We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Thank goodness: David Cameron’s days are numbered

Here is Alex Singleton’s take on what could happen to Cameron’s chances of a second term, if he continues surrendering to the EU:

UKIP arguably cost the Conservatives 10 seats at the last election. If a handful of extra [Tory] activists defect to UKIP in each marginal constituency in time for the next election, and others prioritise their golf over Tory leaflet drops, this figure could easily increase, helping to drive David Cameron from Downing Street.

Given how statist Cameron is, that is a delightful thought.

17 comments to Thank goodness: David Cameron’s days are numbered

  • Speaking as someone who disliked every word and dead of Gordon Brown, I have to say that I find Cameron WORSE.

    His craven cave-in on the EU budget was sub-Chamberlain. He didn’t even come back with a piece of paper, didn’t achieve his state goals, yet labelled failure a victory.

    Witnessing the ranks of the recently “retired hurt or hopeless” in the blogosphere, I may have company.

  • I.M.F.

    Irish monetary failure – It’s time to ditch the Euro:

  • Mr Ecks

    The articles comments are massively against the plastic-faced so-called “Prime Minister”. He has failed to fool a lot of people. Let us hope he will fail to fool enough.

  • U.Kipper

    Dave got in on the not-Brown vote, but not quite. I suppose we wanted to see what he would be like, and now we know. Unbelievably he really is Blair’s heir.

    But Nigel Farage is back on UKIP, and we can be sure he is the real deal.

  • PeterT

    It is puzzling that given that both the Tories AND the Libdems had promised a referendum on Europe of some sort (if memory serves me correctly the Libdems wanted an referendum on the wider relationship with Europe, not just on Lisbon. Obviously they thought that an ‘stay in’ vote was inevitable) that it has since been kicked into the long grass.

    Its a shame about UKIPs beyond the pale policies on immigration (not that the Tories are being much better, with their idiotic and pointless restrictions on skilled labour immigration) – otherwise they might be worth a vote.

    I think if a general election were held today though, I speculate that the Tories might actually do better than they did at the last one. Primarily because the Libdems are going to lose lots of seats, since many of their supporters have realised that the Libdems aren’t just Labour without war. Those votes are likely to go to Labour, either in seats where Labour won anyway, or where Libdem’s marginally beat Tories. I agree that UKIP stand a good chance of ruining things for the Tories at the next election. The result won’t be a UKIP government though!

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I have a fear that we could be putting up with iDave and his crowd for some time. But even so, the retreat on the European issue has been pretty craven, even by the standards of this lot.

  • Richard Garner

    I’m with Jonathon on this: I see Cameron getting his second term; and that will be with an outright Tory goverment following the decimation of the Liberal Democrats, who will be thrown into oblivion. Much Lib Dem loss will be Labour gain, however, so Labour may be strengthened. Much of that will be because the majority of the populace do not think that Cameron is a statist, but are convinced he is imposing radical and drastic cuts to government.

  • 'Nuke' Gray

    It would only be good for Cameron to go if you can be sure that his replacement will be better. Who would that be?

  • David Gillies

    Exactly. If Cameron is ‘not-Brown’ then ‘not-Cameron’ is ‘not-not-Brown’ = Brown. Right now I just don’t think the British electorate is intelligent enough to be trusted with the vote. I emigrated when they elected Blair and I don’t want to go back, but it’s a bit like living in Dusseldorf in 1975 and seeing your family languishing in Leipzig. Cameron’s failure was his pusillanimity. Given the dynamics of British psephology he could have grasped the nettle, moved solidly right, won a majority without Clegg and his poltroons (especially the noxious Simon Hughes), eviscerated the unions, smashed the quangos, killed the Grauniad and the BBC, told the European Union to wind its neck in, and romped home with a 150-seat majority. But it’s a Catch-22. No-one that bold could have won the leadership. The UK is screwed.

  • Paul Marks

    Mr Cameron was a “good student” of PPE at Oxford – he accepted all the P.C. establshment nonsense (whether in economics or on the E.U., or on P.C. matters) and so it was easy for him to go back to it.

    If we want a Prime Minister who is any good – perhaps it would be a good start to look for someone who was not a lecturer’s pet when he was young.

    As for the E.U. – there is still some conflict between the Coucil of Ministers and the “Parliament”.

    The E.U. Parliament wants a blank cheque for future years (or something close to it) in return for accepting “only” an increase of about 3% in the E.U. budget in the comming year.

    For those people who still (contrary to all evidence) still believe in the “European Project” I have a question……

    You told us that if only the nonsocialist has a majority in the E.U. Parliament we would see a less statist agenda.

    Well they DO have such a majority (a big one actually) and yet the demands for ever bigger government continue.

    Will you now drop your support for membership of the E.U.?

    If the reply is not “yes” we can forget about such people – as they are following blind dogma (support for the E.U. at any cast) without reference to either evidence or reason.

    Almost needless to say – for such people to talk of the “national interest” when they carry on their bailout road is contemptable.

  • Paul Marks

    Mr Cameron was a “good student” of PPE at Oxford – he accepted all the P.C. establshment nonsense (whether in economics or on the E.U., or on P.C. matters) and so it was easy for him to go back to it.

