  |
 Cameron twisting the truth again, Ever heard of the Board of British Sikhs? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Aug 14 2014, 07:00 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272 
        
|
Last week all three parties nominated some new peers. Among the new Tory peers Cameron nominated someone who had given £6 million to the Tory Party over the years and another businessman who had donated several hundred thousand pounds. The latter was described as a "former General Secretary of the Board of British Sikhs". However, that seems to be slightly less impressive than Cameron would like us to believe. Not only has it not existed for about 20 years, it was always a group of just a handful of people. It would be a bit like me gathering a few mates together in the pub, calling ourselves "The Friends of Planet Zarg" and electing myself as Life President.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...hs-9667510.html Still, I suppose the statement was technically true which is a step in the right direction for Cameron. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 14 2014, 07:09 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
           
|
This is probably a distant last place on the number of statements he needs nailing on.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2014, 07:34 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Aug 14 2014, 08:09 PM)  This is probably a distant last place on the number of statements he needs nailing on. Except that he has used this information to get another Tory in the House of Lords. Somebody who will remain there until he dies unless a subsequent government gets its act together and reforms the second chamber. It's bad enough having part of the legislature selected by party leaders. It's even worse when it is done using misleading information. After all, "I met a 40-year-old black man who had served in the armed forces for 30 years" isn't the most serious lie ever told but it was indicative of Cameron's distant relationship with the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 01:24 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138
 
|
The British House of Lords is a disgrace to democracy IMO!
|
|
|
|
| GRIFF |
Aug 15 2014, 11:37 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
I was thinking about Cameron's relationship with the public just yesterday. It's clear that most feel quite alienated from what he does or says but a lot don't feel anger towards him because he seems 'likable', from my perspective anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 12:19 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
I find it hard to symapthise with ex-public-schoolboys. Their version of reality is not mine. Their grasp on power remains pretty overwhelming, they still get the best jobs, and having the right connections still matters in life.
That applies to any section of any society that favors their own and fails to have a true version of equality. Things are better in the UK than they once were, by far, and better than much of the world, but there are still lots of areas for improvement. Still, at least we don't pretend to have a constitution hypocritically bragging that all men are created equal, and then demonstrate by action that some men are a lot more equal than others. Whether by religion, race or economic background... |
|
|
|
| GRIFF |
Aug 15 2014, 12:24 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
However, no one's taken a harder hit than Clegg. He's had more shit thrown at him than I've seen even Blair and Bush getting.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 01:59 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
|
QUOTE(GRIFF @ Aug 15 2014, 01:24 PM) However, no one's taken a harder hit than Clegg. He's had more shit thrown at him than I've seen even Blair and Bush getting. The vitriol towards Bush was ten times greater, and for good reason. Clegg has made himself an easy target but he's not interesting anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 03:48 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
Nobody tries to arrest Clegg whenever he goes to dinner anywhere in public. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
| GRIFF |
Aug 15 2014, 03:53 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
That might be true, but from my perspective and what I've seen more people bash Clegg than Blair/Bush. Everyone's experiences are gonna be different based on generation and age group.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 06:43 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(GRIFF @ Aug 15 2014, 01:24 PM) However, no one's taken a harder hit than Clegg. He's had more shit thrown at him than I've seen even Blair and Bush getting. Disagree. He was definitely detested personally during the tuition fees debacle, but as time's gone on I think people just see him as an irrelevance now. The bigger problem now is that the Lib Dems as a whole (including Clegg, but not limited to just him like it was at one stage) are seen as cheap, untrustworthy sellouts who just want to line their pockets. And that's also why I think people are overestimating how easy it's going to be for the Lib Dems to "recover" even when they leave the coalition, because they're going to need to find someone to lead them who the public already has a very high level of trust in (Vince Cable being probably the one and only example) to overcome how badly damaged the party's reputation is. This post has been edited by Danny: Aug 15 2014, 06:43 PM |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 06:59 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(GRIFF @ Aug 15 2014, 12:37 PM) I was thinking about Cameron's relationship with the public just yesterday. It's clear that most feel quite alienated from what he does or says but a lot don't feel anger towards him because he seems 'likable', from my perspective anyway. Like so many people with his background Cameron speaks with a high level of self-confidence. Of course, other people describe it as arrogance. Whatever you call it, it means that people initially believe such obvious nonsense as the 40-year-old black man who had spent 30 years in the armed forces. It has been shown many times that the method of delivery is more important than the actual content. Cameron exploits that to the full. