Those who read this blog will know that I am am not deeply impressed by David Cameron. He's not the only politician for whom I have little regard, but Cameron comes high on my list of those politicians who do not just promote policies I do not like, but are incompetent as well.
Take his attitude towards paying the additional payment demanded by the EU from the UK. The terms under which this are due have been signed up to by the UK. They were known about. Warning of the increase was given. The obligation had been noted by the Treasury. The payment due is an obligation and not an option. But because he hadn't thought through the consequences of the UK's so called growth and because he has no attention for detail Cameron was caught out on the issue and so went deeply red, screamed and shouted, threw toys out of his pram and is now in the embarrassing position that sometime soon he will realise he is now on the naughty step with no chance of any outcome bar a humiliating climb down.
If he'd really believed in the strength of the UK economy and the growth he's so keen to talk about (which none but a few see the benefit of) he'd have trumpeted this as a success. And he'd have made the point the UK can afford to pay when others can't. And he'd have promoted that as being all down to his economic policies. But he didn't so I have to come to three conclusions.
First, he does not believe in the growth.
Second, he does not understand the consequences of his economic policies.
Third, he remains at his core the Bullingdon boy who thinks that as a member of an elite he can bully his way out of any situation he gets himself into that he does not like simply by stamping his feet and using his social status to dismiss obligations as things that need only bother 'the little people'.
He's wrong, of course. Europe does not recognise the Bullingdon. They have contempt for his social skills. They think, quite rightly, that the rules they've made were put in place by agreement and that they have to be complied with. And they can treat him like a fool because they know they have the power of law behind them, and unlike in the UK, being in the elite will not put Cameron above the law in this case - much as he clearly thinks that is the normal course of events.
Cameron's been rumbled as the incompetent bully he really is. For that we have to thank the EU.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I could not agree more. Cameron is an embarrassment and it his hardly surprising that mature politicians in our partner countries don’t take him seriously. His infantile outbursts really do harm to Great Britain plc. Will no-one rid us of this troublesome idiot? May is still a long way away.
http://rupertrlmitchell.wordpress.com/
I certainly agree with your comments and perhaps you might consider my blog sometime as I feel that is the sort of society we should aim for.
Regards,
Rupert
Actually the EU’s stance could actually be a rigid and inflexible organisation that does not bend to changing conditions.
A dogma much like organised religion.
Thus, people who live in the real world can see that flexibility is the key to success.
I prefer to base argument on facts
The EU has been an innovator on tax and others have followed
Your rhetoric ignores that
I am not saying all the EU does is good or useful. But I am offering a factually based argument
Immigration, the EU, ‘failing’ public services, wind farms – all painted as enemies in order to keep the public occupied whilst this Government dismantles the state and abandons us to the robber-baron corporations and dodgy trade deals. By the time most of us have stopped playing with our Apps or come off Facebook, they’ll be nothing left. It will all be over. They’ll even be charging us for the air we breath next!!
Not fair to intrude on the grief of others, but the Tories really have got a dreadful record in their choice of Leader – Hague instead of Ken Clarke, Duncan Smith instead of Portillo, Michael Howard instead of anyone, and Cameron instead of David Davis – a man of real principle and judgement, who didn’t have Cameron’s PR skills, but who would surely not have ravaged our system of justice, turning it into a rich man’s preserve, given Davis’ principled stand against Labour’s illiberal 42 day detention without trial proposal.
I’m sure someone will come back and cite Labour’s choice of Foot, Kinnock and probably Ed Milliband, so maybe the “honours” are actually equal, but I’d actually say that each Party’s truly worst choices were those soul-mates, Thatcher and Blair – both triumphant electorally and both major contributors to the mess we’re in by their elevation of the market to divine status, and by their hollowing out of their respective Parties, to leave on the one hand the Tories as the Nasty (and in Cameron’s case the Petulant) Party, and Labour (except for people such as Michael Meacher) the Zombie Party.
This additional payment isn’t very much to do with growth under Cameron’s administration (or whether it is felt by the many or the few) but the extra growth that the UK has seen since 1995 under the new GNI measurements (which include black market activities such as drugs).
Also I don’t understand your point about Cameron thinking obligations only matter to “the little people”. I suspect he thinks he is standing up for the 62 million UK (little or otherwise) people.
The restatement was sanctioned by this government
The consequences were widely trailed, including thus one
Cameron is not serving our interests. If he wanted to do that he’d a) close the day gap b) promote real growth and c) stop counting the petty cash
I have noticed that much of the media, rather than present Cameron as he really is, appear to laud his petulant outbursts.
