Why David Cameron is going to be the next Prime Minister

[Guest sheridans_world]

So in a week where American politics dominted the world, here is something a little closer to home. David Cameron totally tears Gordon Brown apart at PM Q's.

 

Transcript of todays:

 

DC: 'I read this morning that the prime minister has sent a message to the president elect, presumably it wasnt, 'this is no time for a novice'.'

 

GB: 'What I said was serious times needed serious people, once again he's proved he's not serious' - okay he gets points for that.

 

DC: 'The labour party, you've made your strategic choice, its called more of the same and its sitting in front of you, you killed change when you bottled that election and you buried change when you appointed Peter Mandleson' - ding ding ding ding JACKPOT!!

[beag_teeets]

'The labour party, you've made your strategic choice, its called more of the same and its sitting in front of you, you killed change when you bottled that election and you buried change when you appointed William Hague' - ding ding ding ding JACKPOT!!

 

Brown didn't bottle the election, there was no need for an election just as when Thatcher was deposed by the Tories and Major taking over via an internal Tory party process in the same way that there was an internal Labour party process that led to Brown taking over. Why should the tax payer have forked out for an election when there had only just been one in 2005?

 

And who was working for Norman Lamont during Black Monday? David Cameron

Who wrote the Tory manefesto for the 2005 election? David Cameron

Who is just as likely to repeat the past failures of successive Tory governments? David Cameron,

 

Ding ding.

[leeslover]

It’s really not true to say that Brown didn’t bottle the election – all the orders had gone out, the Civil Service had been notified and so on – but Brown shat it on the basis of a last minute poll. There is something in the “same as...” thing, there are rumblings that John Gummer (!) and Clarke, amongst others, will be making a return should the Tories win (which they will), which is not quite a message of change. For good or ill though I believe the Cameron government will be a lot more radical than is generally thought. I predict massive changes to the taxation the unemployment/sicknote systems amongst other things.

[Roger Ritchie]

Who the F--- wants the Tories back in?

[leeslover]

Who the F--- wants the Tories back in?

*Dons analyst’s hat.*

 

About 46 out of every 100 people who would vote if a general election were held tomorrow. Which, given that nobody in Northern Ireland, Scotland or most of Wales does, means a pretty sizable majority of England

 

*Removes analyst’s hat*

 

I am not one of those 100 people.

[mikejh45]

Who the F--- wants the Tories back in?

 

Me, for one.

 

We had a healthy economy when Bliar took over with Brown holding the puse strings and look now:

 

- Government coffers empty.

- Armed forces throwing rocks because the MoD spend on bureaucrats instead of the frontline.

- Record investment in the NHS and still we are short of doctors and nurses.

- Unemployment on the up because this shower hid the true number in incapacity or employed them in pointless council jobs.

- No police when you want them.

- Private pensions worth bugger all because Gordon started an annual TAX grab which, I might add, doesn't affect an M.P.'s pension.

- One of the highest fuel costs in the world.

 

 

Need I go on?

Edited November 6, 2008 by mikejh45

[neiladamsheadband]

politics wot a load of old tosh, do people really believe that either side make a gret deal of dffeerenece, in a word NO! they cocked up in the mainstream allbeit in different areas

[beag_teeets]

Well thats me convinced, please win Dave, everything will be so much better once the tories are back in.

[mikejh45]

Now I've had my little rant!!!

 

Can I have:

 

1) Fuel as cheap as the Yanks.

2) A pension as good as the French.

3) The same amount of holidays as Johnny Foreigner.

4) A lunchtime like the Spanish.

 

Whoever does that will get my vote.

[leeslover]

This alone is enough to make me prefer a Tory win to a Labour one.

 

People 'can't wait for ID cards'

 

Jacqui Smith is phasing in the introduction of the new ID card

Jacqui Smith says public demand means people will be able to pre-register for an ID card within the next few months.

 

The cards will be available for all from 2012 but she said: "I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long."

