David Cameron's Speech this morning

bo_drinker

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Hardly one way traffic is it.

Go figure.

I didn't say it was, but he's not running away with victory with a barrow full of policies. I am not a huge fan but am prepared to listen to what they say at least??

T b h they can say what they like but they are all full of !!!!!! i m h o.

Spartacus_Mills

bo_drinker wrote: »

I didn't say it was, but he's not running away with victory with a barrow full of policies. I am not a huge fan but am prepared to listen to what they say at least??

T b h they can say what they like but they are all full of !!!!!! i m h o.

Indeed they are, however it does appear that people are happy to hold the Tories to a higher standard than Labour.

Kohoutek

This is a quite interesting short Cameron speech on how he intends to 'do more with less' at the London TED conference. It's not aimed at a political audience, which means the speech is better quality than otherwise.

Obviously you can take the cynical view, but I think he comes across quite well, especially when you compare him with someone as mentally imbalanced as Gordon Brown. I'd rather have some fresh ideas than a Stalinist banging the gauntlet for his 'fairer' society.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_cameron.html

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

The UK is one of the few developed countries where you can buy privilage for your children - no Labour Government has stopped that.

It's nice to think that we are the most capitalistic developed society in one area.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Let's be clear. Every Labour Party manifesto from the first Labour Government in the late 20s/early 30s until the Callaghan Manefesto in 1979 has said they'd destroy the House of Lords and (effectively) private education.

Neither has happened and it's not reasonable to blame the Tories for Labour being unable to stand up to the British establishment. The UK is one of the few developed countries where you can buy privilage for your children - no Labour Government has stopped that.

Because they want to join BTW I was commenting on this

TORYS- maggie broke up the vested interests, empowered the people

Sir_Humphrey

Batchy wrote: »

Just watching this live on Sky news... Red button.

What a speech!!

Roll on the election!

(C) Conservative Central Office.

Not even subtle.

wigglebeena

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

There are plenty of policies from all of the main parties. The point of the speech is to get a few media friendly soundbites for the news bulletins and to make the audience/party base feel good. The same for the others.

I agree with you on Vince. He is a real asset and someone the public respect. It is almost like Nick is scared Vince will somehow take his limelight. Vince would run rings around George Osborne and Alistair Darling.

Not unreasonable. I can't understand why Cable isn't in charge of the Lib Dems myself.

Spartacus_Mills

wigglebeena wrote: »

Not unreasonable. I can't understand why Cable isn't in charge of the Lib Dems myself.

He didn't want it. He was asked about it after his exceptional stint when Campbell stood down but was not keen to pursue it. It is a shame. He is in a pretty safe seat and unlikely to lose at the GE. He would have been a great leader. Clegg has been a bit mixed. Brown usually treats him with contempt at PMQ's although Clegg often asks rather probing questions.

treliac

wigglebeena wrote: »

Not unreasonable. I can't understand why Cable isn't in charge of the Lib Dems myself.

It would significantly enhance their position imo.

Kohoutek

treliac wrote: »

It would significantly enhance their position imo.

If depends if people (or the maybe more accurately the media) want the 'media-friendly' Blair/Cameron lookalike candidate or an 'older' politician that takes about hard policy issues - e.g. increasing taxes to close the deficit.