Thursday
May152008
David Cameron: I'm alright Jack
Thursday, May 15, 2008 I am assured by a very reliable source that the following story is true. "Call me Dave" recently visited the offices of a leading national newspaper. What, he was asked, is the first thing you will do if and when you become prime minister? Reverse the ban on fox hunting, he replied, without hesitation.
What about the smoking ban, someone else enquired. I don't smoke, said Dave. So that's alright. For him.
Reader Comments (61)
What about cannibis? Some MPs admit to taking part in criminal activities, so why doesn't 'honest' Dave?
Mr Cameron used to smoke tobacco, I believe. He has only given up smoking recently. This attitude just about sums up what we can expect from this gentlement regarding an amendment to the current anti-smoking legislation in public houses, clubs, bingo halls, cafes etc.etc. I do not gain the impression that he will be willing to compromise. Sadly he has obviously become as narrow-minded as many of his contemporaries in the centre parties. Boris Johnson had the courage to admit that he had 'experimented' with some form of substance in his younger days. A lot of students have done so. David Cameron should take a leaf out of Boris Johnson's book and be a little more honest! Perhaps honesty has not been the best policy in politics for very many years, but this particular aspect may change along with the views of the electorate.
So we have an opposition party that has seen exactly what the strength of smokers votes can do, yet an ex-smoker shows no empathy with smokers whatsoever. "Call me Dave" is pandering to the upper classes like so many others which is sad. he wants to remember where the wealth of this country actually stems from! It's called the working classes and when they rebel there will be one hell of a lot of people 'on the streets'!
By the way Mr Cameron-my offer still stands or do I need a knighthood like Mr Geldorf to be able to meet with you-2 days after you were reported to be too busy to see anyone!
.I wouldn't take too much notice of "reliable sources" Simon, only the other day, I was told by a "reliable source" that Nigel Farage of UKIP, was overheard in a well known watering hole, not too far from Westminster, stating that he had no intentions whatsoever of reversing the smoking ban if ever his party got to power. Why? He replied that it would be political suicide, and that he personally thinks the ban is working just fine.
The lesson we should learn from this, is that "reliable sources", can sometimes be very unreliable indeed, especially when they are so obviously, a plant
Peter Thurgood - Nigel Farage is a smoker. I'm getting absolutely fed up to the high teeth and bored with you mentioning and attacking UKIP at every opportunity, as well as belittling people who do not agree with absolutely everything you say and believe in. You have already described people like me in an article as 'girl guides'. I let that pass. People do not always agree with you - that's life. Get used to it! And, by the way -I'd like PROOF that Nigel Farage said that this ban is working just fine. There's obviously more plants around than at Chelsea Flower Show!
Jenny, you should try to not get so upset just because everyone does not agree with you or your politics. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, including me, and including you.
If you read what I said properly, you will see that I haven't attacked Nigel Ferage or UKIP at all, no more than Simon attacked David Cameron.
Simon quoted his source of information, as being from a "very reliable source", which is exactly what I have also said, regarding mine.
So many people tell you things which they say they cannot prove, but it came from a very reliable source. Simon reported his, and I reported mine. There is no proof for either story, you have to make your own mind up if you believe either.
By the way, I didn't even know that you were ever in the Girl Guides, and if you were, that is not an insult, I think they are a very admirable group.
I like your ending by the way, about more plants than at the Chelsea Flower Show, very droll.
"Spin, spin, spin", Peter. Or to put more plainly: "repeated autosuggestion". Do you really think people are that stupid?
Oh dear Margot, and I thought we were friends?
But seriously Margot, you have misjudged me, I do stick up for UKIP, and if you want to see proof of this, have a look here on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8056475899&topic=5122
Look at my comments, and look at the last person, who calls himself Jonathan Creek's, comments.
Its not political suicide to reverse the smoking ban- look at Labour getting a caining. We know what Nigel's views are. I know someone who knows him rather well.
Phil, I really can't see how Cameron is pandering to the upper classes by not vowing to repeal the smoking ban.
I suggest to you, and I may be wrong, that the argument about the upper classes controlling everything is at least 10 years out-of-date. As a political force they are, for now and probably forever, emasculated.
