Friday, 30 September 2011

News, Views and Music Issue 114 (Top Twenty): The Reasons david Cameron Has To Go!

The 20 Reasons why Cameron has to go:

So it’s finally come to this. The media are now so firmly in the grasp of the Coalition that they’re afraid to talk. There are warnings that the Coalition financial policies are not working and that we’re all loosing our jobs, our benefits and our sense of pride for no good reason whatsoever. The Coalition have had 18 months to come good now or give way to other people with stronger, better, fairer ideas and they’ve failed. So – for the simple reason that you won’t see this list anywhere else at the time being – are my reasons to get rid of the smug git.

1)    The Conservatives didn’t actually win the election: You’d think, wouldn’t you, that shaking up more constitutions than any prior Governments would involve both a) pots of money and b) full public support wouldn’t you? Well, wrong. The reason we have a coalition is that all parties lost the election: the country didn’t have faith in anyone after as torrid term in office for Gordon Brown (who even so now looks like a saint in comparison to Cameron!) Constitutionally, what should have happened in 2010 is that all three leading parties (Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives) formed a temporary coalition for a year and then everyone in the UK gets their chance to vote again, having seen how each party’s respective ideas begin to work out and who seems to have the better grasp on the world’s problems. Instead, Cameron rode rough shode over that little detail and declared himself prime minister, despite being voted in by less than a third of the population (and barely anyone in Scotland), cutting Labour out of the deal.

2)    The Coalition’s first act was to break the law. Sorry, amend it: till 2010 it was deemed illegal for Coalition governments to run for a full term in office, something Cameron ended unannounced because of the ‘financial crisis’ facing Britain (which he then determined to make worse). Not content with only that, Cameron asked for and was granted a stay of execution so that the Coalition that nobody voted for could rule over us for five years before another election – one more year than the usual terms of office given to parties that actually win elections legitimately.

3)    Surely a ‘coalition’, the nearest thing to a decision made by the electorate last year, implies a partnership. If so, then it definitely isn’t one of equals. Nick Clegg is deputy pm in name only, having less responsibilities than John Prescott under Tony Blair, with Cameron forever interfering with his policies even on days he should be out of the country. Other Lib Dems fared just as badly, taking all the unpopular jobs (if any), leaving the Conservatives the de facto party of Great Britain – despite being their second favourite (and possibly third favourite) choice when all votes are taken into consideration. If I was Nick Clegg I’d have walked by now, however long my party had been out of power, because surely its clear after 18 months that he has no say in matters he knows better than the Conservatives(those policies the Lib Dems claim they raised? They all got thrown out by the House of Lords, as Cameron knew they would). Remember too Cameron’s tactic of rubbishing Clegg’s name just before the Lib Dem push for a refurendum vote came about? If this was a fair country (which it isn’t) where politics is treated like a sport then this would be ‘unsportsmanlike behaviour’ and Cameron would currently still be in the sin-bin with more red cards than Wayne Rooney, Eric Cantona and Michael Schumacher combined. No wonder they call it the ‘con’-Lib coalition!

4)    What policies does Cameron have anyway? He’s been in power for 18  months now and even his closer aides struggle to answer this question when it crops up in interviews. A recent poll of the public revealed that none of them could actually point to a specific policy anywhere anyway apart from ‘shaking up the NHS’ and ‘shitting on students’ as one interviewee put it. I’ve seen dozens of interviwes with our pm now, either before or after the election, and while I very much know what he’s against (in essence the ill, the elderly, the young, hoodies and Northerners) I still don’t know what he’s for. Big society? What does that mean exactly? Surely our leader actually has a plan, not just a tasty soundbite for the media – or did he never actually expect to win this election?!

5)    Talking of which the Big Society as proposed loosly is the biggest con of the lot. Paying someone absoutely nothing in return for doing the same job where they used to have a wage is not ‘great for the country’, its the complete opposite. On the one hand, paying people means they have money to spend on items produced by our country (and others), thus boosting the economy and helping progress with a (largely made up) financial crisis. On the other, surely the only point of Government is to have a system where we give power to those we deem worthy of it rather than dividing it between so many thousands of people without specialist information that nothing ever gets done. If Big Society really is the way that Cameron sees things going forward and not just an opportunity for a future u-turn then there’s no point in having a Government at all. And the idea of having parents running schools and patients running hospitals is insane – the whole point of creating those institutions is so that those who have particular insightful knowledge can pass it on to those who need it most; the point of both institutions is far greater than just making money (which they won’t anyway because they’re funded so badly). And don’t even get me started on the elitism such a system will cause!

