Jump to content

Dave's Maggie Moment


dune

Recommended Posts

I'm looking forward to hearing from some of the extreme right wing of the Tory party. What a shame Clegg didn't have the guts to be present, although, TBF, he always looks like he wants to distance himself from Dave at every PMQ

 

What must really annoy you is that the right wing of the Tory Party is the centre ground of the British public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1639:

Mr Cameron says that when the UK refused to join the euro everyone feared the City would lose out to Frankfurt - just as they're voicing those sorts of concerns now. "It was scaremongering then and it's scaremongering now," says the PM.

 

And the exact same thing has been going on here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate Hoey once again speaks sense. She's a brilliant Labour politician. A proper politician.

 

I lol'ed when I saw her learned friends visibly disagree with her.

 

Labour do need to get their heads out of their arses on this one. Hoey is right - a lot of Labour voters do support Cameron's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lol'ed when I saw her learned friends visibly disagree with her.

 

Labour do need to get their heads out of their arses on this one. Hoey is right - a lot of Labour voters do support Cameron's actions.

 

Kate is fantastic. She speaks for the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1708:

 

A Conservative MP says he's heard from aides outside the Commons that Ed Miliband's position is that he wouldn't have signed the EU treaty. The camera cuts to Mr Miliband who seems to look puzzled. The Speaker declines to give the Labour leader the opportunity to come back to the dispatch box and clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My obsevvations were that Cameron did ok.

 

The question to Red Ed of "what would you have done", is clever and simple. It takes the sting out of any questions.These things are never black and white, but the "would you have signed" will play well with most voters. It is a win-win question for Cameron, and the type of tactic that Blair used to use to such good effect.

 

Cleggy did a Gordon Brown and vanished, pretty poor form, particulary when a weekend opinion poll showed 49% of Lib/Dem supporters back Cameron's stance. Again shows how out of his depth Cleggy is, you have to man up in these situations.

 

As a person who wants to withdraw from the EU I was glad that the Tory loyalists behaved. All this bulldog, Churchillian ect referneces are embarressing and put voters off. They gave Cameron an easy ride and realised today was not the day to push him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question to Red Ed of "what would you have done", is clever and simple. It takes the sting out of any questions.These things are never black and white, but the "would you have signed" will play well with most voters. It is a win-win question for Cameron, and the type of tactic that Blair used to use to such good effect.

 

Within reason would be my response, as I was never impressed when Blair used to deflect questions/attacks away by using this diversionary tactic. To be honest when people in any walk of life start blustering and try to turn things in to a "what would you do then?" I always think they aren't that assured of their own position and are looking to deflect the issue.

 

Plus I would have thought an easy response would be that I would never have let us been put in that position.

 

Cleggy did a Gordon Brown and vanished, pretty poor form, particulary when a weekend opinion poll showed 49% of Lib/Dem supporters back Cameron's stance. Again shows how out of his depth Cleggy is, you have to man up in these situations.

 

Unless Cleggy has got a decent excuse (and I mean something over and above the "I would have been a distraction") then I agree it is an extremely poor decision. Make shim look even weaker than I feared he was in the first place.

 

I think this might be the first sign of real tension in the Coalition and I wouldn't be surprised if grassroots Lib Dems start to put pressure on the parliamentary party and the Coalition starts to unravel. General Election just before the Olympics!!

 

As a person who wants to withdraw from the EU I was glad that the Tory loyalists behaved. All this bulldog, Churchillian ect referneces are embarressing and put voters off. They gave Cameron an easy ride and realised today was not the day to push him.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree, not least as I'm still not 100% sure anyone really appreciates the full complexity of what has just happened and it is impossible to quantify just what impact this will have on UK PLC.

 

The jingoistic tub thumping by some on the far right has been excrutiating (just like on here LOL) and that's coming from someone who also does not want to be a part of the EU in its current form and certainly not a EU where Central Banks/Bureaucrats can dictate and limit individual countries fiscal policy.

Edited by um pahars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree watched 2 hours of waffle from both sides with no answers but seeing nick clegg not being there told me that cameron has mucked up big time and he could not support the pm..