I think Cameron is just being selfish. He comes from inherited money and as someone who knows the horsey set to a large extent, I once sat in the owners section of Hickstead with all the nobs as my then girlfriend was a keen owner/rider. Obviously fancied a bit of rough. His reaction to fox hunting ban is like ours to the smoking ban, it is like having a limb cut off. BTW the horsey set are quite welcoming and friendly and my 11 plus failure and comprehensive education never came up in conversation at all. They like a drink and a smoke like the rest of us, nice people.
Well "Call me Dave" wont be getting my vote if this is true. The issue shouldnt be about smoking but about freedom. The majority of Labour and Liberal MPs voted for a total ban, Conservatives voted two to 1 against. What should be remembered is that cigarettes are perfectly legal, the sale of them is condoned by government, who make £4 out of every £5 spent on a packet. they then have the gall to tell pub owners that they carnt allow smoking on their PRIVATE property, that to me is a communist ideology. If Dave believes in that ideology as well he wont be getting my vote.
Cameron is a spineless muppet. He follows trends like all of the other muppets.
He's no more a leader than my ten year old Jack Russell.
The bravery is in bucking trends, not following them. Cameron says the ban is good because it suits him today. He lacks heart, and he lacks vision, but mostly he lacks the common sense he was issued with at birth.
He is selfish and weak. No different than the majority of numpties we have running this shameful little nation.
We are doomed.
Doomed, I tells ya.
Said source should have asked Cameron, seeing that he doesn't smoke, and thinks SHS is such a danger to others, and has no intention of amending the Smoking Ban Experiment, will he be calling for tobacco to be made illegal, if not, why not.
Politicians need to put in a position where they have to give a straight answer, not be allowed to answer a question with a question.
He also needs to be asked what he is going to do to get rid of the EU so we can start governing ourselves. Another question they CAN'T/WON'T answer.
When you see Cameron, read the man as a whole for he is sadly failing to live up to the impression he wants to create, which is: sincere and earnest.
This spin doesn't work and ALL the people that I meet and know think he is a tosser first class. The thing with Cameron is, of course, is that he is high on ambition and low on principle plus he is extremely conceited. (Mind you don't bang the sides of your head as you go out through the door, Dave!)
I'll lay odds now, he's a one term PM and by the time we've had him three years we'll be so fed up we'll be screaming for him to go - just as with Gordon Brown. I only hope when that time comes, his party will still have retained it ability to exceute him as summarily as it did Ted Heath and Maggie Thatcher.
Apart from anti-smokers and those blessed with the money that the anti-smoking movement makes, the majority of people are against the smoking bans.
Personally, I could never vote for any party who hasn't got the 'guts' to expose corruption when it is staring them in the face.
I know that some parties are stating that they want an amendment due to the social devastation and havoc that is being caused within the hospitality industry, but this does not expose the scandal that is occurring within the anti-smoking movement. To me, this urgently needs to be addressed and attacked.
I read a statement by Cameron recently that when he becomes P.M. he will start having a look at our membership of the E.U. He will monitor it carefully and if, towards the end of his second term of office, he feels that there are certain aspects which may not be entirely in Britain's interests, he might start looking at ways in which we might withdraw from some of our involvement in it.
So that's alright then. I can vote for him with confidence now.
Margot, presumably you're paraphrasing from memory - but either way nothing short of "intention" is even worth listening to when it comes to politics. "Might", "not entirely" and "may" are about as convincing as silence.
I agree with what everyone else is saying about Cameron. He was tragically wrong when he said, after the local elections, that the result was not just a vote against Labour but a vote in support of the Tories.
Bullshit. The public in general have no more faith in Cameron than in Brown. He is an insincere sleazebag in the mould of Tony Blair - chosen at a time when Blair's shallowness and "cool" were considered essential for a PM. The public know better now.
What's happening is people are wanting any party but Labour. The Tories will get in and unless they suddenly transform into a party with principles, integrity etc., it will be the exact same story 5 years later: "anyone but the Tories".
Then, both parties will be known to be incapable of dealing with the problems facing Britain, meaning neither of them is electable. Necessarily, the public will begin considering other parties en masse.
