Premier David Cameron

Subject: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:52 AM

The right person for the job.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:54 AM

We celebrate at the Duke of Essex Polo Trophy on June 17!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:59 AM

I'll betcha this is a non-music thread...

---

Click for the news. So, what will we Americans think of this fellow? Will we like him as much as we liked Tony Blair, or as little as the British liked Tony Blair?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:59 AM

The voters, minds poisoned by the Marxist Press, couldn't bring themselves to elect a Tory majority and a party closer in policy and history to Labour is getting into bed with the posh children of Thatcher. Never a dull moment.

L in C#

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:33 AM

People obviously prefer to be screwed by the party they voted for, than the one they voted against!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:37 AM

Prime Minister of the Condem-ed - some achievement! LOL!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Mick Tems
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:58 AM

The Marxist Press? It was the might of the Tory Press, led by "Dirty Digger" Rupert Murdoch, with their out-and-out lies and disinformation, who poisoned the voters' minds and got Cameron into No. 10. Murdoch owns 45 per cent of the British Media, plus other concerns in America (Fox News) and Australia. I am a life member of the National Union of Journalists, who have been fighting the greedy Press barons for a Fair Press and against the savage cuts and cruel redundancies which destroy fair reporting.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:02 AM

Is this about football? The last I heard is that David Cameron was the new Prime Minister. Isn't the premiership something to do with 22 men and a bag of wind? Or is that the cabinet?

Is there such a position as Premier in Britain?

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:11 AM

So, "David Cameron" is being premiered. Will it win any Oscars, or even BAFTAs?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:15 AM

Joe - Not sure if ANYONE will like him -he's BLAND. See his photo.
He hasn't got the smug arrogance that Blair had and he doesn't have the personality that Obama radiates. His public persona since he arrived in the public eye has been "What do you want to hear? That's what I'm going to say!". I'm not sure we have ever heard what HE Himself actually thinks or if he knows himself.
He rode a bicycle to the House of Commons saying it was more "green", but his briefcase followed him in a big black limo, so what was the point of that?
He smiles a lot and says things in a smiley way. He doesn't have that "tub-thumping passion" that allows you to either love or hate the character. He's a a bit like "Norm from Cheers" - You know he's there, but aren't quite sure what he does.
His party scored just over a third of votes cast which means that two thirds of people who voted didn't want them, and if you take into account the people who didn't vote, it is probably only around a fifth of the UK who wanted Tories in power. That said, they didn't go for any of the other either, which is why we are in the current position.
I think most of us are just fed up with politicians in general.
I suspect that in the long term we will only be able to judge him by the scale of the damage he does.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:50 AM

GtD - you got him in a nutshell. Quacking summary.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:58 AM

I heard that the best Miliband was the Steve Miller Band!!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Penny S.
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:03 AM

There was a piece by Charlie Brooker in the guardian which summed him up. A friend and I have the urge to listen to the Kinks singing "Plastic Man" when his name surfaces.

We shall see. Brooker suggested that he was some sort of android, waiting to implement phase 2.

Penny

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: alanabit
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:37 AM

Largely due to the fact that nobody wants an election in the near future, it is quite possible that Cameron will lead the government sensibly and strive for some kind of concensus. Any party, which takes the British public back to the polls before they are ready, is likely to pay a heavy price. Labour got a good hiding at the polls, but the Conservatives are definitely not popular either. In effect, any governing party would be on probation at the moment as there is no ringing endorsement for anyone. I have - I confess - an almost tribal and pathological loathing of the Tories. However, their main objective is to stay in power. They can only achieve that by addressing the nation as a whole rather than their own lunatic fringes. All is not lost.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:08 AM

Dr Price - spot on.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:26 AM

On the BBC this morning it said that the Tories were going to introduce legislation to guarantee that the government would last a full five years. In other words Parliament would not be able to pass a vote of no confidence in the government and Liberal MPs were voting to prop up the government whatever legislation they introduce. So whatever the Tories do the Liberals have committed all their MPs not to vote against them. This is democracy?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Stu
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:27 AM

Next election - May 2015.

