Cameron is a windbag

mamba80

his speech on immigration plus his boasting of halving the EU budget bill, proves he is a full of xxxx and like Mellor and Mitchell - show the contempt he must surely hold the British public.

5 years in and immigration is higher than before he made his ill judged pledge to cut it to 10s of thousands and his plans to stop in work benefits are tosh, changes in EU treaties take years and he isn't going to campaign at the next election to leave the EU.
the headline in the Mail "At last Cameron acts" is absurd as it is fantasy and an open goal to UKIP

RDW

So Cameron is not UKIP enough, but you don't like UKIP?

joelsim

A lot of people want everything which is clearly impossible. Just thank the lucky stars that the UK is performing better than the Eurozone economically. Then think what is would be like under UKIP or Labour.

morstar

Question for me is...
Is this really the biggest issue for people is it becoming the biggest issue because it's being rammed down our throats morning, noon and night.
How have UKIP set the agenda and still avoided having their other policies pulled to pieces?

verylonglegs

When a party like UKIP with its position on the political spectrum is attracting votes from lifelong Labour voters I'd say it's a big issue. Immigration hit their core voters hardest, keeping down the wages of the already low paid. The Labour leadership chose to condescendingly talk down to those supporters and just call them racists and those leaders (and those of us who don't want one issue politics) are now paying the price.

mm1

Alisdair Cambell is dead right about Cameron, all tactics no strategy. It's obvious that call me Dave develops "policy" by watching twitter. Waste of a very expensive education (and oddly soft looking skin, like a baby).

bompington

mm1 wrote:

and oddly soft looking skin, like a baby

Well, yes, I can see why that would stop someone voting for him :roll:

finchy

^^^ I thought mm1 was suggesting it be a reason for people to vote for Cameron, not against him. I've never looked closely at David Cameron's skin before. I'll check it out next time he's on the box and if it please me, I might re-consider who gets my vote next year.

joelsim

I dunno. UKIP get the vote based on people's skin.

Disgustingly.

finchy

Well, I'm certainly not voting for Farage's skin.

RDW

mm1 wrote:

Waste of a very expensive education (and oddly soft looking skin, like a baby).

That's because he sheds it every night: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-a-lizard

mamba80

RDW wrote:

So Cameron is not UKIP enough, but you don't like UKIP?

with 2million unemployed, a non contributory benefits systems and demands on school places and nhs services, not too mention a house building programme that seems to dump 1000s of houses in and around small towns... yes uncontrolled immigration into a small already over crowded country is a big issue.

BUT this needs (should have been years ago) to be addressed within Europe and Cameron is trying make out he can sort it out (he has been in power for 5 years) very quickly.... because of his and the previous labour governments policies, we will be left with a UKIP party with a disastrous "leave the EU" policy and a Tory/Labour policy of what will actually be "leave as is"
Speeches like these raise expectation, which then falls flat, leaving people feeling disillusioned and even more likely to vote for parties like ukip.

morstar

verylonglegs wrote:

When a party like UKIP with its position on the political spectrum is attracting votes from lifelong Labour voters I'd say it's a big issue. Immigration hit their core voters hardest, keeping down the wages of the already low paid. The Labour leadership chose to condescendingly talk down to those supporters and just call them racists and those leaders (and those of us who don't want one issue politics) are now paying the price.

But is it a bigger issue because the press are relentless with it. I've been in several discussions around the subject but it's not peoples number one concern. It's perpetually at the top of the news agenda though.
Press: Here, be outraged by this.
Public: Ok.
Don't underestimate the power of media. We didn't have black Friday 5 years ago and yesterday it generated micro riots across the whole country. The retailers didn't create that hysteria without assistance.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

But is it a bigger issue because the press are relentless with it.

Ignore the media.
If you have not tried it then you simply cannot comprehend how much difference this little step will make towards a blissful life.
I understand that you cannot force others to follow suit but little steps and all that....

morstar

mm1 wrote:

Alisdair Cambell is dead right about Cameron, all tactics no strategy. It's obvious that call me Dave develops "policy" by watching twitter. Waste of a very expensive education (and oddly soft looking skin, like a baby).