And that's when things will get interesting.
With any luck, we are approaching the end of the Tory/Labour era of British politics. Both parties have burned themselves out.
Yes, Col, I wrote with weary cynicism.
We would have to wait for 7 years in the hope that Mr Cameron "might" decide to withdraw us from some of the EU involvement. By this time the jackboots of Europol would be stomping all over what was once the United Kingdom. By then our historic names of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland would be removed from the map and we would live in five E.U. regions called the North Sea Region, Meridian Region, etc. My own region of the South East including London, especially Westminster, is already renamed the Trans Manche Region, and has been administered from an office in Paris since October 2006. And it shows!
If Mr Cameron decides he "might" look at our situation in his 7th year of office it will be much too late. One squeak from him and he would be arrested and put in an unknown prison.
I really don't know how he and his clever little Tory supporters can sleep at nights.
As you say, and as Jenny of Yorkshire so succintly put, we are long overdue for honesty and integrity in politics. We need UKIP right now. Five years time will be too late.
All eyes will be on the Crewe by-election. Wonder what dirty tricks the monied Tories and their eager supporters will come up with against the UKIP candidate there. I notice that Peter Thurgood has started his dance-about already.
If UKIP can get a second voice into Parliament, Bob Spink will have someone to second his motions. Everything he has put forward so far has been based on sound common sense.
UKIP intend to look to reform all recent bans, including fox hunting and smoking inside public places. The right will be given back to owners of businesses to run them according to their own assessment of what market forces indicate.
It wouldn't at all surprise me if UKIP were to consider reducing excise duty on alcohol and tobacco products to bring them in line with the rest of Europe. This would stop smuggling and stop the unfair advantage Europe has had over the U.K.
Reduction of the many non-productive QUANGOs would easily pay for revenue lost.
There are many sensible things waiting to be done.
Col, unfortunately in 5 years time people will have forgotten the mess that labour have created; by then the smoking ban will no longer be an issue but just accepted as a way of life and no doubt Cameron and his cronies will have done a load of other things that people will be up in arms about. This seems to be the way of things in this country, people have short memories!
I think Margot is nearer being right in that we do need some very new blood NOW, such as UKIP and although I have no experience in politics or canvassing, any of us who can needs to do whatever is necessary to promote UKIP as the part most likely to treat us as adults and allow us to choose how we live our lives with regard to smoking, hunting, etc. I am not a fan of hunting and would prefer it not to be reintroduced, but that is just my opinion, the same as there are some who fans of the smoking ban and would prefer for that not to be overturned. On the whole, we need a balance in the country and we certainly will not get that from any of the 3 major parties.
Lyn, I fully understand your gloom because I share it. However, in five years time the smoking ban issue will not be forgotten because it will still annoy so many people and still cause an awful lot of income to be lost. If you care to take a look at America, parts of which have had bans for many years, the issue remains a hot one, or at the very least it remains in the public eye - even in California - where the ban situation is not as rosy as they'd like us to think.
However, and more to the point, the liberty issue will dominate the first 30 - 50 years of this century as people begin to realise that the quality of life, plus security, is most safeguarded when freedom of choice is respected and supported.
What has happened to date, is that certain economic and political forces have gained control of the levers of power. These forces are suppressive as their essence is that of people control, without which they could not succeed. They will have to be destroyed, in fact, I believe they will inevitably be destroyed because they operate too much outside the parameters of human nature much as Marxism did and still does in its new and adjusted guise of social democracy.
Cameron is such an insignificant figure in the "tide of history" (oops begin to sound a bit Marxist myself) and it would behove us well, along with those of his own party who still retain a sense of perspective, to begin to think of the kind of leaders we would really like to shape.
Up until now, the British public has been content for the most part to leave it up to the politicians. "Oh, I have no interest in politics" people say as if it were a virtue. It's not, it's folly (and politics does not mean party politics) because politics affects us all. So, it is up to us, yes it really is, to start to shape the leaders we would really prefer to see. We no longer need to depend on parliament to do this for us as it is no longer capable of undertaking the task at all.
