UK - David Cameron 3rd Term

[The Don]

I'm no fan of David Cameron or the party of which he is the leader but IMO this is a case of making political mountains out of molehills of the worst kind.

One of the stories doing the rounds at the moment in the UK is Labour claiming that David Cameron is arrogant for stating that, should he be Prime Minister following the election that he would want to serve a full second term but not seek a third term (because by then his ideas may be stale).

David Cameron was responding to a direct interview question (rather than just making statements) and I thought that he handled it pretty well. Instead the Labour Party have chosen to blow it out of all proportion forcing the Conservatives on the defencive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32029389

C'mon Labour - why not try to take the Conservatives to task over something more important.

 

[MikeG]

I completely agree. What a silly fuss over nothing at all.

Oh, and the charge of arrogance is one I detest, in almost any circumstance. For me, it is shorthand for "I've got no facts or evidence to hold against you".

 

[Damien Evans]

Yeah, I don't get the problem with what he said.

 

[Ambrosia]

I don't get it either.

I think if Labour win (which is looking less and less likely as we get closer to the election) I might try and expedite my move to Aus. I really don't want to live in a country run by Miliband.

 

[Damien Evans]

I don't get it either.

I think if Labour win (which is looking less and less likely as we get closer to the election) I might try and expedite my move to Aus. I really don't want to live in a country run by Miliband.

He must be truly awful if you think living under Tony Abbott would be better!

Then again, Abbott will almost certainly have been kicked out by his own party well before the UK election.

 

[The Don]

I don't get it either.

I think if Labour win (which is looking less and less likely as we get closer to the election) I might try and expedite my move to Aus. I really don't want to live in a country run by Miliband.

Why ? What are your key objections ? What policies has Ed Miliband proposed which would accelerate your departure ?

My main criticism about Ed Miliband is that he is anodyne as are his policies.

 

[Ambrosia]

Miliband strikes me as 'not a leader' - someone who was selected as party leader cos he looks good in photos, and does what he's told to do.

He says "all of the right things" but he never sounds convincing when he says them and if you're not great at running the opposition party, I suspect you'd not do a good job running the country.

The clincher for me though is the Labour position on vaping. Labour would severely restrict vaping (use of electronic cigarettes) and I passionately believe that vaping is a good thing which should be encouraged. (without it I might never have quit smoking, and there is a lot of solid science that shows it to be orders of magnitude safer than smoking) Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have reasonable positions on vaping.

As I run an online vaping business it's entirely possible that Labour policies would require me to shut up shop and go do something else, and I'd much prefer not to have to do that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK if labour win can we hold you to that and help you on your way?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Cameron has made a mistake, he has made his departure the talking point rather than his policies. If he is PM after the election his party will spend the next 5 years speculation on who will be next and plotting and scheming to get their man (or woman) in. they will have a fixed date to work to as well. What a dolt he is.

 

[Ambrosia]

OK if labour win can we hold you to that and help you on your way?

sure. All help gratefully received. I'm planning to move in the next 18 months anyway, but if you want to buy me a plane ticket that's fine by me

 

[Puppycow]

Came across this bit on John Oliver recently:

 

[MikeG]

...My main criticism about Ed Miliband is that he is anodyne as are his policies.

Asinine or gormless would have been better adjectives in my view. He makes me think of a 5th former who finds himself in the school debating society with a whole bunch of 6th formers.

Above everything, it has been his behaviour at PMQ's, and his plastic, practised performances when interviewed that make me think he is simply not of the calibre one would expect from someone who aims for high public office in this country. Alongside him we have Gordon Brown's lap dog, Ed Balls, who had the gall to oversee the descent into disaster in 2008, and then 5 minutes later tell the people who were fixing it that they were doing it all wrong (he doesn't say "too far, too fast" any more, thank goodness). This is the weakest Labour front bench since the 1980s, and heaven help us if they end up in charge.

 

[The Don]

I didn't see the programme last night where Ed Miliband and David Cameron were interviewed and questioned separately but I did hear some of the feedback today on the Radio. I actually laughed out loud when Ed Miliband answered "Hell yes" to the question "Are you tough enough ?" - it sounded to ridiculously false, contrived and rehearsed.

IMO a better answer would have been to have quietly (and ideally slightly menacingly) reminded people that you don't get to the top of the greasy political pole without being tough.

 

[Craig B]

As I run an online vaping business it's entirely possible that Labour policies would require me to shut up shop and go do something else, and I'd much prefer not to have to do that.

Well, off to Australia then. Business friendly government will see you all right.

 

[Ambrosia]

Above everything, it has been his behaviour at PMQ's, and his plastic, practised performances when interviewed that make me think he is simply not of the calibre one would expect from someone who aims for high public office in this country. [...] This is the weakest Labour front bench since the 1980s, and heaven help us if they end up in charge.

Sums up my feelings succinctly too.

It's almost like they looked back at the Blair years and all of the spin doctoring and then decided that "what we need to do to get re-elected is to do all of that much much better than before"

The fundamental problem with politicians is that they care more about how to get (re)elected than they care about what to do once they are elected. While it's true you can't do much until you're elected, and getting into office is important, it shouldn't be so important to the detriment of all else.

If Labour had decided to ditch the spin in favour of more honesty we'd have a Labour front bench that stood a better chance of being elected imo, though they might be a little less photogenic.

