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

oftenwrong wrote:

Ivan wrote:Is this the hidden agenda? 
 
"Me first" is commonly observed among all strata of Society.  The agenda is not particularly well-hidden, Tories want to ghetto-ise all opposition.

The great pity is that they found it so easy to recruit Lib-Dem assistance in that cause.  That did come as a slight surprise.

I suppose the biggest people surprised will have been L/D voters and members OW plus all the Uni students that they LIED too and thought saying sorry would make it OK.

Mr Cameron if its shyte you eat it you spout enough shyte so I guess you are eating it along with your Tory LEECHES

Cameron is the worst British PM for living standards in recorded history
 
by Sunny Hundal  
 
"An analysis of figures from the Office for National Statistics out today show that David Cameron has been in Downing Street for 36 months of falling real wages – more than any Prime Minister on record. No other British PM has seen so many consecutive months of falling real wages, where the annual rise in wages is lower than the rate of inflation.

Prices have risen faster than wages in all but one month since May 2010 – in April 2013 when he cut taxes for millionaires and bank bonuses soared. Average earnings are £1,350 a year lower than they were at the time of the last general election."
 
Graphs here:-
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/06/cameron-is-the-worst-british-pm-for-living-standards-in-recorded-history/

The record of the UK in the history books is going to look just EFFING GREAT, the worst PM and the worst Chancellor for around a 100 years. I wonder what the kids studying history in 75 years time will say - Cameron & Osborne, what a pair of HOPELESS B(W)ANKERS.

Society!? It's not big and it's not clever.

Discuss.

sickchip wrote:Society!? It's not big and it's not clever.

Discuss.

If Cameron had his way there will be no society at all sickchip, that has been his plan from the beginning and of course the Prostitute party (L/Ds) have given him a hand every step of the way and there wondering why there poll ratings are so low which means they have not worked out that come May 2015 the voting public will ANNIHILATE them so they will not have enough seats in the H.O.C to join any coalition. 

Macho David Cameron, fresh from baring his sunburnt torso to the Cornish, flies back to London for talks on annihalating Damascus - wherever that is!

oftenwrong wrote:Macho David Cameron, fresh from baring his sunburnt torso to the Cornish, flies back to London for talks on annihalating Damascus - wherever that is!

I think he is looking for Brownie points OW hoping that it will win him the next general election in 2015, he is desperate that he does not go down in the history books as "The One Term Firm" 

Not long ago, David Cameron's favourite word was "Referendum" but he doesn't seem to have considered that in connection with Syria.

Perhaps he dreams of a personal "Falklands Factor" to sweep all before him at the next Election, as happened to Maggie thirty years ago.

That's exactly what I've been thinking - I rather think the shambles of Iraq may have scuppered that particular strategy - still, you never know - there's nowt so queer as folks as they say

The main difference with the Falklands v  Syria, is that the Falklands are ours and carried the weight of the British  public behind its support, whereas Syria could end up as yet another Iraq or Afghanistan where our military personnel lose their lives for sweet F A.
There again I don't suppose that would bother Herr Cameron, as most of those  who die or are maimed are mere plebs anyway who's duty it is, is to fight and die for the likes of the Bastard Cameron.
My Grandson has already completed two tours of Afghanistan, and I certainly don't want him putting his life on the line for yet more effing ragheads.

What is this Syrian crisis really about? Is the USA looking for a way into Iran? Do Dick Cheney and Halliburton want another Arab state to privatise? Is it about oil or weapons contracts? Are the Saudi Arabians putting pressure on Cameron? Or is Cameron keen to get involved in Syria to distract us from domestic issues? It won’t make him popular though – the British people are 2-1 against an attack on Syria – but it would certainly be a good time for him to slip through his fascist legislation restricting dissent and making next year’s TUC conference illegal:-
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/08/25/dear-chloe-smith-why-are-you-taking-away-the-right-to-free-speech-my-grandfather-died-for/
 
One of the most frightening aspects of the crisis is that we are expected to rely on the ‘judgement’ of that bloody fool William Hague. He’s the idiot who encouraged binge drinking by boasting of drinking fourteen pints of beer a day. He told us that Gaddafi was on his way to Venezuela. He put police on the steps of the Ecuadorean embassy in London and threatened to storm it – creating a dangerous precedent which would have put British embassies all over the world at risk.
 
