We (or, at least, I) tended to think Mr Cameron was being deliberately untruthful (aka lying) when he so often claimed that government debt was going down. It never occurred to me that he really didn't understand the difference between debt, as in national debt, and deficit. He couldn't be that ignorant, could he?

Well, it seems I owe Mr Cameron an apology. He hasn't been lying. He really is that ignorant, across a wide range of subjects. And, when you realise who writes his speeches, the (poor) quality of what he delivers should come as no surprise.

But then, bad politicians hire bad advisors, and cut themselves off from corrective sources. That is one of the reasons why Cameron makes so many mistakes, and will continue to make them.

View full article here

Edited by user 01 February 2013 21:20:52(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

While I've always cautioned about dismissing these people as idiots, and Cameron has first class honours degree in PPE, which must take a fair level of academic ability and application, it's difficult not to come to the conclusion that over large areas, such as green energy and the EU, he really doesn't have a lot of idea. He believes things which he finds comfortable or convenient and looks no further. I'd say the word 'shallow' sums him up.

Certainly the Cast Iron Promise shows a serious lack of judgement and an overestimation of his ability to kid people.

As for the speech, it was about showing a bit of leg on 'Europe' and that was probably the instruction the speech writer was given. Presumably Cameron gave a brief, read it through and discussed it with others before delivering it, and the soundbites were the embellishments the speech writer was being paid for. The calculation to offer enough to be tempting but nothing definite, was pure Tory High Command.

Well would Cameron want someone as a speech writer who was deeply incisive and cynical and told him that what he was intending to say was total nonsense? No, someone bubbly, good with words, the right with it type, with the ability to blur the bits that needed blurring and produce a few memorable turns of phrase.

Our Prime Minister thinks we were the junior partner in WW2, doesn't know what the magna carta translates as (despite an Eton education), thinks Norway has no say and then confuses simple terms like deficit and debt.

How this man became PM makes the mind boggle.

Still at least we can take very small comfort in the fact that a leadership challenge seems to be in the making, given the 'attempt at smoking out one in last Sunday's Mail'

And this

http://www.telegraph.co....Downing-Street-says.html

and this

http://www.telegraph.co....ister-David-Cameron.html

They must be tempted because Cameron doesn't look like a winner, and he seems to go out of his way to alienate much of their support, The Turnip Taliban, gay marriage, foreign aid and all the rest. He isn't sorting out the economy and he isn't much of a Conservative. He gives the impression of being a lightweight and the Mr. slippery reputation is a definite liability.

However, they're faced with a choice between the damage done by ousting him halfway through a term of office, especially in coalition with the Lib Dems, and the damage done by keeping him, which are both unattractive.

I can't see them dumping him until after the election is lost.

I find the whole 'advisor' issue more than a bit worrying. I had believed that 'cast iron' was just another victim of the 'civil service', they 'advise' him and give him a speech to read from the podium.

As with some other 'activists' (about 1:50) , I find the reality of 'political change' a whole lot more worrying than my 'yes minister' fantasy (about how it all works). The idea that an individual could get to the point where they are writing the Climate Change Act or spewing EU nonsense via the mouth of the PM pretty much sums up where we are politically and why it wont have a happy ending. Byrony and her magic crystals that will power the UK into a bright green future or Clare and her 'EU renegotiation". Jeez, why don't we just leave our future in the hands of the spice girls.

I disagree here. I think he knows all these things but lies, thinking we are all stupid.

Oh Dr. N. I never thought I'd see a pic. I liked of that idiot! But this one shows him for what he is.
As for the lightweight 'bit of stuff' he's attached to himself for a speechwriter... well, birds of a feather.

Some great ideas on here for trying to get us back on track. Thanks all.

Speeches are not written by civil servants. Speechwriters, mostly, are political appointments - hired as SPADs.

I tend to agree. The problem is though is that it is very difficult to judge when on the receiving end. A genuine error is indistinguishable from a deliberate error - the differences are internal: the state of knowledge and the motive. If the man thinks he is telling the truth, he isn't lying, even if what he says is untrue.

It might possibly be more productive to look at the deeds in terms similar to the way manslaughter is looked at. Someone can be guilty of manslaughter even though there was no deliberate attempt to kill someone. Simply, they failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the death. Thus, when you have the likes of Cameron failing to take the necessary steps to prevent a falsity being perpetrated, one has a culpable falsehood.

Interestingly, in Roman Catholic doctrine, that is a lie. The catechism defines the lie as "act, default, or sufferance". If by failing to act, a falsehood is perpetrated, a sin is committed.

Edited by user 02 February 2013 09:37:37(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified