Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I think he genuinely cared and tried to do the best for the country , even if his best wasn't always good enough  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what job he'll be doing next..." Cashing in all the favours he has done for the multinational corporate tax dodgers... 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope History isn't too harsh on him
I think he genuinely cared and tried to do the best for the country , even if his best wasn't always good enough "Never has someone reigned for so long, but doing so little, whilst saying so much. Perfect politician. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what job he'll be doing next..." He's seen Ed Balls on Strictly and thought 'I'm having some of that, is there an animal dress up round?' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches. "And the BBC interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152 ...proves his point. Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools! As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8. Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that..." ...put his dick in a dead pigs gob | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences "Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what job he'll be doing next..." spokes person for Danish Bacon ?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better? "You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something? As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%. It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses. According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still."Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about. "the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine."2007 GDP per Head $40,477 2015 GDP per Head $40,933 Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator. So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. "I like to keep things simple . Just look at the number of people driving around in new cars or eating in restaurants . Look at the performance of the stock exchange and the fact that those paying mortgages are on extremely low interest rates . His legacy is one that he can be proud of . He allowed all of us to decide whether we wished to remain in or leave the EU. He was prepared to listen to people and was also a true family man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what job he'll be doing next... He's seen Ed Balls on Strictly and thought 'I'm having some of that, is there an animal dress up round?'" George Galloway already covered that when he pretended to be a cat on celebrity Big brother a few years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
He said he would trigger article 50 if he lost the referendum......He didn't trigger article 50.
He said he was going to stay on as an MP when he quit as Prime Minister.....now he has quit as an MP.
In key debates on Sky news and ITV during the EU referendum campaign he repeatedly said...."We need to stay in the EU because Brits don't quit".
Now Cameron has proved himself to be the biggest quitter of them all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. I like to keep things simple . Just look at the number of people driving around in new cars or eating in restaurants . Look at the performance of the stock exchange and the fact that those paying mortgages are on extremely low interest rates .
His legacy is one that he can be proud of . He allowed all of us to decide whether we wished to remain in or leave the EU. He was prepared to listen to people and was also a true family man."Lol, few things are more complicated than trying to draw meaning from anecdotal measures like new cars being driven! It doesn't really get simpler than GDP per Head in a constant currency!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. I like to keep things simple . Just look at the number of people driving around in new cars or eating in restaurants . Look at the performance of the stock exchange and the fact that those paying mortgages are on extremely low interest rates .
His legacy is one that he can be proud of . He allowed all of us to decide whether we wished to remain in or leave the EU. He was prepared to listen to people and was also a true family man.
Lol, few things are more complicated than trying to draw meaning from anecdotal measures like new cars being driven! It doesn't really get simpler than GDP per Head in a constant currency!! "He was a total waste as a PM; Gay marriage? So what; it would have happened anyway, he just happened to be around when it did. The economy did OK, just because it would have done anyway. His two memorable things were being stupid enough to allow the Scottish referendum, which came bloody close to breaking up the UK ( and any half smart PM could have snuffed that idea easily ) Then promising the EU referendum in a panic, to get elected. And then failing to snuff the idea out, any half competent PM could have done that in a heartbeat. So singlehandedly screwed the UK beyond repair . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. I like to keep things simple . Just look at the number of people driving around in new cars or eating in restaurants . Look at the performance of the stock exchange and the fact that those paying mortgages are on extremely low interest rates .
His legacy is one that he can be proud of . He allowed all of us to decide whether we wished to remain in or leave the EU. He was prepared to listen to people and was also a true family man.
Lol, few things are more complicated than trying to draw meaning from anecdotal measures like new cars being driven! It doesn't really get simpler than GDP per Head in a constant currency!!
He was a total waste as a PM;
Gay marriage? So what; it would have happened anyway, he just happened to be around when it did.
The economy did OK, just because it would have done anyway.
His two memorable things were being stupid enough to allow the Scottish referendum, which came bloody close to breaking up the UK ( and any half smart PM could have snuffed that idea easily )
Then promising the EU referendum in a panic, to get elected. And then failing to snuff the idea out, any half competent PM could have done that in a heartbeat.
So singlehandedly screwed the UK beyond repair ."But harsh, the benefits cap at £27,000 will always be popular. The big society was a bit of a joke, as was the Northern Powerhouse policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really. "I am most disappointed you try and do a 'Project Fear' Osborne trick on us. Your initial point was about how 'better off' people are from a 2007 baseline. So I provided ONS data on incomes,which is how people judge how well off they are, which showed 2% growth. You then switched to GDP figures which are nothing to do with incomes. Just as Osborne misled the UK saying 'We will be £4,300 worse off per family if we leave the EU' using GDP figures when we wouldn't be because GDP per Capita / family is completely different from Income per Capita / family isn't it? From memory (and I stand to be corrected) I think the GDP per family was some £66,000 while Income per family was some $44,000. A 50% difference. And it is also disappointing you chose 2007 as Cameron wasn't PM until 2010. But by choosing 2007 you included the two catastrophic years of 2008 / 09 of the banking crash when GDP per Capita dropped from $40477.88 to $38008.82 a 6% drop in two years alone. Using the 2009 baseline it grew to $40933.46 in 2015 which is a 7.7% increase in 6 years. No mean feat however you look at it and the graphs are here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita I am sure you didn't mean to confuse Incomes with GDP...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" David Cameron has resigned as an MP as he doesn't want to be a distraction on the back benches.
And the BBC interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152
...proves his point.
Instead of looking back over his 6 years as PM winning two elections and 11 years as Tory leader seeing off Blair, Brown, Miliband and the death throes of the Labour party we got the Leftie BBC trying to goad the man into talking down Theresa May's new ideas on limited Grammar Schools!
As someone else said I hope history will see a pretty brave Tory Leader bringing in Gay marriage and looking to improve social mobility and a man getting the country back on its feet and delivering the fastest growing economy in the G8.
Sadly I suspect that he will be known as the man that unintentionally took us out of the EU. Personally I think its great but he didn't intend it. God Bless the Laws of Unintended Consequences
Gay marriage is a complete non factor since the difference between that and civil partnership are semantic. As for the economic growth, well that's laughable too. By the end of his run people were no better off than they were in 2007. Surely you have something better?
You cannot deny that as a country our economy overall has improved hugely. I mean the lowest unemployment rates since records began? More jobs available than unemployed people? And an increase in GDP has to be a good thing as it indicates movement of money and financial activity in and around an economy. If Recessions are bad then Growth is good. Or have I missed something?
As for 'being no better off' well according to the Guardian in February (not noted for being a Cameron supporting journal) quoting the ONS it said the top 20% richest are some 3% worse off while the poorest 20% and retired are the only group whose disposable income had not fallen. And had risen by some 6%.
It also quoted the ONS saying average wages growth had increased to 2% per annum excluding bonuses.
According to those 'experts' IHS Markit in April this year over 64% of people surveyed have had a wage rise some over 2% while 34% have stood still.
Nice try. As with any measure of 'improvement' it depends where you start the baseline. 2010 was a pretty shoddy year so it's almost inconceivable that he would leave office with the economy worse than that. But in real GDP per head terms, the average UK citizen is no better off in 2016 than they were in 2007. I'm not blaming that on him, most other countries didn't do better. But if I presided over what was basically a mini depression, a bit of regression-to-the-mean growth is not something I'd be boasting about.
the baseline was the 2007 you used. And its the ONS figures not mine.
2007 GDP per Head $40,477
2015 GDP per Head $40,933
Now adjust for inflation and 2007 would be worth $50,658, according to the bank of England calculator.
So in real terms the average person is still 19% worse off than they were in 2007. All the other measures are noise really.
I am most disappointed you try and do a 'Project Fear' Osborne trick on us. Your initial point was about how 'better off' people are from a 2007 baseline. So I provided ONS data on incomes,which is how people judge how well off they are, which showed 2% growth.
