So It Was Just Another Dirty Con Trick...
News0 min ago
David Cameron's Background
Why is David Cameron's background relevant?
I couldn't care less how many silver spoons he was born with, or whether he dragged himself up from a sink estate - all I'm bothered with is what sort of a PM he will be.
Yet it seems his privileged background is becoming an issue.
Why?
I couldn't care less how many silver spoons he was born with, or whether he dragged himself up from a sink estate - all I'm bothered with is what sort of a PM he will be.
Yet it seems his privileged background is becoming an issue.
Why?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. 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.
We are straying a bit from the original question, jake, but I do find the question you pose is a bit difficult.
We have a Head of State (the Monarch). I am not a republican and would like to retain the Monarchy, but apart from ceremonial matters, and theoretical powers of veto over government activities, HMQ plays little part in “running the country”.
There is not only the matter of the Prime Minister (or President, call it what you will) to consider, but also of the remainder of government. The easy way would be for Ministers (including the PM) to be selected by all the MPs. But of course the party with the majority of MPs will certainly see all the posts filled from their numbers, so it is a non-starter.
I think the issue is less about the selection of a leader and Ministers, but more about the influence the Whips have over MPs voting habits. They must be allowed more freedom to vote according to their constituents’ wishes, whether or not this complies with the party line. At present voters have essentially two packages of policies from which to to choose. But different bits of each package suit some and not others and voters should be able to rely on their MPs to vote according to their needs on each individual issue without being whipped into line.
At the moment they cannot, and, short of proscribing all political parties, I don’t see how they can.
We have a Head of State (the Monarch). I am not a republican and would like to retain the Monarchy, but apart from ceremonial matters, and theoretical powers of veto over government activities, HMQ plays little part in “running the country”.
There is not only the matter of the Prime Minister (or President, call it what you will) to consider, but also of the remainder of government. The easy way would be for Ministers (including the PM) to be selected by all the MPs. But of course the party with the majority of MPs will certainly see all the posts filled from their numbers, so it is a non-starter.
I think the issue is less about the selection of a leader and Ministers, but more about the influence the Whips have over MPs voting habits. They must be allowed more freedom to vote according to their constituents’ wishes, whether or not this complies with the party line. At present voters have essentially two packages of policies from which to to choose. But different bits of each package suit some and not others and voters should be able to rely on their MPs to vote according to their needs on each individual issue without being whipped into line.
At the moment they cannot, and, short of proscribing all political parties, I don’t see how they can.
What took my eye was the difference in price between the suit he wore at the conference (nearly £1200) from Savile Row and Sam his wife paying £62 from M&S for a dress. For someone so extravagant how would he behave when in charge of the nation's purse strings?
Some of his sayings don't ring true. He would cut the defence budget by 15% but send many more soldiers to Afghanistan. He would not penalise a working Mum in removing her dole money. He would support business and increase the minimum wage. He would put millions more out of work so he can budget the nations finances.
Sounds to me he is not living in the real world but only telling people what they want to hear.
Some of his sayings don't ring true. He would cut the defence budget by 15% but send many more soldiers to Afghanistan. He would not penalise a working Mum in removing her dole money. He would support business and increase the minimum wage. He would put millions more out of work so he can budget the nations finances.
Sounds to me he is not living in the real world but only telling people what they want to hear.
-- answer removed --
Labour do seem to be persisting with their 'The Tories are Toffs - don't vote for them' theme.
A strange decision, as it proved to be so disastrous in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election**. Everyone there found it so pathetically negative, desparate, and patronising, they went straight out and voted for the Toffs, overturning a decent Labour majority to deliver a Tory gain.
(**I seem to remember a 'witty' poster depicting the conservative wearing a top hat and monocle.)
A strange decision, as it proved to be so disastrous in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election**. Everyone there found it so pathetically negative, desparate, and patronising, they went straight out and voted for the Toffs, overturning a decent Labour majority to deliver a Tory gain.
(**I seem to remember a 'witty' poster depicting the conservative wearing a top hat and monocle.)
These "Celebrity Politicians" make me sick, when you see them step up to the podium one would think they were entering for a TV talent show.
We witnessed Brown's missus get up and try and tell the world what a caring man her hubby was. Then we saw Cameron start to tell us what he and his wife went through when they lost their handicapped son. He said when anything like that happens, you think is it worth carrying on, should you give it all up etc etc?
Yes it is a great loss to lose anyone especially one so young, but do we really want to hear these things at a Party Political Conference? Apart from the fact that does he ever consider what the parents and families go through also, when one of theirs is lost in that unnecessary war that he supports.
We witnessed Brown's missus get up and try and tell the world what a caring man her hubby was. Then we saw Cameron start to tell us what he and his wife went through when they lost their handicapped son. He said when anything like that happens, you think is it worth carrying on, should you give it all up etc etc?
Yes it is a great loss to lose anyone especially one so young, but do we really want to hear these things at a Party Political Conference? Apart from the fact that does he ever consider what the parents and families go through also, when one of theirs is lost in that unnecessary war that he supports.