 

The home secretary made the claim as she unveiled revised ID scheme plans.

 

Opposition parties say they would scrap the ID card scheme. The Tories call it a "complete waste of money". The Lib Dems call it a "laminated poll tax".

 

They accused Ms Smith of backtracking on plans to issue ID cards in 2009 for all airside workers, by announcing they would pilot them at just two airports.

 

The first biometric cards are being issued, to students from outside the EU and marriage visa holders, this month and it had been planned to make them compulsory for all 200,000 airside workers from 2009.

 

'Saving face'

 

But instead the government announced there would be an 18-month trial, for airside workers at Manchester and London City airports only, from late next year.

 

Campaigners No2ID said it was a "transparent attempt to save ministerial face" amid opposition from unions and airline bosses, who say it is unjustified and would not improve security.

 

Unions had argued airside workers were already extensively vetted and believe they would have to pay £30 for a card - although it is understood they would be free during the trial period.

 

I believe there is a demand, now, for cards - and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long

 

Jacqui Smith

Home Secretary

 

 

Send us your comments

 

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve described the decision to trial ID cards at just two airports as "clearly a climbdown" and "just a gimmick" aimed at selling the scheme to the public.

 

But a Home Office spokesman said they had always said that "ID cards for critical workers would be starting in the second half of 2009 and we are on track to meet this commitment".

 

He added ID cards would definitely be issued to the remaining airside workers in due course, before being rolled out to the wider population.

 

Supermarket enrolment

 

In a speech to the Social Market Foundation Ms Smith said cards would be issued on a voluntary basis to young people from 2010 and for everyone else from 2012.

 

She added: "But I believe there is a demand, now, for cards - and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long.

 

"I now want to put that to the test and find a way to allow those people who want a card sooner to be able to pre-register their interest as early as the first few months of next year."

Biometric cards are being issued to some foreign nationals from this month

 

She said she hoped to be in a position where cards would be issued in "small volumes" before the end of 2009.

 

People applying for cards and passports from 2012 will have to provide fingerprints, photographs and a signature, which Ms Smith believes will create a market worth about £200m a year.

 

Other changes to earlier identity scheme plans include the disclosure that the Home Office was talking to retailers and the Post Office about setting up booths to gather biometric data.

 

'Trusted environment'

 

The government believes it would be "more convenient" for people and cheaper than setting up its previously planned enrolment centres in large population centres.

 

In her speech Ms Smith rejected claims handing enrolment over to private firms would compromise security.

 

"Provided that it is conducted in a secure and trusted environment, by service providers accredited and verified by the IPS and to high and rigorously enforced standards, enrolment should be able to happen at the convenience of the customer - on the high street, at the nearest post office, or at the local shopping centre."

 

 

The overall cost of the ID card scheme over the next 10 years has risen by £50m to £5.1bn in the past six months, according to the government's latest cost report.

 

 

What company is going embarrass itself to the tune of millions for a contract that everyone outside the Home Office itself knows will be cancelled by a new administration?

 

Phil Booth

No 2 ID

 

Phil Booth, national coordinator of the NO2ID, said the government would struggle to find private firms willing to bid for the ID card contract.

 

"What company is going embarrass itself to the tune of millions for a contract that everyone outside the Home Office itself knows will be cancelled by a new administration?" he said.

 

For the Conservatives Mr Grieve said his party would axe the whole scheme because it was "a complete waste of money" and had asked for "break clauses" to be inserted into government contracts so it could be ended "without massive cost and waste to the public purse".

 

The government's plan to involve retailers in enrolling people was "worrying" given the government's IT track record, he added.

 

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Ministers are choosing a limited number of guinea pigs at two smaller airports because they are aware of how unpopular ID cards are.

 

"The government is too scared to force ID cards on voters before an election because they know it would be a laminated poll tax.

 

"The problem is not the ease with which we can give up sensitive personal data, but the ease with which the Home Office loses it. The Government cannot be trusted to keep personal information safe."