Five years for the house of cards to come tumbling down.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:34 AM

As Dr Price said , 'The Media' decided over a year ago that New Labour were NOT being elected again , and there has been a constant stream of Spin against , particularly , Gordon Brown .
Despite ALL Murdochs efforts , The Consrvative party did NOT get a true majority !

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:39 AM

"On the BBC this morning it said that the Tories were going to introduce legislation to guarantee that the government would last a full five years. In other words Parliament would not be able to pass a vote of no confidence in the government and Liberal MPs were voting to prop up the government whatever legislation they introduce. So whatever the Tories do the Liberals have committed all their MPs not to vote against them. This is democracy?"

What it means is that the LibDems can vote whichever way they want because the Tories won't be able to blackmail them with the treat of another election. The existing MPs would have to work together to produce a consensus as they won't be able to absolve themselves of responsibility. It seems to work in most of the rest of the world, and I don't really believe that British politicians are any less able and intelligent than their counterparts in the Bundestag etc.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:42 AM

Here he is!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:43 AM

Oh dear you sad people, have you no work to get on with?? My client is at the door, must go.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:45 AM

Imagine the implications if the Queen's Speech and/or Finance Bill fail to be passed through parliament - we could have a government that could, in theory,be unable to implement the budget, but still remain in place. The damage that would cause doesn't bear thinking about.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:48 AM

Bit early in the day for a 'massage'.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:53 AM

we could have a government that could, in theory,be unable to implement the budget, but still remain in place.

Not so. The Prime Minister would cease to be Prime Minister, and if no one else could cobble up a majority in parliament, there'd be a fresh general election.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:05 AM

"On the BBC this morning it said that the Tories were going to introduce legislation to guarantee that the government would last a full five years".
I think that is rather exaggerating the effect of fixed-term parliaments. Of course there are circumstances in which governments can be removed.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:15 AM

The local Lib Dem candidate's main selling point was that voting for him was the only way to get the sitting Tory MP out. He was right and he won. That means a lot of people who chose the best anti-Tory vote now find they have helped put Cameron in as PM. That's probably true in a lot of contituencies. It's not a trick they will ever be able to pull again.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:28 AM

The local Lib Dem candidate's main selling point was that voting for him was the only way to get the sitting Tory MP out.

Tactical voting like that wouldn't apply if there's a change to an Alternative Vote system. You could cheerfully give your first choice to whomever you actually liked best. And your second and third etc as well.

Not exactly rocket science...

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Stu
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:30 AM

Oh Jesus.

I just listened to John Redwood on the Jeremy Vine show, and I'm in a state of retro-depression. Retro because the ultimate thin-lipped Saxon lickspittle is back after a conspicuous absence of some years having crawled out from whatever slimy clast he's been secreted under and started spouting the same old shit he spouted in the 80's and 90's.

Depression because of the language he used: "enterprise economy", "tax breaks for rich entrepreneurs (capital gains tax breaks for crying out loud)", "public service cuts (writ large)". Just like the bad old days of Thatcherite economics and the destruction of what society we've rebuilt since the last Tory government.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:40 AM

Yes - with the exception of Cameron its the old guard back in powre - hague - letwin - even Ken Clarke!! - oh no there is one exciting new face ... George Osborne ... (gag) ...

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:42 AM

McGrath of Harlow

Tactical voting like that wouldn't apply if there's a change to an Alternative Vote system.

Quite agree. My point was that the Lib Dems owed a great deal of their success to tactical voting; people weren't voting FOR them but AGAINST somebody else and where that vote was against the Tories, they won't be forgiven.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:01 AM

So, who has the figures for those who voted LibDem to keep the Tories out versus the ones who voted LibDem to keep Labour out? Because if one exceeded the other, then whether they have done themselves a favour or a dis-service all depends which was the highest.

As they said in Monty Pyton's. This sketch is getting silly...