The best way to resolve the Syrian crisis would be to persuade Russia and Iran to stop arming Assad, and to ask Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to stop arming his opponents. But it looks as if nothing has been learned from the invasion of Iraq ten years ago. As George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

One of the most frightening aspects of the crisis is that we are expected to rely on the ‘judgement’ of that bloody fool William Hague.

That scares me too - like getting brain surgery from a member of the Lower 6th

http://t.co/PA45eHfvow


Cameron's check list about Syria

 

The hidden agenda has yet to emerge.
If "recalling the House" is merely the usual Distraction Politics it's a bit OTT.

Twisting the tail of Russia is definitely beyond the Pay-grade of our Coalition government and its emasculated military.

oftenwrong wrote:The hidden agenda has yet to emerge.
If "recalling the House" is merely the usual Distraction Politics it's a bit OTT.

Twisting the tail of Russia is definitely beyond the Pay-grade of our Coalition government and its emasculated military.

I think the only reason Cameron has for trying to involve the UK in Syria troubles is a little bit of self preservation, the PM wants to win the next general election and was hoping to wrap himself in glory with the UK public by solving all of Syrias problems. Because he knows at the moment no way will the UK public vote Tory or Lib-Dem in May 2015.

Ivan wrote:What is this Syrian crisis really about? Is the USA looking for a way into Iran? Do Dick Cheney and Halliburton want another Arab state to privatise? Is it about oil or weapons contracts? Are the Saudi Arabians putting pressure on Cameron? Or is Cameron keen to get involved in Syria to distract us from domestic issues?

The issue regarding Syria has the same hallmarks as the Cuban Missile Crisis -- a cautious president being pressured by warhawks in Congress. I personally feel that the Republicans are pushing Obama to act against Syria in the hopes that it becomes a major debacle reminiscent of Carter's Operation Eagle Claw or Kennedy's Bay of Pigs. They want nothing more than to see a Democrat fail, and if that means sacrificing American (and British) soldiers to do it, well, tough.

Keep in mind that a fair number of Republicans want to literally shut down the government in order to defund Obamacare. Shutting down the government means tens of millions of people on Social Security and Disability -- not to mention everyone relying upon our flimsy government safety net -- will no longer receive their checks. These Republicans are willing to risk seeing America's sick and elderly literally tossed into the streets just to attack Obamacare. Even other Republicans say this is an insane idea and will backfire on the party -- and it will.

But the point is: If these idiots are willing to hold our sick and elderly hostage to score political points, it's only a few more steps to urging for war in the hopes that it falls apart.

Shirina wrote:
But the point is:  If these idiots are willing to hold our sick and elderly hostage to score political points, it's only a few more steps to urging for war in the hopes that it falls apart.

Shirina is referring to the US, but it's spooky how closely those words apply also in the UK.

Can we get the UN to intervene on humanitarian grounds against our own destructive Government?

Maybe 29 August 2013 will come to have significance in UK history, the day when we finally stopped “punching above our weight” and gave up trying to police the world.
 
No 10 curses, but Britain's illusion of empire is over
 
Extracts from an article by Polly Toynbee:-
 
A great switch has been thrown in the national psyche and nothing may ever be quite the same again. This is not a left-right shift, but a long-delayed acceptance that Britain is less powerful and poorer than it was, weary of wars and no longer proud to punch above its weight. No more pretending, no more posturing.

