increase in a world where our major trading partners are also reining in spending.

As such, any austerity programme may prematurely remove the foundations of the recovery and lead to a return to recession - a 'double dip'. This would be disastrous, not just for growth, but in turn for tax receipts and the capacity of the state to reduce the deficit and government debt.

How will that help to stabilise the world economy? How will it deal with the frequent, persistent and cumulative financial crises that are endemic to it, or overcome the pressing resource and environmental constraints that are so clear for all to see?

The economic crisis was a golden opportunity to move toward a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable national and international economic system. For a while all countries were so concerned about the whole system that there was at least a chance to overcome narrow self-interest and look toward a more co-operative and sustainable future.

We are about to squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity for progressive change - unless, that is, we organise and campaign for an alternative.

MYTH: There is no alternative to cuts

The beginnings of an alternative have already been discussed. For example, Unison's alternative budget ('We can afford a fairer society', Unison Alternative Budget 2010) suggests that almost £4.7 billion could be raised each year from introducing a 50 per cent tax rate on incomes over £100,000.

About £5 billion could be raised every year from a tax on vacant housing; £25 billion a year could be raised by closing tax loopholes; and the IPPR think-tank has estimated that a 'Robin Hood tax' on financial transactions could raise another £20 billion a year (T Dolphin, Financial Sector Taxes, IPPR 2010).

All these taxation measures would be 'progressive' in the sense that they would divert wealth from the rich to the poor, in contrast to measures such as the government's VAT increase, which hits the poor hardest.

In addition, some of these ideas might have behavioural advantages: they could work against destabilising speculative financial flows, or lead to fewer empty houses.

Similarly, we could look at spending that really should be cut. For example, while estimates of the true costs of replacing the Trident nuclear weapon system vary widely, they tend always to come in above £80 billion over 25 years.

Getting rid of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, massive consultancy fees on private finance deals and contractors' profits in privatised public services would also make a difference.

We could also decide to manage the deficit and public spending in a long-term manner, targeting social issues such as inequality, under-investment in education and child poverty, and strongly regulating international financiers, banks, hedge funds and the like.

All of these are political choices.

We don't have to live in a world where unemployment co-exists with a long-hours culture in which workers are so stressed that mental health problems are on the rise.

We don't have to live in a world where bankers gamble millions across the world in elaborate financial casinos at the same time as 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.

We don't have to live in a world where there is no limit to how much of our collective economic output goes to the rich, yet others do not have enough to eat.

It is worth remembering that after the last crisis of this scale and significance, and with public debt something like three and a half times the size it is today, we established the NHS, created the welfare state, put in place comprehensive education and built a vast number of public housing estates.

History tells us that there is more than one way out of an economic crisis.

I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THIS A MOST FAIR SUMMARY OF THE UK ECONOMY..



Thanks to my friend Dr Alex Nunn of Leeds Metropolitan University

Stox 16 wrote:[quote
Sorry to up-set you. but know he only mistake we not to inform the Italian Government...Respect costs nothing at all...but as for trying to get them out...it was quite right in my own view that he did..its called duty to the people of the UK.

Can't argue with that, you are not upsetting me as I couldn't agree more.

atv wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:[quote
Sorry to up-set you. but know he only mistake we not to inform the Italian Government...Respect costs nothing at all...but as for trying to get them out...it was quite right in my own view that he did..its called duty to the people of the UK.

Can't argue with that, you are not upsetting me as I couldn't agree more.

Good we agree then...I fully understand the Italian Government views on this...as we would be the same...

[quote="Stox 16"] [color=red]MYTH: Government debt is the highest it's ever been

I can't find any links to your article.
Did it come from some left wing rag or trade union?

[quote="atv"]

Stox 16 wrote:[color=red] MYTH: Government debt is the highest it's ever been

I can't find any links to your article.
Did it come from some left wing rag or trade union?

No from my friend...you can look up all the facts and figure he has used..they all stack up

DATA TO LOOK UP [b]

IMF, DATA 2010
OECD WORLD FACTBOOK 2010
WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK DATABASE 2010
HM OBR BUDGET 2011 DEBT TO GDP

Please feel free to write to them and tell them there data is utterly wrong...

