Premier David Cameron

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:21 PM

There's the old test of who you'd buy a used car from, and the other one about who who'd choose as a next door neighbour. I think for most people, including the ones who voted against him in the election, Gordon Brown would be the winner.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:32 PM

>>who who'd choose as a next door neighbour. I think for most people, including the ones who voted against him in the election, Gordon Brown would be the winner. <<

You must be joking. The less I see of him, the better.

That doesn't mean I would like the others as next door neighbours either.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:47 PM

Will it be safe to go ahead with my planned tour of the UK this September, given the fragility of this new coalition government? Will there be riots in the streets, will the trains still run on time (if they ever did), will folk music clubs be shut down for the duration, will all tourists have to submit to a strip search at Heathrow, and what about bringing in my 5-string banjo and Angle concertina?

Maybe it's safer for me to stay in Maine where I at least understand the ground rules of political turmoil.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:53 PM

premier primadonna

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:40 PM

http://www.archive.org/serve/MarkKnopfler2010-05-08CircusMaximusTheaterAtlanticCityNJ/MarkKnopfler2010-05-08CircusMaximusTheaterAtlanticCityNJ.wma

Excellent recording to take your mind off your woes!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:37 PM

You Brits are making it sound as though Tories are the same as Republicans - only with accents.

Robo, an American ignoramus

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:59 PM

Nope. republicans are the ones with accents. :-)

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:25 PM

All a matter of relativity, robomatic. Transplanted to America someone with Cameron's politics would probably count as a bit to the left of Barack Obama... Here's what he had to say about the NHS in the first TV debate:

"I think the NHS is a wonderful, wonderful thing. What it did for my
family and for my son, I will never forget. I went from hospital to
hospital, A&Es in the middle of the night, sleeping in different wards
in different places. The dedication, and the vocation and the love
you get from people who work in the NHS just, I think, makes me
incredibly proud of this country, so thank you for all that you've
done.

"I think it is special, the NHS, and we made a special
exception of the NHS and said yes, there are going to have to be
difficult financial decisions elsewhere, but we think that the NHS
budget should grow in real terms, i.e., more than inflation, every
year under a Conservative government. My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient."

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:47 PM

The Premier David Cameron! Are there others? We should be told.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:37 PM

I can't say I'm sorry to see 'New Labour' ousted. They did precious little to improve the crippled mess they inherited. Socialists wouldn't have scrapped student grants, introduced student loans, then made further education laughably easier to get into. Socialists wouldn't have scrapped the 10% tax bracket. It's a long time since we actually had a real Labour Party, although to be fair it's a long time since they really had anyone to represent since Thatcher's lot virtually made 'the producers of wealth' extinct. I'm no Conservative supporter by any means, but I think the current mess that needs to be sorted out is in the best hands for the job, given the available choices, and particularly as what they have to do is likely to make them unpopular enough to be voted out next time.

Someone mentioned the trains running on time - that will only happen if the B*P get into power..

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:40 PM

"I blame Bloody Thatcher - for everything."

Interesting Leveller that many people, including conservatives would share your view.

But of course the days of her style of Government are over ... aren't they ... ?

I mean - Cameron plans to protect the health service doesn't he?

He wouldn't have approved of the Thatcherite policy of privatising it - no way ...

... just as well we're rid of whichever thatcherite minister brought that idea into politics eh ...

.. what was his name? ...

Thats it ... Ken Clarke ...

... the ... er ... new Justice minister and Lord Chancellor in Camerons cabinet ...

Thatchers "Candid Friend".

Employment minister and health secretary under Thatcher, then Health secretary and chancellor of the exchequer under John Major, Labour have kept him out of Government since Blair took power.

And now he's back in government.

Oh Fuck!

Dynamic new Fresh Exciting Dave ain't so far from thatcher after all ...

so who else is in the cabinet ...

Well we've got Hague and Duncan Smith ...

Hague was party leader - and lost a general election ...

Duncan Smith was Party leader - and lost a generaal election ...


The only question is - how is Cameron different from his predecessors - when he has called them all up to be in his government?