Part of the essence of people power means creating that power ourselves. So let's just do it and stop messing about.
Does anyone remember a few weeks back, when yet another "rumour" was put about? That time it was about Boris, and as expected, it brought about a flurry of fierce comments about Boris, about how he had sold out, and how he was no good, and how he couldn't possibly win as almost everyone hated him, etc., etc.
Many of these comments came, as expected, from the usual left wing element on here, but there were others, surprisingly, from supporters of some of the fringe parties, who are about as far as you can get from the lefties.
I noticed that the descenters quickly shut up when the rumours were found to be just that, i.e. (rumours), and Boris won office as the new Mayor of London. Egg left on many a face here no doubt.
Now we have this new thread, which once again, is nothing more than a rumour, but straight away, it has attracted the same old crowd, whose main aim in life seems to be to bash the Tories. They have the audacity to call them Toffs, and born into money, as if that is a crime in itself, worth bashing them for. It probably was in the 1920s and 30s., but please, this is the 21st century boys (and girls) we have come a long way since then, the silver spoon in mouth brigade these days are mostly Labour Peers. Remember Margaret Thatcher, hardly born into money that one was she? The daughter of a shop keeper. The new aristocracy these days is New Labour. How many houses do the Blairs have? How much has Cherrie just earned from her book deal, not to mention John Prescott.
In a truly democratic society, everyone should be free to voice their opinions, no matter what political persuasion they hail from, but what I do hate, is the silly, childish name calling. Why can't we all debate with each other without getting personal about it? We are supposed to have one central theme in common, which is supposed to be, to get the smoking ban amended or overturned.
Does anyone really think that constantly knocking David Cameron, and calling him silly schoolboy names will help us do that?
I hate New Labour, and I knock their policies, one of which was this much hated, anti-smoking law, but I also hate most of the rest of their policies as well, as they are ill thought out and harmful to our economy and us as a nation, but I don't think the way to beat them is by calling Gordon Brown, "Donut Brown" or something equally as stupid.
As for UKIP, I do not hate them, I just do not think they have enough significant policies to warrant voting for. About nine months ago, I suggested on F2C that maybe we should start a new political party, as none of the major parties seemed to offer us much support, if any. After much debate it was generally agreed that any party with only one, or two at the most, major policies, would end up being a non runner, and I must say that I had to agree, especially after one particular poster on there decided to post "his" manifesto, which was just so ludicrous, that I felt like creeping away quietly and wishing that I had never mentioned it in the first place. This, in my opinion, is how I view UKIP.
I know that they have offered up other policies, besides overturning the ban, and taking us out of Europe, but, and again this is just my personal opinion, I do not see any of those other policies as anything significant enough to warrant voting for.
With regard to the Lib-Dems.....er....er...Well I think that's enough said about them.
No one on here, or anywhere else, is ever going to convince me to vote Labour or Lib -Dem or UKIP, and I am pretty sure that I am not going to convince anyone else either, to vote Conservative, so let's put away our swords and stop swiping at each other, and save all our energy for the enemy instead.
And please, remember not to get so angry about "rumours", which cannot be proved. They are there to provoke, and induce argument, that's all.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion Peter. However, most of us read Cameron differently from you for as yet he has given us no reason to believe that he is principled and trustworthy. As a fan of his, perhaps you should write to him and point out that he just does not convince the bulk of the electorate.
Best of luck in terms of getting a coherent response or any response at all.
I hardly think that a dozen people on here constitute the bulk of the electorate Blad.
If you are really interested in what does constitute the real bulk, maybe you should have a look at the percentages voted for each party at the recent local elections.
Just to remind you that there are people who believe in individual rights on the "Left" as well!
I never heard of any communist government bringing in anti-smoking legislation, let alone legislation as draconian as we now suffer.
I tell a lie: I believe indoor smoking is banned in Cuba.
Just to remind you that there are people who believe in individual rights on the "Left" as well!
I never heard of any communist government bringing in anti-smoking legislation, let alone legislation as draconian as we now suffer.
I tell a lie: I believe indoor smoking is banned in Cuba.
