People in The UK Call For David Cameron Out and an Early General Election

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

andy06shake
Personally i would call for that particular individual to be swinging from a lamp post along with the rest of his cronies!


And he can stick that stupid bedroom tax where the Sun don't shine!
edit on 30-9-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


Agree!! And now they want (as of this morning) all unemployed to go to the job centre everyday. Do 30 hours a week community service for your benefits. Cleaning graffiti was suggested saying that it would provide skills. I guess their way around the minimum wage. I would say this is more likely to prevent jobs being created at local council level. Another stupid and impractical idea! Like there is likely to be a dramactic change in 24 hours in terms of boarded jobs etc. Even in a week the change will be limited. Its like saying you should go to the toilet every hour just in case you need a poop! And at a time when the ecconomy is poor. Yet another example of driving policy to capture votes because of a small percentage of folk who dont want to work. Ridiculous!




posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


Are you serious?

The hardships of having to go to the job centre once a day, eh?

Try telling that to the people who work 37.5 hours a week, who absolutely hate their jobs, in many cases working through illness due to lack of SSP, and who still can't afford to pay their bills at the end of the week, let alone pay other peoples benefits.

Up until May of this year, i was working in both a full time job and a part time job to try to make ends meet. Recently, i was accosted in the street by a number of little hooligans. I hit one and broke his phone. I then had his unemployed mother contacting the police, pressing charges for the replacement of the phone that costs £250. So tell me, why can an unemployed single mother afford a £250 phone and i can't?



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Scorchio
 


In answer to your last question about the parent being able to afford, any combination of these:
No respect for others
Similar family attitudes as a child
Lazy
Feeling daunted about getting back into work
Feeling like they are entitled to do nothing
Ignorance of how the country really works concerning money and economy
Because they can (are not forced to do anything else)
Genuine illness/disability
Receiving help from other family members who are not on any well ware benefit for job seekers
Having an undeclared/untaxed job (illegal or legal)
General crime
Being in an area of truly no available jobs within a cost effective distance
Buying everything on credit/with loans
Min wage being little or no better than paid part time work (why get nothing from the gov and lose half your time)

I think that is most of them.

I bolded what i think is the most important one.

When i was a teenager, being out of a job while not at college etc was considered the bottom and people avoided it!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


I should have also mentioned that this woman has since got herself pregnant again. That'll add a few quid to the benefits. Still no partner either.

So i think your assertion in bold is probably the correct one.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDemonUK
 

As long as you feel precisely the same when the "man who didn't win" is the man YOU personally love and have wanted to see "not win".

I get the way the English system works and that he doesn't win as an individual chosen by the people directly. Then again..neither is ours...but I digress. I get the difference well enough.

Perhaps there is no double standard tho...and a man the public loves enough to lay rose petals in his path will be equally viewed as expendable and no problem for others to see removed because he annoys them? It seems mighty arbitrary ...whether the guy is a real jerk and fool or not ....when apparently a good part of England did want who chose him, specifically..

Kinda like the US... politically, we're almost dead even 50/50 split on Conservative and Liberal. The last 7 Presidential elections show it varies only slightly....but still has just a thin hair over half (the last time)thinking the guy I have come to hate is a pretty good guy (or they sure did when it mattered).



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do think you in America at least get to choose your President, we in the UK just choose a party and they select the Prime Minister - and apparently he is not popular with his own party let alone the public.

We in the UK have never had a means of seeking change, if it gets hairy for the Government, suddenly they 'grant' some little thing but that's rare. Its only since the internet we have been able to say what we think and that's being shut down via the freedom of speech rules being forced on people.

We have been treated like serfs from the day we were actually simple serfs and the power in the land has never shifted into a balance of any form. We have so-called complaints Omsbodsmen but even getting a complaint is hampered by the fact that most can't afford legal fees in order to get a comprehensive case running and most have no idea of how to effect change in our political system despsite the government knowing many want it.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I despise Cameron and his policies with a passion - but what are the alternatives at present?
Miliband is a joke.
Farage is a Tory in disguise.
Clegg is an incompetent and sold his and his party's soul to the devil for a sniff of power.

