Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Cameron and Steve Rotheram


Ripley

Recommended Posts

Guardian Transcript

 

12.29pm: Labour's Steve Rotheram asks Cameron if he has run out of steam, or if the job is too big for him.

 

Cameron says he is glad Michael Gove has introduced poetry learning in schools. Perhaps they could start with Rotheram.

 

Labour MPs shout about Cameron being rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is cameron going to go down as the most inept prime minister the uk has ever had? he just seems utterly useless and out of his depth for every element of the job.

 

 

I was thinking last night he actually makes George W look of average intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's struggling with his parties philosophy in the face of the results of that philosophy. The markets won't ever know how to fix social problems, but that doesn't mean he's not a bright fellow. He's clearly an intelligent man, as they all are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's struggling with his parties philosophy in the face of the results of that philosophy. The markets won't ever know how to fix social problems, but that doesn't mean he's not a bright fellow. He's clearly an intelligent man, as they all are.

I do think his level of privilege hinders him, he never expected it to be this difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think his level of privilege hinders him, he never expected it to be this difficult.

 

Would any Tory PM behave differently ? In terms of policy I mean. As far as I'm concerned that's all that matters, what policy is the party going to bring forward. I don't think Cameron's background matters to the path the Tories have chosen in this parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think his level of privilege hinders him, he never expected it to be this difficult.

i agree, i think he was expecting people just to defer to him and respect him by default. because he's been born into position and never remotely had to earn the respect of anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, i think he was expecting people just to defer to him and respect him by default. because he's been born into position and never remotely had to earn the respect of anyone.

 

And loads that will vote for him in the next election, enjoy that attitude because it's the status they aspire to or feel comfortable with having lord it over them. I don't think it necessarily hinders him. Just as, being a monumental c*** to The North, The Working Class and the unions, was a feather in the cap of Thatcher to a lot of people.

 

Essentially, Tories being Tories wins them elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Prime Minister, an omnishambles of Budget that you claimed you had read line by line; a double-dip recession that you made in Downing street; and a Tory-led Committee reporting that the coalition “lacks strategic direction”—evidence, if ever it was needed, that men can multi-task. It is just, obviously, that some are not very good at it. Prime Minister, have you now run out of steam, or is the job just too big for you?

 

The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is introducing compulsory poetry reading lessons in class. Perhaps we could start with the hon. Gentleman. [ Interruption. ]

 

I also enjoyed this from Bercow:

 

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Nigel Adams—[ Interruption. ] I am really very worried about the conduct of the Education Secretary. In the average classroom, he would have been excluded by now. He must calm himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, i think he was expecting people just to defer to him and respect him by default. because he's been born into position and never remotely had to earn the respect of anyone.

He's never particularly had to work at anything, it's all landed in his lap. Success through connections and pre-destination.

 

This was interesting from his wiki:

"A feature on Cameron in The Mail on Sunday on 18 March 2007 reported that on the day he was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. The male caller stated, "I understand you are to see David Cameron. I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed. I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.""

 

I'm sure he's intelligent, as is Boris Johnson, but that isn't enough for someone leading a country.

Edited by cymrococh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Prime Minister, an omnishambles of Budget that you claimed you had read line by line; a double-dip recession that you made in Downing street; and a Tory-led Committee reporting that the coalition "lacks strategic direction"—evidence, if ever it was needed, that men can multi-task. It is just, obviously, that some are not very good at it. Prime Minister, have you now run out of steam, or is the job just too big for you?

 

The Prime Minister: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is introducing compulsory poetry reading lessons in class. Perhaps we could start with the hon. Gentleman. .

 

 

i don't get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's struggling with his parties philosophy in the face of the results of that philosophy. The markets won't ever know how to fix social problems, but that doesn't mean he's not a bright fellow. He's clearly an intelligent man, as they all are.

 

Good point, also think he's at odds with most of his party philosophically, much closer to Blair. Here's a wider one, who and what does know how to fix social problems? Many will say we've gone through over 40 years of welfare and state intervention in social arenas, many will say we've gone through that time practicing neo-liberal economics, but where are we at with that?

 

i don't get it?

 

He stumbled over the delivery of it, so Cameron didn't answer him, just took the piss out of the way he delivered it was my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Cameron has very little ideology, bar his sense of noblesse oblige.

 

This is both his strength and his weakness. In Opposition, he could portray his Party as having learnt from the past, and they were no longer a threat to public services, or opposed to social change, or any of the 'nasty party' stuff.

 

All the time though he was battling with a parliamentary (and grassroots) party that had tons of ideology, all drawn down from the Thatcher years. They were and are rabidly right wing, anti-state, and pro unfettered capitalism. The economic crisis turned them from being accepting of Cameron's leadership style to demanding that, in their perverse and twisted world view, the state be reined back, as it was excessive public spending that had led us into this mess. Whether they truly believed that or just saw the opportunity, I will leave for you to decide. :)

 

The coalition has put Cameron in a tricky position - balancing the LibDems and a backbench baying for blood. As we've seen, it's not leading to good government.