 

Unlike most of the voting public, most of the house of Commons, and half of the Lib Dems, some on here, have their collective heads buried in the same sand, as the rabid labour left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still surprised that David Milliband wasn't made leader of the opposition. He still seems the most credible choice.

 

Labour are keeping their powder dry. Theres no point making David the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter of the next election, once Ed has lost that one David will take over, never fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Labour hierarchy dont believe they can win the next election. If something happens to alter that, Ed will be out of the revolving door with his brother coming in the other way quicker than you can say "night of the long knives".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It showed that Clegg didn't support the policy. How does that mean the PM mucked up big time?
well hes deputy pm and knew the negotiating tactics of the cabinet and it looks like he has been deceived by cameron or he would have given his wholehearted support for the outcome which to date he will not answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well hes deputy pm and knew the negotiating tactics of the cabinet and it looks like he has been deceived by cameron or he would have given his wholehearted support for the outcome which to date he will not answer.

 

Not a chance. He realised what his party's reaction was and quickly did a U-turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour are keeping their powder dry. Theres no point making David the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter of the next election, once Ed has lost that one David will take over, never fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Labour hierarchy dont believe they can win the next election. If something happens to alter that, Ed will be out of the revolving door with his brother coming in the other way quicker than you can say "night of the long knives".
i remember people saying the same thing about cameron (hug a hoodie )any thing can happen in politics .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well hes deputy pm and knew the negotiating tactics of the cabinet and it looks like he has been deceived by cameron or he would have given his wholehearted support for the outcome which to date he will not answer.

 

I disagree. The tories and lib dems are two separate parties, with fundamentally different opinions regarding europe. The fact that they are governing in coalition doesnt mean they suddenly agree with each other on every aspect of policy, does it? Cameron obviously has the final say as leader of the party holding far more seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. The tories and lib dems are two separate parties, with fundamentally different opinions regarding europe. The fact that they are governing in coalition doesnt mean they suddenly agree with each other on every aspect of policy, does it? Cameron obviously has the final say as leader of the party holding far more seats.
yes but the cabinet normally backs the leader once a position is agreed even if they don,t agree with that position. Edited by solentstars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like all the labour MPs backing Millipede...........oh! that's right, they didn't.
what has that got to do with coalition cabinet government when a position is agreed by all involved in the cabinet and if anyone disagrees they normally resign from the cabinet if they feel so strongly.Under the Westminster system, members of the cabinet are collectively responsible for all government policy. All ministers, whether senior and in the cabinet or junior ministers, must publicly support the policy of the government, regardless of any private reservations. Edited by solentstars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a normal situation, it is a coalition.

 

A coalition that accepts the principle of collective responsibility and all its implications.

 

Methinks the coalition may soon start to unravel as this issue is fundamental to the Lib Dems (unless Cameron does a bit of a U turn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's coming from someone who also does not want to be a part of the EU in its current form and certainly not a EU where Central Banks/Bureaucrats can dictate and limit individual countries fiscal policy.

 

OK, finally someone (fairplay to the Duckhunter as well) who has stated their position clearly - However, may I ask what particular concerns around limiting individual countries fiscal policy you have? The reaon I ask is that its easy to appreciate this as a bad thing when there is a huge amount of the proverbial hiting the fan as in the currrent climate, and naturally during such an extreme situation, decentralised fiscal policy is certainly better for an individual nation. But IF for example, such fical union had already (hypothetically) been shown to be of major benefit to those particpating, with solid growth, satbility etc, would you ahve a different perspective on this?

 

For me this is the crux. Many have claimed they are against it for economic reasons - that it is not in OUR best interests, If that IS the case then surely they would be FOR it if it WAS in our best interests? Unless there is an underlying sense of nationalistic pride seeping through?

 

The second point is then around the 'loss of democracy' - well I dont get this one really. We elect politicians to represent our interests and EXPECT them to have the ability to see the bigger picture and therefore make informed decsions on our behalf as they should have an understanding of all the pros and cons, which if being totally honest the avergae joe voter will simply not have - the alternative is constant referenda with decsions made in many cases by a majority who dont see the bigger picture? Democratic yes... but in everybodies best interests?

