Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's official: David Cameron is UK new Prime Minister

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...


Conservative leader David Cameron is the new UK prime minister after the resignation of Gordon Brown.

Mr Cameron, 43, entered 10 Downing Street after travelling to Buckingham Palace to formally accept the Queen's request to form the next government.

He said he aimed to form a "proper and full coalition" with the Lib Dems to provide "strong, stable government".

His party won the most seats in the UK general election last week, but not an overall majority.

In a speech outside his new Downing Street home, Mr Cameron said he and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest".

He paid tribute to outgoing PM Gordon Brown for his long years of public service and said he would tackle Britain's "pressing problems" - the deficit, social problems and to "rebuild trust in our political system".


Well at least the gridlock has calmed down a little bit. Almost every political commentator believes there will be another election soon.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Does it really matter? We in the UK have an illusion of democracy just like most coutries that CLAIM to be democratic.

What we have is an elected dictaorship THEY tell US how its going to be THEY set the rules THET have all the control and WE can do nothing about it.

If that does not sound like a dictatorship nothing ever will.

Cameron is just another elite who is going to have his time stuffing his and his friends pockets with as much cash as possible and they will do nothing than tax us almost to breaking point.

We need a full on revolution and in the end we need goverment for the people by the people not goverment for the few by the few.

I have no idea how this revolution would go but I can garuntee people will die as thats what happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns

Wait for a whole raft of new laws, new taxes all supposedly for the greater good and to protect us more from the current bogeyman.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jpmail
 


It's Nurse Ratched speaking. Time for your medication!

~~

Seriously though, does anyone know the role Nick Clegg will play in this new Government. Deputy PM perhaps?


Any other details of the amended 'manifesto'?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
*heads for the hills with lots of supplies*

The protests against the tories have already began.

The ship is now sinking with nobody at the helm. Oh sorry, I mean the pathetic child osbourne and pathetic cameron.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Obama rings Cameron to congratulate him... from one pathetic man to another.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
anyone remember hearing blair years back saying. "there are no rules to politics, you make your own" what a git.
looks like a goblin that looks after gold like in the harry potter crap.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

"In a speech outside his new Downing Street home, Mr Cameron said he and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest".


This sounds eerily similar to Obama vowing to work with McCain after he won election in 2008.

See here: The Washington Post

I wonder if the UK will see a lot of the same kind of 'reform' that the U.S. is currently seeing...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
*withdraws all her hard earned savings an sends them directly to the conservative headquarters*

I might get some of it back when i'm sitting on the dole without any milk =/



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
*withdraws all her hard earned savings an sends them directly to the conservative headquarters*

I might get some of it back when i'm sitting on the dole without any milk =/


Only if money & jobs are going to arrive from planet mars when the tories cut public sector jobs and scrap the labour job schemes. If the odds of getting a job under labour were no more than 10%, your chances of getting work has now gone down to 0%.

You do realise that Ashcroft bankroles the tories with millions, and the whole Rupert Murdoch media empire are on their side.

Why not donate to the tories, they'll be able to save their money to buy themselves a new duck-pond.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by john124]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Member of the public on newsnight just said he voted cameron because he thinks about now and not the future, hence implying he voted for him because he doesn't have any long-term plan. This is how stupid the average British electorate has become.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Member of the public on newsnight just said he voted cameron because he thinks about now and not the future, hence implying he voted for him because he doesn't have any long-term plan. This is how stupid the average British electorate has become.


You have to remember only 10 million people out of 62 million people in the UK actually voted for the Tories.

The 'average voter' didn't vote for the Tories, neither did they vote for the CamClegg. That's still only 16 million out of 62 million. But, it should be noted that NO ONE actually voted for the coalition - that was never on the ballot paper!!!!!!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durant
You have to remember only 10 million people out of 62 million people in the UK actually voted for the Tories.

The 'average voter' didn't vote for the Tories, neither did they vote for the CamClegg. That's still only 16 million out of 62 million.

a) It is still more than voted for anybody else.
b) The last fraction quoted is a little dishonest, given that the 62 million is not the electorate; it includes everybody too young to vote.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
a) It is still more than voted for anybody else.
b) The last fraction quoted is a little dishonest, given that the 62 million is not the electorate; it includes everybody too young to vote.


It's not dishonest, as everyone, no matter what their age, is valid as part of a functional economic unit and is represented, whether by parents or otherwise in voting terms. Also, those are the figures which are used by the electoral commission. Your "it's still more than" statement is 'dishonest', even by your own standards. Read on and I'll tell you how.

In reply to your point '(a)', by that kind of *logic*, you could say that if 1 person voted and no one else did that it would be meaningful as a measure of who should govern by 'more than'. You're not getting the difference between the numbers and whether they are meaningful or not. Also, this election saw a large number of tactical voters - more so than in previous elections, so the numbers are skewed. For example, many Labour voters voted Lib Dem tactically. If they had voted Labour despite the marginal they lived in the overall Labour voted would have been much higher.

And another fact you can't get away from is that no one voted for the coalition.

You say you think that it is fine for the Tories to govern because they had the most votes - in that case they should have been forced to form a minority government, but in the UK we do have the 'majority rule' for a reason!

However, can you explain how you think it is justified that the party that got the least votes - the Lib Dems - get to rule over the country? That they get the Deputy Prime minister, 5 cabinet places and many other ministerial posts? That the party that got the least posts is making, and deciding on, major policy? Even if you think the Tories should have got a majority government- which actually goes against the constitution of the UK with the number of votes they got, you simply cannot justify how the Lib Dems conned their way into government with less votes than Labour . If any coalition should have been formed it should have been a Tory and Labour coalition as they were the two parties that got the most votes. You can't argue with that.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durant
If any coalition should have been formed it should have been a Tory and Labour coalition as they were the two parties that got the most votes. You can't argue with that.

So you think that the party which lost votes should have been allowed to remain in government?
There is a message in that loss of votes. It shows how much people did not like them


[edit on 17-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Durant
If any coalition should have been formed it should have been a Tory and Labour coalition as they were the two parties that got the most votes. You can't argue with that.

So you think that the party which lost votes should have been allowed to remain in government?
There is a message in that loss of votes. It shows how much people did not like them


[edit on 17-5-2010 by DISRAELI]


Oh come on, LOL, you're clutching at straws there DISRAELI. By that measure what about the votes the Lib Dems lost?

You don't measure an election by difference in votes in the way you suggest.

You have avoided everything else I said, which I remind you was in reply to your post!

And the Lib Dems came third, they should not be in government.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durant

And the Lib Dems came third, they should not be in government.

But the Labour party did not come in first, so they should not be in governmant either.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
That isn't the point, the point made above is that the coalition is wrong and does not have a mandate. Read my post again.

The Tories should have a minority govenment or a re-election.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durant

The Tories should have a minority govenment or a re-election.

They could have done. The decision was that a coalition would be a more practical solution. perfectly legitimate and constitutional.

Read history. That's how our constitution works. Always has done.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durant
That isn't the point, the point made above is that the coalition is wrong and does not have a mandate.

Incidentally, nothing in the constitution says that they need a "mandate". The law doesn't actually know the concept.
What they need, legally, constitutionally, and morally, is a majority of seats in the House of Commons. They have got a majority of seats in the House of Commons. End of story. You must learn to live with it.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Obviously you don't know about the constitution, so it pointless discussing it with you as you don't understand the subject.

Why don't you just admit the details and facts are irrelevant to you all you are thinking about is your bias towards the Lob Dem. LOL.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join