David Cameron : the luckiest politician ever ?

[Alan Ladd 10]

It isnt about luck its about events. Churchill would never have been PM without Hitler. Thatcher would have been kicked out after her first term if not for the Argies invading the Falklands. Blair would never have had such an overwhelming victory in 1997 if Heseltine had been PM instead of John Major. Labour would not have stayed in poer if the Tories had not split over Europe.

 

Events happen, its opportunism not luck when someone takes advantage.

[Justin Smith 10]

All politicians are inherently lucky people by virtue of getting being able to climb the ladder to the top, but that does not mean they did nothing to get there. Tony Blair would never have been Labour Leader if John Smith had not died suddenly for example, but he needed to do a lot of work to make Labour electable again. Cameron has had a similar struggle to turn the Torys into an electable party once more.

 

The assumption that Cameron has become PM purely by luck and not due to his own merits is absurd. This just sounds like more sour grapes from the left who know, with the election of Corbyn, they will be out of power for a very long time.

 

This thread seems to be yet another Labour Fanclub circlejerk?

 

I take it you haven`t read it then ?

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:50 ----------

 

So how is someone from a wealthy background going to make it to your satisfaction? Cameron turned round the Conservative Party. It looks like his legacy will keep them in power for a long time.

 

This is what happens when you pick the wrong leader. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-appoint-ken-livingstone-as-labour-peer-in-bid-to-get-hard-left-ally-into-the-shadow-a6771261.html

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

But it isn`t his legacy which will keep them in power for a long time, it`s the lucky breaks I mentioned in the thread opener. Most significantly, Labour electing unelectable leaders.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:52 ----------

 

So you don't like the truth eh?

 

There was no luck on Cameron's behalf getting to the top of his party and rescuing the country from Labour. It was the Tory Party who were lucky to pick the right leader. Do you think Corbyn is lucky to be leading his party? Are they lucky to have someone so cabable of unifying the differing factions of the political party at Westminster?

 

Er no, answered above. I`m sure that if the other Milliband had been elected Labour leader Cameron wouldn`t be PM now. And that was nothing to do with Cameron, it was just his good luck.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:56 ----------

 

It isnt about luck its about events. Churchill would never have been PM without Hitler. Thatcher would have been kicked out after her first term if not for the Argies invading the Falklands. Blair would never have had such an overwhelming victory in 1997 if Heseltine had been PM instead of John Major. Labour would not have stayed in poer if the Tories had not split over Europe.

 

Events happen, its opportunism not luck when someone takes advantage.

 

Churchill was a very flawed genius of a leader, if Hitler hadn`t existed and he hadn`t become PM why would that have been lucky ? And for whom ?

Thatcher and the Falklands was about her decisions, it wasn`t about luck, but wasn`t the 1983 election against Michael Foot and "the longest suicide note in history" ? I suspect she may have won that anyway, just not by such a margin.

[Berberis 10]

Maybe I'll take that one back! But the rest of the post? Do you not agree?

 

If you replaced "Luck" with "Privilege" I would totally agree. However I don't think just because someone has Privilege/Money, that makes them a bad person for the job of PM.

[sgtkate 10]

If you replaced "Luck" with "Privilege" I would totally agree. However I don't think just because someone has Privilege/Money, that makes them a bad person for the job of PM.

 

I never said they did. Being from a poor background would be just as hard to relate to businesses who have large sums of money. A 'perfect' MP would be one who fully understands and empathises with the needs of both sides, but few of those seem to exist.

[foxy lady 10]

But it isn`t his legacy which will keep them in power for a long time, it`s the lucky breaks I mentioned in the thread opener. Most significantly, Labour electing unelectable leaders.

 

That's not luck. That's stupidity by the Labour Party. Where does luck come into it?

 

 

Er no, answered above. I`m sure that if the other Milliband had been elected Labour leader Cameron wouldn`t be PM now. And that was nothing to do with Cameron, it was just his good luck.

 

 

That's not luck. That's stupidity by the Labour Party. Where does luck come into it?

 

 

[/color]

I never said they did. Being from a poor background would be just as hard to relate to businesses who have large sums of money. A 'perfect' MP would be one who fully understands and empathises with the needs of both sides, but few of those seem to exist.

 

I get you. So Corbyn was lucky to be born into a family of commies. Because of that he was able to get the sympathy vote and take control of the Labour Party.