[BJBlue]

For me out of the three main party leaders Gordon Brown is the most individual character. David Cameron and Nick Clegg seem very similar to me, even though given the parties they head up they should be very different. People accuse Cameron of being 'posh'. I interviewed Nick Clegg last year and i'll tell you now. He's definatley posh. The main problem is that Gordon Brown is more of the same, Cameron is fashy with his soundbytes but people are wary of a tory government and i dont think Clegg or the Lib Dems are strong enough to stand for government.

[Stitch_KTF]

Now I've had my little rant!!!

 

Can I have:

 

1) Fuel as cheap as the Yanks.

2) A pension as good as the French.

3) The same amount of holidays as Johnny Foreigner.

4) A lunchtime like the Spanish.

 

Whoever does that will get my vote.

 

Agree, except that if anything petrol for private use should be more expensive in my opinion. The government can try whatever they want to get people out of cars but the only way is to price them out of them.

 

On the other hand fuel for particular business types, for example food haulage, ought to be tax free.

 

This would have been done long ago I reckon, except it would lose the government power so they haven't.

[mikejh45]

Agree, except that if anything petrol for private use should be more expensive in my opinion. The government can try whatever they want to get people out of cars but the only way is to price them out of them.

 

Two points:

 

Why should additional taxes be levied on private motorists? There is already an excessive tax burden on motorists already.

 

This government (and previous ones to a slightly lesser extent) are quite happy to increase fuel costs without having an alternative in place. In the 80's, the then Tory govt. and Graham Stringers Manchester Council worked very well in delivering the first Metrolink. Now, you get permission given to rail companies to increase rail costs and reduce number of carriages therefore making it more difficult to get to work.

[Stitch_KTF]

Two points:

 

Why should additional taxes be levied on private motorists? There is already an excessive tax burden on motorists already.

 

This government (and previous ones to a slightly lesser extent) are quite happy to increase fuel costs without having an alternative in place. In the 80's, the then Tory govt. and Graham Stringers Manchester Council worked very well in delivering the first Metrolink. Now, you get permission given to rail companies to increase rail costs and reduce number of carriages therefore making it more difficult to get to work.

 

1) Quite simply to get motorists out of their cars for unnecessary journeys, or to at least buy more efficient cars. Not to raise more money - although that could be spent researching alternatives.

 

2) Seems a more than valid point. I have little knowledge of politics to be honest (I know all about good third division defenders ) but then people aren't yet priced out of their cars. If they were to be as a matter of policy then of course better alternatives would need to be made available.

 

For me it's all about recognising the problems that our tremendous dependance on fuel (and the middle east) causes, and more to the point will cause. It could be argued it has already led us to war, with all the cost that goes with it - maybe that's where all the petrol 'green' tax goes?!?! Dependence is such that people seem to think it's a god-given right to have cheap petrol. It is obviously an issue as pathetic schemes to reduce cars on our overcrowded, polluted roads indicate. However these will not work because people enjoy the luxury and believe 'I alone won't make a difference'. Therefore the only possible way to achieve the goal is to price people out of it! Incidently I'm just as bad as Average Joe, if not worse in all honesty. I despise trains, only ever taking the occasional one to Manchester from Mumps for nights out.

 

In my opinion should we not begin to reduce the dependence on petrol gradually it will come as a much bigger shock, and cause much bigger issues, when we are forced to be less dependent all of a sudden whether that be your generation, mine, your grandchilds or my grandchilds.......people aren't bothered though. They are more concerned about their pockets here and now, and being able to afford to follow Latics all over the country.

 

My argument isn't 100% from a green point of view. Global warming and the like is down to much more than just cars, and it's a global issue not the UK's. But wouldn't it be massively beneficail to be the first developed county in the world to not be 100% dependant on petrol?

[Guest sheridans_world]

1) Quite simply to get motorists out of their cars for unnecessary journeys, or to at least buy more efficient cars. Not to raise more money - although that could be spent researching alternatives.