 

While in Opposition, Cameron's refusal to stake out policy positions (pace Blair, but even moreso) meant that they came to power with few concrete commitments. Again, this looks good when you are strategising, but once in office, it means you have to work out policy at the same time as you are supposed to start delivering. Throw the LibDems into this mix, and you end up with the grotesque chaos of having to walk back absolutely tons of the policies you've announced, culminating in Osborne's budget - an historical f*ck up.

 

Cameron's lack of a clear ideal of a Britain he wants, bar that those at the top stay there, means he can't now impose any vision on either his ministerial colleagues or his Party. They all do what they want, badly. The results are plain to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a lot more 'scandal' to come.

 

Just need to get Leveson in the rear view mirror and get right into their sordid private lives.

 

 

:yes: finally - a job for the News of The World....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's struggling with his parties philosophy in the face of the results of that philosophy. The markets won't ever know how to fix social problems, but that doesn't mean he's not a bright fellow. He's clearly an intelligent man, as they all are.

 

 

I think he'd see slightly beyond his class and sense of entitlement with a little intelligence.

 

'Breeding' is what he's got and he doesn't seem to have any idea (or inclination) to break out of it. I doubt his ideas about society and politics have developed in any really meaningful way since he was in his teens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Cameron has very little ideology, bar his sense of noblesse oblige.

 

This is both his strength and his weakness. In Opposition, he could portray his Party as having learnt from the past, and they were no longer a threat to public services, or opposed to social change, or any of the 'nasty party' stuff.

 

All the time though he was battling with a parliamentary (and grassroots) party that had tons of ideology, all drawn down from the Thatcher years. They were and are rabidly right wing, anti-state, and pro unfettered capitalism. The economic crisis turned them from being accepting of Cameron's leadership style to demanding that, in their perverse and twisted world view, the state be reined back, as it was excessive public spending that had led us into this mess. Whether they truly believed that or just saw the opportunity, I will leave for you to decide. :)

 

The coalition has put Cameron in a tricky position - balancing the LibDems and a backbench baying for blood. As we've seen, it's not leading to good government.

 

While in Opposition, Cameron's refusal to stake out policy positions (pace Blair, but even moreso) meant that they came to power with few concrete commitments. Again, this looks good when you are strategising, but once in office, it means you have to work out policy at the same time as you are supposed to start delivering. Throw the LibDems into this mix, and you end up with the grotesque chaos of having to walk back absolutely tons of the policies you've announced, culminating in Osborne's budget - an historical f*ck up.

 

Cameron's lack of a clear ideal of a Britain he wants, bar that those at the top stay there, means he can't now impose any vision on either his ministerial colleagues or his Party. They all do what they want, badly. The results are plain to see.

 

 

Yep, agree with that. In his own words and those of others, he went for the job and got it because he thought he would be good at it, not because of convictions. The overriding impression I get of him and then Osborne pushing it along, is they are purely playing the game of day to day politics, for no other reason than they fancy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, agree with that. In his own words and those of others, he went for the job and got it because he thought he would be good at it, not because of convictions. The overriding impression I get of him and then Osborne pushing it along, is they are purely playing the game of day to day politics, for no other reason than they fancy it.

 

 

A jolly wheeze?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A jolly wheeze?

 

 

In not so many words. It's showbiz for ugly isn't it, and when you've got a lot of options open to you, and executive management at a multinational, in the city, in the media or a great career at the bar are a little dull, politics must attract. It attracts the vain and it attracts the pathologically paternal, Cameron is former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osborne is always presented as the master strategist, and whilst there are clearly questions one would now want to ask about that assessmet (in terms of capability), it seems clear that he is the more committed idealogue.

 

Cameron is more a kind of mash-up of traditional Tory background, but more by dint of money than blood, with a comparatively modern upper-middle-class pseudo-liberal educated professional air about him. I think plenty of Tories are finding it increasingly difficult to understand where he fits to their supremely nuanced vision of social structures and values, and that matters a lot to them; although ultimately, the party machine just wants people who win elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In not so many words. It's showbiz for ugly isn't it, and when you've got a lot of options open to you, and executive management at a multinational, in the city, in the media or a great career at the bar are a little dull, politics must attract. It attracts the vain and it attracts the pathologically paternal, Cameron is former.

Or it attracts a lot of people, whether you agree with their views or not, who want and can do some good for people.

 

I hate the lazy and ignorant view that people go into politics for money or vanity. Maybe a few do, but there are far, far easier ways to earn a few bob and get your face known. Far easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it attracts a lot of people, whether you agree with their views or not, who want and can do some good for people.

 

I hate the lazy and ignorant view that people go into politics for money or vanity. Maybe a few do, but there are far, far easier ways to earn a few bob and get your face known. Far easier.

 

I'd label them paternal. Some might see it as wholly virtuous, I dont quite, but I see there are far more advantages in their spirit than in any wrong turns they take. I didn't mention money, agree it's not about money.

Edited by Rimbeux
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...