Cameron's bloody awful too, isn't he?

[porcupine11]

Just saying.

I judge him by his actions.

He's a knobend.

It doesn't matter who the Government is, the economy has deep structural problems and that will hamper growth for the next 10 years at least. As a country we have a large trade deficit which is only going to get worse, an enormous budget deficit and high inflation.
We've relied on 2 things to drive growth in the last couple of decades the City of London and North Sea oil. The City of London was built on an asset bubble fueled by high levels of p[ersonal debt which won't be repeated anytime soon and the North Sea oil and gas is drying up leaving us with the prospect of importing more and more energy.
Labour tried to delay this through high Government spending after the financial crisis and the resulting recession this is delaying the inevitable and has probably made it even worse in the long term as now we have more debt to service.
There is also the prospect of a US debt crisis which could have dreadful consequences for the global economy and our economy in particular.

Good article about Cameron in today's Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/25/david-cameron-big-issue

Great quote from Cameron showing his belief in freedom and against a big state

"I will never forget the greyness of life under communism, the lack of choice, freedom and expression," he wrote.

"I began to develop a political consciousness, a sense of what was right and wrong. In particular, the importance of freedom and the state being there to serve people, not be their master."

It appears that Anders Behring Breivik is extremely fond of the Daily Mail as well, quoting it verbatim in his "manifesto".

He is quoting from Melanie Phillips, not Daily Mail editorials. But that doesn't mean that Melanie Phillips is anything like him.

He quotes entire Daily Mail articles verbatim. Yes, they were by Melanie Phillips, but they were published by the Daily Fail. He also quotes Jeremey Clarkson DM colums too. I see the Telegraph has picked up on this too.

He is also a Christian. I haven't read his manifesto, but he possibly also quotes from the Bible. What does that prove? Are you saying that Melanie Phillips, Clarkson and the Bible are like that deranged psycopath?

No, what I'm saying is he easily found fuel for his, frankly crazy, beliefs within the pages of the Daily Mail of which you are so enamoured.

Right Wing Christian nutjobs are not unknown, though like Islam, you can't judge a disparate set of people simply because they happen to share some of the same beliefs as a psychopath. This is an interesting discussion about his mysogeny

The Daily Mail is the second highest selling newspaper in the country and the second most visited news website in the world. Many people look forward to their daily copy. It can't be held accountable for what some nutcase thinks.

Reading that Telegraph article about him, his list of traitors included conservatives, liberals and labour politicians and right wing leaders like Sarkozy etc. It included nearly everyone who was anyone. He also thought that Hitler was a traitor because he didn't "liberate" Jerusalem. He was mad and psychotic.

He was a member of a lodge. Does that mean that freemasons drove him to carry out these horrendous acts?

Cameron is a tit. I can't believe such a fool is our Prime MInister. Everything he does and says is for show.

For example. Do you remember him making a show of cycling to work, because Dave cares about the environment? Only, his papers went in the car following the bike, which Dave would otherwise have been riding in.

For example. Do you remember him going to Cornwall last year, because 'we're all in this together' and he needed to show that Team Cameron were tightening their belts? Only, Dave then had a second holiday in Turkey, where he dined with Rupert Murdoch on his yacht.

For example. Do you remember him being interviewed about Gay rights, and proudly asserting that the Tory party had changed. Dave had changed them. Only, when questioned further, he made it abundantly clear that he had no idea what he was talking about, and requested the interview to be stopped.

For example. Do you remember the leaders' debates? Dave proudly spoke up about the people he'd met, including a 40 year old black man who had served in the Royal Navy for 30 years. Er, yes, right Dave.

And the worse thing is that his policies have just as little thought. They came into power and thought 'we'll change everything, we've got loads of good ideas', but most of their ideas are just drivel. They announce them, and then everyone points out what total crap they are spouting.

I'm sure I've posted this before, but I'll let Charlie Brooker have the last word.
Written in 2007, but how little has changed . He begins "David Cameron is an idiot". And I couldn't agree more.

Media is corrupt.

What would Cameron know about communism? He's lead a privileged life.

he went to Russia once, manic

Good points about all the nonsense spin. Yes, he did do all that nonsense. He probably followed the advice of his spin doctors. All politicians do stuff like that, like when Cameron and Brown talked about their favourite bands, one of them being the Arctic Monkeys.

