-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oppinion of David Cameron
- Thread starter Antibush5
- Start date
I would like to know the same thing.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Personally, I like David Cameron. He was a bloody good debater in Commons when he lead the opposition, and he is a fine damn orator on the government-side. While I disagree with his plans of immediate deficit reduction, I do admire his fortitude and resolve (which by default, falls to George Osborne, as well). I also think highly of the fact that he is trying to be a progressive conservative; that is an oxymoron, so perhaps liberal conservative is a tad bit better a label. Now, I am well aware the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that the Conservative's policies will fall hardest upon the poor. I am not disputing that. However, can anybody honestly say that the Conservative party hasn't come a long-way since the days of Margaret Thatcher? At least David Cameron is making some attempt to safeguard the poor. And, frankly, the Conservative party is more left than my Democratic party, so it is hard for me to be outraged at conservative policies as much when my country is so much further right-wing than any Conservative could possibly pull Britain.
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
From a person who's signature is a snippet of The Red Flag. Good Lord.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
As I post this, I am listening to a rendition of the Red Flag; a bloody beautiful and moving song, and one of my all time favourites. It stirs the moral socialist pride in me. I prefer to adhere to the democratic revisionist strain of post-Marxists socialist thought, as opposed to the revolutionary revisionist path. Thus, I find outright class-warfare to be destructive, immoral and ultimately counterproductive. I'd like to think that I can like the man, David Cameron, without supporting all of his policies, and I would be more than proud to sit down with him to tea, if the opportunity ever presented itself.
Smoke
Done here.
I do think it would be a mistake for Britain to set fixed parliamentary terms. One of the advantages of parliamentary democracy is that you have a handy mechanism for throwing the bums out. Under our system the only way to throw a president out is by impeachment. Only two US presidents have ever been impeached, and neither was convicted.
I can see why the politicians would prefer to have fixed terms, but I can't see why the rest of you would fall for it.
I can see why the politicians would prefer to have fixed terms, but I can't see why the rest of you would fall for it.
Darkness
Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am a great admirer of the British political system. I find the idea that the party which controls the executive, but not necessarily the legislative is a recipe for inefficiency.
Pithyoneliner
Member
The thread rather misses the point of fixed terms, it is no coicidence that these are being touted at a time when we have a coalition government and some extremely unpleasant policies to be implemented. The reason the coalition wants fixed terms is because it cements the 'marraige' for five years at least. For the conservatives fixed terms and the 55% we reduce the risk of backbench revolts (lib or con) - a small number of backbenchers will find it much harder to 'cross the house' and bring the Government down.
From the Liberal (my) perspective - Cameron would obviously prefer to have a Tory majority, without the 55% majority the Tories could call an election at any time they are riding high in the polls (as they are right now) to shaft the Libs, before implementing Lib policies (i.e. AV). With the 55% majority he cannot.
And in further defence of the coalition, it should also be mentioned that in the 'right of repeal' they are introducing, democratic accountability is significantly increased -any MP can now be fired by his constituents, surely a good thing.
I echo the Darkness' view, although I am not a Tory he seems a decent well meaning man, and what is more, statesman like and diplomatic. I am not ashamed to see him representing us abroad (unlike the Brown years). I was impressed that the first foreign alliance Cameron seems to have cultivated was... France! Not normally the first port of call for a Tory, or even a Brit!
From the Liberal (my) perspective - Cameron would obviously prefer to have a Tory majority, without the 55% majority the Tories could call an election at any time they are riding high in the polls (as they are right now) to shaft the Libs, before implementing Lib policies (i.e. AV). With the 55% majority he cannot.
And in further defence of the coalition, it should also be mentioned that in the 'right of repeal' they are introducing, democratic accountability is significantly increased -any MP can now be fired by his constituents, surely a good thing.
I echo the Darkness' view, although I am not a Tory he seems a decent well meaning man, and what is more, statesman like and diplomatic. I am not ashamed to see him representing us abroad (unlike the Brown years). I was impressed that the first foreign alliance Cameron seems to have cultivated was... France! Not normally the first port of call for a Tory, or even a Brit!
Internecivus Raptus
Xenomorph
I like what he had to say in Turkey about the whole Gaza flotilla fiasco. Apparently he isn't going to be kissing Israel's a**. The US does enough of that.
Smoke
Done here.
I understand that, but I think it would be a big mistake for the U.K. to toss away their parliamentary system to suit the convenience of the majority stakeholder in a coalition government.
Reminds my of one of my favorite exchanges from "Yes, Prime Minister":
Hacker: Well anyway, why are we bugging Hugh Halifax? Is he talking to the Russians?
Sir Humphrey: No, the French, actually. That's much more serious.
Hacker: Why?
Bernard: Well, the Russians already know what we're doing.
Hacker: But the French are our trusted allies, whatever you think of them -- and who doesn't?
Sir Humphrey: No, Prime Minister. Actually the French are our mistrusted allies.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am not sure any one here has understood Fixed term parliaments and the 55% rule.
The Parliament will continue for a fixed term even if the government falls.
The Government and Parliament are different animals...
A government controls parliament by having a majority.
If it loses that majority It fails.
Parliament is then free to chose a new government under a different prime minister for the rest of the fixed term.
If it fails to do so, The government can still ask the queen to dissolve Parliament and call another election. ( so the fixed term is not absolute.)
If a government falls by less than 55% it my struggle on,(If no other government can be formed) on a day by day basis relying on a consensus for individual issues.