 

2) Seems a more than valid point. I have little knowledge of politics to be honest (I know all about good third division defenders ) but then people aren't yet priced out of their cars. If they were to be as a matter of policy then of course better alternatives would need to be made available.

 

For me it's all about recognising the problems that our tremendous dependance on fuel (and the middle east) causes, and more to the point will cause. It could be argued it has already led us to war, with all the cost that goes with it - maybe that's where all the petrol 'green' tax goes?!?! Dependence is such that people seem to think it's a god-given right to have cheap petrol. It is obviously an issue as pathetic schemes to reduce cars on our overcrowded, polluted roads indicate. However these will not work because people enjoy the luxury and believe 'I alone won't make a difference'. Therefore the only possible way to achieve the goal is to price people out of it! Incidently I'm just as bad as Average Joe, if not worse in all honesty. I despise trains, only ever taking the occasional one to Manchester from Mumps for nights out.

 

In my opinion should we not begin to reduce the dependence on petrol gradually it will come as a much bigger shock, and cause much bigger issues, when we are forced to be less dependent all of a sudden whether that be your generation, mine, your grandchilds or my grandchilds.......people aren't bothered though. They are more concerned about their pockets here and now, and being able to afford to follow Latics all over the country.

 

My argument isn't 100% from a green point of view. Global warming and the like is down to much more than just cars, and it's a global issue not the UK's. But wouldn't it be massively beneficail to be the first developed county in the world to not be 100% dependant on petrol?

 

I totally agree and thats why, even though I live outside the ring's but work inside the rings, I'll be voting 'YES' to the congestion charge question. I would love a reliable alternative however the trains and buses (combined with having to cross the centre of Manchester for my particular journey to work) do not link up well enough. The metrolink proposals are, for me, spot on.

 

However I dont think higher petrol prices is the right way forward, why should I suffer from having to shell out £8 a week more on petrol just to stop other people making uneeded journeys? Now while I accept that £8 a week might not be alot, but over a year its £416. Thats a big difference. I have to drive to work because the public transport system is not good enough. I am registered to car share with someone else at work, no-one (as yet) has come forward living in my area. The way to go is higher road tax. I have a very economical car, its on the lowest car tax banding, that way, both the amount of petrol used and the emmisions are reduced. Greatley benefitting both the public and the gvnt and encouraging people away from 'gas guzzlers' and towards cars like the aygo/C1/107.

[mikejh45]

I totally agree and thats why, even though I live outside the ring's but work inside the rings, I'll be voting 'YES' to the congestion charge question. I would love a reliable alternative however the trains and buses (combined with having to cross the centre of Manchester for my particular journey to work) do not link up well enough. The metrolink proposals are, for me, spot on.

 

However I dont think higher petrol prices is the right way forward, why should I suffer from having to shell out £8 a week more on petrol just to stop other people making uneeded journeys? Now while I accept that £8 a week might not be alot, but over a year its £416. Thats a big difference. I have to drive to work because the public transport system is not good enough. I am registered to car share with someone else at work, no-one (as yet) has come forward living in my area. The way to go is higher road tax. I have a very economical car, its on the lowest car tax banding, that way, both the amount of petrol used and the emmisions are reduced. Greatley benefitting both the public and the gvnt and encouraging people away from 'gas guzzlers' and towards cars like the aygo/C1/107.

 

Motorists already pay a phenomenal amount of money into the tax coffers from various sources i.e. road tax, taxation on the oil barrel, VAT on fuel, insurance tax. And from all this revenue coming in, WE THE MOTORIST get about 15% back in road projects. Govts. past and present use the car driver as a cash cow when their :censored:e policies are failing and need a boost in funding.

 

Have you given any thought to the idea that even if you get more people out of their cars and onto these new transport initiatives then less revenue is raised? So who has to make up the shortfall? The motorist of course!!!

 

We need a balanced taxation system that all contribute to.