But as has been pointed out, this petition is based on a misrepresentation - we don't vote for Prime Minister, we vote for our constituency MP's who tend be aligned with political party's.
The parliamentary leader of the largest party get's asked to form a government - in the absence of having an overall majority, as at the last election, then different party's negotiate to form a coalition etc.

Under the current system we realistically have no chance of doing away with Cameron et al until May 2015.

reply to post by Flavian
 




The Party Leaders are elected by the Party memberships. We vote for Parties, not leaders, in General Elections.


Party politics has served it's purpose and outlived it's usefulness.
We need urgent and radical electoral and parliamentary reform if the wishes and interests of the people are to be put before those of 'the elites' that currently direct policy and agenda.

reply to post by FFS4000
 




As for millionaires on the front bench, tell me how many on the shadow bench aren't millionaires either. Sorry, but Labour being the party of the people days are long gone, they went when John Smith passed


Tony Blair had more public school / Oxbridge educated people in his cabinet than any other PM since the 1800's - a feat since surpassed by Cameron.
The Civil Service, The Judiciary, senior military and police officers, top bankers and insustrialists are all dominated by people from this same social background.
Is it any wonder the interests of the ordinary British people aren't put first?

John Smith could have been a great leader.
How did he die again?

reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 




.....however unpopular things are because of the mess the country is STILL in from the last lot of self centred bigoted labour government ....


Who in turn inherited a country decimated by The Tories.....
See how this party political game of pass the parcel works?
Always publicly blame someone else and pass the buck whilst the reality is that very little of any importance ever changes for the better whilst the those who direct things continue to milk this country and bleed us dry.

reply to post by scotsdavy1
 




Roll on Scottish Independance and we can get rid of those idiot MPs that think north of the border doesn't exist!


What makes you think any newly independent Scottish politicians will be any less amoral than those of every other nation under the sun?
You conveniently forget that two of the UK's most recent inept, incompetent and downright insidious PM's were Scottish.

It's the same unholy alliance that holds real power in Scotland that does so throughout the rest of the UK.

Why do you single out 'north of the border'?
I come from North East England, an area that has been neglected and marginalised at least as much as an other area of the UK.

What we all need to rid ourselves of is the London / Home Counties centric nature of UK politics and society in general.
edit on 30/9/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


Please understand, I take no pleasure or amusement in the observation here....but we're in the same rotten, creaky and sinking boat. You have a PM you didn't elect. We have a President we didn't elect. I don't care what anyone says on that here. Our national and particularly Presidential elections are about as fair as a hooker in Bangkok during a Carrier port call.

The thing that gets me..and maybe I'm just this cynical these days ...but what will removing Cameron do? Do you guys really think he's the power broker and decision maker in any form of isolation? Will removing him, as an individual man, change much? ...or will his recent push to murder more people in Syria (as one example) just be carried by a different name with a MUCH different approach, seeing how the last one failed so completely?

I just wonder...to the extent our President IS...on paper...the absolute head of the executive branch, he answers to people above him and will get to star in his very own home movie like Kennedy if he doesn't get it clear enough. Thats a man who can, without permission from anyone for any reason, order the attack by US forces of anyone or anything on Earth ..and no one could stop him until the action was well under way.

If I'm not mistaken, Cameron has no such declared and 100% independant executive power to act with no concern for the thoughts of anyone else? If ours is a lap dog and a toy poodle to the powers above him? Are any leaders among the major powers really that critical to keep or lose, directly?



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I could not agree more with the sentiments you express in this post. The whole construction of our nations politics is geared toward preventing real change, while keeping up appearances of progressive and rapid social change, when that all important wealth gap opens wider, and the price of everything from bread to building goes up by so many percent that pretty soon homeowners will not just be in the minority, but an endangered species.

