"Trust us.We can do better"

[Tangled up in Blue]

Cameron's speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19890459

Can does not mean the same as will though,does it?
Frankly,I wouldn't have thought either "Sink or swim" or "Trust us.We can do better"(OK, I made the latter one up but it was the gist of the speech,IMO)are likely to play that well with the British public, as election slogans in 2015.
Let's face it,this government has mis-timed the electoral cycle and there's little (if any)chance that economic conditions will greatly improve in the UK(or elsewhere in Europe)by 2015.

 

[South Bank Hank]

"Sink or swim" or "Trust us.We can do better"(OK, I made the latter one up but it was the gist of the speech,IMO)are likely to play that well with the British public, as election slogans in 2015.

As you made it up, it hardly matters whether or not it'll play well with the British public. Interestingly though, "Trust anyone but us, they can do better" was the slogan that played very well with the British public when they voted the Labour party out of office not so long ago.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The "party of one notion" is a great line.

I'm a little concerned though about Cameron taking a swipe at Miliband for being intellectual. That's twice in a week the Tories have veered off towards a US GOP style approach, following Jeremy Hunt's anti-abortion dog-whistling. They need to be pursuing an economically and socially liberal agenda and Cameron should be leading the charge on this. That's what leadership is and that's where the Tories can put daylight between them and the illiberal Labour party.

 

[Reg Martin]

It's looking far more likely than seemed possible just a few months ago, that Ed Milliband is going to be Prime Minister after the next election. For those people who support political parties like others support football teams, this is either very good or very bad news. For the rest of us, will it really make much difference? I suspect that two years into office, Ed Milliband will be as adrift and at the mercy of events as David Cameron and the current government appear to be.

 

[superblue24]

Cameron's speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19890459

Can does not mean the same as will though,does it?
Frankly,I wouldn't have thought either "Sink or swim" or "Trust us.We can do better"(OK, I made the latter one up but it was the gist of the speech,IMO)are likely to play that well with the British public, as election slogans in 2015.
Let's face it,this government has mis-timed the electoral cycle and there's little (if any)chance that economic conditions will greatly improve in the UK(or elsewhere in Europe)by 2015.

Because Labours assertions that borrowing more (OK, I made that up too, but we all know it will happen) is the way out of this financial hole!

I think Yorkshire Blue mentioned earlier that he finds it funny that anyone could think that any party would be able to do anything to steer our financial state into calmer waters as they have so little control....How true this comment is!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Because Labours assertions that borrowing more (OK, I made that up too, but we all know it will happen) is the way out of this financial hole!

I think Yorkshire Blue mentioned earlier that he finds it funny that anyone could think that any party would be able to do anything to steer our financial state into calmer waters as they have so little control....How true this comment is!

It was on another thread but I agree, it does ring depressingly true.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

I'm afraid you'd better get used to the personal attacks rather than arguing about policy. It's what the Number 10 spin doctors have set their sights on.

The policy arguments are negligible, anyway, as the main parties are broadly in agreement about the vast majority of issues. So are the Lib Dems too.

 

[Neil_F]

I'm afraid you'd better get used to the personal attacks rather than arguing about policy. It's what the Number 10 spin doctors have set their sights on.

The policy arguments are negligible, anyway, as the main parties are broadly in agreement about the vast majority of issues. So are the Lib Dems too.

Really? Can you name me a single Labour policy?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Really? Can you name me a single Labour policy?

You clearly weren't listening to Miliband's speech(or didn't read it fully enough).He made it clear that the banks would be given until the next election to get their house in order, otherwise Labour would legislate to split up their casino operations.He also said that Labour would repeal any Tory legislation on the NHS.That's two major policies right there.He also mentioned bringing in the Bacc Tec.at 18, so there were at least three policy commitments in his speech.Don't remember any at all in Cameron's.

 

[Neil_F]

Let's be generous and say that the aspirations of a single speech can be considered policies.

1. This is what Milliband said on banks, "Either you fix it yourselves between now and the election or the next Labour government will once and for all ensure that the high street bank is no longer the arm of a casino operation and we will break you up by law." There are no details on what a breakup would look like. It is also conditional on the banks "fixing themselves". What exactly does that mean? No further bailouts required? Returned to private ownership? A lending target? Compliance with Basel III? This is a vague notion at best.

2. He said he will repeal the NHS Bill currently going through Parliament. Not as you claim, "any Tory legislation on the NHS." I'll give you that one though, a single policy. I'm slightly suspicious here as it will be an Act rather than a Bill by 2015. Would he still repeal it? If so, what will it be replaced by? The current Bill requires structural changes so will there also be a re-organisation? So, a policy, but a poorly thought through one.

3. I have read the speech again and you are correct. He does say he will introduce a Technical Bacc post 18. I have no idea what this is or what it entails, but I'll give it to you.

So in conclusion I was being unfair. I was wrong when I said Labour had no policies. I should have said they have a poorly thought through policy and one other policy without any detail. My considerable apologies.

I did read through the speech again looking for the policies on the economy, immigration, law and order, academies and free schools, pensions, benefits, foreign aid, europe and employment regulation. Couldn't find a thing.

 

[Pubey]

Neil do you just come on here to shoot fish in a barrel?!

 

[EastStandBlue]

I'm just waiting for more Big Brother contestants to be referenced.