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 09:21 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Aug 15 2014, 07:43 PM) Disagree. He was definitely detested personally during the tuition fees debacle, but as time's gone on I think people just see him as an irrelevance now. The bigger problem now is that the Lib Dems as a whole (including Clegg, but not limited to just him like it was at one stage) are seen as cheap, untrustworthy sellouts who just want to line their pockets. And that's also why I think people are overestimating how easy it's going to be for the Lib Dems to "recover" even when they leave the coalition, because they're going to need to find someone to lead them who the public already has a very high level of trust in (Vince Cable being probably the one and only example) to overcome how badly damaged the party's reputation is. At the risk of being hypothetical... Had they gone with Brown (and against what the public voted for, that's not democracy given the damage that had been caused at that point in time, given the public's lack of voting for labour) they would still have been slagged off for supporting a government that put tuition fees up and followed-through on it's assurances that it was going to severely slash public spending. In a coalition thats always going to be the fate of the weaker party - blamed for not sticking 100% to it's principles. Why are the bigger parties not getting the same vitriol for not sticking to their promises? Every government does it..... That said, there are some policies that are criminal, like the NHS and school privatisations (effectively). I'm sure Labour are totally against those and we've got a marvellously clear choice from all 3 parties on the issue. I assume and look forward to hearing about. In terms of cock-ups though, Blair and Bush are world-scale still-massive-aftermath grand-scale, Clegg at best is a minor footnote on a few issues relevant only to the UK. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2014, 09:58 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Aug 15 2014, 10:21 PM) At the risk of being hypothetical... Had they gone with Brown (and against what the public voted for, that's not democracy given the damage that had been caused at that point in time, given the public's lack of voting for labour) they would still have been slagged off for supporting a government that put tuition fees up and followed-through on it's assurances that it was going to severely slash public spending. In a coalition thats always going to be the fate of the weaker party - blamed for not sticking 100% to it's principles. Why are the bigger parties not getting the same vitriol for not sticking to their promises? Every government does it..... That said, there are some policies that are criminal, like the NHS and school privatisations (effectively). I'm sure Labour are totally against those and we've got a marvellously clear choice from all 3 parties on the issue. I assume and look forward to hearing about. In terms of cock-ups though, Blair and Bush are world-scale still-massive-aftermath grand-scale, Clegg at best is a minor footnote on a few issues relevant only to the UK. I think the revised fees system is better than the system it replaced but the Lib Dem PR machine made no effort to sell it that way. The PR team had become very effective in opposition but they were not prepared for government at all. As a hung parliament had seemed almost inevitable ever since the 2005 election, that is a serious failing. They should have spoken to council groups with experience of power - both as a majority and in coalition - but they didn't. As a result they have allowed the Tories to claim the credit for Lib Dem policies such as increasing the basic allowance for income tax and the pupil premium. Anyone who has been in a power-sharing arrangement with the Tories could have predicted that. OTOH, the changes to the NHS, education and the benefits system have all been appalling. The Lib Dems should also have refused to go along with blaming everything on Gordon Brown and thus implicitly saying that the simultaneous downturn in the US, Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, Portugal etc. was pure coincidence. I can understand why they did it. They wanted to prove that coalition could work rather than descending into a series of rows, particularly before the AV referendum. Unfortunately, they were banking on being able to choose whether to go with the Tories or Labour and the election result didn't present that choice. That left them unprepared to get the best deal they could. Next time I hope they will be better prepared. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2014, 02:11 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Aug 15 2014, 10:21 PM) At the risk of being hypothetical... Had they gone with Brown (and against what the public voted for, that's not democracy given the damage that had been caused at that point in time, given the public's lack of voting for labour) they would still have been slagged off for supporting a government that put tuition fees up and followed-through on it's assurances that it was going to severely slash public spending. In a coalition thats always going to be the fate of the weaker party - blamed for not sticking 100% to it's principles. Why are the bigger parties not getting the same vitriol for not sticking to their promises? Every government does it..... Big difference between joining with a party which introduced fees two electoral cycles ago and voting to raise them further yourselves. This idea that the Lib Dems couldn't have gone with Labour as it would have been "undemocratic" isn't right. No electoral system is truly democratic, the reason it wouldn't have worked is because the maths didn't add up. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2014, 02:21 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Aug 15 2014, 10:21 PM) At the risk of being hypothetical... Had they gone with Brown (and against what the public voted for, that's not democracy given the damage that had been caused at that point in time, given the public's lack of voting for labour) they would still have been slagged off for supporting a government that put tuition fees up and followed-through on it's assurances that it was going to severely slash public spending. In a coalition thats always going to be the fate of the weaker party - blamed for not sticking 100% to it's principles. Why are the bigger parties not getting the same vitriol for not sticking to their promises? Every government does it..... We've been over this before. 