I stated earlier that I could live with the Tory Lib Pact, but I think I may have to retract that statement.

Clegg, trying to be clever, has made a big mistake.

But at least Labour will have an absolute Majority at the next election.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:49 PM

no,it was Mussolini who made the trains run on time,he started off aas a socialist
   

Benito Mussolini, February 1939 Benito Mussolini, February 1939 © Mussolini was the founder of Fascism and leader of Italy from 1922 to 1943. He allied Italy with Nazi Germany and Japan in World War Two.

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was born on 29 July 1883 in Predappio in northern central Italy. His father was a blacksmith. Employment prospects in the area were poor so in 1902 Mussolini moved to Switzerland, where he became involved in socialist politics. He returned to Italy in 1904, and worked as a journalist in the socialist press, but his support for Italy's entry into World War One led to his break with socialism. He was drafted into the Italian army in September 1915.

In March 1919, Mussolini formed the Fascist Party, galvanising the support of many unemployed war veterans. He organised them into armed squads known as Black Shirts, who terrorised their political opponents. In 1921, the Fascist Party was invited to join the coalition government.

By October 1922, Italy seemed to be slipping into political chaos. The Black Shirts marched on Rome and Mussolini presented himself as the only man capable of restoring order. King Victor Emmanuel invited Mussolini to form a government. Mussolini gradually dismantled the institutions of democratic government and in 1925 made himself dictator, taking the title 'Il Duce'. He set about attempting to re-establish Italy as a great European power. The regime was held together by strong state control and Mussolini's cult of personality.

In 1935, Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and incorporated it into his new Italian Empire. He provided military support to Franco in the Spanish Civil War. Increasing co-operation with Nazi Germany culminated in the 1939 Pact of Steel. Influenced by Hitler, Mussolini began to introduce anti-Jewish legislation in Italy. His declaration of war on Britain and France in June 1940 exposed Italian military weakness and was followed by a series of defeats in North and East Africa and the Balkans.

In July 1943, Allied troops landed in Sicily. Mussolini was overthrown and imprisoned by his former colleagues in the Fascist government. In September, Italy signed an armistice with the Allies. The German army began the occupation of Italy and Mussolini was rescued by German commandos. He was installed as the leader of a new government, but had little power. As the Allies advanced northwards through Italy, Mussolini fled towards Switzerland. He was captured by Italian partisans and shot on 28 April 1945.
Mussolini did not embrace racism until the end of 1937,so in reality for he was not racist the first fourteen years of his government.
the BNP has always been racist

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:43 PM

Thanks GSS, I didn't know that. Didn't Oswald Moseley start off as a socialist of some sort?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:47 PM

I don't blame Thatcher for everything - some of it is Bill Gates' fault.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Smokey.
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:55 PM

I blame Thatcher for Bill Gates.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 10 - 03:53 AM

Musollini did not make the trains run on time either...

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:10 AM

Cameron's words on the NHS - "My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient".

Those are the dogwhistle words for privatisation. Watch and weep.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:22 AM

I am not clear that a fixed term parliament would necessarily prevent the removal of Cameron as PM or prevent the breakup of the coalition. It would prevent the holding of a fresh general election, but it will not prevent the L/Ds from leaving the coalition and joining the rainbow left.

Also, if MPs die or resign (take the Chiltern Hundreds) there will be fresh elections which can make small changes in seats.

A simple majority could undo the legislative changes that purport to require a 55% vote (that's called "Parliamentary sovereignty" and it is fundamental to our constitution, at least according to Dicey).

The really really interesting bit is whether the new Supreme Court would have the power to decide on the validity of a 51% vote purporting to do what Cameron says he will make a 55% vote necessary for.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:46 AM

Well indeed - The question of just how "assured" these assurances are isn't entirely clear.

How can we assuredly be sure that these assurances have really been assured ... (to be sure) ... ?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:49 AM

Cameron's words on the NHS - "My vision is that we
improve it, we expand it, we develop it, we make sure that it's got
more choice and more control for the patient".

Those are the dogwhistle words for privatisation. Watch and weep.


