Posts
I'm actually giving Cameron the benefit of the doubt.
It seems to me that he asked Coulson if there were any general issues he should be aware of, Coulson said no. I'd imagine Cameron asked specifically if there were any issues relating to phone hacking etc. I imagine Coulson said no.
Cameron saw a man who probably swore on his word that he had not been involved in wrong-doing but who had done the decent thing and resigned.
Cameron's background checks probably found no other faults, and so he was employed.
If the above scenario is anywhere near correct then I find no fault on Cameron's part, other than being trusting, which is no great fault.
In that case, Coulson comes off very badly.
If this was not the scenario then I think Cameron may have questions to answer
Tweet
Showing posts with label david Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david Cameron. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Cameron public services plan is 'classic nasty party stuff'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/david-cameron-public-services-private-bidders
"Unions reacted furiously after he outlined his plans to "completely change" public services by bringing in a "presumption" that private companies, voluntary groups or charities are as able to run schools, hospitals and many other council services as the state."
I personally don't think there should be a "presumption", there should only be a matter of who is most able to provide the service.
"Unison, the country's largest public sector union, warned that the proposals would result in a "postcode lottery" of services and a mountain of bureaucracy generated by a welter of private sector contracts"
These found fair enough objections, it's just a matter of whether they're true.
I have to say that I'm inclined to think he has a point with this:
"Barber said Cameron's suggestion that the plans would reduce bureaucracy was "particularly laughable".
"Privatisation replaces democratic oversight and accountability with a contract culture that is a job creation scheme for lawyers," he added.
"Voters and service users lose their say in what will be a get even richer quicker scheme for the companies that win contracts."
"Unions reacted furiously after he outlined his plans to "completely change" public services by bringing in a "presumption" that private companies, voluntary groups or charities are as able to run schools, hospitals and many other council services as the state."
I personally don't think there should be a "presumption", there should only be a matter of who is most able to provide the service.
"Unison, the country's largest public sector union, warned that the proposals would result in a "postcode lottery" of services and a mountain of bureaucracy generated by a welter of private sector contracts"
These found fair enough objections, it's just a matter of whether they're true.
I have to say that I'm inclined to think he has a point with this:
"Barber said Cameron's suggestion that the plans would reduce bureaucracy was "particularly laughable".
"Privatisation replaces democratic oversight and accountability with a contract culture that is a job creation scheme for lawyers," he added.
"Voters and service users lose their say in what will be a get even richer quicker scheme for the companies that win contracts."
David Cameron to end 'state monopoly' in provision of public services
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/21/david-cameron-public-services
Now, personally I've long believed in that. unlike many of my lefty mates, I don't believe that the state should have a monopoly on the provision of services. I think that the best provider should provide it, I don't really care who it is that provides it so long as it is there. In my view, the role of the state is to ensure that those most in need are provided for, and to provide that service if it is the best provider, but I don't think it should be the only option.
But, as ever, the coalition government under Cameron makes plans and outlines them in purest conservative philosophy and dogma. Personally, I think his statement that "The state will still have a role in ensuring "fair funding, ensuring fair competition, and ensuring that everyone - regardless of wealth - gets fair access" is as much bollocks as David Willett's promise to ensure that poor children can reach the best universities. The problem was that the key question was the last asked and he ducked it without being held to account.
Now, personally I've long believed in that. unlike many of my lefty mates, I don't believe that the state should have a monopoly on the provision of services. I think that the best provider should provide it, I don't really care who it is that provides it so long as it is there. In my view, the role of the state is to ensure that those most in need are provided for, and to provide that service if it is the best provider, but I don't think it should be the only option.
But, as ever, the coalition government under Cameron makes plans and outlines them in purest conservative philosophy and dogma. Personally, I think his statement that "The state will still have a role in ensuring "fair funding, ensuring fair competition, and ensuring that everyone - regardless of wealth - gets fair access" is as much bollocks as David Willett's promise to ensure that poor children can reach the best universities. The problem was that the key question was the last asked and he ducked it without being held to account.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Reality bites for coalition government
The vast inequalities are really quite staggering, and I'd like to think that people won't stand for them. But I don't hold my breath, Jordan's on the front page somewhere.