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Arnie
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:17 AM

Brown lost Labour this election. The Labour 'big guns' should have had the balls to get rid of him last year or even earlier. He's never shown himself to be PM material - he's purely and simply a bean-counter. Always has been, always will be- should've stayed at the Treasury. And the Duffy affair showed him up to be a hypocrite as well. My local labour MP managed to buy himself 2 flats in London at taxypayer-expense. With him and Brown together, no way could I bring myself to vote Labour this time around. The result shows that I was not alone.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:28 AM

I challenge anyone to watch Gordon Brown's farewell speech followed by Cameron's speech on returning from the Palace and then tell me that they think Cameron is the better man.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Rog Peek
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:31 AM

If they brought back Spitting Image, I guess George Osborne would take John Major's place as the "Grey Man".

Any other ideas for characters from the new cabinet?

Rog

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:01 AM

They did away with Spitting Image when politicians became too bland. Things have got no better since...

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:11 AM

Thatcher may not still be in the cabinet ...

... but her skeleton is coming out of the closet!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:12 AM

I challenge anyone to watch Gordon Brown's farewell speech followed by Cameron's speech on returning from the Palace and then tell me that they think Cameron is the better man.

I did and I do.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:23 AM

I sometimes think I'm the only person in the country that actually liked Gordon Brown, or is it just the "Daily Mail" telling me that? I wouldn't personally buy a used car from David Cameron.

William Hague would be the "wide mouthed frog" as in the joke on "Spitting Image".

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:24 AM

... oh and in the tradition of his donning a baseball cap, are we going to see William Hague with the crotch of his trousers round his knees and his underpants showing?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: MikeL2
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:45 AM

Hi acorn.

No you are not alone. My wife, is a long-time tory - but she actually likes and respects Gordon Brown. At the same time she sees David Cameron as a pompous strutting pillock.

We have been married for 30 years and she is NEVER wrong......lol

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:54 AM

....Lib Dems owed a great deal of their success to tactical voting; people weren't voting FOR them but AGAINST somebody else and where that vote was against the Tories, they won't be forgiven.

Absolutely!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:57 AM

And now the APPALLING TREASURY DEFICIT left by Labour has to be dealt with by this government - which they will no doubt do.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:05 AM

And five years from now the next Labour government will have to deal with the consequences of the cuts in schools, hospitals, Sure Start nurseries, tax credits and public services that the public schoolboys are going to carry out.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:07 AM

Appalling treasury deficit left by Tory Bankers Gambling away the World Economy...
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:11 AM

So what did the Lib Dems get for forming a coalition with the Tories? I thought Labor had made them a better offer.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:33 AM

What about all those people who voted Labour to keep the Tories out. A lot of posters make the assumption that Britain is a two-party state, and this is how things have been, should be, and ever more shall be, sir.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: pdq
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:48 AM

"Appalling treasury deficit left by Tory Bankers Gambling away the World Economy..."

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.

One size scapegoat fits all.

All this negativism insures that absolutely nothing will get fixed in the foreseable future.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:41 AM

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

I blame Bloody Thatcher - for everything.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:58 AM

So do I - hideous woman!

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

>>So what did the Lib Dems get for forming a coalition with the Tories?<<

Too much

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.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:52 AM

Cobblers.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:58 AM

so you have have never claimed MIRAS

Whatever made you think of this which was withdrawn with effect from 6 April 2000 - absolutely nothing to do with David Cameron???

For those who do not know, The MIRAS (mortgage interest relief at source) scheme enabled borrowers to get tax relief on mortgage interest at the time the interest was paid. It was phased out by the end of the 1990s.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:21 PM

Onl if you include my Grandfather.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 14 May 10 - 12:22 PM

The shite is about to hit the fan big time.

We are told that we have to make cuts because "the markets" are demanding it. Does the government represent the people or the markets?

Gordon Brown's plan to secure recovery before payback helped meant that people started to forget that the bankers got us in this mess.