If you spent your beer and cigarettes money on private health insurance, you would have little to complain about - except for A & E which always means a lot of waiting around - in my case recently about 10 hours!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:08 AM

Bonzo you are a moron. The reason I left my PHI scheme was that despite no claims they put the premium up to over £4,000 per year - far more than I spend on beer and I haven't smoked for nearly 20 years.

As for A&E I can only hope that you go there often.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Stu
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:10 AM

"All bankers are members of the Tory party?

The economic collapse that was caused by the United States real estate market failure is the fault of Brittish Tories?

Some of you Brits will blame the 80% of petrol cost that is tax on the Tories too.."

For our those American friends who make asinine comments like this because they can't be arsed to follow what is actually happening or take a basic primer in British political history of the last thirty years, The British Isles are a group of islands off the North West coast of Europe. Ever heard of Greece? That's a group of islands too but warmer and they invented doner kebabs, western civilisation and homosexuality (oh, and massive public spending cuts causing riots and endangering the eurozone).

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:11 AM

If you go into a private hospital the doctor on duty is likely to be an agency doctor from abroad who's moonlighting to earn extra money to support him or herself while serving out their training - which they'll be receiving in the NHS. By the time they come to work in your fancy private hospital they'll have already done a shift in the NHS and they'll already be knackered.

Private hospitals also rely almost entirely on agency or bank nurses. Many of these are part-timers or women who have come back into nursing after raising families and who don't have the up-to-date skills or match-fitness that a professional NHS nurse will have. I went out with one nurse at a prestigious private hospital in London who was an aspiring actress who only nursed in between acting jobs. Mind you, she spent most of her time nursing because she wasn't a very good actress.

Training and development in nursing are geared towards the NHS and career progression for nurses is judged on their record in the NHS - which is why any decent nurse with any sense stays in the NHS.

Surgeons who handle a mix of private and NHS work are obliged under the terms of their NHS contracts to complete their NHS lists before they move on to their private patients - so by the time they do they're knackered as well.

And if anything goes wrong with your treatment at a private hospital all they'll do is send you off to A&E - at the nearest NHS hospital.

Private health insurance? Waste of money.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: alanabit
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:30 AM

Good luck to Charlie Noble in finding a coherent time table for the train service, which the Tories sold cut price to their buddies in the city. I also hope that if he can find suitable connections, that he is on an income level to afford them. (I certainly have not been for many years). One also hopes that he will be fortunate enough to travel on a stretch of track which has recently received at least basic maintenance.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:06 AM

<
As for A&E I can only hope that you go there often.>> Richard Bridge

Thankyou.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:12 AM

L/Ds rat on their commitment over tuition fees here: -

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411600&c=1

And this is from the Times - Murdoch's running dog!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:25 AM

I have now had some discussions with other constitutional law lecturers - this 5 year fixed term and 55% to call an erection stuff is full of potential for controversy.


Possibility 1.    The coalition breaks down: Cameron no longer is able to get his legislation through but the 55% is not available leading to grid lock as Parl cannot be dissolved.

Possibility 2.    Would there be someone else who could command a majority and hence enable the legislative machine to get going again? If so, would Cameron resign (I am assuming here that could be possible despite the fixed term and 55 % rule) and the Queen could appoint someone to be PM. S/he (the new PM) would suffer legitimacy issues as per Brown in effect because s/he would be heading up a government without an election.

Possibility 3.    What would happen if Cameron refused to resign arguing that he was the leader of the biggest party and had the right to carry on? Could be in that situation that the 55% for a no confidence vote would be obtainable and Parliament would then be dissolved leading to an election etc?

Possibility 4.    Supposing however he refused to resign but the 55% was not available as the liberals say abstained on a vote of no confidence ( this raises issues about how the 55 % is to be calculated i.e. 55% on total no of MPs or 55% of those positively voting). Leaving aside the position of the Supreme Court- would this force the queen's hand compelling her to dismiss Cameron and appoint somebody assuming they existed who could command a majority and could therefore carry on. This would raise legitimacy issues both for new gov and possible for queen.