The huge bonuses and huge cut to charity go against one of the things I was often told in favour of right-ist solutions: that letting people have their own money means they will give more to charity. Now this is a one off case, but it's pretty fucking disgusting none the less
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/20/reality-bites-coalition-government-promises
The huge bonuses and huge cut to charity go against one of the things I was often told in favour of right-ist solutions: that letting people have their own money means they will give more to charity. Now this is a one off case, but it's pretty fucking disgusting none the less
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/20/reality-bites-coalition-government-promises
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
NHS cuts: Scale of shakeup took No 10 by surprise
No 10 has been so surprised by the radical nature of Andrew Lansley's NHS proposals that David Cameron has ordered a strengthening of his own policy unit so the centre is better equipped to challenge departmental plans in future. Government sources admitted that Downing Street simply did not have the specialist expertise in-house to challenge plans put forward by cabinet ministers.
If true that's all a bit odd for someone who's constantly going on about devolving power from the centre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/19/nhs-cuts-scale-shakeup-surprise/print
If true that's all a bit odd for someone who's constantly going on about devolving power from the centre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/19/nhs-cuts-scale-shakeup-surprise/print
Ed Miliband attacks 'arrogant' David Cameron over NHS reforms
"The statistics will fuel fears that Britain's young people could become a "lost generation" who cannot find work despite the recession ending a year ago."
That's my own fear, that I will be surpassed by a younger generation and be stuck in dead end jobs with no prospects. And I'm one of the lucky ones with an education and some small experience behind me. There is a real issue here and not one that can be improved by making political capital out of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/19/health-edmiliband/print
That's my own fear, that I will be surpassed by a younger generation and be stuck in dead end jobs with no prospects. And I'm one of the lucky ones with an education and some small experience behind me. There is a real issue here and not one that can be improved by making political capital out of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/19/health-edmiliband/print
Sunday, 28 November 2010
David Cameron: high speed rail link will go ahead
Ah, so greater capacity and less people. Sounds almost nice if you can actually get on the bloody thing. All too often that is physically impossible, so the increased capacity is certainly needed but I'm wary of the fares increase
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
the royal wedding
Personally,
I care only so far as I’m footing the bill. If a single penny of tax payer money goes on that wedding it will be disgusting. Why should a pair of spoilt brats who are not exactly short of a penny or two take taxpayer money at a time when things are so tight and jobs are being lost?
I hope Labour’s focuses on this to show it’s more on the side of working people than royal glitz and glamour. Given Clegg and Cameron’s backgrounds there may be some political capital there
I care only so far as I’m footing the bill. If a single penny of tax payer money goes on that wedding it will be disgusting. Why should a pair of spoilt brats who are not exactly short of a penny or two take taxpayer money at a time when things are so tight and jobs are being lost?
I hope Labour’s focuses on this to show it’s more on the side of working people than royal glitz and glamour. Given Clegg and Cameron’s backgrounds there may be some political capital there
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Ed Miliband's first PMQs
Personally, I was a little underwhelmed. I thought Cameron swatted Miliband aside with the supreme arrogance you expect from a Prime Minister.
Some people say Cameron doesn't do detail, but i hardly think he would have got through a top, top uni, worked at the Treasury, made the shadow cabinet in 3 years, written the manifesto, lead his party and become prime minister if he couldn't do detail. he can.
some people preferred Ed Miliband's measured approach, but i thought Cameron's swatting him aside made him look more impressive. I don't tend to think of arrogance as a bad thing at that level, I'd sure as hell be arrogant if i was a top ranker in any line of work.
it will be interesting to see which side the public takes, if they care at all. once the cuts start to bite, or the government start going back on their slash and burn rhetoric, then people will form a clearer idea. if the Tories implement these awful cuts which people blame Labour for, then the Tories will win the election. if people blame the Tories, then they are royally fucked.
on the deficit, Gordy fucked up in that he spent too much before the crash. however, the larger (largest?) part of the deficit was due only to bailing out the banks. if i am wrong i take it back, but such is my understanding having looked at the (or some, not sure) figures. if i'm right, banks should be paying it back in windfall taxes and direct tax on incomes and bonuses. the whole banking and financial system benefitted from the bail out, even those not directly bailed out. they should be where the money comes from. the structural debt, i.e. that Labour spent not on the deficit should be filled, i have no problems with that. some would do it through cuts, i'd do it through income tax on richer people. if that means they leave then the middle might face some pain which is unfortunate. but i would rather have a country re-balanced more fairly than the rich running riot.
i would look at benefits and the public sector, but i very much doubt anyone goes into politics wanting to reward those who don't deserve it while the hard working foot the bill. i think it is an unfortunate side-effect of the system, and one cheap stunts and harsh rhetoric won't solve.
i think the structural deficit and the money spent bailing out the banks should be dealt with separately.
the deficit issue needs a long bit because it's the defining issue of our times and any opposition to what the government does can be met with "it's all Labour's fault, what would you cut?"
