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

Bellatori revealing the outrageous truth that he decides who to vote for based on current policy rather than simply pledging blind allegiance

Shocking! Whatever happened to good old-fashioned prejudice...?

Dan Fante. It’s not about “blind allegiance” or “current policy” in my book, but about principles. Whether you believe in society and equality of opportunity and want good public services and cradle to the grave support for all, or whether you are rich enough to be able to choose not to use public services, believe there’s no such thing as society and don’t give a sod about anyone else. Those in the latter group usually say they “believe in small government” – until disaster strikes and they need help.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t830-big-or-small-government
 
Have you taken the left/right, libertarian/authoritarian test yet?
 
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Ivan wrote:Dan Fante. It’s not about “blind allegiance” or “current policy” in my book, but about principles. Whether you believe in society and equality of opportunity and want good public services and cradle to the grave support for all, or whether you are rich enough to be able to choose not to use public services, believe there’s no such thing as society and don’t give a sod about anyone else. Those in the latter group usually say they “believe in small government” – until disaster strikes and they need help.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t830-big-or-small-government
 
Have you taken the left/right, libertarian/authoritarian test yet?
 
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm not going to put words into Bellatori's mouth but OW was clearly having a dig. As is his wont. Nothing wrong with basing who you vote for on whichever current policies suit you best in my view. Otherwise we'd never get a change of government. I don't see your point about "not giving a sod...etc." though since Bella has made clear what his principles are and why he votes for whoever. The questions on that test btw

"There you have it, the self-confessed undecided voter.
What could be more honest?"

Indeed ow, refreshingly "honest".
However, with policies and dirty deeds laid upon us be the present Tory and blue Liberal parties, how could one ever consider voting for them at the next General election?( unless of course one were filthy rich).
That leaves the Labour party and UKIP. The latter having no chance whatsoever of ousting the present cruel tyrants.
The ultimate decision on who to vote for, may end up with a decision not to vote at all. Too many of the same ilk will surely put this disgusting bunch back in power yet again.
God forbid.

Bell wrote "he was not that good a chancellor either given the way he ran the current account deficit."

In several previous posts I have attempted to explain Brown's difficult situation, trying to achieve International bank to bank lending regulation, whilst putting right 18yrs of Tory neglect.

He may have gambled to some extent by thinking he could clear the deficit before the 5hit hit the fan. In addition, he and no other could have foreseen Lehmans going bust.
As Brown faied, it seems my efforts to enlighten you on this subject have also failed for some obscure reason.

I suppose in your book, Cameron and Osborne will have featured better than Brown on most counts?

To my mind, Cameron is a packaged Tory - designed to try and make the Party acceptable to sufficient people to gain power. Left to their own uninhibited devices, a true Tory Party would have the full measure of all the influences and hallmarks of the likes of Gove, Pickles, Duncan Smith and - on its fringes- the Nicholas Soameses of this world.

 In other words a repulsive bunch which , unfettered, would inflict all manner of even more spiteful and unpleasant miseries upon those who are not signed-up to , or sufficiently well-heeled to join, the elitist and exclusive 'club'.

Dan Fante. We’re not running out of cyberspace, but there really was no need to re-post the whole of my last message; I don’t suppose anyone wants to read it twice (probably not even once!).  
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips
 
There’s nothing wrong in a so-called democracy with basing your vote on any criteria that you choose. I merely said that in my book, it’s all about principles, and I would have thought that the Tories had demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt in the last three and a half years that they “don’t give a sod” about the poor, the sick and disabled or the fabric of the state. They preach the lie that everything is better in private hands, then sell anything they can get their grubby hands on to their mates who, as well as making donations to their corrupt party, will no doubt reward them with well-remunerated posts when they get slung out of office.
 
As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t about “blind allegiance” to a political party. On that Political Compass test, I came out close to you, somewhere around -8.5 and -3, near both Gandhi and the Green Party! That didn’t surprise me, as I have a lot of sympathy for the Green Party, whose leader Natalie Bennett follows me on Twitter. But the Green Party has no hope on unseating this atrocious government, only one party can do that.
 