Possibility 5.    What however would be the position if Cameron refused to go, the 55% per cent option was not available, there was gridlock but there was nobody who could command a majority? Would the Queen be forced to sack Cameron appoint someone who did not command a majority and whom it was quite clear would lose a vote of confidence by a margin of 55% (however it was to be calculated) and so could having lost the vote advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament so there could be a general election. A rather paradoxical position – never mind one that puts the monarch in a very exposed position.

POssibility 6.    As for the Supreme Court- this interesting. A number of issues would seem to be interacting. Whether the court in such circs would contemplate overriding an Act of Parliament? Whether they would argue that the whole basis of the courts attitude to Parliament was based on proposition that Parliament would not obstruct the operation of a functioning government other than through procedures which were regarded as acceptably democratic etc and that the scenario presented to them mean that they were entitled in rewrite the terms of their relationship with Parliament and hence override the statutory provision.

Point 7.    Making such changes - fixed term +55% in order to safeguard a coalition is a very bad reason for such fundamental constitutional reform but good ammunition for those who consider we need a properly thought out codified constitution - not that such a document might not raise all sorts of new or not so new problems.




I think that needs emphasising - FUNDAMENTAL changes to the constitution merely to serve the pragmatic needs of rulers to be assured that they can continue to rule even if confidence in them is lost. A profoundly undemocratic proposition.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:05 AM

to call an erection?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Allan
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:11 AM

"I have now had some discussions with other constitutional law lecturers - this 5 year fixed term and 55% to call an erection stuff is full of potential for controversy."

I agree though I don't think there is anything much controversial about the 5 year fixed term itself. It is simply taking the opportunity away where a sitting PM could call an election prematurely for no other reason other than he thinks he would win if he goes to the country. The 55% rule is different. At the moment a govt can fall at any time even it loses the confidence of the house by just one vote - and of course that would remain so with a 5 year fixed term. However they seem to be suggesting that a vote of confidence could not be lost on just one vote - but that instead at least 55% of the House would need to have lost confidence in the govt. The only reason I can see for this suggestion is that it ensures that even if the Lib Dems walk over to the opposition benches there probably still wouldn't be enough support for ousting the govt hence there wouldn't automatically be an election. The Tories could carry on as a minority govt hoping they could still get much of their proposals through the Commons on an issue by issue, vote by vote basis. Not so far fetched as that is what currently happens in Holyrood where the SNP are a minority govt. So the 55% rule to me looks like a short term self interest policy for the Tories to ensure they remain in office no matter how unpopular their cuts become.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:12 AM

OSWALD MOSLEY was at one time a member of the labour party
Crossing the floor

Mosley was at this time falling out with the Conservatives over Irish policy, objecting to the use of the Black and Tans to suppress the Irish population. Eventually he 'crossed the floor' and sat as an Independent MP on the opposition side of the House of Commons. Having built up a following in his constituency, he retained it against a Conservative challenge in the 1922 and 1923 general elections. The liberal Westminster Gazette wrote that he was "the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains."[4] By 1924 he was growing increasingly attracted to the Labour Party, which had just formed a government, and in March he joined. He immediately joined the Independent Labour Party (ILP) as well and allied himself with the left.

When the government fell in October, Mosley had to choose a new seat as he believed that Harrow would not re-elect him as a Labour candidate. He therefore decided to oppose Neville Chamberlain in Birmingham Ladywood. An energetic campaign led to a knife-edge result but Mosley was defeated by 77 votes. His period outside Parliament was used to develop a new economic policy for the ILP, which eventually became known as the Birmingham Proposals; they continued to form the basis of Mosley's economics until the end of his political career. In 1926, the Labour-held seat of Smethwick fell vacant and Mosley returned to Parliament after winning the resulting by-election on 21 December.[citation needed]

Mosley and his wife Cynthia were ardent Fabian Socialists in the 1920s and 1930s. Mosley appears in a list of names of Fabians from Fabian News and Fabian Society Annual Report 1929–31. He was Kingsway Hall lecturer in 1924 and Livingstone Hall lecturer in 1931.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 10 - 08:15 AM

mosley HAD also BEEN a Conservative mp

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:16 AM

There does seem to be a great deal of hate and spiteful pontification from the left in these parts. I look forward to whatever cuts are deemed necessary - particularly in the area of benefits, which as we all know, revels in sloth.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:42 AM

Sometime last night Mr Cameron received a phone call inviting him to a meeting. Mr Clegg received a similar call but to an appointment at a different time and place.