Some people say Cameron doesn't do detail, but i hardly think he would have got through a top, top uni, worked at the Treasury, made the shadow cabinet in 3 years, written the manifesto, lead his party and become prime minister if he couldn't do detail. he can.
some people preferred Ed Miliband's measured approach, but i thought Cameron's swatting him aside made him look more impressive. I don't tend to think of arrogance as a bad thing at that level, I'd sure as hell be arrogant if i was a top ranker in any line of work.
it will be interesting to see which side the public takes, if they care at all. once the cuts start to bite, or the government start going back on their slash and burn rhetoric, then people will form a clearer idea. if the Tories implement these awful cuts which people blame Labour for, then the Tories will win the election. if people blame the Tories, then they are royally fucked.
on the deficit, Gordy fucked up in that he spent too much before the crash. however, the larger (largest?) part of the deficit was due only to bailing out the banks. if i am wrong i take it back, but such is my understanding having looked at the (or some, not sure) figures. if i'm right, banks should be paying it back in windfall taxes and direct tax on incomes and bonuses. the whole banking and financial system benefitted from the bail out, even those not directly bailed out. they should be where the money comes from. the structural debt, i.e. that Labour spent not on the deficit should be filled, i have no problems with that. some would do it through cuts, i'd do it through income tax on richer people. if that means they leave then the middle might face some pain which is unfortunate. but i would rather have a country re-balanced more fairly than the rich running riot.
i would look at benefits and the public sector, but i very much doubt anyone goes into politics wanting to reward those who don't deserve it while the hard working foot the bill. i think it is an unfortunate side-effect of the system, and one cheap stunts and harsh rhetoric won't solve.
i think the structural deficit and the money spent bailing out the banks should be dealt with separately.
the deficit issue needs a long bit because it's the defining issue of our times and any opposition to what the government does can be met with "it's all Labour's fault, what would you cut?"
Saturday, 8 May 2010
a tory government
over the last couple of days i've found myself in the odd position of thinking we should have a Tory government.
they won the most votes, they won the most seats. They should be the government, end of.
getting more devious, it could work out quite well for Labour as the anti-Tory or leftist vote they currently share with the Lib Dems may be more concentrated on Labour after 4 years of a Lib Dem / Tory coalition government, either explicit or implicit.
Can't help but feel Cameron and Clegg are two peas from the same pod though
they won the most votes, they won the most seats. They should be the government, end of.
getting more devious, it could work out quite well for Labour as the anti-Tory or leftist vote they currently share with the Lib Dems may be more concentrated on Labour after 4 years of a Lib Dem / Tory coalition government, either explicit or implicit.
Can't help but feel Cameron and Clegg are two peas from the same pod though
Thursday, 29 April 2010
tonight's debate
Cameron: change, change, change (empty words)
Clegg: the old parties, change, political point-scoring (empty words)
Brown: he won't answer the question (policy/"substance")
personally, i did actually think Gordy did well. he was obviously nervous, especially at first but fair play. it shows he's human as anyone would be shitting themselves given yesterday.
i'm biased, i think Labour have the arguements i most agree with. I've seen the Chancellor's debates and 2 leaders debates.
the thing is, i'm not like most people. i look most at policies while others don't. it does annoy me, but there you go. people are different.
i think Labour has got the best answers going forward. yes, they have been in power for 13 years and haven't made everything perfect, but they've made this country more the way i would like it to be and i think they should be entrusted to take us forwards
Clegg: the old parties, change, political point-scoring (empty words)
Brown: he won't answer the question (policy/"substance")
personally, i did actually think Gordy did well. he was obviously nervous, especially at first but fair play. it shows he's human as anyone would be shitting themselves given yesterday.
i'm biased, i think Labour have the arguements i most agree with. I've seen the Chancellor's debates and 2 leaders debates.
the thing is, i'm not like most people. i look most at policies while others don't. it does annoy me, but there you go. people are different.
i think Labour has got the best answers going forward. yes, they have been in power for 13 years and haven't made everything perfect, but they've made this country more the way i would like it to be and i think they should be entrusted to take us forwards
Sunday, 18 April 2010
bBC News - Keane 'horrified' by Tories' use of hit single
Two songs with change in the title, pathetic.
