Cameron comes of age

[Pavilionaire]

Cameron has correctly identified the need for change but he is not doing enough to demonstrate what his policies are that will bring about the desired change.

He's bottling the big statements like "We aren't prepared to be the Chief Assistant to the World's Policeman" and "We intend to freeze immigration until we've sorted the backlog / mess out" that the majority of voters are waiting to hear and sign up to.

Only these sorts of moves will inspire the lazy to vote for him.

 

[beorhthelm]

wht makes me laugh is all the people who wont vote conservative / will vote labour on principle. even if what they say or propose is good / crap. its a bit sad really. and people harp back to conserative problems of 17 years ago. Labour changed from the shower they were in the 70's, why cant the tory's?

having said that, the weakness of the conseravtives is that they dont say much at all of substance. Labour is screwing things up with creeping taxation and increased bureaucracy which is slowly draining the will to do anything out of this country, while Conservative have fewr concrete policy than most of us keybaord warriors.

what happend to the seagull party?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I agree beorhthelm. These people are basing their opinions on events of 4, 5, 10 or even 20 years ago when ALL of the main parties have changed a great deal, mainly due to green issues, globalisation and post-9/11.

The day will come when Labour have f***ed up and the Tories will have a real chance. I think the situation now is like 2002 - the country HAS the appetite for change but is not totally convinced by the opposition, resulting in the re-election of a incumbent leadership on the decline.

 

[The Large One]

I agree beorhthelm. These people are basing their opinions on events of 4, 5, 10 or even 20 years ago when ALL of the main parties have changed a great deal, mainly due to green issues, globalisation and post-9/11.

The day will come when Labour have f***ed up and the Tories will have a real chance. I think the situation now is like 2002 - the country HAS the appetite for change but is not totally convinced by the opposition, resulting in the re-election of a incumbent leadership on the decline.

Fair points-ish.

I don't think that the Tory Party has changed that much - at least the rank and file hasn't. The top of the hierarchy like to state that they've changed but it does seem a bit hollow.

By that I mean that Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair - rightly or wrongly - dragged the Labour Party with them from the mess they were in, probably kicking and screaming. I'm not convinced David Cameron has totally won his party over.

There is an air of negative politics from Cameron here. He ran down Brown (and - by implication Blair) while only stating a kind of desire of what he wants to see, rather than how he intends to go about tackling the things he wants to tackle. Once some meat has been put on that particular bone, then we can judge his policies. Until then, no-one knows what he stands for, with the exception of something other than a decade of Labour.

Point is, his speech was not aimed at the country. It was aimed at his party, which is why so many on here are at best ambivalent to what he was saying - irrespective of incumbent political allegiances.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Ignore.

I had written a long rant, but quite frankly, I can't be arsed.

Labour will still be Labour with a different skipper at the helm. They failed on too many promises for me to be able to trust them any further.

 

[London Calling]

wht makes me laugh is all the people who wont vote conservative / will vote labour on principle. even if what they say or propose is good / crap. its a bit sad really. and people harp back to conserative problems of 17 years ago. Labour changed from the shower they were in the 70's, why cant the tory's?

having said that, the weakness of the conseravtives is that they dont say much at all of substance. Labour is screwing things up with creeping taxation and increased bureaucracy which is slowly draining the will to do anything out of this country, while Conservative have fewr concrete policy than most of us keybaord warriors.

what happend to the seagull party?

Because..

I believe the fundamental remit and principles of the Conservative Party is wrong, therefore their solutions are fundementally wrong.

Because I believe Socialism is the best way to deliver a strong economy, equality, fraternity etc therefore, the Labour Party are the nearest Party in the UK to deliver these aims.

Have you noticed Cameron is not changing the levels of taxation, just changing the people and the type of taxation. At the last election, the budgets of all the 3 parties were less than 1% apart over the full course of Parliament, with the liberals being the lowest.

Funny enough, I haven't noticed any increased bureacracy over the last 10 years, has anyone else? This is just an unsubstantial rant deliver in Partnership by the Tories and their partners in crime in the media.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agree with LC.

I always find it interesting when tories bang on about bureacracy....when it was Maggie T's government who championed internal marketisation to make individual departments 'accountable' for their costs.

If you show me a person who thinks the tories will win the next election I will show you a deluded fool. Britain has moved on, the world has moved on and for all of Labour's failings they have also done a lot of good for Britain. They are still the party to lead this country.