You then switched to GDP figures which are nothing to do with incomes. Just as Osborne misled the UK saying 'We will be £4,300 worse off per family if we leave the EU' using GDP figures when we wouldn't be because GDP per Capita / family is completely different from Income per Capita / family isn't it? From memory (and I stand to be corrected) I think the GDP per family was some £66,000 while Income per family was some $44,000. A 50% difference.
And it is also disappointing you chose 2007 as Cameron wasn't PM until 2010. But by choosing 2007 you included the two catastrophic years of 2008 / 09 of the banking crash when GDP per Capita dropped from $40477.88 to $38008.82 a 6% drop in two years alone. Using the 2009 baseline it grew to $40933.46 in 2015 which is a 7.7% increase in 6 years. No mean feat however you look at it and the graphs are here:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
I am sure you didn't mean to confuse Incomes with GDP..."Not confused at all. Incomes are really irrelevant if prices are going up and different incomes buy different amounts in different countries. Whilst GDP is a heavily flawed measure, it is broadly how we compare different countries for lack of a better measure. Of course I chose 2007, it's our all time high. But it's 2016 now and we still haven't surpassed that peak. I didn't say there was no improvement at all since 2010, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't hold it up as a flagship improvement under Cameron because we're not actually better off than we were in 2007. Neither are most countries, but Thatcher he is not! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not confused at all. Incomes are really irrelevant if prices are going up and different incomes buy different amounts in different countries. Whilst GDP is a heavily flawed measure, it is broadly how we compare different countries for lack of a better measure. Of course I chose 2007, it's our all time high. But it's 2016 now and we still haven't surpassed that peak. I didn't say there was no improvement at all since 2010, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't hold it up as a flagship improvement under Cameron because we're not actually better off than we were in 2007. Neither are most countries, but Thatcher he is not!" I am loathe to argue but I cannot let that slip on by.. 
You now introduce inflation rates? OK:
2007 - 2.1%
2008 - 3.1%
2009 - 2.8%
2010 - 3.7%
2011 - 4.2%
2012 - 2.7%
2013 - 1.9%
2014 - 0.5%
2015 - 0.2%
Inflation is now 10% of that in 2007 and 5.5% of that in 2010.
And we are talking about the UK not comparing with other countries. Yours was an absolute statement.
Not surpassed our best?
2007 - $40477
2015 - $40933
An increase of $456
And I am still not sure why you switched from people 'feeling better off' (and therefore incomes) to GDP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not confused at all. Incomes are really irrelevant if prices are going up and different incomes buy different amounts in different countries. Whilst GDP is a heavily flawed measure, it is broadly how we compare different countries for lack of a better measure. Of course I chose 2007, it's our all time high. But it's 2016 now and we still haven't surpassed that peak. I didn't say there was no improvement at all since 2010, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't hold it up as a flagship improvement under Cameron because we're not actually better off than we were in 2007. Neither are most countries, but Thatcher he is not! I am loathe to argue but I cannot let that slip on by..
You now introduce inflation rates? OK:
2007 - 2.1%
2008 - 3.1%
2009 - 2.8%
2010 - 3.7%
2011 - 4.2%
2012 - 2.7%
2013 - 1.9%
2014 - 0.5%
2015 - 0.2%
Inflation is now 10% of that in 2007 and 5.5% of that in 2010.
And we are talking about the UK not comparing with other countries. Yours was an absolute statement.
Not surpassed our best?
2007 - $40477
2015 - $40933
An increase of $456
And I am still not sure why you switched from people 'feeling better off' (and therefore incomes) to GDP."You know those are annual figures and inflation is cumulative right? It's not a real increase because you need to inflate the 2007 figure to 2015 economic conditions which I did earlier. So multiply $40,477 by 102.1%, then multiply that figure by 103.1% and then multiply that figure and keep going until you get to 2015. You know the bank of England is supposed to create "low and stable" inflation too? Usually considered 2%. There's nothing inherently good about 0.2% inflation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not confused at all. Incomes are really irrelevant if prices are going up and different incomes buy different amounts in different countries. Whilst GDP is a heavily flawed measure, it is broadly how we compare different countries for lack of a better measure. Of course I chose 2007, it's our all time high. But it's 2016 now and we still haven't surpassed that peak. I didn't say there was no improvement at all since 2010, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't hold it up as a flagship improvement under Cameron because we're not actually better off than we were in 2007. Neither are most countries, but Thatcher he is not! I am loathe to argue but I cannot let that slip on by..