Cameron was shown into a nondescript room where he was confronted by a panel of grey men in grey suits. They told him, in no uncertain terms, what was expected of him and what the penalties would be for defying them. He was told that he was to govern according to three principles:

- To ensure that the rich get richer

- to give the rich very assistance in achieving their goals (and don't give us any crap about the environment etc - it's there to be ruthlessly exploited!!)

- To take as much money as possible from the poor and give it to the rich

Now f**k off and tell the oiks that you're going to govern according to three principles: 'freedom', 'fairness' and 'responsibility' - or any other meaningless drivel you can dream up.

As he left one grey man turned to another and said, "don't worry, he's a good boy - he was my fag at Eton you know - he'll do as he's told".

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:58 AM

Hitler called his party National Socialists.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:13 PM

""I can't say I'm sorry to see 'New Labour' ousted. They did precious little to improve the crippled mess they inherited.""

In spite of Thatcher's eventual descent into megalomania, the situation at the election of 1997 was that New Labour inherited inflation at or slightly below 3 pecent, interest rates around 5 or 6 percent, a solid gold reserve backing up the economy, and a treasury well stocked with money.

I suspect that Cameron and Clegg would give their right arms to have inherited that kind of "crippled mess", but of course "Gordon the Prudent" frittered the cash away on failed "initiatives", sold the gold at the rock bottom of the market, raided our pensions (all of us, Tory, Libdem and Labour) to the tune of 5 billion pounds sterling, and removed the ten pence tax bracket.

Had he not done all of these things, we would have ridden out the recession without effort, and more importantly without 163 billion pounds of government debt.

It beggars belief that there are still voters supporting New Labour.

I sincerely hope that the new leadership will take stock, and recall that their party was based in the socialist ideal, and take it back to where it truly belongs.

The Con Lib coalition is not what is wrong here. It isn't ideal, but, until there is a genuinely socialist alternative, it will have to do.

IMHO the last genuinely socialist labour party was led by Clement Attlee.

Wilson was a conniving crook, and Callaghan an ineffectual fool.

Kinnock, though his heart was in the right place, would have been controlled by the unions (Quote from the time:- "One day the unions will say "Neil?", and you will").

Smith was the great loss for all of us. Had he lived, we would not have had the Blair/Brown pseudo Tories, and Britain would have been ten times better off.

I was seriously contemplating voting labour until he died and Tony B Liar swaggered in, looking more like Harry Enfield's "Loadsamoney" than a serious politician.

But we have what we have, and instead of ranting about it, we would be better employed helping it to succeed.

I for one will be constantly letting my MP know my opinion, if the government doesn't fulfil its promises. It's only a pinprick, but I can be monstrously irritating when I choose.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 May 10 - 07:28 PM

We never had Conservatives in Scotland. We had the Unionists (short for Liberal Unionists, founded by Joe Chamberlain in opposition to Gladstone's proposals for Irish Home Rule) who were abolished by the English Conservative Party.

As for the Labour Party, I always thought they were a right wing party.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 May 10 - 09:04 PM

I suppose given the morass we have here in the states, there's no reason to expect any more clarity with regard to what will happen in the UK. Good luck, gang!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 02:29 AM

I wonder how much money labour frittered away on PC, equality and diversity nonsence.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 10 - 03:45 AM

Bonzo, do you really have no idea of what life on benefits is like? Try asking some of the people here who do have to subsist on them. Or do you just not care? You appear to be an ignoramus.

Don, remember Thatcher's dole queues. The rabid bitch is back from the dead. We will all suffer to help the rich get richer. That the rich can and do do that is intolerable. That the rich can and will make fundamental changes to our constitution simply to make sure that they can continue to rule when they have lost the confidence of Parliament and the electorate is intolerable and indicative of a possible slide into total authoritarianism. They will not help you. They will not help those who need surgery get it. They will not help to rescue the less fortunate from the tearing teeth of the moneylenders.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 10 - 04:44 AM

"I wonder how much money labour frittered away on PC, equality and diversity nonsence (sic)."