Edited December 14, 2015 by foxy lady

[Anna B 1,417]

Cameron is getting quite a battering in the Daily Mail (- yes, I know, The Daily Mail....) for being weak and going back on his promises: to do something about EU migrants welfare benefits; shelving the 'responsibility deal' which would see food manufacturers having to take responsibility for the excessive sugar and salt in their products; abandoning new rules to curb the greedy Bankers, and failing to reach a decision over the new runway for Heathrow.

 

He gives in to lobbyists and seems to be more concerned with soundbites than actually doing something. Been saying it for years...

[sgtkate 10]

That's not luck. That's stupidity by the Labour Party. Where does luck come into it?

 

 

 

 

That's not luck. That's stupidity by the Labour Party. Where does luck come into it?

 

 

[/color]

 

I get you. So Corbyn was lucky to be born into a family of commies. Because of that he was able to get the sympathy vote and take control of the Labour Party.

 

What exactly is your problem? Why do you spend all your time having a pop rather than adding something to this debate? Today is becoming a growing ignore list day.

[foxy lady 10]

What exactly is your problem? Why do you spend all your time having a pop rather than adding something to this debate? Today is becoming a growing ignore list day.

 

What's up chuck. Don't you like that truth either?

 

Add anyone who disagrees with you to your ignore list and it will all go away.:hihi::hihi:

 

 

 

Do you think Labour did well picking Miliband and Corbyn as leaders? Were they lucky?

[spilldig 190]

Do you know what a heinous war crime is ? If Blair has "committed a heinous war crime" what would you call the crimes of the defendants at Nuremburg ? Calling what Blair did a war crime is demeaning to those people who really have suffered from a war crime. Going to war on poor quality evidence (most of that caused by Saddam being obstructive) to get rid of an evil dictator is not a war crime, not in any meaningful sense. I take it you were quite happy to see loads of Iraqis murdered and tortured, that, I take it, wasn`t a war crime ?

 

I don`t agree with you anyway, I don`t really care if it was just as much about oil or the Bush family unfinished business, I`m pleased we got rid of Saddam he was an evil SOAB.

 

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 10:56 ----------

 

 

That`s just a cop out. Saying we can`t put all the world`s wrongs right so we shouldn`t even try is just so anathema to me. You might as well say we can`t catch all criminals so let`s not bother trying to catch any. What`s the difference ?

 

I think we would have enough on just bothering with the criminals in this country.

[Alan Ladd 10]

I take it you haven`t read it then ?

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:50 ----------

 

 

But it isn`t his legacy which will keep them in power for a long time, it`s the lucky breaks I mentioned in the thread opener. Most significantly, Labour electing unelectable leaders.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:52 ----------

 

 

Er no, answered above. I`m sure that if the other Milliband had been elected Labour leader Cameron wouldn`t be PM now. And that was nothing to do with Cameron, it was just his good luck.

 

---------- Post added 14-12-2015 at 13:56 ----------

 

 

Churchill was a very flawed genius of a leader, if Hitler hadn`t existed and he hadn`t become PM why would that have been lucky ? And for whom ?

Thatcher and the Falklands was about her decisions, it wasn`t about luck, but wasn`t the 1983 election against Michael Foot and "the longest suicide note in history" ? I suspect she may have won that anyway, just not by such a margin.

 

Well we would have avoided the 2nd world war (in answer to your first question).

 

Thatcher reacted to circumstances beyond her control in that the Argentinians invaded, that was not luck it was reaction. The "longest suicide note in history" certainly did help her win in 1983, but you underestimate how much she was detested before these two events.

[Vague_Boy 10]

Calling what Blair did a war crime is demeaning to those people who really have suffered from a war crime.

149,000 dead Iraqi civilians not enough for you?

 

That's not counting the wounded and orphaned.

 

Those senior party members on trial at Nuremberg never personally gassed anyone, or carried out the Commissar Order or raped and murdered civilians.

 

But they were held responsible.

 

In fact, if you want to bring up the Nuremberg trials you may be interested in two of the war crimes leveled against senior Nazi officials.

 

1. Participation in a common plan of conspiracy for the accomplishment of crimes against peace

 

2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

 

LINK

 

"Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression" Sound familiar? Perhaps not. However I have neither the time nor patience to join the dots for you.

 

Sit down and have a good think about it (stop if it starts to hurt).

[Eric Arthur 10]

First you'll need to define what crime he's committed and even the ICC can't do that.

 

Sit down and read this.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-hall/why-tony-blair-will-not-b_b_442989.html

 

They ended up with a fudge where states can opt out. No functioning state is going to allow a former PM or president to be charged.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Eric Arthur