Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Cameron retiring from the House immediately

Scroll to see replies

I was using the term 'worst PM' in a broadly non-ideological way, eg, performance rather than views. I'm not stupid about Thatcher, she was an impressive, determined and effective Prime Minister, regardless of any other issues.

Ah I see what you mean now, I do agree with you there :smile:

Reply 21

Ambitious1999

Original post by Inexorably

Considering you, OP, come across quite left-wing (not saying that's a bad thing), I do find it surprising you find Cameron worse than Thatcher.

Cameron was worse in several aspects.

Under Thatcher there were no cuts to welfare. There was no bedroom tax, there were no cuts to disability benefits, no ATOS assememnts, no workfare, no dole sanctions, no foodbanks....less poverty related to welfare reforms, because she did not take from the poor like Cameron did.

Reply 22

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Ambitious1999

How much of it was down to Cameron and how much to Osborne is difficult to determine, but it seems we can assume they were agreed at all points. They certainly ran an extremely right wing ideological government hell bent on maniacally reducing the public sector regardless of consequences. This also seems to be a Tory Party thing now, as May is shaping up to be much the same, despite her Thatcherite blather outside No 10 after she was anointed the new Dear Leader.

Reply 23

Drewski

Original post by Fullofsurprises

extremely right wing, hell bent, maniacally.

Not as if you're pushing an agenda with your choice of adjectives. No. Course not. Perish the thought.

Nothing but calm and impartial.

:rolleyes:

Reply 24

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Drewski

Not as if you're pushing an agenda with your choice of adjectives. No. Course not. Perish the thought.

Nothing but calm and impartial.

:rolleyes:

I like to think I'm being completely objective. :yep:

Reply 25

Tempest II

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I like to think I'm being completely objective. :yep:

In the spirit of fairness & balance, it's probably worth mentioning that under Cameron & Osborne, unemployment fell from over 8% to under 5%. I did read that 2.48 million jobs were created but I can't remember the source for that last figure.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate

It's also worth pointing out that after the 2010 General Election, the UK only had 2 quarters of negative growth as opposed to the many quarters of positive growth despite the cuts to departmental budgets & the public sector.

Reply 26

username1148663

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Cammie's off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3785546/David-Cameron-QUIT-House-Commons-IMMEDIATE-effect.html

Evidently Parliament has few attractions for him now and he's retiring to spend more time with his money. Like Blair, he wants to go on a roller coaster ride of corporate paychecking and money grubbing from dictators. And that's just his US activities. :teehee:

Does anyone disagree that this was the worst Prime Minister since the war?

Mate learn your post war history some of our pm's couldn't even keep the electricity running

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 27

InnerTemple

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Does anyone disagree that this was the worst Prime Minister since the war?

He's got to be up there on the list of worse PMs, surely?

He came in promising a big society and that we were all in it together. Instead, he allowed a brutal program of austerity which punished the poorest the most as public services were squeezed.

His government(s) lost the trust and respect of professions we all rely on. Lawyers took strike action, Teachers were left at loggerheads with the education secretary, and we have an NHS in disarray and near breaking point.

In his last act of bad judgment, he put party interests ahead of national interests. He took a foolish gamble - which not only backfired on him but the UK as a whole.

He created a lot of problems. And his parting blow was Brexit. A move which will surely overshadow very important domestic issues.

One word to describe him: Failure.

Reply 28

Fullofsurprises

Original post by paul514

Mate learn your post war history some of our pm's couldn't even keep the electricity running

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'll try!

I assume you're thinking of the Heath government, which was of course about the NUM trying to get decent standards and pay for miners, on whom the whole economy depended, but who were treated terribly badly in numerous ways. Arguably it was a good thing if Prime Ministers of the day gave in to them.

According to all the experts, the UK is facing a major power supply crisis and that will be entirely down to the form of extremist privatisation capitalism practised and preached by the Tories (and sadly, fellow New Labour travellers, at least for a few years), which is lamentably bad at strategic national planning. So when those cuts come, it perhaps won't be made clear, but the failure of the lights to come on when you press the switch will be entirely down to Thatcherism and the sad imitations of her who followed - including Cameron and Osborne.

Reply 29

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Tempest II

Those quarters you call 'positive' were mostly just flatlining in reality - it's only in the last year or so that UK growth has gone above the level of statistical noise.

I'm not necessarily blaming our beloved Cameron for that, but the madcap plunge into austerity didn't help and has actually hindered recovery, which is why Dave and Gideon dumped the policy half way through.

Reply 30

L i b

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Evidently Parliament has few attractions for him now and he's retiring to spend more time with his money. Like Blair, he wants to go on a roller coaster ride of corporate paychecking and money grubbing from dictators. And that's just his US activities. :teehee:

Groan. Even before someone has done anything, they get condemned by the hard-of-thinking on here.

Does anyone disagree that this was the worst Prime Minister since the war?

I think he was one of the best. Fundamentally he was reliable, and the public had confidence in him to be steady and assured. He was a liberal conservative, which very much chimes with my own stance and an effective communicator. His instincts were right - rolling out academies, free schools, same-sex marriage, promoting life chances, an incredible record on employment, reducing the tax burden for low earners. Excellent stuff.

He fought hard and fought well, both in the EU referendum and - more close to home - in the Scottish referendum in 2014. It's a shame he only won one, and it was probably right that he went, but I think Parliament will be far poorer without him.