[Stitch_KTF]

However I dont think higher petrol prices is the right way forward, why should I suffer from having to shell out £8 a week more on petrol just to stop other people making uneeded journeys? Now while I accept that £8 a week might not be alot, but over a year its £416. Thats a big difference. I have to drive to work because the public transport system is not good enough. I am registered to car share with someone else at work, no-one (as yet) has come forward living in my area. The way to go is higher road tax. I have a very economical car, its on the lowest car tax banding, that way, both the amount of petrol used and the emmisions are reduced. Greatley benefitting both the public and the gvnt and encouraging people away from 'gas guzzlers' and towards cars like the aygo/C1/107.

 

At first thought that seems fair enough, a possible alternative to achieving the aim. But is higher road tax not simply you still paying more to stop others making unnecessary journeys? It just gives you opportunity to minimise how much more, which is already achieved by you having an economical car. Besides, the whole idea is that motoring costs go up for everybody, reducing everybodies unneccessary journeys. Your proposal would simply price some people out of having a car full stop. Whilst you, having paid your expensive yet fixed road tax already, would continue to drive unneccessary journeys burning the still reasonably priced fuel. For that reason alone it doesn't quite work. The fuel has to be dearer im afraid.

[garcon]

I would post a detailed critique of "Dave" Cameron's policies and why they won't work.

 

But I can't.

 

They don't exist.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and Stitch - remind me never to offer you a lift anywhere... tax the motorist more indeed.... Tsch!

[OldhamSheridan]

I would post a detailed critique of "Dave" Cameron's policies and why they won't work.

 

But I can't.

 

They don't exist.

Oh, and Stitch - remind me never to offer you a lift anywhere... tax the motorist more indeed.... Tsch!

 

I thought he was taking the Obama route.

 

Policy 1: Change.

Policy 2: Isn't one.

 

Should be enough to win this time though.

 

I'd say the biggest thing keeping people in their cars is the lack of an ability to catch trains/catch buses/ride bikes due to the poor public transport system/death roads. If the Government set up reasonable alternatives then I'm sure many people would look for an alternative. There just isn't one at the moment. As for moving the price of fuel up. How far? Because it was above £1.20 (about 20% more than now) and I saw no reaction in car use (people were driving slower on motorways, but that is all).

[beag_teeets]

I fully agree with stich on this - we have to do something about the reliance on the finite resource that is oil, it isn't doing us any good in the long term. We have dropped the ball on this one getting to the state we are now, we are going to see further increases in the price of oil sooner than we think, opec have already cut production but to take a longer term view of it, China and India's oil requirements are growing, if (when) the rest of the world's oil needs grow we will all be shafted.

 

To approach it from another angle, studies have shown that it was quicker to travel in London by horse and cart than by car, can't be far off that in Manchester once you hit Deansgate in rush-hour? This surely can't be good for anyone, I know my blood pressure rises when I sit in near stationary traffic and I can't be the only one.

 

The fact of the matter is the model we are currently using is not sustainable and alternatives have to be found whether the congestion charge is the right answer I don't know but the current free for all certainly isn't. We have to look at where we are now and where we would like to be and figure out how best to get there, the ultimate aim is less cars on the road - for oil reasons, for green reasons, for economic reasons, for not having to sit behind Doris while she does her make-up in the rear-view during rush-hour reasons, so you can perhaps get out of 2nd gear in town - whatever reason you choose the goal is less traffic on the roads.

[mikejh45]

I fully agree with stich on this - we have to do something about the reliance on the finite resource that is oil, it isn't doing us any good in the long term. We have dropped the ball on this one getting to the state we are now, we are going to see further increases in the price of oil sooner than we think, opec have already cut production but to take a longer term view of it, China and India's oil requirements are growing, if (when) the rest of the world's oil needs grow we will all be shafted.

 

To approach it from another angle, studies have shown that it was quicker to travel in London by horse and cart than by car, can't be far off that in Manchester once you hit Deansgate in rush-hour? This surely can't be good for anyone, I know my blood pressure rises when I sit in near stationary traffic and I can't be the only one.