I have to say, going by your last post, I reckon you ought to start a party. I would likely vote for you!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by lifttheveil
 


It took over a hundred years of worker's fighting for right's in there own country, this government has allowed ZERO HOURS contracts, you may recieve no work, no pay but you can not apply for another job because you belong to your employer as long as you stick to the contract and all the company's are using them to circumvent worker's right's.

Slaver can be determined as the forced labour of captive individual's and if you do not work you die, The new term's for benefit claiment's are a further attack on worker's whom are already hard pressed to meet end's meat and earn too little as he now is making from april the benefit claimant's work for there benefit's and as there are not enough job's to go around he will pay company's to take them on while the governmnet pay's them benefit's. So a company can hire a worker as £200 pound a weed which is barely enough to live on and leaves the worker in debt or they can be paid to accept slave's/serf's.

This government never had any intention of meeting the real problem of fraudulant benefit claimant's and foreign claimant's.

How to fix it (And sadly Labour do not have a plan either as they are also in the corporations pocket's which is why milliband is breaking ties to the union's) well before you can claim benefit's you should have to have worked for at least 5 years on a living wage 40 hour week and paid into the system or if foreign 10 year's and paid into the system plus full tax.

HE know's if the referendum is run we will come out of europe but he want's an option to replace the cheap labour now remember foreign workers either pay less or do not pay tax or contributions so he is not bothered about the country or the nation but only the well being of the very wealthy with there mobile wealth and remember foreign worker's often send up to 70 percent of there wage's home while also fiddling the benefit system by claiming child allowance for children outside the country.

We the BRITISH have no representation and the likes of UKIP or the BNP (NAZI's) are not an option as both are clown's with there own dubious intention's.

WE need an old style LABOUR or CONSERVATIVE (NOT TORY) government with the old politician's not these clown's and to put our own people and second generation britons first.

edit on 30-9-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Scorchio
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


Are you serious?

The hardships of having to go to the job centre once a day, eh?

Try telling that to the people who work 37.5 hours a week, who absolutely hate their jobs, in many cases working through illness due to lack of SSP, and who still can't afford to pay their bills at the end of the week, let alone pay other peoples benefits.

Up until May of this year, i was working in both a full time job and a part time job to try to make ends meet. Recently, i was accosted in the street by a number of little hooligans. I hit one and broke his phone. I then had his unemployed mother contacting the police, pressing charges for the replacement of the phone that costs £250. So tell me, why can an unemployed single mother afford a £250 phone and i can't?


Its not about hardship going to the job centre. its the fact that its ridiculous implementing such a thing!

Ive no idea why a single mother can afford a 250 phone! Maybe her mother bought it for xmas. They dont pay those sort of benefits to make it possible to by a 250 phone. I know because of a friend who is a single mother with 2 kids who struggles by day to day!!

Also I am not poor but do come from poor, but worked hard 80 hours a week and that was after 6 years further study after changing career.

But I can tell you that George Osborne and co are A holes and they do not have the interests of the less well off at heart!! including you!

There are no jobs and in some areas its even worse so to suggest that doing 30 hours a week community service for 2 pound and hour is right then no wonder you are where you are. And also to suggest that one would get skills to be able to get a job by washing off graffiti is ridiculous.