6)    Talking of which, why have we got such an elite prime minister who doesn’t really need the either the money or the prestige having this job will win him during a time of supposed financial crisis? I’m all for millionaire politicians who think they can spread their secrets tothe masses and sure, politicans are all generally rich buggers – that’s how they fund their campaigns – but you always got the sense that somewhere, in their back of thir minds, Blair, Brown and maybe even Major and Thatcher still vaguely remembered where they came from and what life is like when your bank isn’t dripping with money and you have to carve out a normal life for yourself.  David Cameron has never known a life like that – and has never once shown empathy to anyone (except his family) to prove that he understands what life is like for others at all. And have you heard what he got up to with Boris Johnson in the Huffingdon club? And got away with? The man’s practially a hoodie!

7)    Which leads me nicely onto: the August riots. Cameron’s response to the first real domestic test of his term in office was a disaster, with only the pm’s pr office taking any credit. Cameron started by ignoring the problem, busy on one of his many foreign holidays (more on that story later). He then proceeded to make a bad situation worse, blaming everything he could on  a handful of disaffected youths, left with no job prospects (because of the Coaltion) and having to pay for their own education (because of the Coalition), making a disenfranchised part of society feel even less need to follow ‘the law’ which protects some and not others. The police did an appaling job too its fair to say, but Cameron made a bad situation worse when more intelligent politicans (umm, err, Obama?) would have calmed the situation down with an we’re-all-in-this-together-speech, whether he meant it or not.

8)    Onto another riot and the first real test of Cameron’s foreign affairs. Suddenly our beloved leader is out in Libya, praising a bunch of youths for standing up against ‘evil’ and overthrowing a tyrannical regime he didbn’t like the look of. I don’t want to worry you, Dave, but isn’t that what our riots were about? His speech about ‘all of England’ being behind the Libyan riots was also a stroke of stupidity by his scriptwriter – is our pm deciding what we get to think as well now?! And why the hell is our country getting involved so closely in yet another international war – if they’ve asked for our help then, fine, we don’t want to be isolationist (look where that gotr America), but this is just bloody interference!

9)    Going back to the financial system and why Cameron claims to be the person to solve it: Hang on, going back to when the story broke in 2008, when Gordon Brown was prime minister, was Cameron pushing for greater bank controls and a change in fiscal prorities? Erm, no – he not only agreed with Brown he actually actively fought against the measures put in place by his predecessor on his way out the door in 2009, saving Britain from falling into the immediate debt of Greece and Ireland (the man’s finest hour by far, for which he’s been undeservedly punished in the media since). Surely the idea of the opposition (as Cameron then was) is to point out where leaders go wrong and to keep them honest? Well, not only did the Conservatives not notice the crisis their intended spending as specified in the 2006 election (two years before the crisis) was nearly double Labour’s and triple the Lib Dems’. Hmm very responsible and forward sighted there Cameron!

10) Lets’ take the time to look at some of the few individual policies Cameron’s seen through, excepting of course those famous u-turns. First up, job losses: hmm that’s meant to help the economy is it? People have less money, with no prospect of getting any jobs, never mind better paid ones, and that’s meant to save the economy how? Not ot mention being bitterly bitterly unfair.

11) Ditto students. Why the hell should individuals pay for a system that demands you have to have qualifications in order to make a living and will actually do rather well from each student it trains to take each highly salaried job? Call me stupid, but forcing students to pay £36,000 of tuition fees is going to put off our greatest talents and makew them take off elsewhere, leaving our workforce with a load of pig ignorant untrained school leavers and posh kids with more money than sense within a generation, isn’t it?

12) Oh yes and of course the benefits sytem – the unfairest treatement you can expect this side of being a criminal, in fact the two run pretty close these days – has got to be re-formed. To make it, umm, worse. New questionnaires have been planned for new signees to incapacity benefit or whatever ghastly name they give it now, most of which won’t be read because its not part of an assessment ‘points’ system, to be passed onto some idiot doctor who can’t understand a word of English and hasn’t bothered to research your illness and yet still thinks he knows better than the specialist you saw whose been busy studying the disease for some decades (admittedly, this happened under the old system too). If you win – as only 10% of you do – you get to take part in work training groups that, erm, try and get you into the work you’ve just proved you’re too ill to do. If you lose – as 90% of you do – its back on jobseeker’s benefit with a pay cut, no job prospects and the opportunity to make yourself iller fighting for a job you don’t want to have. This system, by the way, costs a ridiculous amount of money – far more than the Government would ever make if it were to never award another pass again for the next century – in return for catching around 17 benefit frauds a year. An astonishing 60% of appeals are overturned at tribunals, by the way, because of deliberate mis-interpretation by the doctors and advisors and poorly asked questions. The people running this new scheme were rated ‘deeply unsatisfactory’ by independent investigators, by the way, and yet still continue to get the job no questions asked and no targets set!