Peter Thurgood:
Childish name calling? Girl Guides? People who have had a sex change before your very eyes? Deliberately channelling people towards slanderous lying Establishment press releases?
Regarding proportion of votes. In spite of zero and anti media coverage, UKIP received over 22,000 votes in the London elections. They doubled their elected Councillors nationwide. They have had 12 elected MEPs in the European Parliament. They have two extremely intelligent dedicated peers in the House of Lords. They finally have achieved their first MP in the House of Commons. By the way, he was not "thrown out" of the Tory party, as you inferred. He chose to leave and join UKIP because he could no longer support their lies. He had braved disobeying the party Whip on at least 22 occasions. He is a man of principle.
All the above proves that UKIP cannot be compared to any other "fringe" party. They are, indeed, the fourth largest political party in the U.K.
UKIP policies cover all aspects of government in a sensible non self-serving way. I doubt you have read the Policy Statement issued by their Deputy Leader and Head of Policy, David Campbell Bannerman. Had you have done so, I doubt you would continue to say that they do not have enough significant policies.
It seems that you, as a Tory, are very afraid of them. I suggest that instead of trying to constantly belittle them, which does you no good at all, you heed your own advice. You are, indeed, entitled to your own political preference. Use your time to convince the rest of us that David Cameron is a worthwhile future leader and that the Conservative party do have worthwhile policies which will lead us out of this present EU controlled hell.
We are listening.
I am so surpised at you especially Margot. I called for peace and understanding and cooperation between us all on here, and you, of all people, whom I have always had admiration for, start all this silly name calling once again.
What on earth for? What do you think it will achieve?
It will not achieve anything at all, apart from splitting us all up into fragments, which I suspect is what some people on here really would like to see.
Why do you think that anyone who does not agree with your politics is so wrong?
As I keep on saying, we are all entitled to our own beliefs, and I do not intend to try to convert you or anyone else to mine, so please be good enough to do the same for me.
I want to work with everyone on here who shares the same beliefs about the smoking ban, as together we might be able to achieve something, but if you insist on all this riddiculous bickering all the time, we will only achieve one thing, and that is a complete split. It is up to you.
P.S. to Margot, if you really want to do battle with someone who is against UKIP then try the link which I gave you the other day, and lokk at the posts by Jonathan Creek. You might want to look at mine where I defended them as well while you're at it.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8056475899&topic=5122
FWIW, Peter, I wouldn't trust David Cameron as far as I could throw him, but it has nothing to do with his upper-middle-class background. If anything I consider that an asset. This country could do a lot worse than to regain its respect for class.
Peter Thurgood.
I refer to your comments on the "Smokers: no taxation without representation" article on thefreesociety.org/ of April 22nd. Having twice been blocked in my attempt to get the true UKIP press release mentioned, your Tory engendered scurrilous press release was the first indication some UKIP supporters had that we now have our first MP in parliament.
Yes, let's all be friends now and work towards a Common Purpose. I would still like to know why the future would be better in Cameron's hands, though.
Incidentally, I don't remember much name calling ahout Boris. I was very pleased when he was voted in - wasn't expecting it because I thought Ken had it all tied up. As the lesser of two evils, most people stated on these sites that they would prefer Boris. A vote for him was not a vote for the Tories but a vote against Ken Livingstone. I would rather have had Gerard Batten of UKIP, and said so. He would have abolished the congestion charge and resident's parking and given freedom to the police to control the criminals not the petty new "laws" and paperwork now imposed. As usual, the controlled media concentrated only on the main three parties and Gerard was ignored by them..
So, all strength to Boris! I note that his very first new edict was not an improvement to life but the attempted enforcement of yet another new restriction. Banning alcohol on public transport is unworkable. Staff employed by London underground are forbidden to even touch alcohol. Any staff member trying to remove alcohol from a passenger would face instant dismissal.
So what's next, Boris?
As many of this present thread have stated. We are in urgent need of a new honest realistic approach to government. The reason for drunkeness, street crime, and all other ills of our society, is simply a very unhappy disenfranchised population. Our politicians are there to feather their own nests and see who can lie the most successfully.
Well - here's to a peaceful "Let's all be friends" future.
You first!
