Arms sales legitimate says Camoron

BBC News - David Cameron in the Gulf: Defence sales 'legitimate'
what planet is this man on. The French have no scruples when it comes to buttering up nations to buy the Rafele fighter, and here's our moron, not giving a toss about jobs on the home front just bantering on about Uman Rights. Drop the pretentious crap and Liberal ideals of his coalition partners, just offer them the typhoon, a couple of tridents and a couple of astute type boats.....jobs a good un.

 

Me no understandee your outrage

He has a responsibility to ALL areas of opinion across the country and if that electoral mandate means that he has to "discuss human rights issues" then so be it. His mandate also means that he has to secure the best deal for British manufacturing and british exporting and British technology etc etc

 

Even if Human rights get a mention I don't suppose it will be dwelt upon as we want to sell the Arabs arms which it quite possibly be used against the very people we're allegedly worried about.

 

What mandate ?
He didn`t win the election. Therefore-as they keep telling us-their manifesto (like they were gonna stick to it anyway) and the Lib-Dems manifesto don`t come into consideration.

 

Bahrain being a recent example, still as long as it keeps our people in work.

 

No my beef is that he talks about human rights and self determination etc etc whilst denying the electorate what h promised prior to his election. As far as the Middle East goes, flog arms to whoever wants them, let them determine what ever outcome they want, why try to legitimise something tha this country has done for years,

 

No matter what colour they are all full of false promises, I would not trust any politician further than I could have thrown Big Silv.

 

Oh for goodness sake, please try to keep up!

Cameron's party together with the party of the other bloke collectively got enought votes to form a government so while very few people were actually grinning like the Cheshire Cat the simple fact is that a government was formed on the basis of the rules of the UK electoral voting system. It is what grown up people call a mandate - not a particularly good one, full of compromises and not something I personally want to see many more of but a mandate nonetheless given the way our electoral system works.

Now to the other word you used beginning with "m". The minute two parties form a coalition government I am afraid that everyone has to accept that a number of individual party pre-election manifesto "promises" cannot be guaranteed any more.

So I return to my initial post - Cameron is the Prime Minister. His coalition government is in power on the basis of the majority of votes being cast for the two parties involved (those votes being cast in order to give the respective MPs the authority to take decision "on our behalf" - which they did in the first few hours by deciding to form a coalition!) The coalition has (on behalf of the voters who put their x in the designated box) decided what its joint policy on everything is going to be and that includes doing some stuff they individually don't like and some stuff they individually do like.

So, which part of "electoral mandate" and "his mandate" are you still unsure of?

 

The bit where the public voted for a course of action, the rich boys got in, and then refuse to honour any of their promises...which is what the public voted on in the first place.

The most obvious one...(Cleggy) Signing a pledge, with all his mates, to not bring in tuition fees. One sniff of power and bang, all promises forgotten. Where did that mandate come from ?

The mandate the country gave was for a Tory govt without an overall majority. And if thats what we had got, the govt would have to go to the house and say "i`m doing this because of a, b, and c. You can vote it through if you think its a good idea/i`ve given a compelling case, or vote against if you think its bad for the country." And that way the will of the people would have been upheld, and it would probably mean that the self-serving twats would answer more to the electorate than their whip.

As it is now, we have a govt that wasn`t voted in, and have no indicators of what they stand for, which probably explains why they u-turn on just about every idea they announce.

 

Like that bloody prat Brown, one of the big causes as to why the last lot left the mess, he wasn't voted as a PM, flogged off reserves etc and caused a lot of the discontent.

 

We dont vote for a PM. Why cant people grasp the basics of how this country works?

 

Back on topic,

Broadside's posts make the most sense on this issue, I'd repectfully suggest that you re-read them before adding your next, ermm, erudite contribution :wink:

 

I didnt say nobody understood how the system works Broadside clearly does, but i was stating my amazement that some people clearly dont. If you dont understand my point read through this thread again Thank you.