13) Jobseekers too aren’t let off the hook – new ideas include making claimants work on community projects for no money whatsoever are in the works, doing exactly the same thing the UK currently makes their minor criminals do (for less hours too, I might add). Cutting housing benefit is a terrible horrific idea too – how many people are we going to see added to our countries’ already scandalously large homless population?

14) Of course the people who should be paying for this isn’t the workers and it isn’t the students and it isn’t even the people on benefits (put down that copy of the Daily Mail you disagreeing with me out there, its making you grow fangs and suffocating your brain cells!) but the bankers! And who is the one group that the Coalition haven’t attacked yet? Yup, guessed it in one! Just think how many financial crises could be solved by just one law outlawing wages over a certain point? Setting up failsafes so this mess can’t happen again? Demanding some small slight compensation for buying them out those years ago (say, anything over profit for the next 10 years) Or a law that attacked multi-million businesses who make all their money in Britain and flee overseas to avoid paying it back? Far from forcing the issue, the Coalition have even introduced a law that says they’ll accept a pittance from companies who owe millions and write off all their other debts. That’s justice for you. What a great guy that Cameron is! But only if you’re rich and don’t want to live in Britain.       

15) Next up: the NHS. How do we make an underperforming industry pull its socks up? By giving it more money? Extra training? More buildings to spread the load of patients? Nope – we give them a whole new scheme to learn, whilst cutting their budgets in half and closing down hospitals in many areas, placing greater burdens on the other ones. All that to save a pittance! Unless you’re rich enough to go private of course...

16) Remember that News of the World scandal involving Andy Coulsen and his close role to the pm? In olden days this sort of a scandal would have seen the pm out on his ear! After all, however innocent Coulsen’s role ‘guiding’ the pm, he has already proved himself a liar, what with saying that he hardly ever met with his advisor in the wake of the scandal (a fact it didn’t take the papers very long to find out wasn’t true!) In the olden days the media would be all over him – but, no, the story has been quietly forgotten nowadays. A great example to set our young – next he’ll be looting things! And talk about airbrushing! What the hell was that election poster meant to prove?

17) Oh and it might seem a minor point, but how many bloody holidays has the guy taken this year? Five, that’s how many! Just at the point when most of us can’t afford one! There are 52 weeks in a year right? So that means he’s been missing from his own country he’s meant to be running for about a tenth of all the weeks in the year. Right that’s it, from now on, a new law, sorry epetition, that I’ve proposed – a prime minister is not allowed to take a foreign holiday for all the weeks he serves in office; if he must, he can take them at home, thus setting a good example for the economy, and being only a few hours’ notice away from his office if he’s needed. Yeah, right, as if they’ll agree to that – they’ll just tweak the numbers who’ve clicked ‘yes’ on it!

18) In the past two years, when Britain has allegedly needed to save its money, we’ve agreed to host the 2012 olympics and had a visit from The Pope. Couldn’t both of these things have been delayed a few years till we can afford them? And couldn’t we have scrapped some of the ridiculous schemes we had planned but hadn’t actually started, such as new art galleries and museums, council office extensions, in fact everything that we were getting on alright without in 2007 before the crisis hit?

19) What does a true leader do at times of crisis? If you’re FDR you give money to the poor to help them build a new life for themselves (admittedly not much of a life, but its better than making them homeless). If you’re JFK you try to right the wrongs of a prejudiced America (eventually, after two years of procrastination). If you’re Churchill you inspire people with your speeches, whether your actions are equal to your words or not. If you’re Barack Obama you make people believe that you’re listening to them, even if your hands are tied by congress. And if you’re William Taft – well, you stay in the bath and don’t come out, probably. What’s David Cameron done? U-turn after u-turn after bloody u-turn. He’s not even had the decency to stick up for his policies and see them through regardless, in case he offends someone, becausze he genuinely believes they’ll work (yeah, like the tuition fees and benefit changes are popular!) That’s a sign of a weak mind. Do we really want Cameron to be leading us into some future unknown battle when he can’t even agree on what he wants? And why haven’t there been more speeches anyway? Surely he should be keeping us informed of his decisions, leading us into battle together, instead of posing for cheesy photo opportunities!

20) And finally, I am so sick of hearing about his bloody family. How much he cares for them. How he’s always there for them. How he wishes he could see more of them. How he’s upset when something goes wrong to someone he loves. Well, why the hell did you take the job then, because less than a third of the electorate asked you to take it! And we all have families with no time to spend with them (well, unless you’re one of the people Cameron’s just made unemployed of course!) Do you think its going to make you liked or seem more human? In fact, are you even human?  Are you even of this planet because you don’t seem to care for the people on it very much?

Well, that about covers the major points! Hopefully next week will see more music and less politics (but then again...)

No comments:

Post a Comment