Vocal Voices

UKIP is riding high in the polls and does not look like going backwards. Its success will damage the Tories and if UKIP does not convert its polling into seats, in order to form a coalition, then the Tories face a landslide defeat.

So what does Cameron do?

He hits his core support with the most convoluted of Child benefit cutting exercises. A household with one earner on £60k loses all, where one with two earners on £49k keeps everything. It is hard to think of a better way to pi55 people off. The irony is that in polls most people, even his core support, would have gone further and limited CB to only two children, and at a reduced rate, but they would have done it on household income.

We are of the same opinion Frank as I have written below.16 percent of the nations votes.

It is a very short sighted move on his part

I'm sure that man is insane.

Isn't there any provision in our constitution whereby we can throw out a PM who is obviusly off his rocker ?

He is now in a pitched battle with his coalition partners. The Lib Dems will happily support something which hammers traditional Tory Voters but will cause trouble if they harm potential Lib Dem voters.

Rock and a Hard place.

Get the Hammer out and break the rock David. Call the referendum on the EU NOW in this parliament. Force the Lib Dems to leave or shut up. Defuse the UKIP.

In short.

LEAD.

I woke up, back to more of the same ole same ole.

Suff wrote:Get the Hammer out and break the rock David. Call the referendum on the EU NOW in this parliament. Force the Lib Dems to leave or shut up. Defuse the UKIP.

That would be the sensible and practical thing to do.
But I don't think he has that much sense.
To be fair to him I think ALL mainstream politicians are terrified of an EU referendum.

It is said that Cameron is Right Wing..
Interesting Reading

Andrew Moncur, writing in The Guardian, Summer 1992.
The war of Enoch's Dinner within the Tory Monday Club has duly reached the bloody stage with quantities being spilled over the carpets of The House of Lords.. Three senior members were summarily expelled at a bizarre meeting there on Tuesday night.
A fourth was spared because police had been called to remove him, amid uproar over the sacking before sentence could be passed.. The expulsions were pushed through after the Chairman, Mark Mayall, had co-opted on to the executive four newcomers, including Joe Matthews, his woman friend. Barry Lenz, who is associated with the extreme-to-the-point-barking British League of Rights was also co-opted. The Club can be now considered bitterly split over the conduct of the sacking session, a legal battle will commence over the conduct and sacking session.Out went Sam Swerling, a law lecturer .Monday Club member for 28 years and Ex Chairman, accused of being a negative influence... Stuart Millson, and executive member, was also given the chop he had acted as agent for an anti-federalist candidate standing against an official Tory in the general election. Brian Rathbone. a barrister and long serving member, was expelled, apparently for thinking of standing against Edward Heath in April. Divisions within the Club came to a head over plans to mark Enock Powell's 80th birthday with a dinner cancelled at the last moment by Dr Mayall.. Angry member claim he did so to avoid providing a platform for Euro-Sceptics, so embarrassing John Major

Enoch Powell.. One of the greatest men of our time..
Right wing Cameron? Sadly "He doesnt know the meaning of the word"..

It was ever thus through all recent Governments of all colours - the families with one wage earner earning the equivalent of families with two wage earners, is financially penalised. Way back in the day when traditional marriage was more valued and 'traditional' families the accepted norm, ie the husband was head of house and the wife stayed at home: if the tables were turned and the wife became the breadwinner and the husband stayed at home, the wife could additionally claim the husband's 'married man's tax allowance'.

Maybe it's time to re-visit and re-think all of that, but get rid of the institutionalised patriarchy, sexism and discrimination? Make it so anyone in a legally committed relationship, be it marriage or civil partnership could use the tax-free allowance of the partner who, for whatever reason doesn't work, and does not otherwise need it (for Social Benefits or pensions, or whatever): ie support 'family' by seeing the household as 'one' with a total income and total tax allowances.

I think that would be an excellent idea - but probably far too sensible to be taken up