We're all in it together. Are we really Mr. Prime Minister or are you on something ?

The right-wing press continues to try to destro Little Boy Blue little by little: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

The right-wing press continues to try to destro Little Boy Blue little by little: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wife.html

How does this work then?

Are you going to organise it?

I can see it now, you in an Arran sweater, plaid slippers and puffing away on a lovely briar; "Come along now chaps, let's storm the library, not too nosiy now. Titan! Lead the stroll."

No there are not. The current lot as so inept they are completely fair game regardless of any other parties past or current state or position on anything.

In any case Milliband and Cruddas are at least trying to formulate something that resembles an alternative to what both Labour and Tory offer/offered in the recent past.

Whether tabloid politics will allow them much wriggle room is the real issue. They ought to be slagging off the proposed housing benefit cuts for under 25's as being as unworkable as the pasty tax but I feel they they fear to do so simply because they will be labelled as supporting scroungers when it's a clear as day that would not be the case. Such is the state of politics in this country.

How they deal with the simplistic mindset of the (in this case older) electorate that now probably believes all under 25's are worthless feckers because the PM has said they are is the problem they face.

The Tory strategy ever since they came into office has been to be economical with the truth at best and downright dishonest and disingenuous at worst while adopting a strategy of "if we say it often enough people will believe its true". It is very frustrating that this actually seems to work!

Labour should be setting a new agenda not being pathetic and timid. Therein lies their problem. People are calling out for someone to get behind but Labour are living in the past. Times they are a changing and they cannot keep fighting previous elections.

If anybody is waiting for Labour to save us from these demons then you're going to be in for a long wait. They're just a slower, less radical version of the Tories.

If you cared to look that is exactly what Cruddas is trying to do but the timidity is largely born out of pragmatism IMO. Opposing every "tabloid" ill considered policy of the Tories won't get them anywhere. Getting re-elected is the first goal of the opposition. We have the prime example of that with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Basically lied through their teeth to get elected but they know once you are in you can do as you like.

Now in the past most governments while springing a surprise or or two never went as far as this lot are doing hence their current unpopularity but the fact remains unless you are in power you have no power. This means, like it or not, Labour have to tread carefully because they need the votes - simple as.

You have to hope if they do get in they attempt to make some real changes rather than as Blair did and fail to seize the opportunity presented. In 1997 people were fed up with the Tories and Blair's failing was he didn't use that to undo much of the damage. Instead (if you want to be kind) he set about making what he had been left with work. If Milliband gets in next time he will have a similar opportunity to be radical but he won't get in by being too radical now. It is a fine dividing line between principle and politics.

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.

rlDavid Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance,rl

A Prospectus for one of the offshore tax vehicles, Blairmore Holdings trumpeted"The fund is not liable to taxation on its income or capital gains as long as such income or capital gains are not derived from sources allocated within the territory of the Republic of Panama," the 2006 prospectus reads.

"The Directors intend that the affairs on the Fund should be managed and conducted so that it does not become resident in the United Kingdom for UK taxation purposes. Accordingly ... the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits"'"

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.

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..