The 100 worst failures of David Cameron’s Government

LandisLandis Posts: 14,849
Forum Member
✭✭
Not in order of importance.
For example....see item 98 which will feature a lot over the next 10 months.

http://www.labourleft.co.uk/list-the-100-worst-failures-of-david-camerons-government-lestweforget-by-dreoincl/
«1345

Comments

  • The 12th DoctorThe 12th Doctor Posts: 4,338
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    War in Syria? No, a Libya-style no fly zone actually. Nobody on the ground.
  • OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    43. Bedroom Tax clobbered 660,000 of which 2/3rs are disabled & 1/4 single parents (evidence)

    WRONG!! the spare room punishment hit 660,000 households not people, the majority of those households will comprise of more than one human being, so the actual number of human beings 'clobbered' by the spare room punishment would very close to 1 million,
    and a very large percentage of those will be children and disabled human beings,

    not forgetting that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of the human beings being punished by this government for the crime of 'suddenly' becoming guilty of having a room that the government suddenly decided they no longer 'need' are actually IN full time work,
    as well as implying that these human beings actually ASKED for, or even DEMANDED a 'spare' room that the tax payer has been told that they "subsidise" when in fact they do no such thing,
    and the very same government constantly lies about "supporting those who work hard"
    and continues to allow billion pound profit making companies to "scrounge" from the tax payer by getting the tax payer to "subsidise" the companies wage bill through in work benefits, and the good old tax payer it more than happy to actually "subsidise" millionaires, but gets all irate when the Tories tell them that they are "subsidising" the spare rooms of the poor, even though it's a blatant lie,

    Welcome to conditioning,
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They are blaiming the Conservatives for the suicide rate? The suicide rate has been higher under Labour. It was falling up to the financial crisis under Labour then went up. A small rise in suicide rates under the Coalition during a severe and prolonged economic downturn that started under Labour is not something the Conservatives should be blamed for. If they are to be viewed as responsible then they should be congratulated that there has only been a small increase.

    Age standardised death rate per 100,000 population, figures from ONS
    Conservative 1994-1996 9.2
    1996-1998 9.3
    Labour 1998-2000 9.6
    Labout 2000-2002 8.9
    Labour 2002-2004 8.5
    Labour 2004-2006 8.2
    Labour 2006-2008 7.7
    Labour 2008-2010 7.9
    Conservative 2010-2012 8.0
  • LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    They are blaiming the Conservatives for the suicide rate? The suicide rate has been higher under Labour. It was falling up to the financial crisis under Labour then went up. A small rise in suicide rates under the Coalition during a severe and prolonged economic downturn that started under Labour is not something the Conservatives should be blamed for. If they are to be viewed as responsible then they should be congratulated that there has only been a small increase.

    Age standardised death rate per 100,000 population, figures from ONS
    Conservative 1994-1996 9.2
    1996-1998 9.3
    Labour 1998-2000 9.6
    Labout 2000-2002 8.9
    Labour 2002-2004 8.5
    Labour 2004-2006 8.2
    Labour 2006-2008 7.7
    Labour 2008-2010 7.9
    Conservative 2010-2012 8.0

    Typical nitpicking. 100 items in that list. This government is morally corrupt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lyricalis wrote: »
    Typical nitpicking. 100 items in that list. This government is morally corrupt.
    You want me to pick another one.
    What about housing benefit it is damn rich Labour bemoaning an increase in housing benefit under the Conservatives when it went up more under Labour and Labour has oppossed the measures to bring it under control. It is especially rich Labour blaming private rental for the increase when Labour's track record on house building especially social house building was abysmal. And Labour dropped the base rates and chucked QE into the economy helping maintain high house prices, and Labour introduced guide rents for social rented and higher rent increases for social rented to overtime raise social rented rents up to the guide rents.
  • StaunchyStaunchy Posts: 10,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Lyricalis wrote: »
    Typical nitpicking. 100 items in that list. This government is morally corrupt.

    Isn't it great that politics is being dumbed down to the level that you'd usually expect to see on social news sites like Buzzfeed?

    Following the template of; "<Number of> <things> you didn't know about <something>" means that you can swamp readers with information (or spin), in this case 100 points, knowing that there is no way they are going to click on all the links to check if they are true let alone examine whether the issues are as clear cut as stated.