You now introduce inflation rates? OK:
2007 - 2.1%
2008 - 3.1%
2009 - 2.8%
2010 - 3.7%
2011 - 4.2%
2012 - 2.7%
2013 - 1.9%
2014 - 0.5%
2015 - 0.2%
Inflation is now 10% of that in 2007 and 5.5% of that in 2010.
And we are talking about the UK not comparing with other countries. Yours was an absolute statement.
Not surpassed our best?
2007 - $40477
2015 - $40933
An increase of $456
And I am still not sure why you switched from people 'feeling better off' (and therefore incomes) to GDP.
You know those are annual figures and inflation is cumulative right? It's not a real increase because you need to inflate the 2007 figure to 2015 economic conditions which I did earlier. So multiply $40,477 by 102.1%, then multiply that figure by 103.1% and then multiply that figure and keep going until you get to 2015.
You know the bank of England is supposed to create "low and stable" inflation too? Usually considered 2%. There's nothing inherently good about 0.2% inflation. "But why GDP? The average bloke doesn't buy a round of drinks because GDP is up 3 points this year. He will if he has had a pay rise for the first time in 2 years. GDP is an external measurement used as a comparative with other countries. And why 2007? If you are judging Cameron you must start in 2010 and when you do you see a very different story indeed. Especially as he was starting with a destroyed economy unlike Blair who inherited a growing economy and a Surplus. As for inflation the B of E just has to report why when it goes over 2%. That isn't a target. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not confused at all. Incomes are really irrelevant if prices are going up and different incomes buy different amounts in different countries. Whilst GDP is a heavily flawed measure, it is broadly how we compare different countries for lack of a better measure. Of course I chose 2007, it's our all time high. But it's 2016 now and we still haven't surpassed that peak. I didn't say there was no improvement at all since 2010, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't hold it up as a flagship improvement under Cameron because we're not actually better off than we were in 2007. Neither are most countries, but Thatcher he is not! I am loathe to argue but I cannot let that slip on by..
You now introduce inflation rates? OK:
2007 - 2.1%
2008 - 3.1%
2009 - 2.8%
2010 - 3.7%
2011 - 4.2%
2012 - 2.7%
2013 - 1.9%
2014 - 0.5%
2015 - 0.2%
Inflation is now 10% of that in 2007 and 5.5% of that in 2010.
And we are talking about the UK not comparing with other countries. Yours was an absolute statement.
Not surpassed our best?
2007 - $40477
2015 - $40933
An increase of $456
And I am still not sure why you switched from people 'feeling better off' (and therefore incomes) to GDP.
You know those are annual figures and inflation is cumulative right? It's not a real increase because you need to inflate the 2007 figure to 2015 economic conditions which I did earlier. So multiply $40,477 by 102.1%, then multiply that figure by 103.1% and then multiply that figure and keep going until you get to 2015.
You know the bank of England is supposed to create "low and stable" inflation too? Usually considered 2%. There's nothing inherently good about 0.2% inflation.
But why GDP? The average bloke doesn't buy a round of drinks because GDP is up 3 points this year. He will if he has had a pay rise for the first time in 2 years. GDP is an external measurement used as a comparative with other countries.
And why 2007? If you are judging Cameron you must start in 2010 and when you do you see a very different story indeed. Especially as he was starting with a destroyed economy unlike Blair who inherited a growing economy and a Surplus.