David Cameron would 'like' Keane wouldn't he? Grow some bollocks lad. We can't have a prime minister who listens to fucking keane, we'll be a laughing stock
David Cameron would 'like' Keane wouldn't he? Grow some bollocks lad. We can't have a prime minister who listens to fucking keane, we'll be a laughing stock
Saturday, 3 April 2010
To sum up David Cameron's latest big idea: BS, NBG | Politics | The Guardian
A very enjoyable read. So Cameron's new idea is Bull Shit, No Bloody Good. Sums it up well
Friday, 2 April 2010
Ofcom v Sky: The epic business battle of 2010
Just so we all know how it works:
"here are three facts - and you can decide whether they are related or not.
James Murdoch, the chairman of BSkyB and the presumed heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation throne, has argued with some passion that Ofcom intervenes excessively in the media market and could do with neutering.
David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".
This is what Mr Cameron said last July: "with a Conservative Government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist. Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy."
Also, News Corporation's most-widely-read newspaper, the Sun ("wot won it"), has switched allegiance from Labour to the Tories - and is currently heaping opprobrium on the government in its pages with what reads like undisguised relish.
All of which lends more than just a frisson - perhaps a better metaphor would be "earthquake" - to an investigation by Ofcom that represents the first attempt by any British regulator to argue that BSkyB as currently constituted has excessive market power and needs a bit of reining-back."
I'm remarkably surprised and impressed by the comments:
* 1. At 12:06pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
Banking, groceries and pay TV: do they cover the main ingredients for a thriving economy and the good society?
Well, if by good, you mean a society of over-fed, pigged-out, unhealthy, couch-potato, over-spenders who fail to think for themselves, what else is there?
Wouldn't have any of Murdoch's muck in my house, not even in the loo! And as for supermarkets they're only any good for frozen peas or soap powder
Complain about this comment
* 2. At 12:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".
Oh no - we're getting the vitriolic Fox then! Please, no, no, no, no.... He'll deregulate and we'll never have Attenborough. Right, the telly will have to go if he gets in and dares let Murdoch have any more of this country!
Complain about this comment
* 3. At 12:21pm on 26 Mar 2010, Horned_Devil wrote:
As an (ex) employee of a business that used to operate on the Sky platform I understand how Sky's monopoly position is abused (in a slightly different area to the one mentioned above) and stifled innovation around the interactive TV market (which the UK was the world leader). I have no problems with them being run as a business but at certain times there needs to be a some control over Sky as a platform and Sky as a broadcaster
Complain about this comment
* 4. At 12:36pm on 26 Mar 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
Those with controlling market share use political influence to restrict competition...it is what captialism has always been. The development of media applications to computers and cell phones is simply a response for those wishing to get into markets that have become restricted by regulation and governmental patronage. Like the fossil fuel industry, alternatives will be developed because they have been shut out of any real resources for development and political interference. The big corporations and their taxes bind them to governments like a calf to a mother cow.
Complain about this comment
* 5. At 12:42pm on 26 Mar 2010, desabled wrote:
IOam a sky subcriber and have every sympathy with points raised by Ofcom
one is left wonering whether nullifyingOfcom in traditional tory abdication of responsibility through deregulation will be added to conservatives splitting up the bbc in a the quid pro quoexisting between the Murdochs and David Cameron as a reward for tory bias in it's tv and printed media,lately they seemed to have suceeded inplacing at least a couple of moles in the beeb too!