Well said Richard. Personally, I am in favour of renegotiating the UK’s relationship with the EU, but if or until that is done we have abide by the rules that we have signed up to. So we have to pay the money, no matter how distasteful that might seem to some people, and Cameron is looking rather pathetic in his hissy-fit stance. Again, the fact that the funds will go into a system that is rife with waste and corruption (how many years of accounts have been qualified now?) is neither here nor there; we are in this position and the whole point of a referendum is to debate whether we want to continue to be in this position. Until such time, we have to live with it. I am looking forward to Cameron’s climb down…I wonder what “spin” will be put on that one.
The accounts have been qualified because the required standard is vastly higher than the private sector, a fact little appreciated
I have a slightly different take on your conclusions about Cameron, Richard.
First, I’m sure he does believe in growth – but only because he recognises its PR and media value and its pivotal role in creating environments that make rich people richer and advance corporate interests and power.
Second, as he’s clearly not the brightest spark he probably only partially understands the consequences of his government’s economic policies. Nevertheless, he has plenty of people around him who can fill in the gaps if need be. However, that’s largely irrelevant because the most important point here – and one that’s demonstrated by Tories (and until recently and their increasingly desperate attempts to disassociate themselves from the Tories, the Lib Dems) on a daily basis, is that the only consequences they’re interested in are, again, those that have PR and media value and/or benefit the elite and further advance corporate interests and power.
In short, as with everything the Tories do, this is about the value of policies, outcomes, actions, and so on, only insofar as can be used to develop and/or maintain the austerity = growth narrative that they’ve so effectively constructed since 2010, and the cover this provides for the corporate capture of the state and the return of a form of 19th century economic and social relations for the “masses”.
Third, I agree entirely. The Bullingdon bully in him is evident more now than ever, particularly as he thinks that his rights and entitlements as a member of the elite have been challenged by EC “bureaucrats” – i.e. middle class oiks. But there’s also another dimensions to this. Greed and selfishness: “I have it and I’m damned if I’m going to share it with anyone else”. And “I’m happy to be in a team when things aren’t going that well and I can benefit from the collective, but when things go well for me what’s mine is mine”. But then would we expect any other attitude from someone brought up to believe in a rank individualism and that greed is good.
I’m entirely happy to have my comments qualified in that way
Best
Richard
I couldn’t agree more, Richard.
Your post perfectly describes just how clumsy and useless Cameron has been.
Every time I watch him at PMQs puffing his chest out and crowing about the ‘’recovery’’ and his Tory economy plan, I hear the Laurel & Hardy music playing in my ears.
Surely anyone who’s even a slightly interested watcher of UK politics sees this only as a scripted tantrum designed to steer the UKIP bandwagon back towards the tories.
The other parties need to find reasons to be angry at the EU so they can criticize it and demand reform, but they’re wary of having immigration be that issue (notwithstanding the odd moments when masks slip and bigots/protectionists on either side of the aisle say what they really think).
If UKIP were not in play, we’d have handed over the cheque to Brussels without fanfare, just like every other year when we’ve had to pay a top-up*. Although Cameron’s public performances on this have been cringeworthy, I think the only conclusion about him we can draw is that he’s a bad actor. Other than that it’s just yet another example of the dismal quality of Westminster politics.
(*Had we just sent the cheque, what are the odds that Ed Balls would have been scurrying around the morning shows criticising Cameron for it, and claiming that all his talk about standing up to the EU and renegotiating terms is rubbish?)
I take it that the ‘agreement’ that is eventually arrived at between Cameron and the EU will be a reduction in the UK bill that takes account of the fraudulent nature of the growth figures on which it was based. Just as long as that gets well publicised….
Fair critical comment Richard, which is the way in which knowledge proceeds. What is more extraordinary is that Cameron, Osborne and Alexander do not understand how a mixed economy operates. As the first two have been the beneficial recipients of a liberal education they should know how the Musgrave and Musgrave’s Theory of the Multiple Household operates in practice. Government has three economic functions; allocation; distribution and stabilisation all of which are symbiotic. The logic of his position is that the rest of the UK should pay more to the Great Wen (aka London)which may play well with the President of Borisstan but will only succeed in breaking up the UK (which he nearly achieved)
best
Leslie
As the old saying went – “All fur coat but no knickers”. Or the story about the Emperor’s new clothes.
I’d like to pose the question, How do you budget for a complete loss of human rights, and it’s effects.
I have no idea
Nor d I think we are there, although there are clear risks