 

[The Don]

If Labour had decided to ditch the spin in favour of more honesty we'd have a Labour front bench that stood a better chance of being elected imo, though they might be a little less photogenic.

I'm not sure what kind of party the Labour party wants to be these days. Back in the day they were a "proper" left wing party with "proper" left wing policies. The trouble was that, due to the economic, societal and cultural shifts of the 70s and 80s, a "proper" left wing party was effectively impossible to elect into government and the Labour party risked being marginalised and confined to patches of industrial activity and urban deprivation.

Hence the "New Labour" project conceived under John Smith and realised under Tony Blair to turn the Labour party into a centreist party, casting off all of its historical socialist baggage (most notably Clause 4). Of course this annoyed some of the old socialists but it's not like they were going to vote Tory.

The New Labour project was so successful that the Conservative Party found itself in a similar conundrum and so selected "Call Me Dave" as a way to appeal to the centre. We now have three centreist parties who do have some differences in ethos and dogma but whose scope for movement is so small that there isn't the "Clear Blue Water" between them in terms of policy - which leaves us with changes in presentation and interpretation which in turn leads to the tyranny of the Spin Doctor.

If Labour wanted to be more honest, I'm not sure what image they want to portray. If they honestly want to be a left wing party then they'll face an uphill task getting into government. The last major concentration of leftist support, Scotland, looks to be swinging towards the SNP both for reasons of policy (which could be addressed) and anti-Westminster sentiment (which could not). The rest of the UK is no longer sufficiently interested in a left wing party IMO. In fact the most radical and committed people now support single issues rather than an overall ideology or platform so it's difficult to develop a message to appeal to them.

 

[Ambrosia]

The New Labour project was so successful that the Conservative Party found itself in a similar conundrum and so selected "Call Me Dave" as a way to appeal to the centre. We now have three centreist parties who do have some differences in ethos and dogma but whose scope for movement is so small that there isn't the "Clear Blue Water" between them in terms of policy

Which is the fault of "how can we get elected" thinking. Parties get too caught up with "what do the people want" - when "what's best for the country" would be better.

If Labour wanted to be more honest, I'm not sure what image they want to portray. If they honestly want to be a left wing party then they'll face an uphill task getting into government.

I agree that left wing policies aren't going to win many elections. but I think you can be more honest and campaign on a "we will do it better than the other guys" platform. Even if we have 3 main parties who don't differ all that much.

For our government to work there needs to be a credible opposition. If any one party gets a massive majority it gets carte blanche for 5 years, and that tends to not work out well.

I'm not enamoured with any of the 3 main parties I just know I don't want a Labour government and the seat where I live has been tory since the 20's and last time around Labour got 5% of the vote here on ~80% turnout, hence my recent voting apathy.

It's the single issue parties like UKIP here and in other European countries that are gaining ground, because they are different and their politicians seem more 'honest' - I'd hate to see them gain a foothold, despite agreeing with the main aims of UKIP because they seem like a bunch of dinosaurs who'd royally screw up the rest of the governing. Fortunately UKIP seem intent on imploding at present.

I find it odd that Dave gets vilified for answering a relatively straight question honestly. (and what's with the interviewing people in kitchens nonsense?) though if the best that Labour can come up with is "he's far too arrogant and presumptious" ...

I'm not a fan of Dave but to my mind he's the best of a bad bunch, and the country hasn't done all that badly over the past 5 years.

I'm hoping for a very slim majority, or another coalition. Perhaps that might push people into changing our electoral system from the FPTP one we're stuck with sooner.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm not enamoured with any of the 3 main parties [ . . . ]

There aren't really three main parties now there are two. Well arguably the SNP will be the third party but their presence is obviously highly concentrated.

A minority government or a minority coalition seems most likely as of now. Since it does not appear that the SNP will be in any formal coalition, it is possible that a formal coalition (that doesn't have a majority) between conservatives and Libdems might actually be the largest on offer and the one that tries again to form a government. Unless the SNP can (probably single-handedly) vote that down, which they likely can't, it might be the result.

I would think that that would require Cameron to break his EU referendum pledge because he won't be able to get it voted through. Which would be cool.

 

[MikeG]

......I would think that that would require Cameron to break his EU referendum pledge because he won't be able to get it voted through. Which would be cool.

Interesting that you would see this as breaking a pledge. I'm not sure that I would see it in those terms. Being unable to deliver something because of House of Commons arithmetic isn't the same as breaking a pledge, in my view, and by the same argument I don't see the Lib Dem's position on tuition fees in this parliament as traitorous in the way that most seem to. "You said would if you could but you can't".....Seaside Rendezvous: Queen

I can certainly imagine any coalition talks between Lib Dems and Conservatives this time being firstly much more hard-nosed than last time, and secondly being something I would love to sit in on.

 

[Giz]

I didn't see the programme last night where Ed Miliband and David Cameron were interviewed and questioned separately but I did hear some of the feedback today on the Radio. I actually laughed out loud when Ed Miliband answered "Hell yes" to the question "Are you tough enough ?" - it sounded to ridiculously false, contrived and rehearsed.

IMO a better answer would have been to have quietly (and ideally slightly menacingly) reminded people that you don't get to the top of the greasy political pole without being tough.

He should have just said "ask my brother"