Murdoch is disliked nearly as much i australia ,among ordinary folk as he is here his unbridled power is developing intomedia world domination which is why he hates the bbc, so much quality never was his strong suit
Complain about this comment
* 6. At 1:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, lacplesis37 wrote:
Are you saying that Cameron is actually in Murdoch's pocket? Or will it just feel like that? Are you implying that the Tories decision to scale back Ofcom is in some way linked to Murdoch's subsequent decision to support the Conservatives? If so, perhaps - given all the stuff thrown at Blair about his Ecclestone connection - perhaps this should be consideered by the BBC as a more important newsworthy issue? For myself, I'd like to see much tougher rules on media ownership which prevents foreign owners (& non-residents) not just involving themselves in UK politics, but covering such a significant share of the market. Though I may not agree with the BBC, at least I know you are trying to be balanced & unbiassed - but the Murdoch media have no such inhibitions & let us say "mislead" their viewers/readers without scruple.
"here are three facts - and you can decide whether they are related or not.
James Murdoch, the chairman of BSkyB and the presumed heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation throne, has argued with some passion that Ofcom intervenes excessively in the media market and could do with neutering.
David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".
This is what Mr Cameron said last July: "with a Conservative Government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist. Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy."
Also, News Corporation's most-widely-read newspaper, the Sun ("wot won it"), has switched allegiance from Labour to the Tories - and is currently heaping opprobrium on the government in its pages with what reads like undisguised relish.
All of which lends more than just a frisson - perhaps a better metaphor would be "earthquake" - to an investigation by Ofcom that represents the first attempt by any British regulator to argue that BSkyB as currently constituted has excessive market power and needs a bit of reining-back."
I'm remarkably surprised and impressed by the comments:
* 1. At 12:06pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
Banking, groceries and pay TV: do they cover the main ingredients for a thriving economy and the good society?
Well, if by good, you mean a society of over-fed, pigged-out, unhealthy, couch-potato, over-spenders who fail to think for themselves, what else is there?
Wouldn't have any of Murdoch's muck in my house, not even in the loo! And as for supermarkets they're only any good for frozen peas or soap powder
Complain about this comment
* 2. At 12:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".
Oh no - we're getting the vitriolic Fox then! Please, no, no, no, no.... He'll deregulate and we'll never have Attenborough. Right, the telly will have to go if he gets in and dares let Murdoch have any more of this country!
Complain about this comment
* 3. At 12:21pm on 26 Mar 2010, Horned_Devil wrote:
As an (ex) employee of a business that used to operate on the Sky platform I understand how Sky's monopoly position is abused (in a slightly different area to the one mentioned above) and stifled innovation around the interactive TV market (which the UK was the world leader). I have no problems with them being run as a business but at certain times there needs to be a some control over Sky as a platform and Sky as a broadcaster
Complain about this comment
* 4. At 12:36pm on 26 Mar 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
Those with controlling market share use political influence to restrict competition...it is what captialism has always been. The development of media applications to computers and cell phones is simply a response for those wishing to get into markets that have become restricted by regulation and governmental patronage. Like the fossil fuel industry, alternatives will be developed because they have been shut out of any real resources for development and political interference. The big corporations and their taxes bind them to governments like a calf to a mother cow.
Complain about this comment
* 5. At 12:42pm on 26 Mar 2010, desabled wrote:
IOam a sky subcriber and have every sympathy with points raised by Ofcom
one is left wonering whether nullifyingOfcom in traditional tory abdication of responsibility through deregulation will be added to conservatives splitting up the bbc in a the quid pro quoexisting between the Murdochs and David Cameron as a reward for tory bias in it's tv and printed media,lately they seemed to have suceeded inplacing at least a couple of moles in the beeb too!
Murdoch is disliked nearly as much i australia ,among ordinary folk as he is here his unbridled power is developing intomedia world domination which is why he hates the bbc, so much quality never was his strong suit
Complain about this comment
* 6. At 1:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, lacplesis37 wrote:
Are you saying that Cameron is actually in Murdoch's pocket? Or will it just feel like that? Are you implying that the Tories decision to scale back Ofcom is in some way linked to Murdoch's subsequent decision to support the Conservatives? If so, perhaps - given all the stuff thrown at Blair about his Ecclestone connection - perhaps this should be consideered by the BBC as a more important newsworthy issue? For myself, I'd like to see much tougher rules on media ownership which prevents foreign owners (& non-residents) not just involving themselves in UK politics, but covering such a significant share of the market. Though I may not agree with the BBC, at least I know you are trying to be balanced & unbiassed - but the Murdoch media have no such inhibitions & let us say "mislead" their viewers/readers without scruple.
