Jump to content

Cameron? Anyone?

????

By ????
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

'Call me Dave' was certainly a god send to the Conservative party. Help make them electable again, and moved firmly into the centre ground on 'some' issues, which have in part lead to the perception that they're in the middle ground of politics. Labour and their shift to the left is another story which possibly has helped the perception somewhat.


Deep down I think Cameron meant well, a career politician at heart, one nation, not radical or convictionist in the slightest. Probably a decent person at home. Will go down in history as the man who oversaw us leaving the EU. And possibly contributed towards the eventual break up of the United Kingdom.


History won't be kind to Dave, another Tory PM consumed by the Europe question.


Louisa.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree entirely with rahrahrah. I'm sure Dave is

> pleasant. But he's also a foolish lightweight. Not

> good enough when you're trying to run a country.



But before him as Tory leader we had


Howard

IDS

Hague


The first two were strange and I'm not at all sure about the third :)

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I did feel that Dave and Sam would be quite nice

> to go out for a drink with - something that I

> certainly wouldn't say about Tony and Cherie (who

> would no doubt not pay their round either) - but

> Prime Minister material???


Tony would charge you for drinking with him.

Seabag

Seabag

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm gutted at the news...that Bake Off is going

> to

> > Channel 4

>

>

> Not as gutted as the bloke who writes all the

> music. That's a 75% drop income.



Oh *Bob* won't they take 'him' with them ?


*sad face*

Robert Poste's Child

Robert Poste's Child

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No doubt a nice enough chap, but should never have

> been allowed near that job and never would have

> been had he been born to different circumstances.


Completely. To me he never seemed to realise that it wasn't just an extension of being in the school debating society or the extent to which many people's lives became more difficult on his watch. I also felt he wasn't in it for the right reasons (who is, some might say) but with his eye on a peerage and a series of well-paid board memberships.

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
Cameron was the end product of a party in opposition for a long time. They'd tried everything else. He was without doubt politically naive and it got him in the end. But he won't suffer in the way everyone else does if they quit their job. It was on his watch that welfare reform means that leaving a job denies benefits for six months, irregardless for the reasons for quitting. If only we could all leave our jobs when we don't like the new boss. I had no respect for him as PM and I have even less for him now. There is nothing 'nice' about Cameron. Self serving, arrogant, and as ruthless as they come.
rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cameron was the end product of a party in

> opposition for a long time. They'd tried

> everything else. He was without doubt politically

> naive and it got him in the end. But he won't

> suffer in the way everyone else does if they quit

> their job. It was on his watch that welfare reform

> means that leaving a job denies benefits for six

> months, irregardless for the reasons for quitting.

> If only we could all leave our jobs when we don't

> like the new boss. I had no respect for him as PM

> and I have even less for him now. There is nothing

> 'nice' about Cameron. Self serving, arrogant, and

> as ruthless as they come.


This. A politician who only cared about what people would vote for, not was actually right. Look at Churchill in his wilderness years, whatever one thinks of him he eschewed popularity for what he thought was right, not what he thought was popular. Cameron was a PR man promoted way beyond his ability, the ultimate populist.

kristymac1

kristymac1

Posted
Posted

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Cameron was the end product of a party in

> > opposition for a long time. They'd tried

> > everything else. He was without doubt

> politically

> > naive and it got him in the end. But he won't

> > suffer in the way everyone else does if they

> quit

> > their job. It was on his watch that welfare

> reform

> > means that leaving a job denies benefits for

> six

> > months, irregardless for the reasons for

> quitting.

> > If only we could all leave our jobs when we

> don't

> > like the new boss. I had no respect for him as

> PM

> > and I have even less for him now. There is

> nothing

> > 'nice' about Cameron. Self serving, arrogant,

> and

> > as ruthless as they come.

>

> This. A politician who only cared about what

> people would vote for, not was actually right.

> Look at Churchill in his wilderness years,

> whatever one thinks of him he eschewed popularity

> for what he thought was right, not what he thought

> was popular. Cameron was a PR man promoted way

> beyond his ability, the ultimate populist.


^^This.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

> > Blah Blah Wrote:

> > > Cameron was the end product of a party in

> > > opposition for a long time. They'd tried

> > > everything else. He was without doubt

> > politically

> > > naive and it got him in the end.


This simply cannot be right. Cameron was recognised as a means to power by the rabid tories - on a 'niced up' Blair model. His unguent and empty public persona with its 'nice' manners (oh the quality) and rictus smile appealed far and wide - do you think Eton produces people who succeed otherwise? Probably not since Maynard Keynes. I agree that a first class degree in PPE is almost certainly a sign of naivete wrt to the antagonistic social; but intelligence is neither here nor there in achieving success (i.e. getting power) in politics (viz Major).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Penguin68
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Jenijenjen
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Jenijenjen · Posted

      Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Penguin68
      Any updates? - Sidings East Dulwich on the top of Railway rise

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • tropica
      roof repairs and guarantees

      By tropica · Posted

      I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...