 

I agree with the the more democratic localised decision making for many of the powers currently with Brussels -having some of this legislation made within the EU, is not only undemocratic, but also highly inefficient and practically inept, but the flip side is the bigger decisions that effect the whole of the EU benefit from a more centralised debate and decision making ... in theory. I say in Theory, because for thsi to be seen as correct the nations particpating have to be fully engaged with it - recognise that just like democracy at a local level will always leave the minorities who did not support it disenfranchised same goes at a pan EU level... if you are in, you except the majority decision as the right democratic solution. I guess its also a mind set thing. Those EU countries that are fully committed do see themselves as Europeans to a higher degree and recognise that this does meen some compromise as decsions made centrally will sometimes be in the interest of the EU as a whole and not individual memeber states - the mindset for inclusion needs to be an acceptance of this - If you wnat to influence it as well you need to showing leadership from within. I think that is teh issue with the UK, we simply dont have a mindset that we woudl be willing to accept decsions that are best for the EU rather than what is best for the UK... so we are better out simply for that reason, that we were never really in in the first place.

 

What impact that has economically for the UK, I have no idea, could be great, could be crap and I have listened and heard economists who have suggested the full spectra.... needless to say you have to filter out those whose opinions seem to be politically influenced (from both sides).

 

Its the tub thumping arrogance of those with who sggest there is only one answer and they have it I struggle with - when surely the smart thing to do right now is to try and build a balanced economic view on the diverse expert opinion - some seem content to follow whichever expert suports tehir political slant or their chystal ball (both equally naive IMHO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, finally someone (fairplay to the Duckhunter as well) who has stated their position clearly - However, may I ask what particular concerns around limiting individual countries fiscal policy you have? The reaon I ask is that its easy to appreciate this as a bad thing when there is a huge amount of the proverbial hiting the fan as in the currrent climate, and naturally during such an extreme situation, decentralised fiscal policy is certainly better for an individual nation. But IF for example, such fical union had already (hypothetically) been shown to be of major benefit to those particpating, with solid growth, satbility etc, would you ahve a different perspective on this?

 

For me this is the crux. Many have claimed they are against it for economic reasons - that it is not in OUR best interests, If that IS the case then surely they would be FOR it if it WAS in our best interests? Unless there is an underlying sense of nationalistic pride seeping through?

 

The second point is then around the 'loss of democracy' - well I dont get this one really. We elect politicians to represent our interests and EXPECT them to have the ability to see the bigger picture and therefore make informed decsions on our behalf as they should have an understanding of all the pros and cons, which if being totally honest the avergae joe voter will simply not have - the alternative is constant referenda with decsions made in many cases by a majority who dont see the bigger picture? Democratic yes... but in everybodies best interests?

 

I agree with the the more democratic localised decision making for many of the powers currently with Brussels -having some of this legislation made within the EU, is not only undemocratic, but also highly inefficient and practically inept, but the flip side is the bigger decisions that effect the whole of the EU benefit from a more centralised debate and decision making ... in theory. I say in Theory, because for thsi to be seen as correct the nations particpating have to be fully engaged with it - recognise that just like democracy at a local level will always leave the minorities who did not support it disenfranchised same goes at a pan EU level... if you are in, you except the majority decision as the right democratic solution. I guess its also a mind set thing. Those EU countries that are fully committed do see themselves as Europeans to a higher degree and recognise that this does meen some compromise as decsions made centrally will sometimes be in the interest of the EU as a whole and not individual memeber states - the mindset for inclusion needs to be an acceptance of this - If you wnat to influence it as well you need to showing leadership from within. I think that is teh issue with the UK, we simply dont have a mindset that we woudl be willing to accept decsions that are best for the EU rather than what is best for the UK... so we are better out simply for that reason, that we were never really in in the first place.

 

What impact that has economically for the UK, I have no idea, could be great, could be crap and I have listened and heard economists who have suggested the full spectra.... needless to say you have to filter out those whose opinions seem to be politically influenced (from both sides).

 

Its the tub thumping arrogance of those with who sggest there is only one answer and they have it I struggle with - when surely the smart thing to do right now is to try and build a balanced economic view on the diverse expert opinion - some seem content to follow whichever expert suports tehir political slant or their chystal ball (both equally naive IMHO)

 

I really must get an iPad for one of those page-turning thingies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...