Public Net Debt
Fiscal Years 1979 to 2011
Year GDP
£ billion Public Net Debt -total
percent GDP

1979 199.22 43.61 a
1980 233.184 42.11 a
1981 256.279 44.40 a
1982 281.024 44.55 a
1983 307.207 43.13 a
1984 329.913 43.59 a
1985 361.758 43.45 a
1986 389.149 41.81 a
1987 428.665 39.14 a
1988 478.51 34.98 a
1989 525.274 29.30 a
1990 570.283 26.69 a
1991 598.664 25.27 a
1992 622.08 26.70 a
1993 654.196 30.97 a
1994 692.987 36.05 a
1995 733.266 39.55 a
1996 781.726 41.20 a
1997 830.094 41.92 a
1998 879.102 40.14 a
1999 928.73 37.86 a
2000 976.533 35.37 a
2001 1021.83 30.57 a
2002 1075.56 29.33 a
2003 1139.75 30.45 a
2004 1202.96 31.82 a
2005 1254.06 33.81 a
2006 1325.8 34.92 a
2007 1398.88 35.74 a
2008 1448.39 36.25 a
2009 1395.87 44.19 a
2010 1453.62 52.25 a
2011 1526.5 59.56 e
Legend:
a - actual outturn
e - estimate in HM Treasury 2011 budget


Support with HM Treasury's debt to GDP...FIGURES

Hi atv
What you may note is that all UK government have in fact ran a deficit. you will also note that the debt to GDP was not out of line with UK growth...in fact up till the world banking crash the Tory party made a great play of sticking to Brown's Tax spend policy..until the day after the economic world banking crash...then they started all the Myth's about how bad this was...while not pointing out the UK growth figures...clever move...The UK media like the rest of the worlds media blamed ALL THE GOVERNMENT in power at the time of the world banking crisis...One by one each of these Government lost office as a direct result of the need of someone to blame...while no once stopping to check what the true state of play was... lets just think about all of this for one minute...Do you really believe that everyone of the governments seeked to lose power? NO... they did not..so if you are now saying that Brown was running some utterly rogue economic policy that was so very different from all the other western government then you need to come up with some real economic data in support of this claim? not some newspaper link..but real hard government or world banking data. such as i have done here....

Now in my company that sells economic data from around the world..i cannot show that Browns action where so out of line given his debt to GDP margins..this can best be seen with the IMF,OECD world fact-book data of 2010. Cameron and Gideon have been asked show government or world banking data to back up there claim...so far they have ducked over 200 question put to them to support this charge...no..answer has yet come to back up there claims...you may note they do not push this silly economic argument so much today...WHY...because they have very view fact to back this up.

maybe there time should be better spent dealing with all the national debt they are now hiding in 5 and 10 years government bonds and over £157 billion over spend on borrowing..... this is with out the £350 QE.... and the money that three UK banks have now borrowed from the ECB...

" If Phil enjoys gloating over peoples death,...."

A pitiful attempt at a smear and distortion even for a well-practised Tory, atv!

One can only imagine that your evidence must be as strong as Lord Hanningfield's resolve to be accurate when confronted by a blank expenses claim form....

[quote="Stox 16"]

atv wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:[color=red] MYTH: Government debt is the highest it's ever been

I can't find any links to your article.
Did it come from some left wing rag or trade union?

No from my friend...you can look up all the facts and figure he has used..they all stack up

DATA TO LOOK UP [b]

IMF, DATA 2010
OECD WORLD FACTBOOK 2010
WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK DATABASE 2010
HM OBR BUDGET 2011 DEBT TO GDP

Please feel free to write to them and tell them there data is utterly wrong...

You forget Stox in two weeks he will have to LIE through his back teeth when he presents the Spring Budget we know he has had to borrow more to pay Dole and J.S. A to the Millions that Scam..er,,on flung on the scrap heap because there is not enough work out there to cover the Millions out of work.

[quote="Redflag"]

Stox 16 wrote:

atv wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:[color=red] MYTH: Government debt is the highest it's ever been

I can't find any links to your article.
Did it come from some left wing rag or trade union?

No from my friend...you can look up all the facts and figure he has used..they all stack up

DATA TO LOOK UP [b]

IMF, DATA 2010
OECD WORLD FACTBOOK 2010
WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK DATABASE 2010
HM OBR BUDGET 2011 DEBT TO GDP

Please feel free to write to them and tell them there data is utterly wrong...

You forget Stox in two weeks he will have to LIE through his back teeth when he presents the Spring Budget we know he has had to borrow more to pay Dole and J.S. A to the Millions that Scam..er,,on flung on the scrap heap because there is not enough work out there to cover the Millions out of work.

O yes Red the spring Budget...Well this will be very interesting to see how they go about hiding all the true borrowing...you should see them at there very best.

Phil Hornby wrote:" If Phil enjoys gloating over peoples death,...."

A pitiful attempt at a smear and distortion even for a well-practised Tory, atv!

One can only imagine that your evidence must be as strong as Lord Hanningfield's resolve to be accurate when confronted by a blank expenses claim form....

Hi Phil
The trouble is Phil.. we will all be waiting a very long time for this so-called evidence...I would say.. we should get it at the same time we enter the next Tory economic ice age. You would not believe this Phil...even had a Tory fan try to use a youtube link as economic evidence...what a total joke that is Phil

Stox 16 wrote:

Phil Hornby wrote:" If Phil enjoys gloating over peoples death,...."