You would still get changes of government if individuals never switched their allegiance. Firstly there is turnout. There is psephological evidence that a lot of Tories didn’t bother to vote in 1997 and many Labour supporters stayed at home in 2010; they didn’t change their vote, they just didn’t vote. I remember reading an estimate that between 1992 and 1997, up to three million Tory voters died; they tend to be older people, no doubt suffering from hardening of the arteries in more ways than one. Every election will produce new voters, youngsters coming on to the register for the first time, plus immigrants. (Expect a response from our Tory trolls to that mention of immigrants....)  
 
However, I for one don’t want to see changes of government. A rule that nobody can be PM for more than eight years might be a good idea, but what’s the point of one party building up the NHS and then another one destroying it? What will be the point of Labour constructing lots of social housing if a future Tory regime then uses it as bribes and sells it all off? The Scandinavian countries prospered when they had long periods of uninterrupted social democratic government.
 
I’m afraid we’re getting a long way from Cameron’s moronic tendencies. Maybe the real morons are those people, outside of the 1%, who are duped into believing that the Tories ever represent their best interests. As Nye Bevan put it: “How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? That's the whole art of Tory politics.”

I'm far too libertarian to follow any posting tips, Ivan.

Redflag wrote:...But I doubt bellatori that Attlee could have said that about Ed Miliband's parents they were true socialists...

I entirely agree. Ed's parents knew what work and suffering really were and the headline was simply contemptible. Like Ed's father I share a total contempt for the self serving 'establishment'. All things considered I could probably have voted for his Ed's father and I certainly would have voted for Attlee.


Ed, however has never had a real job. He is a career politician. That may be OK for a Tory but I fail to see how someone can truly empathise with working men and women when they have never actually held down a real job to support a family. I posted a list of the schooling of all the Labour leaders back to Kier Hardy. It gives some perspective on Ed's suitability.

(Expect a response from our Tory trolls to that mention of immigrants....)

Right on cue for you Ivan I am guessing that as many of the immigrants are hard working, law abiding, family oriented and more conservative in nature, that they will tend to vote for the Tories anyway.

Bella has hit the nail on the head a few times, which centre right party do you vote for...thats your choice. I would prefer the one that knows how to run a economy, not bankrupt it

" I would prefer the one that knows how to run a economy, not bankrupt it"

A view which bears all the signs of a diet of Daily Mail, Sun or Daily Express, if ever I saw it! ( or possibly the St. Helier Stereotyper). Given the history  - of which Ivan and others have reminded us many times -I suspect this version of events is subject to not inconsiderable challenge - not to mention guffaws of laughter.

Let's face it - whether a government is successful with the economy or not is largely due to the luck of whichever era they have inherited in the grand cycle of things. To propose a view that a Tory Government is always a winner in the Economy Stakes is akin to believing that Newcastle or Blackpool will always be likely contest the FA cup Final just because they did in the 1950s.

But it's what makes this board so entertaining - the notion that long-held views and prejudices are somehow compelling and convincing to others. It always makes me glad that I know so little...  

".... largely due to the luck ...."

As we know from history, Phil. Jim Callaghan had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan in the 1970s, and was replaced in 1979 by the First Epoch of Thatcherism.

Whereupon North Sea Oil came on stream.

oftenwrong wrote:".... largely due to the luck ...."

As we know from history, Phil.  Jim Callaghan had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan in the 1970s, and was replaced in 1979 by the First Epoch of Thatcherism.  

Whereupon North Sea Oil came on stream.

That is when that old witch done Scotland out of his natural wealth, we got very little of the tax money that was coming in from our gas & oil and it is part of the reason that Scotland hates the Tories and will never vote for them inany number.

blueturando wrote:...Bella has hit the nail on the head a few times, which centre right party do you vote for...thats your choice. I would prefer the one that knows how to run a economy, not bankrupt it

The irony of this is just unbelievable. Have you actually read anything I have posted? I scold the Labour party for not being true to its core values. I despise the LibDems for abandoning theirs to the left of Labour. Yet you think I would trust the Tories with anything more important than my broom cupboard?  