People are now going to start remembering that again now!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 14 May 10 - 01:51 PM

No, only you. Everybody else is having fun.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 10 - 02:36 PM

The fun is going to be pretty short-lived.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:06 PM

Aston Villa have announced on their website that David is a Villa supporter and thats good enough for me.
Good on yer David

http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/MediaWatchDetail/0,,10265~2052652,00.html

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:34 PM

Please refrain from personal attacks or name-calling directed at your fellow Mudcatters. I have to remove a number of posts from Silas and the Leveller.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: GUEST,The Smiler
Date: 14 May 10 - 05:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0OO4ylOnZ8&feature=related

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 May 10 - 08:49 PM

""Don, remember Thatcher's dole queues. The rabid bitch is back from the dead. We will all suffer to help the rich get richer.""


Try adding some qualifier such as in my opinion when you are professing to be both mind reader and clairvoyant Richard.

You have no more knowledge of what will happen than I do, and you certainly cannot advance any vestige of evidence for your assertions about Cameron's intentions.

It is frightening to think that you might one day be representing a client, and find out that he is a Tory. With the hard wired hatred you exhibit toward us, I wouldn't give a penny for his chances.

Time will tell which of us is right, but I will make one confident prediction right now. If Cameron proves you wrong, and turns out to be a good Prime Minister, instead of being relieved you will be ROYALLY pissed off!

BTW, in my opinion, Gordon Brown, in his raids on our pensions, reckless frittering away of our treasury, and our gold, and his failure to rein in the banks, is much more deserving than Cameron of the title "Spawn of Thatcher".

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:17 AM

Well said Don. Something that must and I'm sure will be done is raising the incentive to work for benefit claimants in order to help eliminate the "state owes me" syndrome. Perhaps Child Tax Credits should be limited to the first three children only for instance - not unreasonable.

HM Revenue & Customs also need to get their act in order - they are a shambles, with Companies House a close second. I have filed accounts within the last month which I have since discovered do not fully comply with Companies Act requirements, but they were not rejected!!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 04:35 AM

OK Joe, though having posts deleted on mudcat can be something of a 'badge of honour', I will endeavour to bite my tongue when the loonies and trolls are on a wind up mission.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:22 AM

It doesn't help us loonies and trolls to find out what your point of view is, if we don't get to see your posts though.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 05:47 AM

Hey Don!

I disagree with most of what you write, but you do at least express yourself properly (no matter how wrong you are ;-)) I would never consider you a loony or a troll.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: mandotim
Date: 15 May 10 - 06:04 AM

Hey Bozo; ever read 'The Bonfire of the Vanities?'

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:45 AM

I find the problem is that no one really knows what David Cameron believes in if anything, and hence it tends to make one fear the worst. Robert Peel and Disraeli both took the Conservative party in new directions, and he'd need to do something special to make a mark.

With the election of a new labour leader, there will probably be a media friendly "pretty boy" in charge of each of the parties, which would all cancel each other out.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 15 May 10 - 07:58 AM

Don,

I would like to feel confident about Cameron.

I am encouraged by his apparent willingness to negotiate and compromise for the good of the country.

I would feel more so if his Cabinet reflected a new outlook, but with Clarke, Hague, Duncan-Smith and Letwin in there I can't help but wonder if the very vague Cameron is much more than the charismatic mask of the Thatcherite old guard.

As you say though, time will reveal all.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 15 May 10 - 10:12 AM

Within 50 days there will be an emergency budget, and at this pint we will see where the £6Billion in cuts will be wielded.

There are some positives from the coalition - the new £10K tax band, but this will be little help to those who work part-time and are already earning below the tax threshold.

For example carers.

What will be the impact on the voluntary and charity sector? How many charities that help those most disadvantaged will go to the wall?

What will be the impact upon tax credits?

I am glad that raising the inheritance tax threshold has been scrapped. Would someone only getting £730,000 out of a million pound inhertiance really be thrown into poverty.

To be honest, what proportion of inheritances come anywhere close to that?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:33 AM

What will be the impact upon tax credits?