Good luck with your situation but dont let these torries fool you!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
How can the unemployed afford to go to the job centre every single day? My one costs £3 a return on the bus, that's £15 a week that I wouldn't be able to afford if I had to. Then, who is going to supply the work clothes for these stupid slavery jobs they have thought up?
I have rheumatoid arthritis plus severe back pain and depression so am on sick and before anyone says anything, I can't stand for long without pain all the time.
Had to give up driving trucks for a living because of this and I did that for over 30 years so I am not one of the so called skivers that are talked about.
There are no jobs around and if unemployed are forced to clean etc they should get a days wage for a days work.
Not everyone who is unemployed sits on their backside and enjoys it.
You can send 30 cvs to employers and even put a stamp addressed envelope in it for a reply and you are lucky if any do get back to you. It is soul destroying.
Only ones who think it is a good idea is the ones who are working. Wait until you loose your job then see how you feel about it then.
They treat you like something they stood on at the job centre and any jobs that are on display are usually taken because they can't be bothered to take them down.
Greatest excuse they have is, the computers are down. No, they are to stupid to work them and crash them all the time is the real reason! I once had to tell them how to work one because the person hadn't a clue.
Unemployed people are given money the law says they need to live on, yet they take a minimum of £43 a month off it for the so called bedroom tax! Where is the justice in that? Create jobs, don't make excuses.
I would go back in an instant to driving if I could because I loved it, I was one of those that looked forward to going to my work every day, now in a few years I will be getting a pension such as it is. They will probably stop that as well by then or tell the pensioners they have got to work for it as well!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Politics doesn't work that way in the UK.

Cameron failed to win a majority but Judas Clegg decided to team up with him in the coalition instead f a Lib/Lab/Green traffic liht coalition which was the alternative. The only way Cameron will be ousted is via a vote of no confidence by the Tories (which they won't do as he's busy selling off all nationalised business to private hands, run by Tory MPs) or for the Queen to dissolve Parliament, which isn't going to happen as that prerogative power is more of a constitutional overhang than a real power.
-------------
To whoever was asking about energg etc.. post privatisation, it's been a disaster. Bills have risen 40% in the last 15 years as private companies are all about profit, while the service has got worse due to the millions of leaking pipes etc..

Rail-wise, since privatisation was introduced fares have increased 10 - 20 times, the taxpayer subsidises trains with more money than when it was nationalised despite rail companies making billions in profit and the bill for track maintenance always going to the taxpayer.

Hospital-wise. New hospitals have been built using PFI, where private companies invest their pension pots into them and then loan the building back to the government at an overall cost of 40x the original price. Even worse the government guarantees that should a hospital be forced to close then the private company not only get to keep the building back, but get the full 40x kickback.

Somehow the government have failed to realise that it is in the interests of private companies to make hospital standards so bad they have to close as they rake in 40x profit plus their workers will all die before pensionable age and won't be able to claim that either.

The only good Tory is a dead Tory.


Scorchio
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


Are you serious?

The hardships of having to go to the job centre once a day, eh?


Please tell me this a joke. When I was on JSA I was only granted 19p (yes nineteen pence, not a typo) a fortnight to live off. I told them if I didn't need to pay rent, food, bills etc.. it would still take me exactly 48 weeks to afford the journey but they wouldn't listen. Got to the job centre and the staff were worse than useless - they wanted me to work 60 miles away for 1hr a day min wage stacking shelves, told them it would cost me tripple what I earnt a day just to get to work and they couldn't see the problem so removed my precious 19p.

Don't fall for the government rhetoric that everyone who is unemployed is a scrounger and has only themselves to blame; they're only doing it because they're Tory scum and don't want the electorate pointing out it was their banker mates that got us into this mess.
edit on 30-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lifttheveil
 


This petition is all well and good but surely Clegg holds the key?

If Clegg dissolved the coalition, that would dissolve parliament and force a general election?

The condems have proved it is possible for politians to push through knee jerk legislation to enforce their policies so why not legislate to ensure that any government that thinks that forming a coalition allows them to renage on their manifesto promises are kicked out of office pronto, at least until we get a government that is truly representative of ordinary working people, jobseekers, the retired, those unable to work, parents, teachers, everyone that isn't a polititian.

I believe the facts are that .1% of the British population are millionairres whilst 70% of MP's are millionairres! Personally, I think that any polititian that will not work for minimum wage is not fit for purpose and should be removed from office and made to clean graffiti and carry out community service like the criminals they are.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite
 


I'm not being funny here but you're still not getting the point.