I was unemployed in the 80's after leaving college, and it was a grim time indeed. You were treated like shit by a system designed to rob you of any dignity or self-esteem. On top of that there were another four million of you to boot. It was a terrible time of my life, and is one of the reasons I would never vote Tory for the rest of my life (and that was after being a party member a few years before).

Amongst the advances Labour made:

- The Northern Ireland Peace process which is one of the single most important achievements of any government since partition. The Tories were not fully behind this - they are The Conservative and Unionist Party after all.

- The revitalisation of the NHS which is now the world's best free public health care system. The Tories hate the NHS with a passion.

- The introduction of the minimum wage. Anyone who has had to work to in low-paid menial jobs to survive will understand the importance of not being ripped off by an unscrupulous employer.

- Free entry to museums and galleries. This provides free access to one of the most vital aspects of our lives: culture and knowledge. The Tories simply do not understand culture and society; they seem utterly incapable of comprehending how massively important it is that everyone regardless can see and learn from the assets we all own.

The first thing the Tories do when they get in? Fix the parliamentary voting system so that it effectively renders it impossible to carry a vote of no confidence, undermining one of the most fundamental cornerstones of our democracy.

New progressive politics? Fuck off. This leopard hasn't changed it spots.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:01 AM

Have to subsist on benefits?????

I have been made redundant twice, and each time I found work by my own determination by sending out in excess of 1000 letters. As a result of that, with the exception of possibly 3 weeks in 1993, I have always worked either in employment or as self employed.

My wife is well past female retirement age but still teaches and is available for acting assignments.

You and your type should rid yourself of all your hate and try having some fun for a change.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 14 May 10 - 07:41 AM

"but I can be monstrously irritating when I choose."

Haha.

But at least you do so in a meanigful way.

Keep it coming!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:50 AM

Gordon has a new job and seems pretty happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6X12cQ43T0&feature=related

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:52 AM

Our new PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmHt5UEL9sI&feature=related

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:59 AM

Richard, re. "We will all suffer to help the rich get richer"

It is said that inequality has increased under the last government, and social mobility has dereased.

If true, it is not as simple an equation as you imply.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 14 May 10 - 09:13 AM

Inequality has reached its highest point since the Second World War, the government's own panel on the subject has found.

The National Equality Panel report, commissioned by women's minister Harriet Harman, found inequality had reached its highest level since records began being taken by the government.

A comparison with measures based on tax records revealed the UK was experiencing the highest level of income inequality since "soon after the Second World War".

For all employees, real earnings remained mostly static between 2003 and 2008 at around 106% of 1999 levels, but the real earnings of the CEOs of the top 100 companies more than doubled between 1999 and 2007, reaching £2.4 million.

The report shows the UK now how the seventh worst level of inequality in the OECD, ahead of only Mexico, Turkey, Portugal the United States, Poland and Italy.

"It is truly shocking that after 13 years of a Labour government, inequality has grown to the highest levels seen since the Second World War," said shadow women's minister Theresa May.


"It is unbelievable that Labour thinks it can claim to be the party of aspiration when its failure to tackle the causes of poverty have let down so many lives."

Social mobility rates remain stubbornly low. The report found no evidence that rates relative occupational mobility have changed at all since the early 1970s
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/equality/inequality-at-highest-level-since-ww2-$1356030.htm

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:15 AM

Headline in the Metro today

"Coalition on the ropes one day on"

You could have predicted it (the headline, less so the situation).

So! !t is in the comics. So! It must be true.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:36 AM

Interesting that only 2 or 3 of you are moaning about it - not a very high number is it? I would say that the average number of vehicles owned by builders/electricians/plumbers/roofers etc in our area is 3 - 4, compared to we professionals where it is 1 - 2

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:39 AM

"We professionals"?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:44 AM

My father was a professional shoemaker.