 

The fact of the matter is the model we are currently using is not sustainable and alternatives have to be found whether the congestion charge is the right answer I don't know but the current free for all certainly isn't. We have to look at where we are now and where we would like to be and figure out how best to get there, the ultimate aim is less cars on the road - for oil reasons, for green reasons, for economic reasons, for not having to sit behind Doris while she does her make-up in the rear-view during rush-hour reasons, so you can perhaps get out of 2nd gear in town - whatever reason you choose the goal is less traffic on the roads.

 

The argument is not about developing alternative systems of transport but who pays for it. I strongly feel that the motorist is overburdened with taxation.

 

At one time, most of freight in this country was moved by rail, but the visionary known as Doctor Beeching decided to close a large chunk of the railway system.

In the good ole USA, Amtrak used to put a free railway siding to your business if built adjacent to the rail system. Shame we can't do that here, but the tunnels can't cope with the container sizes.

 

The reason for a cut of production in oil is due to worldwide demand falling (inc. China & India). OPEC have no interest in protecting this resource and cut production because sales where falling to $60/barrel so by turning off the tap, they hope to create a demand so prices go up to their preferred $100/barrel.

 

If we are serious about alternatives then go full speed ahead for nuclear fuel.

[beag_teeets]

The argument is not about developing alternative systems of transport but who pays for it. I strongly feel that the motorist is overburdened with taxation.

 

Simple answer - we the tax payer pay for it, we all know that. Whether the tax payers is a motorist, ballonist, unicyclist or whatever, the tax payer will foot the bill.

 

I did put a paragraph about freight on my post but deleted it as it was a bit off topic but I fully agree freight should be put back on rail or even canal - just think of the jobs that would be created sorting out the rail network and the canal network.

 

What we forget is that Britain is such an old country that it has on the whole evolved rather than been planned and as a result we are stuck with an infrastructure that is no longer fit for purpose, train lines don't go where they are needed, roads go to the wrong place and a lot of buildings are in the wrong place. What this country needs is a massive programme of bulldozing and rebuilding but no politiican is going to argue for this as it will cost a fortune and the nimbies will be right out in force.

 

As for nuclear - possibly, fission rather than fusion but either way more research needed to see how to deal properly with the waste products of both. Same as with proper renewables like wind, sun and wave - they might be expensive to get running but once they are going the raw material of the fuel is free.

 

We are at a point where we are looking at some big questions and it really does need some thinking and solutions that fall outside of the box. Sadly, we know small mindedness is going to win.

[mikejh45]

Simple answer - we the tax payer pay for it, we all know that. Whether the tax payers is a motorist, ballonist, unicyclist or whatever, the tax payer will foot the bill.

 

I did put a paragraph about freight on my post but deleted it as it was a bit off topic but I fully agree freight should be put back on rail or even canal - just think of the jobs that would be created sorting out the rail network and the canal network.

 

What we forget is that Britain is such an old country that it has on the whole evolved rather than been planned and as a result we are stuck with an infrastructure that is no longer fit for purpose, train lines don't go where they are needed, roads go to the wrong place and a lot of buildings are in the wrong place. What this country needs is a massive programme of bulldozing and rebuilding but no politiican is going to argue for this as it will cost a fortune and the nimbies will be right out in force.

 

As for nuclear - possibly, fission rather than fusion but either way more research needed to see how to deal properly with the waste products of both. Same as with proper renewables like wind, sun and wave - they might be expensive to get running but once they are going the raw material of the fuel is free.

 

We are at a point where we are looking at some big questions and it really does need some thinking and solutions that fall outside of the box. Sadly, we know small mindedness is going to win.

 

 

Agreed that we should ALL pay and through our income tax not increasing one section's tax burden.

[OldhamSheridan]

Agreed that we should ALL pay and through our income tax not increasing one section's tax burden.

 

Income Tax is one section's tax burden.

[leezyverpunk]

This country's :censored:ed - no matter who takes over!