A pitiful attempt at a smear and distortion even for a well-practised Tory, atv!

One can only imagine that your evidence must be as strong as Lord Hanningfield's resolve to be accurate when confronted by a blank expenses claim form....

Hi Phil
The trouble is Phil.. we will all be waiting a very long time for this so-called evidence...I would say.. we should get it at the same time we enter the next Tory economic ice age. You would not believe this Phil...even had a Tory fan try to use a youtube link as economic evidence...what a total joke that is Phil

C'mon Stox you above any one should know that the Tories are the biggest joke in the UK.

"O yes Red the spring Budget...Well this will be very interesting to see how they go about hiding all the true borrowing...you should see them at there very best."

Economists say that current government spending is well ahead of Treasury income, and that to properly balance the books, Taxation needs to increase by about 20%. Gideon Osborne shows no suicidal tendencies, so the forthcoming Budget on March 21 is likely to contain more smoke than light.

Is Cameron a Moron?

The answer is yes for two reasons.

1/ He has yet to answer why he employed Andy Coulson who is under investigation regarding phone hacking.
2/ Again he has shown that his credibility is tarnished by his engagement with "friends" whom he should have avoided like the plague and yet failed to do so.---- Rebekah Brooks and her husband Charlie are among the 6 arrested as part of #phonehacking inquiry today.

Now just watch the Tory loving press fail to make a meal of this. Had the same situation come to light for Brown during his watch, it would have made front page reading for days.

If one makes a habit of engaging with unsavoury "friends" then the concequences will eventually take toll.

oftenwrong Today at 9:49 am




"O yes Red the spring Budget...Well this will be very interesting to see how they go about hiding all the true borrowing...you should see them at there very best."

Economists say that current government spending is well ahead of Treasury income, and that to properly balance the books, Taxation needs to increase by about 20%. Gideon Osborne shows no suicidal tendencies, so the forthcoming Budget on March 21 is likely to contain more smoke than light




That's why I've got my fan ready. You can be sure that you are going to be taking something with your right hand and giving it with your left.
Probably a little more with your left:( Unless you're rich, of course

That's one of the arts necessary to be a successful Chancellor. While most Politicians can just learn the art of 'being economical with the truth', the Chancellor has to learn the same art with the addition of being able to confuse the truth with the lie.
The problem with the Budget statement is simply that. You listen and think things are going to help you. Then later you read the small print.
The Government opt-out clauses.

I had a few savings when I retired and the government
rewarded me with a very small weekly extra on my pension for saving. I have had to use some of that to live. 'Good' says the government 'now we can reduce the amount we pay you'. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa:(
Perhaps, if it's not too late the OAP's suffering under this Government might help to give it a book up its ja....... ooops.



Anyway, for those of you film buffs I've got my 'Passport to Pimblico' ready.

Redflag quote

C'mon Stox you above any one should know that the Tories are the biggest joke in the UK.

I agree, but don't you think the joke has 'fallen flat'. In theatrical terms it should be 'laughed' off stage, preferably with rotten tomatoes. On second thoughts, what a waste of rotten tomatoes.

what a waste of rotten tomatoes

GOOD MORNING TREVOR!!

wHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO WITH ROTTEN TOMATOES?


make wine with them?

astra wrote:

what a waste of rotten tomatoes

GOOD MORNING TREVOR!!

wHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO WITH ROTTEN TOMATOES?


make wine with them?

I would not waste rotten tomatoes on him they are too good for that, something more suitable and its free the contents of my POTTY

become incarnate!

How's about "Incinerated" AT??

An incarnate Margaret Thatcher would probably return to haunt the Tory front bench. Serve 'em right!

I believe that Cameron is her love child and result of an unholy union with the devil!

bobby wrote:I believe that Cameron is her love child and result of an unholy union with the devil!

Oh You mean Ronald Reagan.

Now I know the truth of it! :affraid:

Break-in at Labour Offices

(blogs.fd.com)

" I was in America and all my MPs were tucked up in bed with their secretaries, so I suggest you concentrate your enquiries elsewhere..."

astra wrote:

become incarnate!

How's about "Incinerated" AT??

Hi astra there is one thing wrong with your quote although a good Idea but have to tell you SH**E does not BURN.

Redflag wrote:

astra wrote:

become incarnate!

How's about "Incinerated" AT??

Hi astra there is one thing wrong with your quote although a good Idea but have to tell you SH**E does not BURN.

I think Cameron would, on the contrary, burn well with the use of a suitable fire propellent...

AwfulTruth wrote:

Redflag wrote:

astra wrote:

become incarnate!

How's about "Incinerated" AT??

Hi astra there is one thing wrong with your quote although a good Idea but have to tell you SH**E does not BURN.

I think Cameron would, on the contrary, burn well with the use of a suitable fire propellent...

