Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Do U-turns make Cameron a laughing stock?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It just shows that they are trying to push things through that no one wants. Once they realise this they have to make a sudden change of direction as they know they will loose the next election if they make themselves any more unpopular.
It is also a problem of being in a coalition with a party that has quite different views to their own, it's a good job Clegg is so weak or they would never get anything done!!
It is also a problem of being in a coalition with a party that has quite different views to their own, it's a good job Clegg is so weak or they would never get anything done!!
I think the problem is that they keep announcing these issues as 'measures which they are going to take'.....rather than putting them forwards as ideas under consideration which may or may not subsequently be implemented after thorough discussion with *all* interested parties.
When it becomes apparent that some of them won't work and they are binned, it does appear that a U-turn has been performed.
When it becomes apparent that some of them won't work and they are binned, it does appear that a U-turn has been performed.
// It just shows that they are trying to push things through that no one wants. //
I do not believe that. I believe they promised things to get elected, but those things were undeliverable. Part of the problem was that its own policies were contradictory. They said "We need to cut public spending" but then they also said "we need to lock people up for long" (which is expensive). They are bound to fail on one of those objectives because you cannot send people to prison longer and spend less on prisons, hence a U-Turn.
From the influencial Wall Street Journal today:
// Mr. Cameron, Britain's Conservative Party prime minister, came to power last year promising a number of major reforms. But lately, he has struggled to turn some of his proposals into reality because of a lack of support from his government's Liberal Democrat coalition partners, some lawmakers in his own party and key segments of the public. Aside from the risk of developing a reputation for U-turns in a country that mainly likes its Tories to be like Margaret Thatcher—who famously said "the lady is not for turning"—Mr. Cameron could face longer-term trouble within his own party, analysts say. Some party critics have accused him of hanging out to dry Mr. Clarke and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who he must continue to work with.
http://online.wsj.com...ml?mod=googlenews_wsj
I do not believe that. I believe they promised things to get elected, but those things were undeliverable. Part of the problem was that its own policies were contradictory. They said "We need to cut public spending" but then they also said "we need to lock people up for long" (which is expensive). They are bound to fail on one of those objectives because you cannot send people to prison longer and spend less on prisons, hence a U-Turn.
From the influencial Wall Street Journal today:
// Mr. Cameron, Britain's Conservative Party prime minister, came to power last year promising a number of major reforms. But lately, he has struggled to turn some of his proposals into reality because of a lack of support from his government's Liberal Democrat coalition partners, some lawmakers in his own party and key segments of the public. Aside from the risk of developing a reputation for U-turns in a country that mainly likes its Tories to be like Margaret Thatcher—who famously said "the lady is not for turning"—Mr. Cameron could face longer-term trouble within his own party, analysts say. Some party critics have accused him of hanging out to dry Mr. Clarke and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who he must continue to work with.
http://online.wsj.com...ml?mod=googlenews_wsj
"I believe they promised things to get elected, but those things were undeliverable"
name a government that hasnt/doesnt done/do this.
They should make manifestos a legally binding contract, if they dont come up with goods as "promised" then they should be held accountable and got rid of immediately
name a government that hasnt/doesnt done/do this.
They should make manifestos a legally binding contract, if they dont come up with goods as "promised" then they should be held accountable and got rid of immediately
You are probably right R1G. Thatcher and Blair were both accusec of that. I have said before, I am happy with most of the U-Turns. Halving prison sentences to just to save a bit of money is wrong. (That was a double U-Turn, the manifesto said they would be harsh in sentencing, then they said they would be soft and then they u-turned again).
It just looks a bit of a shambles. Policy made up on the hoof, and then quickly ditched if it gets a bad press. No sticking to their convictions, just trying to please everyone, and pleasing no one instead.
When supporters like the Daily Telegraph and WSJ start taking the p*ss out of you, you have lost authority.
It just looks a bit of a shambles. Policy made up on the hoof, and then quickly ditched if it gets a bad press. No sticking to their convictions, just trying to please everyone, and pleasing no one instead.
When supporters like the Daily Telegraph and WSJ start taking the p*ss out of you, you have lost authority.
Blair always ran everything through focus groups, and was then accused of having no mind of his own. You can't win. But as I recollect he did stick pretty much to his manifesto, plus a bit more (like a deal in Northern Ireland, which despite yesterday's trouble does seem to be holding). His downfall was going to a war nobody was interested in. Cameron just seems to be making it up as he goes along. And he's got into a war of his own. His supporters must be wondering if they're going to get anything they voted for.
They made no promise to cut prison sentences before the election and I don't think they even mentioned health service reforms (why would they - it's an instant election loser) - so the assertion that they're u-turning on election promises which are unworkable doesn't stack up.
They're u-turning on things which they specifically DIDN'T promise before the election, have tried to implement after the fact, but which have turned out to be bl00dy stupid ideas that no-one supports.
They're u-turning on things which they specifically DIDN'T promise before the election, have tried to implement after the fact, but which have turned out to be bl00dy stupid ideas that no-one supports.
"But Blair never delivered the Big One - a referendum of the EU."
Er... I don't recall that ever being in a Labour manifesto under Blair? Happy to be corrected however?
However, he won 3 elections with House of Lords reform in the manifesto and managed to never really "get round to it". Very hard to make your own check and balances, especially when you're having a good time running a PFI/Hire purchase racket with a massive majority.
That was the "big One" Blair missed for me.
Spare Ed
Er... I don't recall that ever being in a Labour manifesto under Blair? Happy to be corrected however?
However, he won 3 elections with House of Lords reform in the manifesto and managed to never really "get round to it". Very hard to make your own check and balances, especially when you're having a good time running a PFI/Hire purchase racket with a massive majority.
That was the "big One" Blair missed for me.
Spare Ed
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.