We are where we are because the the LibDems, in an attempt to save face, are clinging on to the Tory coat tails in an egregious grab for power. I never thought that desperation could lead to such a despicable abrogation of belief. I cannot bear to conceive of where we might be had the Tories had real power. IDS is merely a taster of the misery and despair that would pervade the country..

I would laugh if I did not want to cry... Jeez Lousie what a crock...

blueturando wrote:Bella has hit the nail on the head a few times, which centre right party do you vote for...thats your choice. I would prefer the one that knows how to run a economy, not bankrupt it

 
Any one voting for a right wing party is in dire need of a PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION urgently.   If this  lot are any thing to go by but then again the last Tory gov't did much the same as this one.   No clue how to get the economy growing that benefits ALL not just the ones at the top of the money tree (CHOSEN ELITE) and if you think blue that this shower will not leave a mess as did the Thatcher gov't you have been reading too may of Aesops Tales.
 
On a compartive note, of helping the economy to grow ~ Blue do you mean the economy of the UK or just the economy of the tory donors?  What growth can they offer when they keep hocking the family silver, if there is nothing in the UK to invest in what can they help to grow?  from small acorns a mighty oak will grow as the proverb says ~ however the acorn must be there in the FIRST PLACE.  So before you start spouting nonsense about your chosen gov't has aided the econony think of the damage that it has inflicted upon it before you preach in future... :yeahthat:

"I would prefer the one that knows how to run a economy, not bankrupt it."

Yes blue, "how to run an economy" ------
First and foremost assist wealth creation, not from industrial output but by using the exaggerated "deficit that we inherited" mentioned parrot fashion at EVERY possible opportunity as purely an excuse to cut back every possible Labour introduced policy since politics began.
Second, create unemployment on the one hand and replace it with cheap labour, part time work and contract employment for thousands who once earned a living wage, then boast that "unemployment has fallen".

Next take away employees rights, allow much youth unemployment and allow rich employers to feed off immigrant cheap labour at our young ones expense. Create desperation to to take any job no matter how poorly paid and allow rented accommodation to cost more than they can afford, with poor value for money. Attempt to make London a complete haven for only the wealthy, introducing the the bedroom tax.

Next hit all front line services and wreck the NHS so as to stealthily introduce privatisation. Allow the Royal Mail to become highly profitable in anticipation of sell off (more profit before service coming up shortly as usual with all that is privatised)

Make no moves to curb the massive profits being made at every angle by big companies and utilities that charge unchallenged and extortionate prices and fees endured by those who can barely put food on their tables.

All of Cameron's and Osborne's rhetoric, is a con. Whilst implementing their dirty policies, they are clever enough to have many believe that these policies are in fact good for the people in general.
Example--- The large wealthy house building friends of the Tories complain that their huge profits have dropped for lack of building contracts. Dupe public into thinking the government are helping first time buyers and creating homes that are badly needed by assisting with the deposit structure fund, whilst in fact assisting the big building firms who no doubt will be employing cheap immigrant labour.

oftenwrong wrote:".... largely due to the luck ...."

As we know from history, Phil.  Jim Callaghan had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan in the 1970s, and was replaced in 1979 by the First Epoch of Thatcherism.  

Whereupon North Sea Oil came on stream.

So which of Cameron and Miliband is hoping to be saved by fracking then?  

Frack off?

What the frack?

How frackin' greedy

The bun fight has begun...

Bellatori wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:".... largely due to the luck ...."

As we know from history, Phil.  Jim Callaghan had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan in the 1970s, and was replaced in 1979 by the First Epoch of Thatcherism.  

Whereupon North Sea Oil came on stream.

So which of Cameron and Miliband is hoping to be saved by fracking then?  

Frack off?

What the frack?

