Whatever the result tomorrow, Cameron has to ditch Osborne FAST

lynzpower

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Whatever the result Cameron has to ditch Cameron fast.

If he had any sense.

He is a liability........

The interesting thing about this ( imo) is that way way before the election data was announced, there was a real call for Osborne to be ditched, but Cameron stuck with him. He has been largely invisible in the campaign which suggests that he is not the sort of person to really pull in the punters.

I've said it before, Ill say it again, the choice of Osborne, over much much Much more capable people shows a shocking level of judgement from Cameron.

nickmason

Exocet wrote: »

Actually, having just read Osbourne's Wiki entry, I am inclined to agree. What an oik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Osborne

I can't believe I am going to vote Tory tomorrow after reading that. Although I am.

I've just read it as well. When I got to sentences like:

"According to records on the Conservative website Osborne made just two campaign speeches in the first three weeks of the campaign, because he was perceived as a major weakness in the Shadow Cabinet"

it did occur to me that maybe the wikipedia entry has been got at! And indeed, surprise surprise, there's no such reasoning on the Conservative website.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

nick mason get's upset if you speak badly about his chum Osborne

Not if it's evidenced, chucky.

chucky

lynzpower wrote: »

I've said it before, Ill say it again, the choice of Osborne, over much much Much more capable people shows a shocking level of judgement from Cameron.

spot on - or maybe it's the case that the powers that be in the Tory party that give Cameron support want the oik Osborne in there...

tomterm8

Erm, so how many times did he do a political speach in the first three weeks of the election?

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

I've just read it as well. When I got to sentences like:

it did occur to me that maybe the wikipedia entry has been got at! And indeed, surprise surprise, there's no such reasoning on the Conservative website.

I think that shows a weakness in the Conservative website, though, rather than Wiki.

PhylPho

nickmason wrote: »

I've just read it as well. When I got to sentences like:

it did occur to me that maybe the wikipedia entry has been got at! And indeed, surprise surprise, there's no such reasoning on the Conservative website.

Absence of fact on the Conservative website doesn't necessarily mean presence of truth, does it Nick?

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I think that shows a weakness in the Conservative website, though, rather than Wiki.

I'd imagine both are subject to the same vulnerabilty: both sites being written by people keen to impress and false stuff able to be posted until called on.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

lynzpower wrote: »

I've said it before, Ill say it again, the choice of Osborne, over much much Much more capable people shows a shocking level of judgement from Cameron.

Cameron is just another Tony Blair.

No substance & a hidden agenda.

He was against MP expenses reform.

He is against electoral reform.


Other than that I really don't think he understands economics. He certainly has less understanding than me & I regard myself as a novice.


I can't vote for a man like that.

Besides that the Tories have no real policies they are prepared to shout about (I wonder why?!!).

Sorry, I don't wonder why at all. They don't shout about it because they wouldn't get elected..

The only thing they plan is a cull & to make their mates richer.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

I think that shows a weakness in the Conservative website, though, rather than Wiki.

:beer:
Touche!