As the system is in such a complete shambles - ever tried speaking to folks in that department? We had a client who had been overpaid in excess of £4k for whom we were desperately trying arrange a repayment set off against current year credits - oh no, we can't do that sir, we were told, a separate assessment must be ishyooed - that was November 2009 and we are still waiting for it.

As I said earlier, it should be limited to say children with a far lower salary ceiling.

I suggest the following VAT increases

leave standard rate at 17.5%
new 25% rate on alchohol and tobacco products - hits accross the board
5% rate on dental charges - hits accross the board

problem solved??

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 10 - 11:48 AM

The tax credits argument has rather been done to death.

Although, of course, things have taken a different turn with the coalition, this particular media red rag wasn't anything like as bad as it sounded.

Cameron initially said that this particular benefit woud be cut for families earning over £50,000 per annum, and that would seem sensible, as anyone on that level of income or more should not be thrown into poverty by it.

I can't help but agree that there are areas of benefits which might usefully be restricted to those in most need.

The New Labour concept that if anybody gets it, all should get it, regardless of financial status, seems to me a complete nonsense.

It must make better sense to help only those who need help, and if that is the basis upon which the decision is made, those most in need would receive a larger portion of the available pot.

That alone would start to reverse the gap (steadily widening under Blair/Brown) between haves and have nots.

Incidentally, I am one of those who won't receive any beneficial effects from the £10,000 personal allowance, and neither will my wife.

Our incomes aren't high enough, but hell, those are the breaks, and I'm not inclined to cry about it. I am altruistic enough to take comfort in the fact that for a lot of low earners it will be a lifeline.

I'm just grateful that I don't face the incompetence and dishonesty of another five years of Gordon Brown.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:53 PM

True enough that on £50,000 and above you should be able to get along without child tax credits - but rather than have poor people have to fill in forms to get it, which would inevitably mean some didn't get it, I think it's better to pay them universally, and have people above the limit pay it back.

Again it ought to be possible to work out a method to ensure that people earning more than £1000 didn't benefit from a tax change supposedly designed to help people below that level.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:57 PM

£1000?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Silas
Date: 15 May 10 - 01:00 PM

"We professionals"?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:21 PM

£10,000 - amazing the difference a nought makes...

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 10 - 02:52 PM

Mind, I can remember when £1000 a year was pretty good money.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:42 AM

I'm not clear how this £10,000 "tax free" band will work. Will the personal allowance be raised to £10k or will it be a mixture of increased personal allowance and nil rate tax band?

I'm not convinced that doubling Capital Gains will achieve much, people will simply not sell their assets surely?

I think a super tax on higher sports income would be welcome, and a wealth tax on overseas property.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:45 AM

I think for 2011 they are going to increse the tax allowance by £1000. If that is correct, seems like it will be phased in over time.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 05:48 AM

That is to say a wealth tax on overseas property owned by folks ordinarily resident in the UK for tax purposes - another can of worms all together.

You will have noticed that when leaving the UK, your passport is scanned and upon your return it is scanned again. There is more to that than meets the eye more than terrorism prevention - it's HM Revenue & Customs after all and departments are beginning to talk to one another - perish the thought - whereas Spain just waves you through!!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 16 May 10 - 02:11 PM

Remember as well that apart from introducing the internal market into the health service under thatcher, Kenneth Clarke was Also Chancellor of the exchequer when John Majors Government was being accused of 'sleaze'.

Blairs administration allegedly replaced Majors dishonest sleazy one.

And now the sleazy chancellor is back as justice secretary as we kick out the dishonest Brown ...

... I don't see a new era of honesty here, the idea that this is a new era is in itself dishonest.

So criticize Brown for whatever reason you like, but don't delude yourself into believing that Browns departure spells an end to government dishonesty. It is in fact a mix of sleazy devils we know and a charismatic devil we don't know.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 May 10 - 04:15 PM

But then my glass is one and a half times full! Name one country in the world where sleaze in some form does not exist in their government.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 May 10 - 04:25 AM

Introducing means tested benefits increases unnecessary administration. It makes more sense to pay benefits universally and make them taxable - there is already a sophisticated bureaucracy there to do those assessments.