The great game is over. Poor David Cameron has been the one left stranded when the music stopped, still singing as everyone else falls silent. From Number 10 came effing and blinding at Ed Miliband, calling him, as reported in 'The Times', a "f****** c*** and a copper-bottomed shit". But it wasn't Labour, it was Cameron's whole country who had changed while he wasn't looking. Cue last-minute key change in Downing Street's unconditional promise to the US, but he's still out of tune with a country that doesn't want to go to war.

Cameron should be effing and blinding instead at his own party, for it's they who have changed without him noticing. With more than 70 MPs threatening to rebel, he lost control. The new doctrine of revenge as a legal pretext for war alarms many. The party of Suez no longer, the same impulse that makes them anti-EU has them prize British self-interest more than global status.

As the true meaning of end of empire sinks in, great questions follow. Why continue to spend more than comparable countries on defence? Why do we (and France) still squat in UN security council seats? What is the point of Trident, dependent entirely on the closest allegiance to America? 
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/no-10-curses-but-empire-is-over

I must say, I've been watcing these events with interest and some relief. I do think Polly may have a point here - there does seem to have been a bit of a paradigm shift around military matters. Young Willie has been sounding very silly indeed with his posturing and 'statesmanlike' utterances, in my opinion.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

November 10, 1942

What is this Syrian crisis really about?

I didn’t consider this possibility….  
 
Lynton Crosby: selling Syrian intervention?
 
From an article by Paul Hartley:-
 
“The media spotlight on Lynton Crosby’s lobbying activities and influence on government policy has mainly focused on his work for the tobacco and alcohol industries. In doing so, it has missed what is potentially a far more significant relationship. It is now well known that Crosby’s firm, Crosby Textor, carried out lobbying work for a wide range of big businesses. It is less well known that for six months in 2012 it ran a campaign on behalf of the main Syrian opposition group, the Syrian National Council.

The revelation of the relationship between Crosby and the Syrian National Council raises several important issues. First, of course, we must question the extent to which Crosby has been able to influence the British government on Syria. Although no direct link between Crosby and British foreign policy has yet been shown, as recent press reports have shown, Crosby’s influence in other policy areas has been significant. Since Crosby was hired as Cameron’s campaign consultant, Britain has led the way in Europe in pushing for a relaxation of the ban on providing weapons to the Syrian rebels.”
 
For the full article:-
http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/124-investigations/16605-lynton-crosby-selling-syrian-intervention#

Thank whoever for a democratic (occasionally) parliament.

tlttf wrote:Thank whoever for a democratic (occasionally) parliament.

Yes indeed, and for the reappearance, however brief, of a few decent tories. Hasn't the media's American bias been remarkable since the MPs regained a little self-respect though? Did anyone see the Guardian's assertion that only 20 tories actually believed in armed intervention: Two hundred of them were lying! We don't often hear stuff like that, true or not.

Thank heavens that the whole awful business is all the fault of that wretched Ed Miliband - at least according to one of Murdoch's poisonous comics. And, indeed, one imagines that any call from the Labour leader to support the USA in a military strike at Syrian targets would have led to a similar criticism from the Antipodean Arsehole's publications.

After all, what alternatives present themselves when the 'reputation' of Cameron is on the line and he has cocked-up so monumentally that too many of his own MPs won't nod when he tells them to do so?

Is there no level of hypocrisy to which certain sections of the Press won't stoop when a whiff of Tory embarrassment becomes detectable...?

Maybe PH you could tell me where the media's nose has been for the last 3 years because that is how long the smell of Tory embarrassment HAS been detectable ?   There were 9 Lib-Dems that disagreed with Cleggy no matter how much he twisted their arms to vote with the gov't, your spot on Ed would have been damned if he did and damned if he did not support the gov't on Syria.
 
But Ed Miliband needs this to be his first of many leads he takes so that the people of the UK see he is honest and open and very willing to listen to the concerns of the UK public.

