Are Cameron and Osborne's days numbered?

First topic message reminder :

We seem to have had a thread about Milliband and time running out for his leadership but now there seem to be more and more knives coming out for Vatman and Dobbing, I'll let you decide who is who?

It now seems more and more of their own side (Tory MP's) are openly speaking out against them........

Latest...

Nadine Dorries: David Cameron And George Osborne Are 'Arrogant Posh Boys'


David Cameron and George Osborne are "arrogant posh boys" who do not understand the lives of ordinary people, according to Tory MP Nadine Dorries.

Speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics programme on Monday, the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire was asked if she thought the prime minister and chancellor were out of touch with voters.

"Unfortunately I think that not are only Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't understand the price of milk," she said. "They are too arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others - and that is their real crime."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/23/nadine-dorries-david-cameron-posh-boys_n_1445068.html?ref=uk-politics&ref=uk

What beautiful glasses you all wear. Luckily for all of us that Darling took over as chancellor and managed to stop further collapses that Brown set in place. Was the GDP growth (based on banking profits) down to Barclays and other mainstay banks corrupting the interest rates (fraud) and as your an economic wizzer Stox why didn't you and others realise it was happening?

"Was the GDP growth (based on banking profits"?

Pobably so, in view of the fact that the Tories took away the other means of growth, our manufacturing base.
What do you think Osborne is relying on for growth? Invisible earnings again, which comes mainly from the banking sector. Of course the only way he managed to almost achieved some growth was due to the quantattive easing from the BOE, and borrowings higher than Labour were slated off for doing under Brown.

Borrowing is cheap for the UK at present, ideal to build up our infrastructure
which in turn would create jobs and in turn tax revenues to counter the borrowing.
What good has the existing borrowing been towards growth? nothing that is visible. All it has done is to keep Osbornes head just above water. Pity someone doesn't push it right under and do us all a favour.

Headline of the day:

Associated Press= MADRID (AP) — The Spanish government and Spanish banks are perilously co-dependent.

The financial strength of one hinges on the other, and right now both are struggling for survival.

(Today's Quick Question: Can you think of another Country in a similiar situation?)



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10306523

Borrowing is cheap for the UK at present, ideal to build up our infrastructure
which in turn would create jobs and in turn tax revenues to counter the borrowing.
What good has the existing borrowing been towards growth? nothing that is visible. All it has done is to keep Osbornes head just above water. Pity someone doesn't push it right under and do us all a favour..

Mel....there is a reason the UKs borrowing is cheap at the moment, but I know you are against those reasons. So what infrastructure would you invest in that would bring in more tax revenues to counter this extra borrowing...before our cheap loan rates turned into expensive ones and we found ourselves heading towards Greece/Spain territory?

No blue, I would expect the rates to remain fixed or static by agreement first. The Building and Construction industries need a boost for starters that would not only increase employment but would bring in tax revenues from the workforces and hopefully the employers unless of course that do what most rich Tories do and offshore fiddle.
We need roads widened and new ones built to assist companies to move/trade on a wider scale.

Had it not been for Darling and Brown's quick measures on the crisis we would be in the same boat as Greece/Spain. Mind you the way Osborne is heading us we could well end up in the same boats.

sickchip wrote:Well said Nadine.

Well said be damned. Dorries is only thinking of her own seat at the G/E in 2015.

Did anyone else hear Gideon admit, in the House of Commons, that the current financial crisis was not Gordons fault after all but all the fault of the Banks?

Will this mean that the Tories will actually stop starting every answer they give with 'what we were by the last government'?

Bob 'the' Diamond has said that he will forgo this years bonus, is there grounds for him to pay back all his previous years bonus's, going back to 2005 at least, and what about those other bankers/dealers etc who he employed, should they be made to pay back their bonus's.

I wonder what this years Mansion House dinner will look like? Can now stop referring to Bank Bosses as 'The Great and the Good'?

No blue, I would expect the rates to remain fixed or static by agreement first

Agreement by who? And if it was that easy why doesn't the EU use it's power to agree fixed rates for Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece

astradt1 wrote:Did anyone else hear Gideon admit, in the House of Commons, that the current financial crisis was not Gordons fault after all but all the fault of the Banks?

Will this mean that the Tories will actually stop starting every answer they give with 'what we were by the last government'?