As for inflation the B of E just has to report why when it goes over 2%. That isn't a target. "3 point rise in GDP means that the average guy already bought an extra round of drinks! Again, GDP is best for international comparisons, not wages, and 2007 is a better measure than 2010 which is more regression to the mean | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What will Cameron do next? Pig farming?" To be fair, at least he won't be getting booed at conservative conferences in future the way labour boo good old Tony | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What will Cameron do next? Pig farming? To be fair, at least he won't be getting booed at conservative conferences in future the way labour boo good old Tony " Very true. It was a bad joke. I'm innocent
But add it to my brier score. 60% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I said they should have QE d at the bottom by issuing tax rebates for those in work!. This means the money would still have got to the banks but more effectively as it would have passed through many hands in doing so and given us the desired higher inflation!. I'm not getting into the Tory labour debate, it's a pointless exercise,i wasn't mentioning brown or darling in their roles only because this thread was about Cameron... Now regardless of what he and Osborne inherited he could have done a better job than what he did, sure there were good points but he left with a fundamental flaw in which the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit.... That's not a government of the people by the people for the people, it's cronyism of the worst kind which.... We still haven't solved the fucking problem of the banks!. . . It wasn't public debt which ruined the economy it was private debt levels far exceeding gdp..... As for markets tearing the UK apart, well I'm afraid to say you only need to look at Italian bonds!" I wasn't getting into a Tory / Labour debate I was correcting your idea that it was Cameron and Osborne who saved the banks and kicked off QE. they didn't. So if you want to gripe about saving the wealthy bankers it wasn't Cameron. And then you still say 'the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit....' when I just showed you the IFS say quite the opposite. And if you want to get into higher tax rates we had 13 years of 40% top rate, then 2 months of 50% before Cameron came into power and fixed it at 45%. Since when we have taken in more tax from the rich than ever before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I said they should have QE d at the bottom by issuing tax rebates for those in work!. This means the money would still have got to the banks but more effectively as it would have passed through many hands in doing so and given us the desired higher inflation!. I'm not getting into the Tory labour debate, it's a pointless exercise,i wasn't mentioning brown or darling in their roles only because this thread was about Cameron... Now regardless of what he and Osborne inherited he could have done a better job than what he did, sure there were good points but he left with a fundamental flaw in which the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit.... That's not a government of the people by the people for the people, it's cronyism of the worst kind which.... We still haven't solved the fucking problem of the banks!. . . It wasn't public debt which ruined the economy it was private debt levels far exceeding gdp..... As for markets tearing the UK apart, well I'm afraid to say you only need to look at Italian bonds! I wasn't getting into a Tory / Labour debate I was correcting your idea that it was Cameron and Osborne who saved the banks and kicked off QE. they didn't. So if you want to gripe about saving the wealthy bankers it wasn't Cameron. And then you still say 'the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit....' when I just showed you the IFS say quite the opposite. And if you want to get into higher tax rates we had 13 years of 40% top rate, then 2 months of 50% before Cameron came into power and fixed it at 45%. Since when we have taken in more tax from the rich than ever before." And of course the bands where the higher tax rates apply never got increased with inflation so he was actually a stealthy socialist at heart. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-damning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention
Mr ddc
(* a half-decent spellcheck would have offered 'labia' for that ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So who predicted "because he was about to get savaged over his Libya* intervention" as their Briar Score Predictor thingy?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/14/mps-deliver-damning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention
Mr ddc