    Taking something like the increase in suicides and spinning the blame solely onto whoever is in government is cheap, dishonest and exploitative, but hey it looks good in a list. Let's not bother about the complexities of suicide just exploit the statistics of those that died and blame the current lot in charge, sorted!
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The government have had many failures. However, that list assumes that the items on it [a] wouldn't have happened under a Labour government, were not the result of the previous administration's incompetence, [c] will somehow be miraculously stopped by the advent of another Labour government, and [d] are actually all failures.

    None of which are true.

    And note there isn't a single mention of civll liberties.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This is as good a place as any to put the Big Society failure isn't it?

    Cameron’s Big Society in tatters as charity watchdog launches investigation into claims of Government funding misuse

    David Cameron’s flagship Big Society Network is being investigated by the Charity Commission over allegations that it misused government funding and made inappropriate payments to its directors – including a Tory donor.

    The organisation, which was launched by the Prime Minister in 2010, was given at least £2.5 million of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants despite having no record of charitable activity.

    The Independent has learnt that it has now been wound up, having used much of the money on projects that came nowhere near delivering on their promised objectives.

    Two senior figures on government grant awarding bodies have also made allegations that they were pressured into handing over money to the Big Society Network despite severe reservations about the viability of the projects they were being asked to support.

    Liam Black, a former trustee of Nesta, which was then a public body sponsored by the Department for Business, said Nesta had been “forced” to give grants that totalled £480,000 to the Big Society Network in 2010 without a competitive pitch. He described it as a “scandalous waste of money”


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-camerons-big-society-in-tatters-as-charity-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-government-funding-misuse-9629848.html

    A get rich scheme for a few then, way to go Dave...
  • Biffo the BearBiffo the Bear Posts: 25,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    This is as good a place as any to put the Big Society failure isn't it?

    Cameron’s Big Society in tatters as charity watchdog launches investigation into claims of Government funding misuse

    David Cameron’s flagship Big Society Network is being investigated by the Charity Commission over allegations that it misused government funding and made inappropriate payments to its directors – including a Tory donor.

    The organisation, which was launched by the Prime Minister in 2010, was given at least £2.5 million of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants despite having no record of charitable activity.

    The Independent has learnt that it has now been wound up, having used much of the money on projects that came nowhere near delivering on their promised objectives.

    Two senior figures on government grant awarding bodies have also made allegations that they were pressured into handing over money to the Big Society Network despite severe reservations about the viability of the projects they were being asked to support.

    Liam Black, a former trustee of Nesta, which was then a public body sponsored by the Department for Business, said Nesta had been “forced” to give grants that totalled £480,000 to the Big Society Network in 2010 without a competitive pitch. He described it as a “scandalous waste of money”


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-camerons-big-society-in-tatters-as-charity-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-government-funding-misuse-9629848.html

    A get rich scheme for a few then, way to go Dave...

    What a surprise!
  • DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    This is as good a place as any to put the Big Society failure isn't it?

    Cameron’s Big Society in tatters as charity watchdog launches investigation into claims of Government funding misuse

    David Cameron’s flagship Big Society Network is being investigated by the Charity Commission over allegations that it misused government funding and made inappropriate payments to its directors – including a Tory donor.

    The organisation, which was launched by the Prime Minister in 2010, was given at least £2.5 million of National Lottery funding and public-sector grants despite having no record of charitable activity.

    The Independent has learnt that it has now been wound up, having used much of the money on projects that came nowhere near delivering on their promised objectives.

    Two senior figures on government grant awarding bodies have also made allegations that they were pressured into handing over money to the Big Society Network despite severe reservations about the viability of the projects they were being asked to support.

    Liam Black, a former trustee of Nesta, which was then a public body sponsored by the Department for Business, said Nesta had been “forced” to give grants that totalled £480,000 to the Big Society Network in 2010 without a competitive pitch. He described it as a “scandalous waste of money”


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-camerons-big-society-in-tatters-as-charity-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-claims-of-government-funding-misuse-9629848.html

    A get rich scheme for a few then, way to go Dave...

    Funny how you missed out the bit about the NAO giving it a clean bill of health when they looked at it. Guess it did not fit the agenda ....................... Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How about his failure to cut public spending significantly?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Funny how you missed out the bit about the NAO giving it a clean bill of health when they looked at it. Guess it did not fit the agenda ....................... Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    :confused:

    A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said: “Our case into the Society Network Foundation remains open and ongoing. We have received a response to questions we had relating to connected-party transactions and the use of a grant.

    “However this does not fully address our concerns and we are in the process of engaging further with the trustees. We are also awaiting copies of documents that explain the grounds on which a grant was given.”