I forgot to mention, Peter, that your comment on the above thread of April 22nd included much name calling; from the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, right up to the Girl Guides -not to mention the sex-change.
Seriously, I agree with you. This has long ceased to be a game and a jolly battle of wits. Our very future as an independant nation is at stake. LThis is no less serious than the attempt to conquer us by a United Europe under Nazi control. In fact, it is worse. The enemy is within.
I think you have missed my point Nigel (Hall) which is simply that if a system operates too far outside the parameters of human nature it will fail. Marxism is an example of a failed ideology on this count. In addition, as I also pointed out, the new format for Marxism, albeit adjusted and watered down is social democracy (please look it up) and many "social democracies" (including ours) have adopted smoking bans.
Furthermore, much of the prevailing trend of much left wing thinking (yes I know there are left wing libertarians as I am one) is that nurture is all. It's not, and even if one considers current studies in human development and personality theory, personality is defined as being an admixture of heredity and environment or nature and nurture if you so prefer.
Under the circumstances, my position is that our nature is essentially part of the way the world is in itself and hence although nurture has an effect it only does so to a degree and can never make us completely.
Those familiar with Orwell's 1984 will recall that during the torture of Winston Smith, he is asked what it could be that will make human beings rebel against the Big Brother regime. He cannot answer as he depends on his gut instinct at which point, his torturer (Mustapha Mond I think it is), points out that people are incapable of revolt because the system will not permit it. This is a classic nurture is all perspective which is erroneous. History has shown us time and time again that people may revolt against any conditioning or system. If this were not true we would still be living in a feudal society. Hence I contend ipso facto that repressive regimes cannot last forever unless, perhaps, human nature is eradicated. This would mean the end of history and I do not agree with Francis Fukuyama that history is over yet.
In response to Peter Thurgood, I hardly think, in turn, that the voting figures at the local elections constitute a real indication that the people of the UK are entranced by the Tories and our Dave. The Tories didn't get in in 2005 as they were still perceived as the worst of two evils. They will probably get in in 2009, or whenever, as they are now perceived as the lesser of two evils which will not be a positive endorsement, any more than Labour's 2005 victory was a positive endorsement either.
Moreover, Peter, when I spoke about All the people I know, I was not referring to the people on this blog at all, as I don't really know any of them, but the people I know from life. Leave the straw man arguments to the antis, old chap, that's their level and should not be yours.
Getting back to Cameron's comment (allegedly), he did say on an earlier occasion (apparently) that although he didn't agree with bans, he, as an ex smoker, found it easier now that other people were not smoking in social venues, which sums him up really.
It seems that this column has become a bit of a political debate, with particular reference to UKIP. I sent an article I wrote entitled "My personal thoughts about the smoking ban" to all the political parties last October, and UKIP were one of only three who replied, and I must say that I could also see from the reply that the article had been read. I must also say however, that although it was sympathetic, it did not suggest anything else. Here are the final paragraphs of the reply -
"I must say that on a personal note, as a convinced non-smoker myself, for the first time in my life, I actually felt some sympathy for smokers because of the heavy-handed way this ban has been brought in.
We are working on a number of policy initiatives at the moment. As it is a big project, I am not sure whether we will make a specific manifesto commitment on this subject, but we are certainly sympathetic to the concerns you have raised.
Yours sincerely,
John Petley
Senior researcher, UK Independence Party"
I know that UKIP supports Freedom2Choose, and have produced beer mats saying 'Bin the Ban' and 'Let landlords decide', but what did New Labour say in their manifesto? Personally, I have gone from being a Tory voter to a Labour member to a floating voter to someone who does not bother to vote. Until quite recently, I would argue vehemently with the non voter that we should use our democratic right, as it would be something we yearned for in a dictatorship. I thought the Tories were finished, but they seem to be gaining popularity again, (mainly on the back of the Iraq fiasco). This is a two party state, choose which dictatorial government you want.
Dictatorial? Spain had a dictator until 1977, so powerful that they won the Eurovision Song Contest in 1968!! hahaha joking aside, I would say that possibly the most democratic Country in Europe, even the world, is Spain.
