Turn on thread page Beta

Isn't Cameron a good PM? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think he is. the economy is good, and the coutnry isn't in wars that don't affect us.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nope I don't believe he is a good PM or has good policies that will benefit the country
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim Coltec)
    i think he is. the economy is good, and the coutnry isn't in wars that don't affect us.
    The economy is improving because economies naturally go in cycles of boom and bust. The credit crisis was 8 years ago now so it's not surprising that we would be recovering by now. But arguably we are not recovering very effectively, because although employment and wages are slowly rising again, the benefits of the recovery are mainly going to rich people. Inequality is increasing and the people at the bottom are suffering.

    And as for not being in wars which don't affect us, that's a very low bar to set for the status of being 'a good PM', it's not difficult to be a better PM than Tony Blair. Besides, David Cameron wanted to invade Syria, the only reason we are not at war there right now is because he was defeated in the vote.

    A lot of people seem to make the mistake of attributing the current state of the country directly to the Prime Minister, when actually the Prime Minister has much less control over things like the economy than people think, and the control he does have is subject to a long delay: the state of development in things like healthcare, education and economics are more defined by the politicians of 10 years ago than those of today. You should judge a serving prime minister by his actions and by his ideology, not by the way the country seems to be doing at a given moment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    The economy is improving because economies naturally go in cycles of boom and bust. The credit crisis was 8 years ago now so it's not surprising that we would be recovering by now. But arguably we are not recovering very effectively, because although employment and wages are slowly rising again, the benefits of the recovery are mainly going to rich people. Inequality is increasing and the people at the bottom are suffering.

    And as for not being in wars which don't affect us, that's a very low bar to set for the status of being 'a good PM', it's not difficult to be a better PM than Tony Blair. Besides, David Cameron wanted to invade Syria, the only reason we are not at war there right now is because he was defeated in the vote.

    A lot of people seem to make the mistake of attributing the current state of the country directly to the Prime Minister, when actually the Prime Minister has much less control over things like the economy than people think, and the control he does have is subject to a long delay: the state of development in things like healthcare, education and economics are more defined by the politicians of 10 years ago than those of today.
    ISIS is a threat to the region. Saddam wasn't. Saddam had no WMDs, and i doubt we'll ever know if he did, or if he wanted to fire them at us.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim Coltec)
    ISIS is a threat to the region. Saddam wasn't. Saddam had no WMDs, and i doubt we'll ever know if he did, or if he wanted to fire them at us.
    But this vote was before the rise of ISIS: they were not considered a major threat in 2013, the target of our war would have been Assad, which would in fact have directly helped ISIS.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    ISIS didn't even exist in 2013, the target of our war would have been Assad, which would in fact have directly helped ISIS.
    yes, it did. but it's pretty cool that you let cute girls off the hook for posting this, and not calling them "fools" but do to me..lol.. are you the "dude" or "badman"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim Coltec)
    yes, it did. but it's pretty cool that you let cute girls off the hook for posting this, and not calling them "fools" but do to me..lol.. are you the "dude" or "badman"?
    Post edited: they did exist but they were not yet considered a major threat. Anyway that's completely irrelevant to the point, since as I said the target would have been Assad not IS.

    And I do not understand the rest of your post, what 'girls' are you talking about?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think he is ok
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Post edited: they did exist but they were not yet considered a major threat. Anyway that's completely irrelevant to the point, since as I said the target would have been Assad not IS.

    And I do not understand the rest of your post, what 'girls' are you talking about?
    i laugh at you, since you have a phantom rule as to who can post what...lol....you like to project.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I actually think so.

    Can't really think of anyone else I would rather have.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim Coltec)
    i laugh at you, since you have a phantom rule as to who can post what...lol....you like to project.
    I still don't know what you are talking about, I saw this thread in the latest discussions tab and I replied to it, I have nothing against you nor indeed any idea who you are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    I still don't know what you are talking about, I saw this thread in the latest discussions tab and I replied to it, I have nothing against you nor indeed any idea who you are.
    just calling you out....since you really believe i need to care about what you as some Web stranger has to say lolol....aspie.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jim Coltec)
    just calling you out....since you really believe i need to care about what you as some Web stranger has to say lolol....aspie.
    Calling me out for what? You're the one who started the thread asking whether Cameron was a good PM, I posted my response to that. What is all of this nonsense about 'cute girls' and 'badman'? Are those TSR users?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    'The country isn't in wars that don't affect us', Cameron has consistently followed an interventionist foreign policy. Himself and his French Conservative chums have utterly ballsed up Libya, he is directly responsible for the chaos currently engulfing that nation. Also, they will do the same to Syria (Minus Sarkozy). Cameron has a terrible track record on foreign policy.

    The economy is not 'good', unless you are a member of the aristocracy or part of the top 1% of earners. Real wages have declined since 2010, growth is slowing down, productivity is low, British firms are being beaten into the ground by Germany and China and the public sector has been decimated. The economy is a circular flow of income, for it to work requires households, firms and the government to prosper. You can't measure the 'effectiveness' of an economy by the status of the budget deficit. The economy is also about wages, exchange and provision.

    Cameron has been the most incompetent PM since Alec Douglas-Home.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Gave us a referendum on AV.

    Gave the Scots a referendum.

    Gave us an EU referendum

    Certainly the most democratic PM ever, and he has the advantage of the being the first PM in the social media age.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    he has the advantage of the being the first PM in the social media age.
    1 - why is that an advantage?
    2 - Twitter has been around since 2006, Facebook since 2004, so why isn't Brown or even Blair considered as a social media PM?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    He's a pure pragmatist and I admire that. He's perceived as a strong statesman and I think he's decent at PMQs. All the same qualities as Blair.


    Other than that no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    He's a pure pragmatist and I admire that. He's perceived as a strong statesman and I think he's decent at PMQs. All the same qualities as Blair.


    Other than that no.
    He's a PR man. He's brilliant at speaking and sounding statesmanlike, just like blair. Although he doesn't share Blair's concerns for the poor or public services.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He's a PR man. He's brilliant at speaking and sounding statesmanlike, just like blair. Although he doesn't share Blair's concerns for the poor or public services.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Agreed on public services, not sure on concerns to the poor - just very different ideas on how to help them.

    But certainly Blair was preferabke, even Corbynites admit that now.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I quite like David.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.