To reduce the brain drain out of HMRC (gamekeepers) to "tax advisers" (poachers) HMRC employees should be subject to restrictive covenants that increased in length automatically with pay grade.

There should be an effective benefits advisory service to ensure that those in need of benefits get the most effective benefits - I know some who really suffer but I don't know enough to be able to help them, so how someone with suicidal depression or limited understanding (etc) is supposed to master the huge volume of regulations that governs the benefits system (and indeed constantly changing regulations) is quite baffling.    I know one person who attempted suicide while receiving working tax credit, but was obviously therefore unable to apply for the optimum replacement benefit - yet no-one in the benefits system took any steps to note the availability of a more approproate benefit so now the recipient is being pestered by bailiffs for repayment of the tax credit yet told that because of the delay no substitute benefit is available. Great cure for suicidal depression, that and the absence of any follow-up counselling.

I know another person who has been screwed out of many thousands of pounds in overpaid tax, and is trying to start a business, but while entitled to working tax credit is getting the total runaround from housing benefits people.

Then there is the spiteful restriction of housing benefit to 85% of the interest on one's mortgage. That was pure Thatcher - it got her target, welfare recipients with large mortgages, but it got the rest of them as well. Well, what's a little collateral damage, they were only poor people weren't they?

So far I can see two good things probably coming out of the Con-Dims - we will not get identity cards, and HIPS will be scrapped. The rest is going to be a nightmare, except for the few at the top of the pecking order.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:33 AM

That won't bother the working-class-tory types. They enjoy the feeling of superiority that being buggered by the Real Toffs gives them.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 May 10 - 09:58 AM

That won't bother the working-class-tory types. They enjoy the feeling of superiority that being buggered by the Real Toffs gives them.

A worthless post, full of hate as usual!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:01 AM

I'm realy worried now. Just worked out the anagram of "David Cameron / Nick Clegg" and got "A Cracked Con Giving Meld".

Very prophetic I expect...

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:27 AM

"A worthless post, full of hate as usual"

Not at all Bozo, I hate no one. But I am full of astonishment that there are those who are so bewitched as to keep waving the flag and voting for a party who cares so little for them. I can only put it down to a strange, vicarious feeling of well-being that they get from the notion that, by voting for the party of the upper-class they achieve a kinship with that class. Either that or they really to like it up 'em! :-)

Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:33 AM

And I am hacked off that, having voted Lib-Dem in an effort to rid our constituency of our long-sitting, and completely useless, Tory -one-time-Thatcher-Toyboy MP, the buggers have jumped in to bed with the Tories - so I got exactly what I voted against - I might as well have voted bloody Labour.

After a lifetime of voting Liberal and Lib-Dem, pretty much exclusively, this was the last time.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:39 AM

""Not at all Bozo, I hate no one. But I am full of astonishment that there are those who are so bewitched as to keep waving the flag and voting for a party who cares so little for them. I can only put it down to a strange, vicarious feeling of well-being that they get from the notion that, by voting for the party of the upper-class they achieve a kinship with that class. Either that or they really to like it up 'em! :-)""

Same old tired rhetoric.

And I suppose you think that New Labour cared for the working class?

My pension at one third of what it should be says different.

Say what you like about the Tories, they never got round to stealing pension money.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:51 AM

Never voted Labour in my life Don. (See above).

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:53 AM

BTW, how did they steal your pension money?

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:05 PM

Apparently, oil had just been discovered off the Falklands - I have a shrewd feeling where this might be going!

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 May 10 - 02:56 PM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:40 PM

Try to catch up BW. Gordon Brown's five billion pound raid on the pension funds is very old, but well documented, news.

It affected everybody with a company pension, but, as should be obvious, it hurt those of us on low incomes most of all.

It reduced my income to the point that I haven't had any kind of holiday since 2006, and when my car needed repairs last September, it ended up in my garage U/S for over seven months. It would have been much longer if I hadn't rceived a small legacy.