How frackin' greedy

The bun fight has begun...

The thing about Fracking nothing has been proved or disproved about just how dangerous or not Fracking really is bellatori.:yeahthat: 

Redflag wrote:...The thing about Fracking nothing has been proved or disproved about just how dangerous or not Fracking really is bellatori.:yeahthat: 

Oh come on Redflag... George Osborne says it OK and the Tory Party at prayer wants their share so God must be on the side of the 'frackin' oil barons surely

Cameron would clearly welcome a return to those heady days when the Royal Navy maintained a dockyard in places like Ceylon/Sri Lanka and the natives bowed to our Imperial Majesty.

Blueturando. ‘Bankrupt’ is an apt description of your trolling. A competent troll would set out to make people angry, not have them laughing at your stupidity. But at least it’s good that you’ve acknowledged that you’re a troll; honesty in a Tory is such a rare commodity these days.  
 
I don’t think this has much to do with Cameron’s moronic tendencies, but do you actually know what ‘bankrupt’ means? I’ve seen two definitions: unable to pay your debts, or unable to pay the interest on your debts. The closest this country has ever been to that was in 1956 – under the Tories – when we had to beat a hasty retreat from Suez before Eisenhower would allow the IMF to give us a loan.
 
No doubt the  balance of payments mess left by the Tories in 1964, the 13.4% inflation and the three-day week left by the Tories in 1974, the two recessions of the Thatcher era and the debacle of ‘Black Wednesday’ of 1992 were “all Labour’s fault”. If that’s the best argument you can muster, you’re the one who’s bankrupt, mister!

The irony of this is just unbelievable. Have you actually read anything I have posted? I scold the Labour party for not being true to its core values. I despise the LibDems for abandoning theirs to the left of Labour. Yet you think I would trust the Tories with anything more important than my broom cupboard?

Bella....I have read your posts, all of them....and at no point did I say did I say YOU would trust the tories with anything. What I said was that the voters currently have a choice of which centre right party to vote for, something I believe you have been trying to get across as Labour and the Lib Dems have moved away from their core values (as you put it) I know you are a leftie, but at least you speak the truth and make sense, rather than burying your head in the sand or continue to make wild statements, the like of which you would usually find the little spotty 'woolfie smiths' blurting out at Uni thinking they're cool and 'right on' man
 
If you need an example of this then lets take a look at just one area...Social housing. The Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses over the course of 13 years. Contrast this figure with the record of Thatcher's government which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.
 
Edited to remove a libellous remark.
Ivan.

blueturando wrote:The Blair and Brown governments built 7,870 council houses over the course of 13 years. Contrast this figure with the record of Thatcher's government which never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year.

 
More lies blue on the social housing front, the Maggot did not build them she EFFING SOLD them and did not allow the councils to replace them, the only homes this shower are building are ones that any normal family will be unable to buy there out of there price range. Just like the tower block that is being built within the City of London and it will change the skyline of London I suppose you wll tell us on this forum they are for families but only if they have around £5-10 Million to spare.  So dream on bluey boy the day this shower of posh boys who do not know the price of a pint of milk, build homes for the normal families hell will have frozen over or the Tory party will have got rid of Cameron and replace him with someone that has a conscience and a heart not a SWINGING BRICK.:yeahthat:

blueturando.  You still don’t seem to have grasped the meaning of the word ‘troll’. Trolls set out to annoy other posters – as you do – and they try to make threads go off-topic – as you do. Just how such a definition could be applied to the administrator of a forum beggars belief, but then so do your other wild assertions. Trolls don’t set up forums, they just try to ruin existing ones, frequently breaking the house rules or even posting something libellous – as you’ve done.
 
I notice you didn’t mention how Thatcher sold off a million council houses between 1980 and 1987, a third of which are now owned by rich landlords, such as the son of her housing minister. I also notice that you haven’t so far contributed to the thread on housing, even though it’s been up and running for ten months. If you want to post unsubstantiated facts to mislead people about house building, don’t do it here but in the appropriate place:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t750-has-the-right-to-buy-and-lack-of-rent-controls-caused-most-of-the-uks-housing-problems

Perhaps now we can get back on topic.....  