In all fairness, I think you can either think strategically or you can't. But Dave is in an impossible position. The party is reverting to type on Europe (I.e. Falling apart) whilst Farage can spout whatever b*llocks he likes without scrutiny and Dave has to out ukip them without actually being able to change much.
I'm not a Con supporter but I genuinely fear Ukip. Con and Labour have got to start setting the agenda more and tackle Ukips less populist and totally unworkable policies.
Suppose we do leave the euro. What happens to the eu workers already here in low skilled positions? My employer uses a lot of them. For the pay they receive, they work harder than uk counterparts. If you just remove them, a lot of other adjustments need to take place. Not saying that's right or wrong but you won't suddenly find everybody who is currently out of work is either suited to, or will take the newly available jobs.

Frank the tank

The tories have always run scared of their own back bench euro-sceptics.

However, our nations ills will be magically put right if we stop immigration and deport those immigrants that are already here. :roll:

florerider

. So let's get out of Europe now. What do we need when we leave, let's see, oh yes, a few million houses for all those Brits in enclaves in Chiantshire, Dordogneshire and Costa del censored who will lose their rights of residence, and since they are older than the average Joe, more hospital beds and medical staff to care for them through their old age. So we need to expand the NHS, as well as fill all those vacancies left in the NHS by immigrants going home. Now, where to find all those nurses and doctors, and care workers.......

Can't see how the cure is worse than the problem when it comes to shortage of housing and the NHS.

plowmar

O K let's leave the EU and get rid of all those lazy, scrounging , good for nothing immigrants. But where then do we put the 2 million -assessed- ex pats that are in europe, and how will that affect schools, NHS, and housing? Just a thought and yes I know that they all won't come back.

bdu98252

If the eu had stuck to its original remit of a trade organisation then it would be grand. Now it is just a large clusterfuck. The options peddled are leave or stay with no middle ground. I personally dont mind leaving if the bluff remains as its current trajectory will always end in dispute.

Its a bit like being married for ten years when the other half becomes celebate. You go along with it for a while as the relationship is good until eventually you realise something is missing.

pinno

We have to be careful about going down the Daily Mail route.

EU migrants add £6bn to our economy - thereby creating wealth and tax revenue.
When we talk about immigration, we need to make the distinction between non EU and EU migrants.
Our already low paid workforce is on low pay because our economy is service based and lacks industry - poorly paid jobs, zero working hours contracts and a huge rise in part-time employment that is intrinsically linked to a service sector economy and is delivering a drop in real terms of tax revenue. Revenue that we don't have to fund long term structural changes from housing to preventative healthcare to communication.
Is this the fault of the immigrants?

Why the main political parties don't push and disect UKIP policies other than immigration and the EU at every opportunity defeats me.

blackpoolkev

Cameron is a windbag? IMO, yes absolutely - but not just Cameron, pretty much every politician that (is allowed by the whips to) stands in front of a microphone. When I see Milliband speaking I can almost sense the fear he has of saying anything that can be contentious so he ends up saying nothing straightforward.
Farage and Boris Johnson speak in less "neutral/defensive" terms and take a lot of flak for their less guarded approach. But crucially they seem to grow in popularity. I reckon it's because a lot of folk are turned off by the usual Westminster language.
I watched coverage of American elections years ago and was amazed that the bluster spouted by the candidates was getting them elected. But it seems that our politicians have resorted to copying U.S politicians - tell everyone what they want to hear without making yourself accountable by being precise.
Farage is popular because he doesn't sound like a politician!

pblakeney

bdu98252 wrote:

If the eu had stuck to its original remit of a trade organisation then it would be grand. Now it is just a large clusterfuck. The options peddled are leave or stay with no middle ground. I personally dont mind leaving if the bluff remains as its current trajectory will always end in dispute.

Its a bit like being married for ten years when the other half becomes celebate. You go along with it for a while as the relationship is good until eventually you realise something is missing.