Original post by Plagioclase

He knows that he has failed on a truly colossal scale so there's no surprise that he wants to get out.

Well, he failed in a fair fight with a four point difference, when it was relatively clear the EU wasn't held in any great affection by the public. I'm not sure the verdict of the British people should ever be cast as a failure.

Reply 31

Plagioclase

Original post by L i b

I'm not sure the verdict of the British people should ever be cast as a failure.

You don't feel at all foolish with such blind faith in the verdict of the British people?

Reply 32

L i b

Original post by InnerTemple

He's got to be up there on the list of worse PMs, surely?

He came in promising a big society and that we were all in it together. Instead, he allowed a brutal program of austerity which punished the poorest the most as public services were squeezed.

Nonsense. Poverty declined under his tenure and real income grew most in the lowest decile. Measures of inequality remained flat.

Plus this idea that there was some great "austerity" is ideological doggerel, imbued with any credibility only by being trotted out endlessly by economically illiterate opponents. In the end, the spending plans of the Coalition government pretty closely resembled Alastair Darling's plans.

Inevitably reducing public expenditure will have some impact on the poor, because they're the ones who overwhelmingly use public services. If you're seriously suggesting we should never reduce benefits or re-target public spending because it may have a negative impact on someone (completely ignoring any wider justification) then, well... ****, I'm just glad you're not in charge.

His government(s) lost the trust and respect of professions we all rely on. Lawyers took strike action, Teachers were left at loggerheads with the education secretary, and we have an NHS in disarray and near breaking point.

I'm not sure the measure of a government is how it serves the interests of a client class of professionals. I'd question the efficacy of any Education Secretary that didn't cause friction with teachers. It is not the duty of the state to work in their interests, but in the interests of people who use public services.

The NHS is not "near breaking point", although of course that's yet another tired cliché that is wheeled out against each and every government that's been in power in the last 30 years.

In his last act of bad judgment, he put party interests ahead of national interests. He took a foolish gamble - which not only backfired on him but the UK as a whole.

Quite a thing to call having a free and fair referendum on something "bad judgment". It smacks entirely of sour grapes. I was a very strong Remain advocate, just like David Cameron, but some of the pathetic snivelling from my own camp since the result has been incredibly embarrassing.

Good Riddance I say.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

At the same time, he blindly followed (or sponsored - we are never told which) the stupid austerity programme of his Chancellor, refused to chastise, replace or diminish that Chancellor when it turned out not to be working - and still, amazingly, basks in its worst aspects, like the Bedroom Tax and severe cuts to the NHS and Social Care, as if they are somehow highly meritorious. It's disgusting stuff when you look closely at it - he's a real creep.

Except of course you're brazenly lying there. The health budget increased in real terms each and every year under Cameron's tenure as Prime Minister. There was never any cut at all to the NHS, never mind a "severe" one.

As for the "Bedroom Tax" - the shibboleth of the irrelevant far-left - I for one backed it fully. It is appalling that when hundreds of thousands of people are living in cramped, overcrowded or temporary accommodation that the state is funding others to have empty rooms. Not only was this sensible from a financial perspective, but from one of social justice too.

Reply 35

metrize

I'll miss him he was a brilliant PM

Reply 36

username878267

Original post by L i b

an incredible record on employment,

Oh give over.
Largely by changing how the unemployment figure was calculated.
Just as they changed how child poverty was calculated. Both of which reflected better on the tories than the previous measure did. Hmm..

Reply 37

LoofMan

Worst post-war?

I think Anthony Eden holds that one.

Reply 38

L i b

Original post by Plagioclase

You don't feel at all foolish with such blind faith in the verdict of the British people?

I don't put any particular faith in the judgement of the British people - I just happen to recognise that this is a democracy. Pulling out arguments that people are too stupid to know what's good for them may well have some rational credibility to them - people are indeed on the whole pretty daft at times - but equally it undermines the entire concept of democracy.

In a democracy, you do not have the right to be well-governed. You have the right to involvement in the governance of your country, just as everyone else. I suspect, however, if we were to do away with democratic government, it'd probably create rather bigger problems than technocratic arguments on policy being overlooked.

Reply 39

username878267

Original post by L i b

As for the "Bedroom Tax" - the shibboleth of the irrelevant far-left - I for one backed it fully. It is appalling that when hundreds of thousands of people are living in cramped, overcrowded or temporary accommodation that the state is funding others to have empty rooms. Not only was this sensible from a financial perspective, but from one of social justice too.

Had it been accompanied by a house-building project to provide adequately sized housing for those who were required to downsize then it would have been acceptable.

However there was no building of social housing. It's incredibly unfair to cut peoples' housing benefits because they have a spare room (which often they needed if they were disabled), when there is virtually nowhere for them to move.
The end result was that thousands were made homeless because they could no longer afford their accommodation and there was nowhere for them to downsize to. Have you seen housing association waiting lists? I really doubt you have.

Oh and seeing as you laud our courts, the Court of Appeal actually ruled that the bedroom tax violated the human rights of disabled people.

You're being incredibly fake here. You don't care about 'hundreds of thousands in cramped accommodation' because if you did you would support a serious project for the establishment of new social housing.

Instead Cameron tried to force Housing Associations to sell off their properties for right to buy discounts which would further have depleted the stock of affordable rental housing. Thankfully he was rebuffed and backed down.