53% of those who turned out voted for Labour and the Lib Dems - parties that has committed to slower rates of deficit reduction. 36% voted for the Conservatives and the current plan of action. You can't really deny that more people were voting Lib Dem to keep the Tories specifically out than were voting Lib Dem to keep Labour out. You might take the view that the problem was so severe that it needed the democratic will to be overridden. That's a point that can have a fair argument made for it, albeit not one I'd agree with. You can't make the point that this is what the people of the UK voted for though. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2014, 09:04 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
changed the game with that digital drop
Joined: 26 September 2010
Posts: 13,000 User: 11,905 
|
QUOTE(steve201 @ Aug 15 2014, 02:24 AM) The British House of Lords is a disgrace to democracy IMO! I disagree. The peers are specially selected on merit of their achievements and offer valuable scrutiny of Parliamentary bills and Government policy in their specialist areas. Whilst it would be nice if we elected ourselves, the Lords (I believe) speak a lot more sense than the Commons. The Lords are effectively the only thing stopping the Government having free reign of power in Britain. The Queen has no real power to stop them and neither does the opposing sides in the Commons if the Governing party had full support of all its backbenchers and a majority. Political boundaries also are far less obvious in the Lords for a good majority of the peers. People genuinely want to help/make a difference, hence a large number of cross benchers. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2014, 09:48 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Aug 16 2014, 03:21 AM) We've been over this before. 53% of those who turned out voted for Labour and the Lib Dems - parties that has committed to slower rates of deficit reduction. 36% voted for the Conservatives and the current plan of action. You can't really deny that more people were voting Lib Dem to keep the Tories specifically out than were voting Lib Dem to keep Labour out. You might take the view that the problem was so severe that it needed the democratic will to be overridden. That's a point that can have a fair argument made for it, albeit not one I'd agree with. You can't make the point that this is what the people of the UK voted for though. yes we have. well, as the voting system is a cross, not a cross with a preferential 2nd choice, there's no way of proving who did what. Of course, I would agree that politically the Lib dems are naturally more Labour than Tory, but you can't guess what each voter was voting for or against. I would be very happy with a system that listed a 2nd choice, but very few others feel that way, apparently. So, under democracy, Labour were evicted and they weren't the largest party. We have the system we have, you can't govern on the basis that a certain percentage of the population are probably against this or that therefore they don't have a mandate. The election result is the mandate based on the policies promised. Broken promises, usually, but that's another issue. Elsewhere: I support a second chamber as a back-up against knee-jerk policies of the first chamber. Just prefer them not to be cronies of the first chamber. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2014, 12:35 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
Yes, and like I said. 53% of those who turned out voted for parties that committed to slower rates of deficit reduction. 36% voted for the current plan of action.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2014, 06:01 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Aug 15 2014, 10:21 PM) At the risk of being hypothetical... Had they gone with Brown (and against what the public voted for, that's not democracy given the damage that had been caused at that point in time, given the public's lack of voting for labour) they would still have been slagged off for supporting a government that put tuition fees up and followed-through on it's assurances that it was going to severely slash public spending. In a coalition thats always going to be the fate of the weaker party - blamed for not sticking 100% to it's principles. Why are the bigger parties not getting the same vitriol for not sticking to their promises? Every government does it..... That said, there are some policies that are criminal, like the NHS and school privatisations (effectively). I'm sure Labour are totally against those and we've got a marvellously clear choice from all 3 parties on the issue. I assume and look forward to hearing about. In terms of cock-ups though, Blair and Bush are world-scale still-massive-aftermath grand-scale, Clegg at best is a minor footnote on a few issues relevant only to the UK. Fairly or unfairly (and obviously I think fairly), it IS the perception that the Lib Dems are sellouts though. And it's going to take exceptional circumstances to change that perception anytime in the foreseeable future. I remember some lib dems saying at the time that they had to go into coalition, because if they didn't, people would think that "they'd never be willing to go into government in any circumstances"......I never understood why that would be a problem? It's another example of how the political world and the real world are parallel universes. In the political world, not being willing to give up your principles to enter a government is a sign that you're "not credible" or "immature". In the real world, that very same thing is admirable if you're putting principles ahead of your own careers. And that's something the Lib Dems still haven't grasped based on how their main pitch at the next election is going to be "our main priority is for us to stay in government, and we'll do a deal with either party at any price!" This post has been edited by Danny: Aug 17 2014, 06:02 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 04:38 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
