Jokes0 min ago
Odds on Cameron Resigning slashed from 100/1 to 20/1.
29 Answers
Thought you'd like to know.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I'm sure Clegg WOULD be PM. No point having a deputy if he isn't going to step in in an emergency. If would be disastrous for the coalition if Cameron went and the Tories insisted on shoving their own makeshift replacement in when Clegg's been Number two all along. Admittedly he might not last as long as the election of a new Tory leader, but then arguably the govt wouldn't last that long anyway.
Still, it won't happen - sadly :-)
Still, it won't happen - sadly :-)
"can't see Cameron resigning or being pushed, but he's shown dreadful judgment throughout this affair. He was a much better leader of the opposition than PM - he read the public mood on MPs' expenses very well; this time it's Miliband who's making the running."
The expenses scandal was made for the Tories - for one thing it's always easier in opposition, especially with an unpopular govt and PM being hounded by Andy Coulson's old mates in Wapping and elsewhere. Brown was just as hot on the expenses thing, but by then no one was listening to him.
The Tories love to have a go at politicians - which is odd because they are politicians themselves - and they hate government which is why (IMHO) they aren't very good at it (!). Now they ARE the govt and this particular issue seems to touch him personally, if only by association.
Ed has him by the curlies: if Dave doesn't do what Ed says then he looks out of touch. And if he DOES do what Ed says then it looks as if he's only doing it because Ed said so!
The expenses scandal was made for the Tories - for one thing it's always easier in opposition, especially with an unpopular govt and PM being hounded by Andy Coulson's old mates in Wapping and elsewhere. Brown was just as hot on the expenses thing, but by then no one was listening to him.
The Tories love to have a go at politicians - which is odd because they are politicians themselves - and they hate government which is why (IMHO) they aren't very good at it (!). Now they ARE the govt and this particular issue seems to touch him personally, if only by association.
Ed has him by the curlies: if Dave doesn't do what Ed says then he looks out of touch. And if he DOES do what Ed says then it looks as if he's only doing it because Ed said so!
ichkeria, I don't think that's right - without digging into the archives, I'm pretty sure Brown was quite slow off the mark over MPs' expenses, just saying it was a bad thing and something should be done, while Cameron was jumping at the opportunity to get rid of Tory backwoodsmen and replace them with Cameroonies. That suited his purposes, of course; but it was in tune with the public mood.
You're right that life is easier in opposition - but nobody wants to be there. None the less, Camron could have made a hash of dealing with expenses, as Miliband could have made a hash of hacking; but both rose to the occasion more impressively than their opposite numbers.
You're right that life is easier in opposition - but nobody wants to be there. None the less, Camron could have made a hash of dealing with expenses, as Miliband could have made a hash of hacking; but both rose to the occasion more impressively than their opposite numbers.
The Tories tune in very well to the Great British Public's suspicion of politicians - they like to style themselves as on the side of the people versus those corrupt folk at Westminster taking all the hard-working tax-payers money.
The MPs expenses affair was a bit different to the NOTW affair also. In the first case it was open season on all politicians and those politicians - on either side - who spoke out against the lynchmob mentality were howled down. With the hacking scandal the public hasn't turned against all journalists, largely because they don't hold them in the same contempt (they don't care for tabloid journalists but it isn't quite the same).
Brown may have been slow off the mark - I can't remember either - but his real problem was no one was listening to him any more. He could have had all MPs burned at the stake and it would have made no difference. Cameron isn't quite in that position, but that's because he's been outflanked by the leader of the opposition.
The MPs expenses affair was a bit different to the NOTW affair also. In the first case it was open season on all politicians and those politicians - on either side - who spoke out against the lynchmob mentality were howled down. With the hacking scandal the public hasn't turned against all journalists, largely because they don't hold them in the same contempt (they don't care for tabloid journalists but it isn't quite the same).
Brown may have been slow off the mark - I can't remember either - but his real problem was no one was listening to him any more. He could have had all MPs burned at the stake and it would have made no difference. Cameron isn't quite in that position, but that's because he's been outflanked by the leader of the opposition.
I think that's the thing, ichkeria: Brown was seen as out of touch with real people, and his slowness to respond to the expenses scandal simply reinforced this. If he'd acted faster and more forcefully, some voters might have changed their minds. As it was, it was Cameron who looked both decisive and responsive to the public mood.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.