That was never the EU intention, it was just how it was sold to the UK to vote for joining the "Common Market".
The final destination has always been intended as a federal state of EU.
We were lied to then, and if anyone denies it now then they are either naive or lying.

pliptrot

Be very wary of those who compare the UK economy with Europe in a favourable light; the UK is growing based on the usual unsustainable nonsenses of property price increases and borrowing to fund consumption. UK productivity continues to lag behind most other developed nations, including those we sneer at and blame (unjustifiably) for our own woes. If there is any growth -this is debatable- it's based on low wage jobs. The UK has become a high cost, low wage society and Europe is eyeing this Americanisation of the economy with apprehension. Europeans will not ignore the poor in the same way as Brits do, so there is trouble ahead in the race to the bottom.

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

If the eu had stuck to its original remit of a trade organisation then it would be grand. Now it is just a large clusterfuck. The options peddled are leave or stay with no middle ground. I personally dont mind leaving if the bluff remains as its current trajectory will always end in dispute.

Its a bit like being married for ten years when the other half becomes celebate. You go along with it for a while as the relationship is good until eventually you realise something is missing.

That was never the EU intention, it was just how it was sold to the UK to vote for joining the "Common Market".
The final destination has always been intended as a federal state of EU.
We were lied to then, and if anyone denies it now then they are either naive or lying.

No, we are lied to now when people say it was only a free trade agreement and deny that there was always an intent of increasing political union. That people knew is clear from the earlier referendum. The debate was very heated at the time about staying in and facing increased union, and the vote was to stay in, in the full knowledge that further integration would occur.

As for immigration, the British were some of the biggest expansionists pushing for the eastern block to get included, but now they don't like the supposed consequences. Well, be careful what you ask for.

pblakeney

florerider wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

If the eu had stuck to its original remit of a trade organisation then it would be grand. Now it is just a large clusterfuck. The options peddled are leave or stay with no middle ground. I personally dont mind leaving if the bluff remains as its current trajectory will always end in dispute.

Its a bit like being married for ten years when the other half becomes celebate. You go along with it for a while as the relationship is good until eventually you realise something is missing.

That was never the EU intention, it was just how it was sold to the UK to vote for joining the "Common Market".
The final destination has always been intended as a federal state of EU.
We were lied to then, and if anyone denies it now then they are either naive or lying.

No, we are lied to now when people say it was only a free trade agreement and deny that there was always an intent of increasing political union. That people knew is clear from the earlier referendum. The debate was very heated at the time about staying in and facing increased union, and the vote was to stay in, in the full knowledge that further integration would occur.

I would disagree 100% with that version of history but I simply cannot be bothered.
Is that opinion from memory, or from reading? If memory, then we will have to agree to disagree. If from reading, I would check your sources.

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

If the eu had stuck to its original remit of a trade organisation then it would be grand. Now it is just a large clusterfuck. The options peddled are leave or stay with no middle ground. I personally dont mind leaving if the bluff remains as its current trajectory will always end in dispute.

Its a bit like being married for ten years when the other half becomes celebate. You go along with it for a while as the relationship is good until eventually you realise something is missing.

That was never the EU intention, it was just how it was sold to the UK to vote for joining the "Common Market".
The final destination has always been intended as a federal state of EU.
We were lied to then, and if anyone denies it now then they are either naive or lying.

No, we are lied to now when people say it was only a free trade agreement and deny that there was always an intent of increasing political union. That people knew is clear from the earlier referendum. The debate was very heated at the time about staying in and facing increased union, and the vote was to stay in, in the full knowledge that further integration would occur.

I would disagree 100% with that version of history but I simply cannot be bothered.
Is that opinion from memory, or from reading? If memory, then we will have to agree to disagree. If from reading, I would check your sources.

we didn't have a vote on joining the common market, we were in and had one on whether to stay in or leave.

to argue it was not about political union just does not bear witness. It is certainly true that economic union was never debated, but that is a different topic.

pblakeney

florerider wrote:

to argue it was not about political union just does not bear witness. It is certainly true that economic union was never debated, but that is a different topic.