Monday, 29 March 2010
What happens if Cameron loses? | Politics | The Guardian
The main worry being that Cameron winning is not the lesser of two evils, but the middle of three: best being Labour win, worst a further right Tory administration. So the worry is that Cameron doesn't win and then we get a David Davis/Liam Fox/Andrew Rosindale (God forbid) -lead administration who couldn't help but win. Of course, if we get a reverse Blair it won't be so bad i.e. a leader further to the political centre than their party who is pretty much indistinguishable from someone on the other side.
Evidence that this fear is well-founded can be found in this paragraph:
"On the influential Tory website ConservativeHome, some contributors are breathless with the shifting polls' implications. "There is a huge problem here," says Victor M. "If Tory HQ don't solve [it] as of now, we are doomed to five more years of the fat Scottish droner." David Alan says: "We are flatlining at around 36/37%. That is frankly a disaster. If we do win it's going to be as a minority government or with a very small majority. Either way Cameron will have a bust-up with [the] party soon after, so allowing Labour back in." Craig says: "Cameron is a bloody beauty queen but a disaster of a politician. We have been sold down the river by him. He can't beat Brown. We should get [Oliver] Letwin in now." Angry Womble replies: "It's already too late . . . David Davis would have made a better leader." Jacqui D says: "Let someone else take the plunge - Boris [Johnson] would have no such qualms.""
"Compared to most senior ministers in elderly governments, many of Brown's key allies are young. And many of them - Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper - are more left-of-centre than their Blairite predecessors; were Labour to continue in office, Cruddas expects them to continue to move cautiously in that direction. Judging by the budget's tax rises for rich property owners, Brown and Darling intend to do so as well."
An excellent point
"Yet governments that win an unexpected extra term tend not to end happily. Gould is mindful of what happened to Major after 1992: "If Labour won this time, would voters wake up the day after the election and say: 'God, five more years of Gordon Brown'? I think they would.""
My fear exactly
"I reckon the best thing the Labour party could do would be to subtly get the message out - officially denied of course - that if they win Gordon Brown will serve a limited period as prime minister before resigning in favour of Balls, Miliband etc.
He could waltz off into the sunset to lead the World Bank or the IMF having achieved his ambition of winning a general election.
Time to start planting some stories in the Guardian."
Now that IS an interesting possibility. Gordy would need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, he won't go and he'll take the whole party down with him. But if it could be achieved, it would probably benefit the party and the country. Even david Miliband replacing him, which doesn't exactly fill me with joy
Evidence that this fear is well-founded can be found in this paragraph:
"On the influential Tory website ConservativeHome, some contributors are breathless with the shifting polls' implications. "There is a huge problem here," says Victor M. "If Tory HQ don't solve [it] as of now, we are doomed to five more years of the fat Scottish droner." David Alan says: "We are flatlining at around 36/37%. That is frankly a disaster. If we do win it's going to be as a minority government or with a very small majority. Either way Cameron will have a bust-up with [the] party soon after, so allowing Labour back in." Craig says: "Cameron is a bloody beauty queen but a disaster of a politician. We have been sold down the river by him. He can't beat Brown. We should get [Oliver] Letwin in now." Angry Womble replies: "It's already too late . . . David Davis would have made a better leader." Jacqui D says: "Let someone else take the plunge - Boris [Johnson] would have no such qualms.""
"Compared to most senior ministers in elderly governments, many of Brown's key allies are young. And many of them - Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper - are more left-of-centre than their Blairite predecessors; were Labour to continue in office, Cruddas expects them to continue to move cautiously in that direction. Judging by the budget's tax rises for rich property owners, Brown and Darling intend to do so as well."
An excellent point
"Yet governments that win an unexpected extra term tend not to end happily. Gould is mindful of what happened to Major after 1992: "If Labour won this time, would voters wake up the day after the election and say: 'God, five more years of Gordon Brown'? I think they would.""
My fear exactly
"I reckon the best thing the Labour party could do would be to subtly get the message out - officially denied of course - that if they win Gordon Brown will serve a limited period as prime minister before resigning in favour of Balls, Miliband etc.
