A short video

An amusing video that we were sent about David Cameron's new allies in Europe:




I really have no idea why David Cameron think's it's a good idea to turn his back on powerful mainstream parties that have are ideologically similair to him (well ideologically similiar to his posture his actions show an entirely different set of principles) and ally himself with the lunatic fringe.

The stench of hypocrisy

Does Cameron's sleaziness know no bounds? Judging by this BBC article apparently not. His response to an employee of the Prime Minister independently acting to suggest smearing Tories is to smear Gordon Brown and Labour. Well Mr Cameron your party is not as nice and squeaky clean as you would like to pretend so you can keep your faux outrage.

If you don't know what I mean perhaps I can jog your memory:



Of course that was when you had been in power for 18 years which as you say is far too long:

Mr Cameron said Labour had "been in power too long" and Gordon Brown had to end "this sort of nonsense".

I'm guessing then that you didn't campaign for the Tories in '92 or '97 since you had obviously been in power too long at both those elections. Strangely enough I don't think that that was the case since it was around that time you were trying to get selected by your party.

As for change (BTW plagiarising Obama won't make you be like him):

Mr Cameron said: "What this whole episode demonstrates is the need for change - not change in the special advisers code but change in the culture at Number 10 Downing Street.

"I do not think we will get a change in culture until we get a change in leadership and we won't get a change in leadership until we get a change of government.

Let's imagine for a second that you aren't a shallow Thatcher worshipping, old boy networking, elitist. Let's imagine that David Cameron would have a spin and smear free reign as PM. (Tip to readers: Hallucinogenics may be required in order to stretch imaginations that far)

Would that be good for Britain?

No.

Because as you much as you might try to stir it up this latest "scandal" ("Smeargate" if you will.) is nothing. The recession is a problem, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a problem, terrorism is a problem, widespread poverty and high infant mortality are problems, gender inequality is a problem, homophobia and transphobia are problems. A couple of people discussing spreading rumours about MPs. That's insignificant.

So why not tell us what you would do about the economy, or what you would do in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't you actually suggest something that will help ordinary people? (And despite what you think that "ordinary people" doesn't mean the 6% of people who would benefit from raising the threshold on inheritance tax, despite the fact all of your friends probably easily fall in that category.)

Maybe because you have nothing to say?

Some sad news

From the BBC:

Conservative leader David Cameron's eldest son Ivan has died in hospital.

The six-year-old, who had cerebral palsy and epilepsy, became ill overnight and was taken to St Mary's hospital where he died early Wednesday.

Mr Cameron, who described Ivan as "wonderful", and wife Samantha have two younger children, Nancy and Arthur.

...

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he and his wife Sarah were "very saddened" about Ivan's death.

In a statement, Mr Brown said: "We have sent our condolences to David and Samantha. The death of a child is a loss no parent should have to bear.

"I know Ivan was a child who brought joy to all those who knew him and his was a life surrounded by love.

"The thoughts and prayers of the whole country are with David, Samantha and their family."

The Lloyds bonuses are so wrong that even Cameron realises it

From the BBC:

Giving bonuses to executives at Lloyds Bank would be "completely wrong", Tory leader David Cameron has said.

Payments totalling £120m are reportedly to go to workers at Lloyds - which is 43% state-owned - despite record losses at the bank's subsidiary HBOS.

Well done David you've managed to come to the conclusion that John Prescott came to weeks ago, and as can be seen in the BBC article he's hardly the only person to have beaten Cameron to the punch:

Last week Chancellor Alistair Darling told RBS failure should not be rewarded with huge bonuses

[If you go to the article there's an embedded video showing an interview with Cameron. I don't know if you actually want to watch it. Personally I can't stand listening to David Cameron, even when he's pretending to care.]

I dont believe this

Ok im not going to say anything about this article except one thing, how on earth did he think it was appropriate.

Public Sector Pensions ----------- THE TRUTH

A couple of weeks ago David Cameron made a speech where he argued that public sector pensions should in his opinion be reformed (this is code for take it off them as they don't deserve it) here is a report of the initial speech and its from the Telegraph so clearly its not balanced as it comes from the right.

At the same time I'm also posting this, which is a simple 10 point response to the initial story and thanks to Tom and Labouandcapital for posting it. The response is by Naomi at the GMB and as she points out,

1. Public sector pensions potentially keep 12million people from reliance on state benefits in retirement.
2. Public sector pension schemes, in particular the funded Local Government Pension Scheme, generate billions of pounds worth of investment in the UK economy.
3. Public sector pension schemes encourage retirement saving among 5.75m public sector workers – 85% of public sector workers are members of a pension scheme (compared with 40% in the private sector).
4. Lack of retirement saving in the private sector will lead to more poverty and significant pressure on state benefits in the future.
5. Greater poverty in retirement resulting from inadequate company pension provision in the private sector will lead to greater pressures on the NHS and local care services.
6. All workers pay for everyone’s retirement income. The price of goods and services includes the cost of private sector pension provision, just like tax levels include the cost of public sector pension provision.
7. State benefits are funded by national insurance and taxation paid by everyone and used more by those with lower incomes e.g. those with inadequate pension savings due to poor private sector provision.
8. Public sector pensions account for about 20% of public sector workers’ remuneration packages.
9. Public sector pension schemes are good quality and rightly so, the country needs private sector schemes to be as good. Lower pensions for all means poverty in old age for all.
10. ‘Apartheid’ was the official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against non-whites; it is not an appropriate description of occupational pension provision.

Now I will declare an interest in this story, I am married to someone who is paying into a public sector pension scheme, someone who is committed to her job and who believes that the public sector and its workers provides a service for the all the people and not just those who can afford it.

So thanks dave for giving us all another reason to remember why tories bad, labour good, as Labour works for the good of the many not just the few.

No He Can't

I have just been reading the New Statesman online and found this story concerning David Cameron and his love fest with Barack Obama .....NOT.

It seems that He is a lightweight, well we knew that, and rather than the next generation he is nothing more than a right wing eurosceptic.

The Queens Speech

Here is a short film from The Prime Minister about todays Queen Speech. A programme for the next year that puts people first and not the mega rich that the tories seem to be more concerned about.

Leaks and Cameron's Man

Just found this on the BBC website, my particular favourite part of it is the quote from the tory official that say "As shadow immigration minister, Mr Green has, on a number of occasions, legitimately revealed information which the Home Office chose not to make public".

Now maybe its just me but I would think that if the Home office which is the organisation that is in charge of the fight against crime and terrorist activity as well as the Immigration Department has decided not to release something to the public then maybe its not a conspiracy maybe they actually have a good reason.

You know the sort of thing, ongoing criminal investigation, not wanting immigration rings to know stuff, you know the sort of thing whats it called again, aye that's right PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

Clearly doing that is the last thing on this tories mind.