But the Brooker article is a nasty article full of hatred. The Mail never prints out and out hatred like that about Labour. Here is what the hate-filled Brooker says

'Naturally, I'm biased. I've instinctively hated the Tories since birth. If there was an election tomorrow, and the only two choices were the Nazis or the Tories, I'd vote Tory with an extremely heavy heart. In descending order of vehemence, my objections to the Tory species stem from a) everything they do, b) everything they say, c) everything they stand for, d) how they look, e) their stupid names and f) the noises I imagine they make in bed. I once overheard two posh people - almost certainly Tories - having sex in a hotel room. It was grim. The woman kept saying, "Fuck me, Gerald," in a cut-glass accent, which was funny, but Gerald himself soon wiped the grin off my face with his grunting, which wasn't really grunting at all, but instead consisted of the words "oh" and "ah" crisply orated aloud, like Sir Laurence Olivier reading dialogue off a card at an early rehearsal. I didn't stick around long enough to hear the climax, but I imagine the words "gosh", "crumbs", and "crikey" probably put in an appearance.'

Frankly, I'm surprised that such hate-filled, distorted rants pass for journalism and that the Guardian prints bilge like that.

Frankly, the Daily Mail has higher standards.

Leares- Do you really think its that bad?

Articles like that are written through frustration I think though claig. And Cameron does seem to generate that feeling - certainly in me, because he spouts sanctimonious stuff that is just plain wrong - and then seems to have the idea that if he says it enough times it makes it true.

And he behaves disgracefully in the Commons - during the emergency debate on Thursday he came out with a number of statements - eg the 'I'm enjoying this' comment which showed his lack of genuine feeling. And he also said that 'Alastair Campbell falsified Government documents' which is a VERY serious allegation, which there is no evidence for, and various enquiries have exonerated AC on this. And yet DC is happy to peddle this as fact. Just as he used to quote the shadow health secretary praising Andrew Lansley, but missing off the critical 'And he's wrong' bit at the end.

I hate spin in all politicians. They should be in the business of truth, and selling policies by what they will actually do, rather than how they can be spun.

as far as the Daily Mail goes, they don't tend to print really strong articles against Labour, that's possibly true. They certainly print enough hate-filled articles about women, muslims, the poor and any other group they hate to be guilty of the lowest possible standards.

(And yes, I do sort of agree about the paragraph you printed. But where he is spot on is where he says;
"I don't like him. And I've got a terrible feeling he'll be prime minister one day. Brrr.

These are unthinking snap judgments, based on little more than his media profile - but since he appears to consist of little more than a media profile designed to appeal to unthinking snap judgments, that seems fair enough. On that basis, let's stick to gut instincts, shall we?

There is nothing to him. He is like a hollow Easter egg with no bag of sweets inside. Cameron will say absolutely anything if he thinks it might get him elected. "

I agree I hate spin too. I want them to stop trying to con teh public and just to tell the truth. But that will never happen.

There is often a real hatred of Tories by the mainstream left, which doesn't exist among the mainstream right. It is encouraged by articles like Brooker's which think it is funny to make those hate-filled comments. You can see that same thing with the hatred that many on the left have for Margaret Thatcher. There are often comments about dancing on her grave etc., even on Mumsnet. I can't remember any right wingers making comments like that about Blair. The majority of right wingers don't hate Blair or the left, they just think they are mistaken. Unlike hate-filled, venomous Brooker, Richard Littlejohn in the Mail doesn't hate Blair and the left, he just makes fun of them.

'They certainly print enough hate-filled articles about women, muslims, the poor and any other group they hate to be guilty of the lowest possible standards'

I can't remember any of their journalists saying they "instinctively hate" any of those groups. That is not language that they use or that Daily Mail readers would accept in their paper.

Well, they wouldn't would they? There are laws about that kind of thing, plus it would be a very subjective thing to write. No - the DM are very subtle and underhand in how they word their articles about minorities and women.

I wouldn't use that rag (or any other for that matter) as loo paper.

I don't need journalists' opinions as I'm perfectly capable of forming my own.

Agreed, that they couldn't be open about their hatred.

As far as spin goes, I think politicians somehow think that the public deserve to be conned. It was like Cameron's answer about BSKYB, and whether he had any discussions with the Murdochs/Brooks about it - he didn't say yes or no, he said "I had no inappropriate conversations". This totally reminded me of Bill Clinton, answering on Monica Lewinsky. And when Cameron said he had 'removed himself from the decision making process', that was untrue - he was responsible for appointing the person who would be responsible for the 'quasi-judicial' decision, and in appointing Jeremy Hunt (following Cable's little 'problem'), he was an intrinsic part of the process. Remember also that Hunt is a part of Cameron's government, and as such, his promotion/demotion currently depends on Cameron, so there is an incentive for him to 'make Cameron happy'. The fact that it was nodded through, without referring to the Competition Commission as Ofcom had recommended speaks volumes.

Cameron, when asked if he had discussed it with J&RMurdoch/Brooks should clearly have answered "Yes." It could then be ascertained whether this was appropriate or not. It is not for Cameron to say that it was appropriate.

They don't use the word hate, no.

They don't need to - it's implicit