He could waltz off into the sunset to lead the World Bank or the IMF having achieved his ambition of winning a general election.
Time to start planting some stories in the Guardian."
Now that IS an interesting possibility. Gordy would need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, he won't go and he'll take the whole party down with him. But if it could be achieved, it would probably benefit the party and the country. Even david Miliband replacing him, which doesn't exactly fill me with joy
Thursday, 25 March 2010
BBC News - Darling makes pre-election pitch in 'holding' Budget
"Recent polling suggests voters are squeamish about the prospect of cuts to government spending even if they are also worried about the scale of public debt."
Potentially a huge problem and something that gives politicians free reign to take people for fools, because people/the public are being fools.
"The measure to exempt first time buyers from stamp duty on properties priced below 250,000 in the next two years was well trailed.
In other words, this would be a tax cut for some - though the policy was first suggested by the Conservatives in 2007.
But what had not been trailed before the Chancellor's speech was that, to pay for this, stamp duty would rise on properties worth a million pounds or more.
This appears to be at least as much a political as an economic decision, designed to portray Labour as a party that can deliver 'fairness' even when the purse strings are being tightened.
If the Tories were to reverse this, they would of course be denounced as party favouring the privileged rather than the wider population. "
Rather than just party positioning I think this is proper ideology, but one that the party leadership have been scared of getting into. I personally support it and the principle behind it.
But it's ok, because when times are tough Cameron and Clegg have some handy sound bite to get themselves on the news. The pair of them are pathetic and make Gordy look a million dollars
Potentially a huge problem and something that gives politicians free reign to take people for fools, because people/the public are being fools.
"The measure to exempt first time buyers from stamp duty on properties priced below 250,000 in the next two years was well trailed.
In other words, this would be a tax cut for some - though the policy was first suggested by the Conservatives in 2007.
But what had not been trailed before the Chancellor's speech was that, to pay for this, stamp duty would rise on properties worth a million pounds or more.
This appears to be at least as much a political as an economic decision, designed to portray Labour as a party that can deliver 'fairness' even when the purse strings are being tightened.
If the Tories were to reverse this, they would of course be denounced as party favouring the privileged rather than the wider population. "
Rather than just party positioning I think this is proper ideology, but one that the party leadership have been scared of getting into. I personally support it and the principle behind it.
But it's ok, because when times are tough Cameron and Clegg have some handy sound bite to get themselves on the news. The pair of them are pathetic and make Gordy look a million dollars
Budget 2010 truth check | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Much more of politics should be subject to these sorts of checks.
Darling comes out of it much better than Cameron
Darling comes out of it much better than Cameron
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
BBC News - Cameron attacks Labour lack of Budget 'urgency'
Cameron's attack is typically all sound bites and no substance, and the relatively carefree environment of a press conference helps when "Mr Cameron declined to comment on reports that an incoming Conservative government would have to find £31bn of spending cuts."
"The Tories have said they will spell out more details of proposed cuts after the Budget but Mr Cameron said his party had already set out "the difficult choices" that would be needed. "
Really?
Cameron is trying to be all things to all people. he wants to cut the deficit, but says he won't actually take away all the things that people like. And he's going to do this impossible thing but (maybe no perhaps not sure) cutting government spending. So far all we've had from him is what he won't cut, rather than what he will. I assume they're remembering 1992.
For me, any savings made (e.g. I saw a piece in the Mail of all places saying the deficit was significantly better than expected) should be used to pay off the debt. No investment, no putting any money into anything, just pay back what we owe until it's all done. And that's why I'll never get anywhere in politics.
"The Tories have said they will spell out more details of proposed cuts after the Budget but Mr Cameron said his party had already set out "the difficult choices" that would be needed. "
Really?
Cameron is trying to be all things to all people. he wants to cut the deficit, but says he won't actually take away all the things that people like. And he's going to do this impossible thing but (maybe no perhaps not sure) cutting government spending. So far all we've had from him is what he won't cut, rather than what he will. I assume they're remembering 1992.
For me, any savings made (e.g. I saw a piece in the Mail of all places saying the deficit was significantly better than expected) should be used to pay off the debt. No investment, no putting any money into anything, just pay back what we owe until it's all done. And that's why I'll never get anywhere in politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