As to your not voting New Labour, I assume that means you voted liberal, which hasn't meant anything at all except a hung parliament.

Thank God two party leaders had the sense to start talking to their political opponents, or we'd be facing five years of no improvement, along with total loss of credibility as one of the World's foremost financial markets. And that, my friend, is a bloody big slice off our GDP.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 May 10 - 06:54 PM

If you want a way of increasing revenue, how about giving motorists a break, and sticking a good solid windfall tax on gambling (on and offline).

For donkeys years we have given a loophole to winners by allowing them to prepay a small sum on the bet, so that they avoid all tax on the winnings.

Virtually all other unearned income attracts considerable tax, but win 84 million on the Euromillions lottery, as a UK citizen did this week, and you pay tax only on the interest that money accrues when you invest or bank it.

Casinos have been springing up like mushrooms under the laisser faire oversight of the unlamented Brown government, so the volume of tax revenue there for the taking must be immense.

Time they paid their way.

I believe that the United States IRS tax even winners of cars and furniture, based on the market value.

Seems pretty fair to me. Others' mileage may differ, especially if they like a flutter, something that many of us can't afford.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 May 10 - 07:45 PM

Er - who abolished the Graduated National Pension, introduced by Barbara Castle (Labour)?

I'll give you a clue. Her surname began with "T".

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 05:02 AM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Not according to your high-priestess, Bonzo!

For donkeys years we have given a loophole to winners by allowing them to prepay a small sum on the bet, so that they avoid all tax on the winnings.

Not true, Don. You did not pay a tax on the bet. You increased the bet by the amount of the tax. Without paying it, if you had a £1 bet and it came in at 100 to one you won £100 and paid, if tax was 10% for the sake of ease, £10 tax giving you winnings of £90.

What you did by paying it on the bet, was increase your winnings to cover the tax so if you bet £1.00 and paid 10% tax - Ie a £1.10 bet - you won £110 and the extra £10 weant to the taxman. No tax was avoided as the bookie gave your extra £10 to the taxman.

(It was actualy 6.75% paid by the bookmakers passed on as a 9% charge to the punters. But 10% is easier to work with :-) )

However - It is no longer so. There is no tax on winnings at all but bookmakers are still taxed on gross profits. The measure was introduced by the, then, chancellor, Gordon Brown in a well received change to bring offshore betting operations back to the UK.

I'm no gambler, BTW, but I know about this because I helped set up, and bring back, offshore computer systems on the Isle of Man and Antigua for a big bookmakers organisation. Funny it only took 3 days to sort the IOM one out and 2 weeks in Antigua...

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 05:21 AM

BTW - The way it actualy worked did give the the taxman revenue on bets as well as wins - If your £1.10 bet lost, the 10p still went to the taxman so it was not so much a winnings tax as a betting tax.

Or, seeing as it is easy enough to show in this case - You put £1.09 on. 6.75p went to the taxman. The extra 2.25p went to the bookies profits on which they were taxed as well.

D.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 10 - 07:34 AM

betting tax should be introduced,there is no betting tax in ireland.
i believe this is because people can bet online without paying tax.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 May 10 - 08:20 AM

The changes on regulation of lotteries were almost wholly wrong, but were driven by the controllers of the mass communication media, as you can see by looking at the huge number of what would have been unlawful lotteries between television programmes. Gambling is a habit without virtue but fraught with many dangers, and largely controlled by the unscrupulous.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 May 10 - 08:23 AM

Las Malvinas belong to Argentina.

Not according to your high-priestess, Bonzo!

You mean thatcher??? On the very ground she walks on, may the grass refuse to grow - I despise the woman.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 10 - 09:11 AM

Blimey! A true blue who does not worship the thatch! There's a turn up for the books. Maybe by the same token you could accept that there are some socialists who do not believe in the church of St Tony?

D.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 18 May 10 - 12:07 PM

What did St Tony have to do with socialism? Wasn't that the heyday of the English Socialite Party (with apologies to Eric Blair (no relation)).