Bob 'the' Diamond has said that he will forgo this years bonus, is there grounds for him to pay back all his previous years bonus's, going back to 2005 at least, and what about those other bankers/dealers etc who he employed, should they be made to pay back their bonus's.

I wonder what this years Mansion House dinner will look like? Can now stop referring to Bank Bosses as 'The Great and the Good'?

astradt1, Big Bob Diamond had a pay package last year of just £28.3 Million pounds. while Berclays investment banking division and company's cheief financial officer Chris Lucas will forgo his bonuses. last year he received only a pay package of £6 Million. hard times in UK banking astradt1. as lets face it the FSA has fined Barclay's £59.5 Million for manipulating inter bank interest rates to boost there bonuses pool. or put it like this its just two years of big Bob's wages.

This has nothing to do with the last Government but has everything to do with the 1983 banking deregulation of the City of London. as lets face it....had they not deregulated it in the first place. No one would of had to try too regulate it again years later would they? but this is not about even regulation is it? its just a case of City fraud and deliberate greed with deception.

One other small fact for you? why are most of the bad banking frauds only seem to take place only here or in the US for the most part? well ours is dead easy. the City of London is still run by the old school tie mob who love greed and the gamble. while in the US is just run by very greed people who think braking the law or regulation is just all part of the risks to take in this game.

blueturando wrote:

No blue, I would expect the rates to remain fixed or static by agreement first

Agreement by who? And if it was that easy why doesn't the EU use it's power to agree fixed rates for Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece

blue, world wide investors would be lending to the Exchequer both because it may seem a lot safer than lending to Italy and Spain and because there doesn't seem anywhere else to sensibly put their cash. Even though IMO the UK under this Coalition is not an ideal place to invest.

Government could consider issuing "perpetual" government bonds which will never have to be repaid. The idea would be to relieve the debt burden on future generations by extending the length of bonds to 100 years or into perpetuity.
Lengthening the period of bonds will make it cheaper to pay down debt in the long term because the government would LOCK in today's low borrowing rates. Average 10-year gilt yields stand at 2%, the lowest borrowing level since the 19th century.

"LOCK IN" borrowing rates, as I mentioned before blue = Fixed rates, OK?

astradt1 wrote:Did anyone else hear Gideon admit, in the House of Commons, that the current financial crisis was not Gordons fault after all but all the fault of the Banks?

Will this mean that the Tories will actually stop starting every answer they give with 'what we were by the last government'?

Bob 'the' Diamond has said that he will forgo this years bonus, is there grounds for him to pay back all his previous years bonus's, going back to 2005 at least, and what about those other bankers/dealers etc who he employed, should they be made to pay back their bonus's.

I wonder what this years Mansion House dinner will look like? Can now stop referring to Bank Bosses as 'The Great and the Good'?

""Did anyone else hear Gideon admit, in the House of Commons, that the current financial crisis was not Gordons fault after all but all the fault of the Banks?""2

It was the TV media who pushed all this deficit cutting crap, right into Cameron's lap.

Mel quote. The Building and Construction industries need a boost for starters that would not only increase employment but would bring in tax revenues from the workforces and hopefully the employers unless .....

And for every private sale property built there should be a social housing property built. It may be the desire of everyone to own their own home. I do not see that desire ever becoming a reality.

Strangely enough, or not, a mixture of social and private property estates actually keeps prices down. Thus enabling the slightly 'better-off' the chance of owning their own home. The only snag is simply that the equivalent 3 bedroomed house on a private estate will be of 'superior quality' reflected in the price.

But that's life. You gets what you pay for, if you can afford it.

Locally a large estate was planned consisting of an area of private properties £200,000-250,000, and an area of social housing. The private 'estate' has been occupied for some years, the social housing not yet started. The private occupants are now complaining their properties will be devalued if the social housing goes ahead.

I would rather see council house benefit allowed to someone in 'social housing' rather than the benefit system paying a private landlord. In the end the house still belongs in the public domain.

The price of Building Land can only go up.

They're not making it any more. Maybe the entire Construction Industry should be nationalised, since they can only operate on what is National property. If the Land we live in does not belong to its People, who is the owner?

trevorw2539 wrote:Mel quote. The Building and Construction industries need a boost for starters that would not only increase employment but would bring in tax revenues from the workforces and hopefully the employers unless .....

And for every private sale property built there should be a social housing property built. It may be the desire of everyone to own their own home. I do not see that desire ever becoming a reality.

Strangely enough, or not, a mixture of social and private property estates actually keeps prices down. Thus enabling the slightly 'better-off' the chance of owning their own home. The only snag is simply that the equivalent 3 bedroomed house on a private estate will be of 'superior quality' reflected in the price.

But that's life. You gets what you pay for, if you can afford it.

Locally a large estate was planned consisting of an area of private properties £200,000-250,000, and an area of social housing. The private 'estate' has been occupied for some years, the social housing not yet started. The private occupants are now complaining their properties will be devalued if the social housing goes ahead.

I would rather see council house benefit allowed to someone in 'social housing' rather than the benefit system paying a private landlord. In the end the house still belongs in the public domain.

Britain needs a national renewal, the same as after the second World War. We need a universial social council house programme.

And we need a return to a manufacturing and industry base. With a decent minimum wage.

We need to take people away from means testing because its a trap.

"And we need a return to a manufacturing and industry base. With a decent minimum wage."

Totally agree Ivanhoe and trevor.

If a decent minimum wage were introduced, these prople who find they are better off on benefits might take jobs (if there were any) and not only save the exchequer benefit payments, but would produce tax revenues.

As for your comments on housing trevor. IMO a cealing on private rents would be in order. At the moment the rent act means nothing as people are so desperate to have a roof over their heads they will pay well over the top in desperation and the greedy landlords are cashing in big time.

Back to topic.

Are Cameron and Osborne's days numbered?

I think not unfortunately. Clegg won't budge and Cameron is so thick skinned and arrogant that no matter how bad he and Ossy look to the majority, they plough on regardless knowing that they saw to it that they would have almost certainly a full five year tem in office to do as they wish.

Ivanhoe quote.

Britain needs a national renewal, the same as after the second World War.

I agree, but I don't think this is possible. Conditions and attitudes today are far from those of the postwar/war period.

The 30's were a time of extreme hardship for workers and unemployed. I believe there was more public solidarity, seen in the Jarrow march, though not having the means of expressing that as we have today. Though things improved in the later 30's with re-armament providing work we then went through WWII. This period of 15-16 years, I believe, produced a 'comradeship' that is not around today.
After 15 years of hardship, including 6 years of war, people were simply happy that at least, hopefully, the worst was over and that they could look forward to better times.

Times have changed. Conditions are different. Communities such as those in the 30-40's are very rare. Helping the poor amongst communities was not charity, it was friendship between neighbours.
Today's mentality has been altered by times of relative (to the 30-40's)
prosperity, up to recent times. People are not content unless they have the latest gadgets, Sky TV, and those things that they could do without, and still live reasonably.
I'm not saying there aren't those in need. There are many who are suffering. There are also those who could make life easier by accepting that un-necessary items could be dispensed with.

While I agree with much of what you say, it is apathy - 'what difference can I make' - that is the problem. On this forum we have the posters who care most passionately, sometimes to obsession, ooops, but most people only care about what is happening, not what to do about it.

One of the problems is the leadership. They have not been through the times that our parents and grandparents went through. As a child I remember the hardships my parents went through after the war. The sacrifices made to bring up their children. These people have not.

I actually do believe that this Government will not go full-term. Or is that just wishful thinking.

In the next 3 years policies will have to be agreed which have not yet been put forward.

And let's see if the Tory backbenchers oppose Lords reform as proposed, which I believe many will.

But then, what do I know.

trevorw2539 wrote:Ivanhoe quote.

Britain needs a national renewal, the same as after the second World War.

I agree, but I don't think this is possible. Conditions and attitudes today are far from those of the postwar/war period.

The 30's were a time of extreme hardship for workers and unemployed. I believe there was more public solidarity, seen in the Jarrow march, though not having the means of expressing that as we have today. Though things improved in the later 30's with re-armament providing work we then went through WWII. This period of 15-16 years, I believe, produced a 'comradeship' that is not around today.
After 15 years of hardship, including 6 years of war, people were simply happy that at least, hopefully, the worst was over and that they could look forward to better times.

Times have changed. Conditions are different. Communities such as those in the 30-40's are very rare. Helping the poor amongst communities was not charity, it was friendship between neighbours.
Today's mentality has been altered by times of relative (to the 30-40's)
prosperity, up to recent times. People are not content unless they have the latest gadgets, Sky TV, and those things that they could do without, and still live reasonably.
I'm not saying there aren't those in need. There are many who are suffering. There are also those who could make life easier by accepting that un-necessary items could be dispensed with.

While I agree with much of what you say, it is apathy - 'what difference can I make' - that is the problem. On this forum we have the posters who care most passionately, sometimes to obsession, ooops, but most people only care about what is happening, not what to do about it.

One of the problems is the leadership. They have not been through the times that our parents and grandparents went through. As a child I remember the hardships my parents went through after the war. The sacrifices made to bring up their children. These people have not.

I actually do believe that this Government will not go full-term. Or is that just wishful thinking.

In the next 3 years policies will have to be agreed which have not yet been put forward.

And let's see if the Tory backbenchers oppose Lords reform as proposed, which I believe many will.

But then, what do I know.

Superbly put, I could not agree more. We are largely a childish infantile nation. We will all be in the gutter before we get the backbone to stand and be counted.

Mel wrote:Back to topic.

Are Cameron and Osborne's days numbered?

I think not unfortunately. Clegg won't budge and Cameron is so thick skinned and arrogant that no matter how bad he and Ossy look to the majority, they plough on regardless knowing that they saw to it that they would have almost certainly a full five year tem in office to do as they wish.

No, they are not. This coalition will go into the next General election on different manifesto's, and I hope ground into the dirt.

I hate the lib dems for the way they've helped the tories push through their nasty idealogically driven policies. But that said, just think how bad things would be if the lib dems weren't in bed with them? At least they have put the brakes on a few things. I do hope they are trounced at the next GE all the same.

Adele Carlyon wrote:I hate the lib dems for the way they've helped the tories push through their nasty idealogically driven policies. But that said, just think how bad things would be if the lib dems weren't in bed with them? At least they have put the brakes on a few things. I do hope they are trounced at the next GE all the same.

If the Lib-Dems hadnt sided with Cameron in the first place, we wouldnt have the mess we have.

A minority right wing Tory Government wouldnt have lasted five minutes in power.

Adele Carlyon wrote:I hate the lib dems for the way they've helped the tories push through their nasty idealogically driven policies. But that said, just think how bad things would be if the lib dems weren't in bed with them? At least they have put the brakes on a few things. I do hope they are trounced at the next GE all the same.

By the way did you receive my personal email a while ago ?

trevorw2539 wrote:

.... One of the problems is the leadership. They have not been through the times that our parents and grandparents went through. As a child I remember the hardships my parents went through after the war. The sacrifices made to bring up their children. These people have not....

Post-war austerity was indeed pretty grim, but at least nobody was trying to kill us and wartime privation had prepared us for the continuing shortages. A big difference from today is that there was virtually full employment. Although wages were low by today's standards (not just because of inflation - we value ourselves more highly now), it was easy to get another job if you got bored with the one you were in. Nevertheless many people stayed with the same Employer from leaving school until they retired, and got presented with a clock to mark 50 years continuous service with the firm.

That all changed when American business practices were introduced here, and Consultants like McKinsey recommended "downsizing" i.e. fire half the staff to save on wages. Naturally the Conservative government of the time welcomed the "flexible workforce" it created. No longer the safe lifetime-job as a career, and people became a commodity like office stationery.

oftenwrong wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:

.... One of the problems is the leadership. They have not been through the times that our parents and grandparents went through. As a child I remember the hardships my parents went through after the war. The sacrifices made to bring up their children. These people have not....

Post-war austerity was indeed pretty grim, but at least nobody was trying to kill us and wartime privation had prepared us for the continuing shortages. A big difference from today is that there was virtually full employment. Although wages were low by today's standards (not just because of inflation - we value ourselves more highly now), it was easy to get another job if you got bored with the one you were in. Nevertheless many people stayed with the same Employer from leaving school until they retired, and got presented with a clock to mark 50 years continuous service with the firm.

That all changed when American business practices were introduced here, and Consultants like McKinsey recommended "downsizing" i.e. fire half the staff to save on wages. Naturally the Conservative government of the time welcomed the "flexible workforce" it created. No longer the safe lifetime-job as a career, and people became a commodity like office stationery.

It all changed under Thatcher from the 80's, she wasnt a Conversative, she was a right wing Tory, and she changed the soul of my country making it hard bitten and cruel.

"It all changed under Thatcher from the 80's, she wasnt a Conversative, she was a right wing Tory, and she changed the soul of my country making it hard bitten and cruel."

Hear hear.

Mel wrote:"It all changed under Thatcher from the 80's, she wasnt a Conversative, she was a right wing Tory, and she changed the soul of my country making it hard bitten and cruel."

Hear hear.

And she turned 60 million British people against each other.

The Tory heartland is probably quite happy for the populace to regard the Government front bench as "Posh boys" maintaining the class divide, because that's not what is important to them. The gap between Rich and Poor is steadily increasing in accord with the Master Plan, which is to have a clearly distinguished Ruling Class to maintain the Public School and Oxbridge tradition.

France has a standing arrangement, which is that all public figures, senior civil servants and captains-of-industry will have been educated at the Ecole Nationale d'Administration Even the current left-inclined President Hollande is a product of that system. Perhaps for that very reason, there are almost half-a-million French people living and working In London. Only four French cities have more French residents in them.

So the message to all embryos is to choose what family you are to be born into very carefully.

Ivanhoe wrote:

Adele Carlyon wrote:I hate the lib dems for the way they've helped the tories push through their nasty idealogically driven policies. But that said, just think how bad things would be if the lib dems weren't in bed with them? At least they have put the brakes on a few things. I do hope they are trounced at the next GE all the same.

By the way did you receive my personal email a while ago ?

Check your email Ivan. I'm officially a disgrace! oops! lol

Adele Carlyon wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

Adele Carlyon wrote:I hate the lib dems for the way they've helped the tories push through their nasty idealogically driven policies. But that said, just think how bad things would be if the lib dems weren't in bed with them? At least they have put the brakes on a few things. I do hope they are trounced at the next GE all the same.

By the way did you receive my personal email a while ago ?

Check your email Ivan. I'm officially a disgrace! oops! lol

How are you officially a disgrace! Delly? you are nothing of the sort in my view. far from it in fact?

Aw! Thanks Stox! Ok, I'm officially very unorganised! lol I forget to check things!

Will Cameron's socialist party be saved by Milibands statement that he won't hold a referendum on Europe?

tlttf wrote:Will Cameron's socialist party be saved by Milibands statement that he won't hold a referendum on Europe?

""Cameron's Socialist party"" ?

Yep, he's certainly too soft to be a tory and as all the parties pretty much say and do the same thing, he must be a socialist?

tlttf wrote:Yep, he's certainly too soft to be a tory and as all the parties pretty much say and do the same thing, he must be a socialist?

titti,

Are you a Tory ?

titti,

Are you a Tory ?

Are you a knobhead?

tlttf wrote:titti,

Are you a Tory ?

Are you a knobhead?

So it's insults now. You can't even answer a fair question.

Come on people be nice to each other..........

Insults are for inside the House of Commons....not here...

tlttf.

You are pushing your luck AGAIN with your abuse to other members.
You fail to keep a civil tounge in your head for less than 5mins.

You have been asked by the adminstrators to "cool it", adhere to the request or action will be taken against you.
FINAL WARNING!!!!

I feel I must poke my nose in here Mel, if you read Ivanhoe's post @ 12.41 it clearly shows Ivanhoe refering to Landy as titti, clearly a personal insult. If there were 1 error in his spelling, you could call it an typo, but 2 errors in a 5 letter sequence, can only convince me it was a snidy put down.

Hello bobby, thank you for taking the trouble to point that out.

There have been many "typo" errors with Lands non-de-plume.

Point taken and if that was not a typo error, then Ivanhoe is guilty
of provocation, which Land would naturally rush to retaliate.

Very childish indeed. However Land has been asked to stop the nonsense as there have been several cases of abuse coming from his posts and he should by now know better. Ivanhoe as far as I am aware has not shown any abuse to anyone before.
Thank you again bobby and I understand your feeling regarding too much moderation.

IMO "Melly" borders on "titti", which has been directed at me by Land on every occasion.
Just a point bobby.

bobby wrote:I feel I must poke my nose in here Mel, if you read Ivanhoe's post @ 12.41 it clearly shows Ivanhoe refering to Landy as titti, clearly a personal insult. If there were 1 error in his spelling, you could call it an typo, but 2 errors in a 5 letter sequence, can only convince me it was a snidy put down.

Grabbing at straws in defense now are we. My mistake was genuine. I do not come on sites like to the throw insults.
There is no point made throwing insults.