So, how do we overthrow our dictators, vote UKIP? vote BNP? whatever happened to the Monster Raving Looney Party ...
David Cameron is a selfish puppet.The X smokers are always the same they are worse then people who have never smoked. Because he decided to give it us he wants us all to do the same the creep. I urge everyone on this site to write to him and remind him why labour is doing so badly at the moment. These politicans are so stuipid to think that the ten pence tax rate was the only reason they done so badly in the recent local elections. I honestly believe the smoking ban was much to blame and also the creation of the nanny state, created by the labour party. And if cameron dosnt change his attitude and treat us all fairly then im afraid he will end up as popular as Gordon Brown. The selfish hypocritical muffet.
As regards political leanings, I have mentioned before that I am Apolitical, but in reference to the nannyism today ,one has to think back to John Major's government of the time. They where just as bad!!
Scare stories,selling school playing fields,NHS in the usual crumbling mess.
This is when the current situation what we have today began.
Yes, people do have short term memories
As one our friends above as mentioned we need a brand new party with new forward thinking ideas in the interests of OUR country and its people.
Having read all of the above comments (I submitted my last post a couple of days ago) and with particular reference to Mr Thurgood's allegiance to David Cameron,I have decided to put my faith in the leadership qualities of Colin Grainger's 10-year old jack russell. (cf. 13th comment of 15th May above):)
Thank you Jenny!
I'll lodge her election papers on Monday.
Actually, I had successfully ingested a bottle of good South African merlot when I wrote my post above. I have reflected, ruminated and cogitated, and I have decided that I wasn't harsh enough.
pat, concerning writing to Cameron about why Labour did so badly, one of our freedom2choose members did just that, and received EXACTLY the same reply, word for word, (which you would have thought came from Labour if you hadn't known) that I received to my article last November!!
Colin, Jenny, if I didn't have to look after someone's awful, whiney toy poodle sometimes, (mmm sounds familiar), I would invest in a Jack Russel myself, I still have a picture of one that died a few years ago aged 17, a much more productive 17 years than the last Tory government!
Something for the weekend!
A little harmless booster in support of our friends across the Irish sea.
http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=home
Margot, I am so pleased that you and I have agreed not to argue over each other's politics, as after all, that is all they are, (each other's).
I must say that I am getting very despondent about the level of debate on here, and before you jump on me, please, I didn't mean you.
It is getting very spiteful and personal, as if I own David Cameron, and whatever he says or does is somehow my fault, "go on Peter, write to him and tell us all what he says" and all that sort of thing. I can just imagine it now, his personal secretary comes rushing into his office, "sorry to bother you Mr Cameron, but Peter Thurgood has just emailed you", he jumps up from his desk, a look of worry on his face, "my God, Margaret, what does he say, is it terribly important?". Margaret looks at him and hands him the email, "If it's from Peter, David, I think you better look straight away, don't you?". Boy, I bet that got him really worried didn't it?????
I could just as well suggest some of the other posters on here, (I won't name them) ringing up Alan "Howlin Laud" Hope, who is the current leader of The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and asking for his views. Mind you, from what I can see of it, he would probably give them a ring back, especially if they already know him as well as I do Mr Cameron.
If anyone does want to get in touch with Alan by the way, they can do so here:
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39
Have a nice weekend.
Once again, this has become a site with informed comment from some profoundly intelligent people. I am grateful that my own simple search for a solution to the smoking ban has led me into such company. I, too, had ceased to have interest in politics when I came across it earlier this year. As with many who joined to find a solution, I went the usual road of trying to work up petitions and thinking of joining marches, etc. I went along, for a while, with the idea of creating a new political party. Then I reasoned that it too big an undertaking to start a new party from scratch. So I looked very carefully at all the existing fringe parties. I spent some time on it. For honesty, integrity and steady patient achievement, UKIP stood head and shoulders above the rest. Small though they were, they had kept their integrity and dismissed from the party candidates who proved untrustworthy. They even sacked one of their MEPs for fiddling his EU expenses. During the last general election, they stood aside so that they wouldn't spoil the vote for 12 Tory candidates, provided that these signed an agreement to continue the aim of getting us out of the EU. To me they truly do have the interests of the U.K. Their two peers said it all in their speeches during the House of Lords' debate on the Lisbon Treaty.