    I'm sure the whole article was written and headlined because it had 'a clean bill of health'...

    Honestly, the desperation to avoid the truth is becoming embarrassing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    How about his failure to cut public spending significantly?
    Hey at least the deficit is going down.
    The UK budget deficit, public sector net borrowing.
    2009-10 £158.9 billion
    2013-14 £91.5 billion

    And how are they getting the deficit to go down, if they are not effectively cutting spending, have they massively increased taxes?
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hey at least the deficit is going down.
    The UK budget deficit, public sector net borrowing.
    2009-10 £158.9 billion
    2013-14 £91.5 billion

    And how are they getting the deficit to go down, if they are not effectively cutting spending, have they massively increased taxes?

    Wouldn't you expect tax receipts to rise during a recovery? - Cameron has failed to cut Public Spending in real terms for even a single year.
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    57 of the worst failures are the Lib Dem MPs who put Cameron in power in the first place.
  • DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »

    Honestly, the desperation to avoid the truth is becoming embarrassing.

    The only one avoiding the truth is you I'm afraid.

    You will note I did not object to anything you wrote, or rather copied.

    However, I did provide other pertinent information that throws more light on the subject. Guess you don't like the NAO and them giving a clean bill of health. Oh well .......
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm astounded at the levels of denial by some of this government's supporters.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The only one avoiding the truth is you I'm afraid.

    You will note I did not object to anything you wrote, or rather copied.

    However, I did provide other pertinent information that throws more light on the subject. Guess you don't like the NAO and them giving a clean bill of health. Oh well .......

    Copy and link to it then, or give an indication as to where it can be found.

    What has that got to do with this investigation anyway? Maybe you can explain why you're bringing up some sort of clean bill of health by the NAO. :confused:
  • RobMilesRobMiles Posts: 1,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    57 of the worst failures are the Lib Dem MPs who put Cameron in power in the first place.

    Would you have preferred it if they had put Brown in power?
  • northantsgirlnorthantsgirl Posts: 4,663
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RobMiles wrote: »
    Would you have preferred it if they had put Brown in power?

    Yes. Next question.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Wouldn't you expect tax receipts to rise during a recovery? - Cameron has failed to cut Public Spending in real terms for even a single year.
    You are mistaken according to the official government spending statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/231995/Public_Spending_Statistics_July_2013.pdf
    Figures from Table 1.2 on page 13

    UK government Total Managed Expenditure in real terms £ million
    2010-11 £720,468
    2011-12 £705,062
    2012-13 £675,255
    Real terms figures are the cash figures adjusted to 2012-13 price levels
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    RobMiles wrote: »
    Would you have preferred it if they had put Brown in power?

    You know that some people did vote Labour? Surely there was an expectation that Brown, as leader of the Labour party, could have been returned to power? So it's not that far out that some people may have preferred him?
  • LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Staunchy wrote: »
    Isn't it great that politics is being dumbed down to the level that you'd usually expect to see on social news sites like Buzzfeed?

    Following the template of; "<Number of> <things> you didn't know about <something>" means that you can swamp readers with information (or spin), in this case 100 points, knowing that there is no way they are going to click on all the links to check if they are true let alone examine whether the issues are as clear cut as stated.

    Taking something like the increase in suicides and spinning the blame solely onto whoever is in government is cheap, dishonest and exploitative, but hey it looks good in a list. Let's not bother about the complexities of suicide just exploit the statistics of those that died and blame the current lot in charge, sorted!

    So not it's going to be an attack on the form of the message? Is this a new version of blaming the messenger?

    The suicide figures will no doubt carry on their upward trend for a while yet. The misery caused by the bankers and their paid for politicians isn't something that's magically going to go away when one version of the pro-banker government is replaced by the other.
  • DiscombobulateDiscombobulate Posts: 4,242
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Copy and link to it then, or give an indication as to where it can be found.

    What has that got to do with this investigation anyway? Maybe you can explain why you're bringing up some sort of clean bill of health by the NAO. :confused:

    it was on the news (News channel or Sky) and it was a political correspondent who appeared well versed in the story and the different angles to it.

    Fear not I am sure the story will run (may even be in the Sunday's) so you will have opportunity enough to catch up I guess

    As to why bring it up?, well maybe to show everything is not as black as you want to paint it ...................................................
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Guess it did not fit the agenda ....................... Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    Can you name a failure of David Cameron’s Government?
Sign In or Register to comment.