Edited to remove a libellous remark.
Ivan.

Get a grip Ivan....the end of free speech if its against labour...and nothing libellous in what I typed and you know it. And when I call you a troll you delete it, but its ok for you to say it to me anytime you like ....pathetic. And just to prove how pathetic and cowardly, you will delete this one too

PS You and other go off topic on a daily basis...would you like me to give say 20 examples?

No lies Redflag, take you blinkers off and check FULL FACTS dot com. I guess the truth hurts

For the benefit of those who don’t seem to know, a libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. Suggesting that a former politician has stolen public money to pay for a house for his son is libellous. Listing Labour Party policies is not.
 
Not to post slanderous messages is one of Forumotion’s terms of service to which all members have to agree when they apply to join Cutting Edge.
 
The most common reasons why messages get deleted are:-
 
1. If they breach copyright laws
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t137-copyright-concerns
 
2. If they are complaints
The discussion threads are not to be used to air grievances about the administration and moderation of this forum. Any complaints must be submitted by personal message to one or more of the administration team.
 
3. If they consist entirely of insults
Any messages which are racist, homophobic or obscene, or incite violence or religious hatred, will be deleted. So will messages which consist entirely of personal insults and don’t attempt to discuss the topic of the thread.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t645-staff-notices-for-members

Bellatori wrote:Oh come on Redflag... George Osborne says it OK and the Tory Party at prayer wants their share so God must be on the side of the 'frackin' oil barons surely

Remember this little gem from Gideon's father-in-law:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723

Fracking should be carried out in the North East of England, where there are large, "desolate" areas, a former energy secretary has said.

Lord Howell of Guildford argued there was "plenty of room" for developments and less concern than was the case over "beautiful natural areas".

Am I the only one that thinks fracking should be carried out where the oil is rather than where the Tories aren't   

I think people and the enviroment are more important than OIL that will fatten the wallets of the fatcats that support the Tory party funds :yeahthat:

Redflag wrote:I think people and the enviroment are more important than OIL that will fatten the wallets of the fatcats that support the Tory party funds :yeahthat:

Not really the point I was making. I remember Maggie saying that the people of Dulwich would not want a deep nuclear repository in their neighbourhood and in doing so screwed NIREX good and proper. Why should anybody want it? The fact that Dulwich had the best geology did not matter to her. She NIMBYed it and in doing so wasted £45M already invested in NIREX. My point is that the Tories want the money but not the inconvenience.

Environment is an entirely different issue. I am convinced by the financial/fuel/Balance of Payments argument but the environmental impact - the jury is still out IMO and it needs more research and certanly more thought than this government is giving it. Once again the LibDems should be all over this like a rash but WHERE ARE THEY... Aaaaaggghhh

The ultimate oxymoron - A fascist comedian.

Phil Hornby wrote:Kenny Everett Lives!



" Let's frack Pease Pottage...!"

It would be better to FRACK CHIPPING NORTON PH:yeahthat: 

The only oil there is snake-oil, Redflag.

Why is it, when I think of Ian Duncan Smith that I don't think of fracking but I think of fragging. Fraggle Rock perhaps? Nope... don't think so...

AwfulTruth wrote:APOLOGIES TO ALL DAVID CAMERON FANS    

I just wondered   since his Prime Minister's Questions talents are about as edifying as a troglodyte with caveman issues:  like he knows how to answer a question without pummeling his opponent with his stone club?

What do you think of his PMQs performance?

 
 
Not a lot AwfulTruth but it would be a big improvement if just for once the PM answered ONE question except for the ones that have been prior  arranged from his own back benchers, I also think that the PM has already brough this job into disrepute a long time ago from the minute he was given it to be honest.

This dog is expressing his opinion of the Downing Street moron:-
 

Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYqidPkIgAAQqmO.jpg