Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
a big Yes from me, on both counts.
Of course I don't.
The front page of the Guardian app today was the most depressing thing I've seen in years. Corruption at Sky, NHS concerns blatantly held back and covered up, secret Tory dinners to garner £23 million worth of donations...
I'm more angry at Clegg though for not disbanding government.
There's talk that Clegg and the LDs were told that if they scuppered the bill (which it was completely in their power to do) they would be given the health secretary role in the next reshuffle. And they just didn't want it.
he's been played like a fucking fiddle at every turn over the last two years. All the fuss over cash-for-access reminded me that he also appointed fraudster David Laws to lead talks on party funding last month.
how very controversial!
to make hundreds of posts in
Good job: Probably if you look at it from his/a Conservative point of view, particularly if you consider how little public perception of him's dropped so far. Disagree strongly with many of the government's policies, but he's getting them through parliament, which is essentially what he's there to do.
...and say he's doing an excellent job, so far, of heading up a potentially divisive coalition government at a time when having a strong and stable government really is quite important.
The job he's done so far with it really is quite commendable, I have to say. Although someone will doubtless <insert something about Lib Dems having no balls> or something.
But do I TRUST him? Absolutely not.
For all the Lib Dems can be said to have betrayed many of the principles, that people believed they stood for, those at the top of the Conservative party (and particularly Cameron and Osborne) have played them like chumps!
The Lib Dems accepted his invitation to form a stable, coalition government, so they accepted the terms of it from the start. Whether or not Cameron has played them like mugs is an issue for the Lib Dems. And regardless of whether he has or not, a (so-far!) consistent and stable government has come out of it. Which I think is a significant achievement in management and one which should be highlighted.
Post election, he played his hand very well, and he's managed to extract more from the Lib Dems than the coalition agreement suggested he would, while keeping *most* of his right-wing relatively quiet.
(This is not an endorsement of Cameron as PM in any shape or form though - just giving credit where credit's due).
And a significantly more honest one than Blair did. My feeling about Cameron is that he's prepared to take the steps necessary to tackle certain important issues (i.e. the economy) even if it means being unpopular. Whether you agree or disagree with what's being done, at least it's being done without the excess of spin and bullshit we 'enjoyed' for a generation under New Labour.
we're not even two years in and Cameron's already had the seemingly neverending Murdoch saga and now cash-for-access to deal with. Just like his hero Tony, he seems to have no problem with blatantly whoring himself to anyone prepared to throw enough money at him. There's been no shortage of spin and PR bollocks either - it's just that Cameron's spin and PR men keep bailing out on him for one reason or another.
I don't know whether he's the great media operator he's cracked up to be, really. He seems to have a knack for aggravating his own base (the buck for the 'granny tax' fiasco stops with Osborne, though) and in the age of social media, his government's policies are frequently picked apart before the papers have even gone to press. He's still the most electable leader the Tories could have though, because he's their only frontbencher who's even halfway to being likeable.
that he's quite good at handling big picture stuff, but naive or careless when it comes to the detail - fine when everything's going well, but it means he seems to come unstuck initially whenever something unexpected hits and it often seems to take a few days to get a story under control.
He continually reneges on manifesto pledges (honestly can't believe he's about to U turn on the 3rd runway). He's been in office 2 years and is now embroiled a second quite major corruption scandal.
No. He staked his name on the economy, yet *his* (more on that in a moment) plan for reducing the deficit isn't growing the economy at all, and with the euro zone crisis rumbling on his take a scythe to it all is very damaging. To defeat a deficit you need some cuts, tax increases and growth, but growth needs to be the bulk of it. By placing the onus so heavily on cuts, he is merely shrinking the economic pool, especially since the policies he has enacted are so countering to growth.
Also, with the euro zone teetering near potential collapse to turn up at an EU conference on the issue and start playing John Bull Bashes Juan Foreigner was total lunacy.
The real issue for me is, he seems to have deferred all leadership and thinking on pretty much everything to Osbourne, and pretty much just rocks around trying to look Presidential so nothing sticks to him
I'm not suggesting you went off and blacked up.
the actions that he has taken (cuts) do not improve medium/long term prospects of removing debt burden on the world, they merely pander to the credit ratings threats of changing/not changing britains credit rating, by showing that he will do unpopular things.
I dont think he is particularly evil for a tory, I just think he is far too simple and stupid to do anything like the job that is required.
cutting funding for universities and letting the students pay instead.
