Most Labour governments in my adult lifetime have got in on fairly left wing policies, they have then been forced by circumstances i.e. the mess left by the Tories (1964 and 1974) to adopt right wing policies and as a result been voted out pretty quickly.
Blair came in on a fairly middle of the road programme and pretty fair economic weather. Brown did quite a lot of redistribution on the qt. But didn't crow about it. But they stuck to the Tories 1997 spending plans (which the cynical Ken Clarke admitted that even the Tories hadn't planned to stick to) and were condemned for not doing enough for the least well off during the 2001 election. Hence the spending on social services.
The thing New Labour did was that instead of allowing increased revenues to be frittered away on tax cuts as Lawson had done, they spent it on what they considered worthwhile projects.
Personally I'd like to see Labour differentiate themselves from the Tories with radical proposals. And if elected stick to them.
After all that's what the Attlee governent did and we've all been better for it.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havensDavid Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance,[/url

A Prospectus for one of the offshore tax vehicles, Blairmore Holdings trumpeted:



Cameron inherited £300K from the pile thus made by his father, who was the highest paid director of Blairmore. However, the wil only details the assets of his father's estate in England and Wales - and doesn't include offshore investments. The Guardian simply states it is unclear what any such assets are worth and which family member owns them.

So we've got a self-damning immoral Prime Minister who immorally accepted a bequeth of profits gained immorally by his father, all by the said Prime Ministers own definition.

One day this Prime Minister will hand his hat on another peg and it won't immediately bite him on the .

This needs a little work.

apparently everything was legal and above board however immoral it may seem - so what has Dave actually done that's wrong ? accepted 300K that was legally his ? Wish someone would give me 300K !

See his comments on Jimmy Carr, then read the thread title

Where have you been for the past couple of weeks? What he has done wrong is slag off a comedian for legally avoiding tax while legally avoiding tax himself thus exposing himself as a hypocrite. If Cameron thinks its wrong for Jimmy Carr to reduce his tax bill the legality of it clearly didn't affect his opinion on that.

It also shows he is a bit of an idiot because he ought to have guessed Tory party supporters such as Gary Barlow also engage in such legal tax avoidance and he clearly forgot his own fortune is based on doing the exact same things he supposedly thinks are now immoral.

The saying "Do as I say, not as I do." springs to mind!

yes, I saw the Carr debacle and his £3.3 million etc but 300K is chicken feed in comparison - most MPs from all parties are at it just recall the fiasco with the allowances scandal - most politicians are hypocritical and Cameron is a slimy git to me but he's no worse than the rest of those scumbags including 'two jags' himself..

The £300k is only what was declared in England & Wales, there's no paper trail for any of the offshored £millions his old man had

https://twitter.com/blindfumble/status/ ... 19/photo/1

https://twitter.com/blindfumble/status/ ... 19/photo/1

It has nothing to do with it being chickenfeed in comparison. You asked what he has done wrong and the answer is benefiting from exactly the same thing as what he says is now wrong.