"If you think this country's bad off now,
Just wait till I gert through with it.
The country's taxes must be fixed,
And I know what to do with it.
If you think you're paying too much now,
Just wait till I get through with it!"

Rufus T Firefly aka ........

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Acorn4
Date: 18 May 10 - 01:00 PM

Read yesterday that the new government has scrapped all new schemes with the word "awareness" in them.

That's not a bad start actually! - it's avoiding cuts that hit the most vulnerable - this surgeon's knife will need to be wielded with a great deal of sensitivity and precision, and it's just a question if Cam and Co are able to do this!

Not just someone in an office making decisions with banks of figures, with no idea of the repercussions on real people.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:34 AM

""Not true, Don. You did not pay a tax on the bet. You increased the bet by the amount of the tax. Without paying it, if you had a £1 bet and it came in at 100 to one you won £100 and paid, if tax was 10% for the sake of ease, £10 tax giving you winnings of £90.

What you did by paying it on the bet, was increase your winnings to cover the tax so if you bet £1.00 and paid 10% tax - Ie a £1.10 bet - you won £110 and the extra £10 weant to the taxman. No tax was avoided as the bookie gave your extra £10 to the taxman.""

Since my reason for posting was to point up the fact that gambling winners pay no tax on this unearned income, my original statement was valid as far as the above is concerned.

In your own example, your winner paid 10p extra on the bet to avoid £10 on the winnings. The fact that the tax was paid to the government is neither here nor there. The punter paid 10p.

Other forms of gambling attract no tax whatever. We have three lotteries every Saturday, one on Wednesday, a new one on Friday, and countless scratch cards and accessible foreign lotteries.

I have a feeling that petrol could be a damn sight cheaper if tax were levied on winnings at unearned income rates. And seeing that it was announced yesterday that UK inflation had jumped fom a negative amount to 3.4% in a couple of months, largely due to soaring petrol and diesel prices, it may be a necessity.

Perhaps one of our US friends could tell us what the IRS takes out of gambling winnings over there.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:56 AM

In your own example, your winner paid 10p extra on the bet to avoid £10 on the winnings. The fact that the tax was paid to the government is neither here nor there. The punter paid 10p.

Not really, Don. I probably didn't explain it too well. The punter did actualy won £110 and only received £100 of it. The extra £10 went in tax to the government. Regardless of who actualy did the paying the punter got less than the full amount in the long run. If he had NOT have won the 10p would have still gone to the government. Anyhow - all academic anyway as there is currently no tax on gambling!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 10 - 06:14 PM

""Anyhow - all academic anyway as there is currently no tax on gambling!""

The subject of my complaint!

And I should have thought that all those who have other sources of unearned income would be aggrieved at that situation.

Motorists paying nearly 70% of the price of a gallon of fuel in tax should be pretty PO'd as well.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 10 - 06:36 AM

Trouble is that most people who drive do actualy have to, so the tax is guaranteed. Unless you have an addiction problem, no-one actualy has to gamble so, if you tax it, people may cut down. Which in turn will reduce bookies profits which in turn will reduce corporation tax. I know it is unlikely as tax increases in alcohol and tobacco sem to have little effect on consumption but you never know!

I think they need a tax that will ensure an increased revenue for the government so they will look first at necessities - Fuel, Heating, Power etc. The talked about hike in VAT seems most likely. The other option, which would raise a good bit of revenue from everyone, is a tax on air. Works for me. As an asthmatic I use less, but I had better not mention that just in case... :-)

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 May 10 - 10:21 AM

Read yesterday that the new government has scrapped all new schemes with the word "awareness" in them

With time all PC orientated utterances will hopefully be scrapped.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: Lox
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:02 PM

Hey Bonzo - Maybe you could own slaves.

Subject: RE: Premier David Cameron
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 10 - 02:16 PM

"Unless you have an addiction problem, no-one actualy has to gamble"

EVERYONE who gambles, has an addiction problem.