What worries me, reading all the above, is that there still seems to be a movement towards forming yet another party. This time, though, the indications are that it would be a radical revolutionary party. Violence creates more violence and usually ends badly for all concerned.
One of the many things I fear from complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is the agreement to create a European fighting force. I believe the U.K. is commited to supplying 50,000 members of the armed forces. I also fear the power which will be given to Europol who would take precedence over all present national police forces. Both of these would be administered by a handful of people who are not accountable to anyone. Voting in the present EU parliament is just a quick showing of hands which are not actually counted by anyone.
I hope I am wrong in all this.
I do urge everyone to sign the peaceful petition to the Irish people.
To date 4023 people have signeOod frEU 22 s
tsand it was only started on 12th May.
Sorry about typos above. My computer suddenly got an attack of the gremlins and I didn't want to write it all out again!
I was trying to say that 4023 people from 22 EU member states have signed so far and it was only started on 12th May
Hiccups continuing, I see.
I signed the petition after seeing your post, Margot, when it stood at about 3700, so it's doing well.
It certainly seems to be the case that the only people who want a political EU are the politicians!
I have just emailed the conservative party regarding camerons attitude to the smoking ban I urge everyone on this site to email him and let him know that we havent all moved on since this smoking ban came into practice. He is selfish, just because he has given the hanbit up he refuses to except that we are being treated unfairly. We should be treated better because we pay a lot of money in taxes everytime we purchase a packet of cigarettes.
Oh dear Pat, why are you, and so many others on here so keen to crucify David Cameron?
Have any of you written to the masterminds behind this unjust law, and asked them if they intend doing anything about it?
I am sure there are probably a few of you that have, but most of the anger seems to be directed at David Cameron, I have not heard much said about Gordon Brown and I have not heard anything about Nick Clegg.
But apart from that, don't any of you realise that if any of the major parties, spoke up at this time, their opposites would jump on them like a ton of proverbial bricks, and then they would be really crucified.
I'll give you a good example of the kind of politically correct world we now live in, did any of you see or read the other day about Sen. Obama, when he answered a woman by saying to her, "hold on a minute sweetie" ? The flack he had to take from just saying that was unbelievable, he even had to end up phoning the woman to apologise to her.
This is how ridiculous our world, and especially politics has become today. If a man cannot call a woman a nice affectionate name like that without being castigated for it, can you imagine what would happen if he mentioned that he stuck up for smokers?
It's not going to happen, not this side of the General Election anyway, so please stop wasting your time and energy on such negative issues, which will not get answered.
E-mailing Mr Cameron's office, Pat, is about as productive as spending time trying to convert Mr Grainger's 10-year old jack russell to vegetarianism! (BTW Colin - Monday should be a brighter day for British politics!) Lots of our members have attempted to send e-mails and written to Mr Cameron about this issue, but received the standard negative or non-committal replies from a lady called Alice Sheffield who works for him. It's obvious that Mr Cameron has decided give up smoking due to enhancing his public image - a bit like riding bikes and hugging hoodies etc. etc. The trip to Rwanda last summer was poignant at a time when Yorkshire people as well as others in Worcestershire and other counties were flooded out. I believe it was Blad who made the comment about the local elections not being representative of what most people actually believe. I can substantiate that. Where I stood recently, only 45% of the electorate turned out - which means that 55% chose not to do so. If a further 20% of people suddenly became inclined to turn out and vote, the results could be vastly different - particularly if they have the courage to vote for parties other than the three in the centre.
What I find most extraordinary about the exchange between Cameron and the reporter is that Cameron evidently considered that his response is acceptable to the electorate
Have we come so far that politicians no longer even pretend to represent the people rather than their own wishes and interests and the people no longer expect them to?
As this thread is not dedicated to Nick Clegg (Lib Dem) or Gordon Brown(New Labour), I am attempting to keep on topic. Should similar material be presented requiring people to comment regarding their policies and attitudes towards civil liberties, I should be more than happy to oblige:)