Perhaps you have not been aware of cutbacks in public spending, I wont go on, as it is not necessary
and continues to do so.
and would continue to do so.
The tories have instilled massive cuts in spending on things that people traditionally said that they need (like education and welfare and libraries (that sort of thing)
However they still spend on certain other things.
They have cut a lot without reducing the benefit as much.
Spending has increased due to things like repayments (which are increasing) and on bail outs (not just banks but on stuff like ireland)
Stop being dishonest with your argument when you know damn well what is meant by cuts.
Or to put it another way, perhaps you would like to explain to the people how, despite the much vaunted "we must get spending under control" excuse for cutting so many public sector jobs and services and freezes in pay and changing of pensions for public sector, how come despite all the pain that people have already had, the government still has managed to increase spending.
If you check out my original post I mentioned that the cuts he has overseen as being ineffectual (in the bigger picture) yet very big (-vely) in the short term.
You may note that I give the explanation as to why the UKs credit rating has not been lowered (althought its current overestimation is ridiculous)
perhaps you did not read my post,
perhaps you did not understand what I was saying,
perhaps you don't understand a lot,
perhaps thats why you're a tory.
To argue there have been cuts in Government spending is dishonest. Public spending under the Coalition is *higher* than under the last Labour Government. You can not increase spending and call it a cut at the same time - *that* is dishonest.
So when you say that I "damn well know what is meant by cuts", I don't think I do. But clearly, you don't either.
, but if you honestly dont know what I mean, let me explain
when you are saying there hasnt been cuts in government spending you are talking about overall and net
when I referred to '(cuts)' I was referring to cuts that have been made in areas......perhaps overall sometimes the cost of something can go up (due to inflation or loan repayments increase) but when I referred to cuts I was meaning cuts in the level of resource not in terms of finance (although one would have hoped that the cut in resource to the public would result in a real cut in terms of public spending (especially as this was the object of the exercise....to reduce the public deficit)
CUTS in terms of jobs or salaries or other recompence to public employees or CUTS in actual services to the public or CUTS in public spending on universities meaning that students now have to pay the cost. THOSE ARE THE CUTS I MEANT. but I thought I would just put it briefly in brackets so that the post would be a more reasonable size rather than my normal megalogues, but apparently this was not certain enough, so it is for discussion wrecking point scorers like you that I have traditionally digressed to lengthy effect in the past, I was trying to get away from it, but my old ways are returning here.
'(cuts)' to mean the well publicised and well discussed (indeed these have dominated the news and discussion) cuts that this government has been making
(OK so they have still not made a cut in spending, as you like to point out, although Im frankly baffled as to why you would want to emphasise this.......that they have cut services, jobs, reduced pay and benefits and pensions for public employees (taking inflation into account) and yet have still increased spending.........thanks for pointing this out and headlining it in fact)
It is pretty well known and accepted that the major criticisms of this tory government have been of them cutting funding (net) for public services, this has been dominant in the news and in attacks on the tories.
Are you not aware of this whole discussion and arguments about 'cuts' ?
perhaps you would like politics to be simpler, don't worry it is you just have to colour in one of those little boxes once every few years, those nasty people at the polling stations only give you one colour though, perhaps you should take in some crayons with you.
lets see if you can colour in the libdem box with orange labour with red and tory with blue
and yet the sentiment in the speakers heart is dishonest and insincere, as they are not trying to get to the truth of the matter and they could actually inderstand what the other person meant, its just that for sake protection of a argument construct they insist on their meaning
However, I was talking to someone last night and we both agreed there is no better Labour PR campaign than a tory government. Even as someone who isnt right or left or whatever, I will never vote tory and if my kids even allude to it I'll have their dead corpse dumped into a skip
You've got to recognise when some people are utter utter bastards and dont give a shit
And if you did, that would make you a very, very mean person.
But in fairness, if you judge him on how well he's doing in the polls considering how much of a clusterfuck his administration has been so far by the standards of the Conservative Party (not the standards of you or I), he's doing extremely well.
Helps that the Labour elite currently come across as even more careerist and lightweight than the Tories, mind.
most of the time governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.
The two important things for Labour are presenting themselves in an electable light again and making as much crap stick to the current government as possible - ironically probably two of the things that Cameron really is excellent at.
Good Job -
Yes, he is doing what he set out to do, and more. Like a thief, who after breaking into your home, steals a cheeky can of Rubicon from the coronership on the way home.
The same was true of Labour though so not entirely his fault.
but he is a cunt.
now KiK has turned into CG can we all agree to declare DiS finished?