I accept and believe that you are honestly looking for work but for whatever reason, you're unsuccessful in your search. I've been in that position many times and i know that it isn't pleasant. In addition, when some-one comes along who threatens to take away the pittance that you do get, then you've every reason to be angry. And i fully agree that no-one should be made to work for less than the minimum wage.

The point i'm making is that the working community are, in the main, doing jobs that they don't like. The working community, in the main, are receiving far less than the national average wage. And the working community, in the main, are not only struggling to survive themselves, but are also having to pay for your benefits.

So what i'm saying is that you have an obligation to give something back. Lets suppose that you lived in my house and i went out to work every day to keep a roof over our heads. Would it be unfair of me to expect you to have done the housework while i was out every day? Would it be fair of you to say that you'll do it but only if i pay you the minimum wage? So all i'm saying is that if you're going to take something out of society, then it's only fair that society asks you to put something back in. Because if there truly are no jobs, then you cannot ask for a minimum wage for a job that doesn't exist.

Please don't take offense at this post as i'm only trying to put across a fair viewpoint. And also bear in mind that you lose nothing by following these new rules.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

lifttheveil

Flavian
reply to post by lifttheveil
 


Completely flawed petition, i am afraid. He is the leader of the Conservative Party, who won most votes at the last election. Admittedly not enough to win an outright majority but enough to put them in a position to form a coalition government. That makes him Prime Minister whether people like it or not.

The fact that he is Prime minister is not disputed at all. What they do say is he is not elected by the people, which is true.


The last PM to have been elected by a majority of the electorate was Ramsey MacDonald in 1931



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
As said well by previous posters its a silly petition, based on partisan feeling and a misunderstanding of how the UK system works.

I dislike Cameron because I think he's a phoney through and through. A pure PR man. However, he has every legitimate right to be where he is under our system. When he loses the confidence of the house or his 4 years are up then its time for an election. Not because of a petition.

I honestly don't believe British policy to Syria would have been any different had Labour been in power. The imperatives driving it are strategic realpolitik coming out of the Foreign Office. Logical moves based on decades of previous alliances, obligations and alignments (primarily that we are now dependent on gulf gas, the gulf arabs have us by the balls). Not because of some grand personal plan by Cameron. As such Milliband would have received the same briefings and been compelled to try and act in the same way.

The permanent civil service ensures the country sails on in the same (or similar) global direction regardless of who gets elected. Thats what its for. Its a damping mechanism on the rudder of HMS Britain.

To Wrabbit, you mentioned earlier about powers of the executive. The PM can take the country to war without the blessing of parliament. He'll have to answer for it at the next session of parliament though. If the government has a strong majority then thats not really a trial as party members can he whipped into supporting the government. If they don't have a strong majority the goverment could be brought down by a 'vote of no confidence'. The PM cannot be personally impeached by parliament but the goverment he leads can be toppled (or he can be replaced by his own party).
edit on 30-9-2013 by justwokeup because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

justwokeup
The PM cannot be personally impeached by parliament but the goverment he leads can be toppled (or he can be replaced by his own party).


The term "impeachment" is not relevant in modern UK politics. It's more of a US obsession. Ultimately, the voting public hold all the cards and merrily punish MPs who stray from accepted norms e.g. many MPs implicated in the Expenses Scandal suffered loss of the their jobs and Mr Blair, who had taken the UK into an unpopular war lost his job too.

In order to avoid the "we hate Cameron" rants and to keep remotely to topic, I will agree with the posters who have pointed out the petition is flawed. It is not really a complicated concept, but in the UK we don't have a presidential system. In fact, the presidential system a la the US and France is rarer than the prime ministerial system.

REgards



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Agree, i just used it to draw the distinction between how it works and how US posters might expect it to work. The PM and a President are more different than would appear to those outside the UK.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Think of the UK PM like the USA President - only we are *moderately more* truthful about who makes the decisions.

Its the party that makes it up and the man at the front just says it.
Same in the states, only they like to pretend the president has the final say.





top topics
 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join