Besides, the tory far right will start their usual post-conference moaning next week and then it will all be over for Cameron just like his predecesors.

 

[Mr Blobby]

Piers I am total fed up and disillusioned with Labour and need a change.

A change to what? The tories will keep us in Iraq for many years and we will also soon be into Iran if they get elected

We will return to tousands on the dole as we get back to the Tories mandate of think of yourself first and f*** everyone else. Look after number 1 first.

They are all as bad as each other but this country is still feeling the impact of the Thatcher years and put yourself first which has been passed on to the kids of that era who are now parents whos kids gives dont give a sh** about anything or respect anything but themselves!

Also my local tory is Fat Boy Soames, do you really expect me to vote for him??

 

[Barrel of Fun]

We will return to tousands on the dole as we get back to the Tories mandate of think of yourself first and f*** everyone else.

New Labour promised to tackle the army of jobless. At the start there were 5.6m on benefits and in 10 years, they have been able to shave that down to 5.2m.

Not exactly pretty reading considering we are riding the 'crest of a wave' and the economic boom that we have seen over the last decade (which incidentally was started by the Tories laying the foundations after the global recession).

 

[hans kraay fan club]

New Labour promised to tackle the army of jobless. At the start there were 5.6m on benefits and in 10 years, they have been able to shave that down to 5.2m.

.

You may not consider it so insignificant if you were one of the FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND people 'shaved' from that statistic.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

New Labour promised to tackle the army of jobless. At the start there were 5.6m on benefits and in 10 years, they have been able to shave that down to 5.2m.

Not exactly pretty reading considering we are riding the 'crest of a wave' and the economic boom that we have seen over the last decade (which incidentally was started by the Tories laying the foundations after the global recession).

5.2 million on unemployment benefits......I dont think so.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

You may not consider it so insignificant if you were one of the FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND people 'shaved' from that statistic.

Whilst this is true, why are we relying on labour from the EU, when there are clearly plenty people who have made a career out of receiving benefits?

 

[BUTTERBALL]

Maggie Out!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

5.2 million and one when Cameron is looking for a new job come November.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

5.2 million on unemployment benefits......I dont think so.

It is 5.2m of a working age on a variety of benefits. Not unemployment alone.

 

[sten_super]

You may not consider it so insignificant if you were one of the FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND people 'shaved' from that statistic.

But that doesn't tackle the point, made by BoF, that these 400,000 people off the unemployment number come at a time when we are probably at the height of a boom in the economy. Wait another few years, and we may well be in a recession; I bet the numbers won't look quite so pretty then.

I'm not particularly anti-Labour, I think they've done a reasonable job. However, I think the Tories probably wouldn't have made much worse a job of it. That's always the way though; it is the economic conditions of the time that largely dictate how a government is judged to have performed.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Be clear then!

 

[London Calling]

It is 5.2m of a working age on a variety of benefits. Not unemployment alone.

and I believe, if you search these stats they include the following of which, no Government can actually change the person, their health etc

"Incapacity benefit" i.e not fit to work = 2.662 m people
"Disability allowance" 329,000 people
"Carer" 373,000
"Income Related" 163,000

This is a core of 3.5 m plus, for 771,000 single parents, the cost of childcare, means for most women it is unviable for them to work...........unless we start prividing free or heavily susidised childcare, this takes us to 4.2 m people, where work is not an altertnative to receiving benefits.

What the Government has done by removing 400,000 , is cut away a large chunk of the people who could work, were able to but did not work.

But also remember the jobless is not one non moving mass, with x thousands of of new people become unemployed - every month - as others get jobs - as others lose jobs - ....................................

But this core of people with benefits hardly changes in fact since 99 the people on Incapcity Benefits has increased by 5,000

 

[Simster]

It is 5.2m of a working age on a variety of benefits. Not unemployment alone.

Actually you've hit on what is real problem in my view, and one which NO party seems to want to address.

The fact is, there is a culture which is still growing of people declining to take responsibility for their actions. Everyone wants rights but couldn't give a toss about taking responsibility that should accompany those rights. This is particularly the case for those lazy twats who do f*** all about earning a living wage. Too many people have loads of kids and sit about doing nothing all day.

The reason why parties don't ever address this problem? Because there are no votes in telling people they are irresponsible scroungers, that's why. Yet that is what needs to happen if we want to reduce unemplyment to acceptable levels in good economic conditions.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Malingerers, every last one of them.