This week's sequence of events might seem to suggest that Ed Miliband had to be "brought onside" by his colleagues, after having commenced on the wrong foot by initially appearing to support the warmongers.

In today's Independent a voice of the '60s, Tariq Ali, delivers his opinion: "Parliamentary Labour remains full of Blairites whose politics are identical to Cameron's and who would have happily backed the war if their front bench had not decided upon an amendment."

You got that one spot on OW, a Labour MP has resigned from the Labour party for that very reason because Ed did not back Cameron in the vote on Thursday night, it came out in the Telegraph on Friday/Saturday.  I read the article and he seems to be very pleased with himself but I wonder how his constituents feel, according to the Tories this country is SKINT and it is not looking after its own vulnerable peoople without our going into another war in the middle east which would cost TOO MUCH.

Redflag wrote:-
I wonder how his constituents feel

Dan Hodges is not an MP, but his mother is - Glenda Jackson (Lab, Hampstead & Kilburn).

Sorry Ivan have adjusted my post

Redflag wrote:-
a Labour MP has resigned from the Labour party

No. Jim Fitzpatrick has resigned his post in the shadow cabinet. He's still in the Labour Party and he's still an MP.

I said many times before "raving Dave" became PM that he is dangerous. His arrogance and blusterous make up, his snide remarks, his temper when challenged and his decision making without proper thought is his trademark which has embedded itself into his own cabinet members.

He has failed IMO to mirror his political mother Thatcher and has made himself look foolish in doing so. He cannot be trusted with anything, let alone war making.

Quite right, Mel, but in one respect David Cameron appears to be mirroring La Thatcher, and that is inasmuch as that he too thinks he's got to carry the whole Party on his shoulders.

There are too many people in his government that he plainly doesn't like, as was the case for Maggie in 1991.

The mood of the country is not in favour of war for any reason, which is not surprising. Most Tory politicians realise this, Cameron aparently did not.
I think he thought his determination to be seen to avenge the Syrian victims, would put him in favour of the electorate. That was the real reason of course rather than him actually being a genuine and caring PM. His only interest is money and power at the expense of the less well off.
The question is, will the elecorate see through him? I doubt so from the fickle lot.

Just about every time Cameron goes abroad, he takes arms dealers with him, probably donors to his vile and hypocritical party. For him to feign concern for people in Syria, when he callously allows over 400,000 people in this country to rely on food banks, while 1,300 others (including one of our members) have died after having their benefits taken away, just shows how depraved he is.
 
Assad probably did use chemical weapons. How can Cameron be so sure? Because his bloody government gave export licences to British firms to sell him the chemicals - even after the Syrian civil war had started:-
 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Mel wrote:The mood of the country is not in favour of war for any reason, which is not surprising. Most Tory politicians realise this, Cameron aparently did not.
I think he thought his determination to be seen to avenge the Syrian victims, would put him in favour of the electorate. That was the real reason of course rather than him actually being a genuine and caring PM. His only interest is money and power at the expense of the less well off.
The question is, will the elecorate see through him? I doubt so from the fickle lot.

Here I disagree with you Mel, I tend to think that Cameron knows he is not getting back into power in 2015 and thought Syria was going to be his Falklands, I think he thought Thatcher did it and it could be my way of getting the voting public to think him a thoughtful caring PM when they already know his is anything but caring.

Sorry for being a bit tribal - couldn't resist this opinion piece from the Daily Mail

http://t.co/7u4TPvSP62

David Cameron is a vainglorious fantasist. He should quit

I am surprised that the Daily Mail printed Hitchin's article being very pro Tory.
Hitchins pulls no punches although I am not fond of his arrogant ways, he has hit the nail on the head this time.

Thank you boatlady.

We now see "raving Dave" upsetting "The Bear" Putin with his snide remarks. Arrogant and tactless, Mr dangerous may next be suggesting bombing Russia.
He is a threat to the world and to the British public. Pig-headed and full of his own importance makes him look very unprofessional in my book.