I hope you mean if we pour a couple of litres of petrol that it would make a good BLAZE.

Of course we are only joking! In case the secret service is listening in! :affraid:

Phil Hornby wrote:Break-in at Labour Offices

(blogs.fd.com)

" I was in America and all my MPs were tucked up in bed with their secretaries, so I suggest you concentrate your enquiries elsewhere..."

AwfulTruth wrote:Of course we are only joking! In case the secret service is listening in! :affraid:

The secret service will have heard a lot worse of what people would like to do to Scam..er..on AT but they can not find out what we are thinking :bom:

Cameron gave a table tennis table to Barack Obama as a "best of British" present. It transpires that the table was made in China.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9151444/David-Camerons-table-tennis-table-gift-to-Barack-Obama-made-in-China.html

Ivan wrote:Cameron gave a table tennis table to Barack Obama as a "best of British" present. It transpires that the table was made in China.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9151444/David-Camerons-table-tennis-table-gift-to-Barack-Obama-made-in-China.html

Ivan the Tories made sure that the UK makes NOTHING thanks to Thatcher ROTTEN WITCH.

Red Flag, see the Sheffield Foundry debacle, Gordon Broon esq, (New Labour) was no better! And Brown's GIVING of the Tyne floating dry dock to India was just the last incompetent straw!

AwfulTruth wrote:

I never witnessed such an appalling lack of discussion, or even general etiquette, skills than with this prime mover. If I had been paid a quid for every ad hominem (personal reference - sarcasm to you and I) that fell out of his plump mouth I would be rich.

Seriously, why does Cameron make such a fool of himself? He has already been censured for bullying the newby MP's, and for his habit of telling pork pies when the truth would have done nicely.

It is now the case that his own party is getting sick of his amateurish habits which, as he has been solemnly told, may even bring office of PM into disrepute.

He doesn't.

He's very, very wise;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3xsnEzA8Fw
Cameron: State multiculturalism has failed

Interesting video...enlightening.

However, who wrote that speech?

astra wrote:Red Flag, see the Sheffield Foundry debacle, Gordon Broon esq, (New Labour) was no better! And Brown's GIVING of the Tyne floating dry dock to India was just the last incompetent straw!

If your talking Forgemasters ie Sheffield Foundry, Gordon Brown had said he would give them a LOAN of £1 Million but it was Clegg and Scam..er..on that withdrew that offer that is why Clegg can not go near Sheffield and at the same time that was Cleggs own constituency it got that bad he had to sell his house in his constituency because he was getting all sorts put through his letterbox plus some of the letters where not nice.

Redflag wrote:

astra wrote:Red Flag, see the Sheffield Foundry debacle, Gordon Broon esq, (New Labour) was no better! And Brown's GIVING of the Tyne floating dry dock to India was just the last incompetent straw!

If your talking Forgemasters ie Sheffield Foundry, Gordon Brown had said he would give them a LOAN of £1 Million but it was Clegg and Scam..er..on that withdrew that offer that is why Clegg can not go near Sheffield and at the same time that was Cleggs own constituency it got that bad he had to sell his house in his constituency because he was getting all sorts put through his letterbox plus some of the letters where not nice.

I had no idea, Redflag, about this fact: thanks for enlightening me. Well done.

Of course, Sheffield Hallam: well you simply could not invent such a ludicrous, self-inflicted turn of events. I am running out of hackneyed phrase here but what do you expect?

AwfulTruth wrote:

Redflag wrote:

astra wrote:Red Flag, see the Sheffield Foundry debacle, Gordon Broon esq, (New Labour) was no better! And Brown's GIVING of the Tyne floating dry dock to India was just the last incompetent straw!

If your talking Forgemasters ie Sheffield Foundry, Gordon Brown had said he would give them a LOAN of £1 Million but it was Clegg and Scam..er..on that withdrew that offer that is why Clegg can not go near Sheffield and at the same time that was Cleggs own constituency it got that bad he had to sell his house in his constituency because he was getting all sorts put through his letterbox plus some of the letters where not nice.

I had no idea, Redflag, about this fact: thanks for enlightening me. Well done.

Of course, Sheffield Hallam: well you simply could not invent such a ludicrous, self-inflicted turn of events. I am running out of hackneyed phrase here but what do you expect?

No problem AT they had full order books and needed to take on more staff so that they could fullfil those orders thats is why the people of Sheffield hate Clegg guts it the same with that train maker BOMBARDIER they do not like either Scam..er..on or Clegg.

I thought Cameron was an aristo toff and a former bullingdon club member who is simply fulfilling his birthright and presiding over the british masses.

sickchip wrote:I thought Cameron was an aristo toff and a former bullingdon club member who is simply fulfilling his birthright and presiding over the british masses.

There are nothing but his own thoughts SC and you know what they say about self Praise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!