    If we want a Prime Minister who is any good – perhaps it would be a good start to look for someone who was not a lecturer’s pet when he was young.

    As for the E.U. – there is still some conflict between the Coucil of Ministers and the “Parliament”.

    The E.U. Parliament wants a blank cheque for future years (or something close to it) in return for accepting “only” an increase of about 3% in the E.U. budget in the comming year.

    For those people who still (contrary to all evidence) still believe in the “European Project” I have a question……

    You told us that if only the nonsocialist has a majority in the E.U. Parliament we would see a less statist agenda.

    Well they DO have such a majority (a big one actually) and yet the demands for ever bigger government continue.

    Will you now drop your support for membership of the E.U.?

    If the reply is not “yes” we can forget about such people – as they are following blind dogma (support for the E.U. at any cast) without reference to either evidence or reason.

    Almost needless to say – for such people to talk of the “national interest” when they carry on their bailout road is contemptable.

  • John K

    Cameron’s failure was his pusillanimity. Given the dynamics of British psephology he could have grasped the nettle, moved solidly right, won a majority without Clegg and his poltroons (especially the noxious Simon Hughes), eviscerated the unions, smashed the quangos, killed the Grauniad and the BBC, told the European Union to wind its neck in, and romped home with a 150-seat majority. But it’s a Catch-22. No-one that bold could have won the leadership. The UK is screwed.

    David:

    What makes you think Cameron wanted any of these things? He is very happy with his Liberal coalition, possibly happier than he would have been with a Conservative majority. In the 80s he would have been seen as dripping wet. He inherited the constituency of that unspeakable shit Douglas Hurd, together, it would seem, with that awful apparatchik’s entire political philosophy.

  • MarkE

    ‘Nuke’ Gray:

    It would only be good for Cameron to go if you can be sure that his replacement will be better. Who would that be?

    Not necessarily. In the run up to the election I was constantly told my intention to vote UKIP would do more harm than good by diluting the Conservative vote and potentially allowing Labour to remain in office. My response to that threat was to point out that if Cameron was elected his statist policies and abandonment of what many still regard as Conservative values* would be vindicated, thus exposing the country to the risk of a second Cameron term, and the certainty of a centre left, statist monopoly in politics. If Cameron failed, especially if UKIP could claim the credit, the Conservative party would tear itself apart in a very messy but exciting orgy of blood letting before the traditional Conservatives (the Thatcherites if you like) joined UKIP supporters to form a new, electable centre right party and we would have a real choice at the next election. Cameron and his allies would no doubt have joined their friends in the Labour party. The Conservative name would have died, being soiled beyond recovery. I fear the coagulation has saved Cameron and cost the country dear.

    *I actually regard Cameron as more Conservative (in the mould of Heath, Macmillan etc) than Thatcher was, which is why I feel no regret at seeing the end of the Conservative party.

  • Verity

    A blogger who posts on The Speccie under the name of Vulture first described David Cameron as having a mouth like a hen’s arse. As unfamiliar as I am with hens’ arses, it still struck me as having the ring of truth.

    I find his bland, plastic face rather alarming, especially with a hen’s arse in the middle of it.

    There are sufficient numbers of Conservatives who became his implacable enemy before he even sidled sideways into Downing Street. I think people began to loathe him when he started interfering with local constituency committees and began the fascist socialist agenda of Central Office determining who the candidates would be … and the qualifications did not include straight white males who had devoted much of their spare time to holding the Party together.

    People picked up on the vanity long before the official vanity photographer and video editor. As in Breakfast with The Camerons! – The Video! The self-serving and utterly absurd trip to an ice floe in Sweden, coming off the worse in the shots with the two handsome A-List Huskies was Clue Number One. He perserved with further photo “ops” – although “opportunities” is the wrong word for the manufactured shots in the Garden of Remembrance, shots of him featured prominently while his little boy was being shunted into and out of ambulances, looking puzzled when his bike was “stolen” in Central London and there happened to be a small gang of press photographers on the spot to record his head-scratching dismay.

    The most recent spine-tingler was posing on the steps of Downing St with his new kid, as though the child’s birth was of some consequence to the nation.

    All this is by way of saying I don’t think there is a chance in hell that he will get in for a second term, and I wouldn’t stagger back in shock to hear that he had been manoeuvred out before then. Although he would fight. That’s his seat on the Brussels gravy train we are talking about …

  • Andrew Duffin

    “Given how statist Cameron is, that is a delightful thought.”

    Is there anything that makes you imagine, in the event of Cameron being driven from Downing Street, that someone less statist would take his place?

  • Paul Marks

    My fear is that Mr Cameron will be used (by American leftists) to discredit free market policies.

    “Cameron tried this policy and it failed” they will say in 2012, – I know Cameron is anything but free market, but that will not stop the American left pretending he is.

    After all even many people here accepted the media spin that the Irish govenrment have been cutting government spending for years.

    In reality (if one counts the bailout spending – and it is spending) the Irish government has vastly INCREASED government spending.

    But that does not stop the left saying Ireland has discredited the idea of “cuts”,

  • Verity

    Paul Marks – With respect, what makes think American lefty candidates have heard of David Cameron – or, even more far-fetched, think the voter base is familiar enough with his name to invoke it?