The major change is that the Government can not simply ask the Queen to dissolve parliament at a time that suits itself.
The Parliament will continue for a fixed term even if the government falls.
The Government and Parliament are different animals...
A government controls parliament by having a majority.
If it loses that majority It fails.
Parliament is then free to chose a new government under a different prime minister for the rest of the fixed term.
If it fails to do so, The government can still ask the queen to dissolve Parliament and call another election. ( so the fixed term is not absolute.)
If a government falls by less than 55% it my struggle on,(If no other government can be formed) on a day by day basis relying on a consensus for individual issues.
The major change is that the Government can not simply ask the Queen to dissolve parliament at a time that suits itself.
Yerda
Veteran Member
If you like....
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I cannot abide the Conservative party. Any leader of that party is never going to instill anything other than rile in me. Maggie the battleaxe made sure of that in perpetuity.
Yerda
Veteran Member
If he is decent and well meaning he must be irredeemably stupid. That would mean a party willing to support his government were also beyond sense. However, I think David Cameron is very intelligent and the Liberal Democrats unashamably opportunistic.Darkness said:
David Cameron is giving us Thatcherism 2.0. If his party's policies are not designed to protect the multimillionaires in the Conservative party and its organic allies in business from the threats of the recession it must be surely an incredible coincidence. Who suffers? The poor, the underpriviligded, the vulnerable. Jobs are vanishing. Community projects are being culled. Benefits are to be lowered. How many people will lose their employment and then their homes in the next few years, through no fault of their own?
This is what David Cameron stands for. He is not decent. He is a thinly disguised class warrior indulging in Freidmanite fantasies of a world where profits and welath are all that people should pursue and governments protect.
So, aye. There's my opinion. Enjoy yer tea.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Britian should know better [if it's true].
It could not have come at a worse time [low economy, weakened Euro].
Britain should take action to overcome her current challenges, but not at the cost of democracy.
Pithyoneliner
Member
The liberal democrats campaigned on a manfesto, as did all the major parties, none of the parties won an outright majority so LDs were in the happy position of king maker, thus were given the opportunity to implement SOME of their policies. They also had the opportunity to curb some of the nastier (more thatcherite if you like) policies of the tories (such as inheritance tax breaks for the rich). This does not make them opportunistic - this is just democracy...
Yes the tories are more 'business friendly' - you say this like it 's a bad thing! Please be clear, the public sector generates no wealth, business pays for everything. Labour expanded the state and ony succeeded in creating public sector jobs, which means either a) increasing the tax burden on the private sector or b) borrowing from our children, to the point where in two years time debt servicing will cost us as much as the foreign office and MOD budgets combined.
I am sorry but the outgoing regime was simply profligate and irresponsible. No con-lib doesn't want to shed jobs it is not a part of a thatcherite conspiracy, there simply isn't the money to pay for it without options a or b. Labour have landed us in this mess, Labour have mortgaged our futures to the international finance sector, and now the bad tories and opportunistic Libs have got to sort this mess out.
And remember that all of these cuts only have the aim of reducing the deficit - not that actual monies owed...
Con-Lib is a brilliant government, the nuttier wings of each party have been clipped leaving us with moderate, sensible policies, it would have been good to get rid of trident, and this 'Big Society' notion is just nonsense... but you can't have everything!
Yes the tories are more 'business friendly' - you say this like it 's a bad thing! Please be clear, the public sector generates no wealth, business pays for everything. Labour expanded the state and ony succeeded in creating public sector jobs, which means either a) increasing the tax burden on the private sector or b) borrowing from our children, to the point where in two years time debt servicing will cost us as much as the foreign office and MOD budgets combined.
I am sorry but the outgoing regime was simply profligate and irresponsible. No con-lib doesn't want to shed jobs it is not a part of a thatcherite conspiracy, there simply isn't the money to pay for it without options a or b. Labour have landed us in this mess, Labour have mortgaged our futures to the international finance sector, and now the bad tories and opportunistic Libs have got to sort this mess out.
And remember that all of these cuts only have the aim of reducing the deficit - not that actual monies owed...
Con-Lib is a brilliant government, the nuttier wings of each party have been clipped leaving us with moderate, sensible policies, it would have been good to get rid of trident, and this 'Big Society' notion is just nonsense... but you can't have everything!
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
Pithyoneliner what the Lib Dems have done goes beyond opportunism. Generally speaking opportunists abandon their principles for personal gain but its hard to see what the Lib Dems gained by joining with the Conservatives beyond meaningless promises. What power they had as an opposition party has been lost and they've enabled a Conservative government that is deeply at odds with Lib Dem voters. They've also handed the next general election to Labour who will make a huge recovery from their current rout. As a Lib Dem voter I find that even more frustrating than having been betrayed by their coalition with the Conservatives.
Anyway, my impression of Cameron is that he is a true Tory boy. Nothing he has done or said is surprising in that regard.
Cameron is relatively impotent politically but will still have a great deal of power through class based corruption. I think he will quickly come to be more vilified than Brown was in the UK but internationally will be regarded as a temporary anomaly - a non-player who will soon be gone.
Anyway, my impression of Cameron is that he is a true Tory boy. Nothing he has done or said is surprising in that regard.
Cameron is relatively impotent politically but will still have a great deal of power through class based corruption. I think he will quickly come to be more vilified than Brown was in the UK but internationally will be regarded as a temporary anomaly - a non-player who will soon be gone.