(* a half-decent spellcheck would have offered 'labia' for that )"There's another thread on this where alwaysupforit says "With the sudden way he has quit, I can't help but wonder, is there some shit about him about to hit the fan. Shock horror could we have a corrupt politician here lol" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc There's another thread on this where alwaysupforit says "With the sudden way he has quit, I can't help but wonder, is there some shit about him about to hit the fan. Shock horror could we have a corrupt politician here lol" " Oops, that was the thread I was aiming for  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I said they should have QE d at the bottom by issuing tax rebates for those in work!. This means the money would still have got to the banks but more effectively as it would have passed through many hands in doing so and given us the desired higher inflation!. I'm not getting into the Tory labour debate, it's a pointless exercise,i wasn't mentioning brown or darling in their roles only because this thread was about Cameron... Now regardless of what he and Osborne inherited he could have done a better job than what he did, sure there were good points but he left with a fundamental flaw in which the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit.... That's not a government of the people by the people for the people, it's cronyism of the worst kind which.... We still haven't solved the fucking problem of the banks!. . . It wasn't public debt which ruined the economy it was private debt levels far exceeding gdp..... As for markets tearing the UK apart, well I'm afraid to say you only need to look at Italian bonds! I wasn't getting into a Tory / Labour debate I was correcting your idea that it was Cameron and Osborne who saved the banks and kicked off QE. they didn't. So if you want to gripe about saving the wealthy bankers it wasn't Cameron. And then you still say 'the top 0.01% were in hog heaven, while the bottom 20% faced proper shit....' when I just showed you the IFS say quite the opposite. And if you want to get into higher tax rates we had 13 years of 40% top rate, then 2 months of 50% before Cameron came into power and fixed it at 45%. Since when we have taken in more tax from the rich than ever before." . Now your doing what you excuse others of doing, making stuff up. Now if you can find me where I said Cameron and Osborne saved the banks!! Or where i said they kicked off QE.... What I actually said was they did what most of the other wealthy western nations did and brought in austerity... Right now getting back to QE which was my original point about how it was pursued Cameron and Osborne oversaw as much QE as brown and darling, the thread is about Cameron, not brown or darling. So yes the 0.01% benefited more from QE in fact the BoE did a very good bit of research on QE and found that the more assets you held the more it benefited you... So those 20% at the bottom that had practically no assets were vastly worse off from the programme than those 0.01% at the top which saw huge increases from it.....i Never mentioned tax policy or fiscal policy, it was a remark about monetary policy... The reason I don't get into Tory/labour debates is because it's pointless, both sides are entrenched in their beliefs!...I see yours in every post back to me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Right now getting back to QE which was my original point about how it was pursued Cameron and Osborne oversaw as much QE as brown and darling, the thread is about Cameron, not brown or darling. So yes the 0.01% benefited more from QE in fact the BoE did a very good bit of research on QE and found that the more assets you held the more it benefited you... So those 20% at the bottom that had practically no assets were vastly worse off from the programme than those 0.01% at the top which saw huge increases from it.....i Never mentioned tax policy or fiscal policy, it was a remark about monetary policy... The reason I don't get into Tory/labour debates is because it's pointless, both sides are entrenched in their beliefs!...I see yours in every post back to me" I have been trying to respond to whatever you have written. We started off as whether people 'felt better off' and I assumed you meant wages. You mentioned GDP and backdated the indicator to 2007. Which was when Brown was PM. I suggested the indicator should be 2010 as that was when Cameron took over. You insist it is 2007. So it becomes a Brown / Cameron debate surely? Yes QE was in action and halted while Cameron was PM but it was started under Brown as a result of what some think was a crisis he caused / made worse / should have avoided depending on their politics. Discussing a particular PM is not a Tory / Labour pissing contest. Yes I am a true blue Tory and make no apologies but this has been about the numbers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope History isn't too harsh on him
I think he genuinely cared and tried to do the best for the country , even if his best wasn't always good enough "History will be very harsh on him, I'm afraid. He will always be tainted by Brexit,and the fact that he resigned so soon after the result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope History isn't too harsh on him
I think he genuinely cared and tried to do the best for the country , even if his best wasn't always good enough
History will be very harsh on him, I'm afraid.
He will always be tainted by Brexit,and the fact that he resigned so soon after the result. "He knew the shit was going to hit the fan and got out while he could. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hope History isn't too harsh on him
I think he genuinely cared and tried to do the best for the country , even if his best wasn't always good enough
History will be very harsh on him, I'm afraid.
He will always be tainted by Brexit,and the fact that he resigned so soon after the result.
He knew the shit was going to hit the fan and got out while he could."Maybe in years to come Syria is to Cameron like Tony is to Iraq. Just ssaying, history could repeat itself. For my brier score put 50.01% sure. Of course it depends if it's true and he gets caught. Conspiracy hat off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