Ask the UKIP voters who voted in 1975*. I put it to you that this is the very reason that they are for UKIP and it is very definitely on topic as that is what is driving David Cameron.
The UKIP voter will tell you that they voted for a trade union but would not have considered a political or economic union.

*Not that I am a UKIP voter but I have heard the sentiment expressed quite frequently.

florerider

PBlakeney wrote:

florerider wrote:

to argue it was not about political union just does not bear witness. It is certainly true that economic union was never debated, but that is a different topic.

Ask the UKIP voters who voted in 1975*. I put it to you that this is the very reason that they are for UKIP and it is very definitely on topic as that is what is driving David Cameron.
The UKIP voter will tell you that they voted for a trade union but would not have considered a political or economic union.

*Not that I am a UKIP voter but I have heard the sentiment expressed quite frequently.

don't disagree with that statement in any way or form, however is it right that Cameron is driven by a group he does not represent while reneging on a manifesto he got voted in (sort of) on? Which comes back to the original premise in the title...

DesB3rd

"a huge rise in part-time employment that is intrinsically linked to a service sector economy"

The UK has never been a services led economy. We assume that in the late-19thC/early-20thC nine out of ten men went to work in overalls; in reality the clerks, publicans, barbers and shop boys were always outnumbered them by a factor...

Productivity probably isn't the issue we assume it to be also; for example French and Italian productivity stats are either misleading (its a rare Frenchman who actually works the assumed 37 hour week) or in no small part representative of underlying economic problems (e.g. ethnic and regional communities that are poorly educated and economically excluded, so the output is relatively concentrated.)

Manc33

How can he be a windbag if he is the trombone man from the Lurpak advert?

Let's roll out the full quote and give credit:

"We've got David Cameron as Prime Minister now. A wet lipped buffoon who looks like he should be playing a trombone in a f**king Lurpak butter advert!" - Frankie Boyle

I stopped taking these people seriously a long time ago.

What about the country, I must care right? Nope. If the people in charge of it don't care then why the hell should I and more to the point, what's the use. Don't tell me, you can always become an MP and affect change yourself... not really possible though is it unless you're corrupt, compromised, perverted and in a few secret societies. :roll:

tangled_metal

Productivity is often spouted but what happens when UK car factory loses a new model of car and jobs are lost despite the actual factory had the higher productivity levels and efficiency and quality levels too than the factory that got the new model? That always interested me, productivity is quoted when it suits a particular argument. I can't remember the details of that factory and the car model but it was lost (along with the UK jobs) because of simple business decision based on bottom line. It was cheaper to lose the UK jobs than the French ones, that offset any cost savings across the life of that model. Amazing I thought at the time, shouldn't be allowed. I often wondered why the French company shouldn;t be made to pay British workers the same benefits on losing their jobs as the French ones.

That was a good few years ago now. How things have changed. (Didn;t Bombardier lose the train building job for British routes because their mainland europe based factory/division won it a few years ago).

All a side issue of course. Cameron is a windbag but no more than any senior political figure of the last 20 or 30 years. Seriously how can you compare the windbagedness of Cameron with Blair? Anyone remember Kinnock? What about Thather too? She could spout a few bollocks too. Politicians lie and boast and spin the news. Shock! Horror! Then vote for the party that spouts rhetoric along the lines of your own political beliefs. Democracy working at it;s best! Then when they're in nothing really changes. The party in power lurches along from crisis to crisis (created in no small part by the necessary short termism that 5 year terms create - they need to give out sweeteners or they won't get back in again). The party in opposition has it relatively easy. They can spout on about how they would do it all differently but know they are not in that position so have it easier to gain public support in whatever the latest media condemnation is. All the time we start seeing the next generation of political windbags coming through. First as special advisers or parliamentary aides of some form. Then as junior MPs in government or opposition. Then appearing on Question time or some other news outlet. Once tested and proven a decent mouthpiece they are made. Cabinet position (in government or opposition). Then eventually with luck one comes out on top and we have another PM windbag to look at. Or more likely opposition leader when the previous PM loses an election and gets deposed. I mean you can';t have a loser in the top party job can you!!?