 

[Pubey]

LOL absolutely classic SZ moment that.:hilarious:

 

[Pubey]

Must be why BarnaBlue is always getting it wrong (again)

 

[MK Shrimper]

Must be why BarnaBlue is always getting it wrong (again)

Except phone hacking eh?

 

[Neil_F]

Except phone hacking eh?

You're right. It was wrong of a Guardian journalist to hack voicemails.

 

[MK Shrimper]

You're right. It was wrong of a Guardian journalist to hack voicemails.

So apart from being an apologist for David Cameron, you're now one for Rupert Murdoch as well. Nice.

 

[Neil_F]

So apart from being an apologist for David Cameron, you're now one for Rupert Murdoch as well. Nice.

What are you talking about????

I merely pointed out that a Guardian journalist admitted hacking phones. The response you should have gone with was that it was in the public interest in this instance (he hacked the voicemail of suspected arms dealers) and that the editiorial stance has always been clear. They would have been good points and I would even have agreed with you.

Instead you go for the lazy approach: "I am a good person and these are my views. Another person has different views so he must be a bad person."

For the record, I don't really care much about phone hacking. If people are suspected of breaking the law then I think they should go on trial and if convicted sentenced appropriately. I don't really care much about Rupert Murdoch and I don't think he has an omnipotent power over the media or controls the views of the British public. Yes, the relationship between politicians, lobbyists and the media is sometimes inappropriate but it was ever thus. The three groups exchange personnel so often and it is all they really understand. I'm sure the system could be improved but I'm not concerned enough to give it a moment's thought.

As for an apologist for the Prime Minister, you have again deployed the specious logic that I don't think much of Ed Milliband and therefore must be an apologist for Mr Cameron. I voted Conservative in 2010 but at the moment I don't know who I will vote for in 2015. I think Mr Cameron hasn't done enough to justify my vote for a second time but he has done some good things. There are many, many things which I do not agree with, most of them economic, and I have said so before. If that is your definition of an apologist then very well.

 

[MK Shrimper]

What are you talking about????

I merely pointed out that a Guardian journalist admitted hacking phones. The response you should have gone with was that it was in the public interest in this instance (he hacked the voicemail of suspected arms dealers) and that the editiorial stance has always been clear. They would have been good points and I would even have agreed with you.

Instead you go for the lazy approach: "I am a good person and these are my views. Another person has different views so he must be a bad person."

For the record, I don't really care much about phone hacking. If people are suspected of breaking the law then I think they should go on trial and if convicted sentenced appropriately. I don't really care much about Rupert Murdoch and I don't think he has an omnipotent power over the media or controls the views of the British public. Yes, the relationship between politicians, lobbyists and the media is sometimes inappropriate but it was ever thus. The three groups exchange personnel so often and it is all they really understand. I'm sure the system could be improved but I'm not concerned enough to give it a moment's thought.

As for an apologist for the Prime Minister, you have again deployed the specious logic that I don't think much of Ed Milliband and therefore must be an apologist for Mr Cameron. I voted Conservative in 2010 but at the moment I don't know who I will vote for in 2015. I think Mr Cameron hasn't done enough to justify my vote for a second time but he has done some good things. There are many, many things which I do not agree with, most of them economic, and I have said so before. If that is your definition of an apologist then very well.

**eek!** Steps away from the intellegent people. :blush:

PS: Yes it was a cheap shot, and I don't think you're bad, even if you voted Tory. :winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You clearly weren't listening to Miliband's speech(or didn't read it fully enough).He made it clear that the banks would be given until the next election to get their house in order, otherwise Labour would legislate to split up their casino operations.He also said that Labour would repeal any Tory legislation on the NHS.That's two major policies right there.He also mentioned bringing in the Bacc Tec.at 18, so there were at least three policy commitments in his speech.Don't remember any at all in Cameron's.

Let's be generous and say that the aspirations of a single speech can be considered policies.

1. This is what Milliband said on banks, "Either you fix it yourselves between now and the election or the next Labour government will once and for all ensure that the high street bank is no longer the arm of a casino operation and we will break you up by law." There are no details on what a breakup would look like. It is also conditional on the banks "fixing themselves". What exactly does that mean? No further bailouts required? Returned to private ownership? A lending target? Compliance with Basel III? This is a vague notion at best.

2. He said he will repeal the NHS Bill currently going through Parliament. Not as you claim, "any Tory legislation on the NHS." I'll give you that one though, a single policy. I'm slightly suspicious here as it will be an Act rather than a Bill by 2015. Would he still repeal it? If so, what will it be replaced by? The current Bill requires structural changes so will there also be a re-organisation? So, a policy, but a poorly thought through one.

3. I have read the speech again and you are correct. He does say he will introduce a Technical Bacc post 18. I have no idea what this is or what it entails, but I'll give it to you.

So in conclusion I was being unfair. I was wrong when I said Labour had no policies. I should have said they have a poorly thought through policy and one other policy without any detail. My considerable apologies.

I did read through the speech again looking for the policies on the economy, immigration, law and order, academies and free schools, pensions, benefits, foreign aid, europe and employment regulation. Couldn't find a thing.

So we're agreed then, that there were three policy commitments(or aspirations as you prefer to call them-borrowing a term of mine)) in Miliband's speech, whereas there were were none at all in Cameron's? :winking:
(Btw,as I've mentioned elsewhere,the policies you were looking for in vain ,will come to the surface as the 2015 election comes nearer).