Apparently, the ex-PM is thinking of returning to politics. Labour MPs don't seem to agree with him, unsurprisingly. Given how he dropped the country having said he would steer it through Brexit, can he be trusted now? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/02/david-camerons-rumoured-return-to-politics-dismays-labour-mps

Why are people jumping up and down about what he said.. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/27/david-cameron-bunch-of-migrants-jibe-pmqs-callous-dehumanising

READ MORE HERE: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/22/david-cameron-calls-for-action-on-spurious-claims-against-iraq-veterans

Already approaching 150,000 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104471 The one for Hunt is approaching 1/4 million https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104334 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/petition-calling-for-no-confidence-vote-in-david-cameron-passes-100000-threshold-and-could-be-a6724791.html

I'm surprised that I didn't find a several hundred comments deep thread about our dear leader today. It seems that one snub too far has led an old uni 'friend' to spill the beans on DC's actions whilst at uni and it's fair to say that the bacon has hit the fan. Is this something that can be spun into obscurity or has Mr Cameron just watched his credibility and mandate walk out of the door?

"The national interest must come ahead of human rights" David Cameron. But is not human rights central to our national interest? Every year the British Government sell £4 billion in arms to one of the worlds worst human rights abusers, Saudi Arabia. Currently a 17 year old Saudi male faces public beheading followed by crucifixion because he has been found guilty of being involved in sedition in taking part in a human rights riot. David Cameron's Government cut a secret deal with Saudi Arabia last month to be elected onto the United Nations 'Human Rights Council'. Saudi Arabia publicly beheaded over 60 of it's own citizens last year year, flogging, up to 1000 lashes at a time, is common. Woman under penalty of imprisonment are not allowed to drive. The justification for David Cameron in turning a blind eye to these and other human rights abuses is 'We share valuable intelligence with them of people who want to harm both regimes'. As well as Saudi Arabia Britain has just completed trade deals with one of the most prolific Human Rights Abusers. That being China. An example wil be live organ donation/ harvesting from their prison population. ( Falun Gong) The response from the Chinese Government states that the prisoners agree to it. And the UK Government accepts that response What can be more harmful to our reputation on human rights when we ignore them in the name of national security that ultimately undermines our commitment to uphold human rights? No wonder the Tories are so keen to try and dump the European Convention of Human Rights as they have no respect of them. The irony in all of this is that it was a Tory who was instrumental in conceiving the ECHR That being Winston Churchil

Well, the revelation that British airman are active with American forces bombing targets in Syria despite the UK commons vote against this, and Cameron saying 'he gets it' is a real eye opener for me. My recent softening of opposition to the Tory 'ethos' and suitability to govern a democracy has taken a major nose dive down below where it was before. Whats your views? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/17/mps-demand-commons-statement-over-uk-military-action-in-syria That UK forces are embedded with other troops is simply not an excuse. Many forces have other countries forces embedded, but they ARE NOT sent on duties which there own Governments have NOT APPROVED.

Double thread.. David Cameron had called for Sepp Blatter to resign, but if SB is re-elected, will DC accept the decision, and if not will he himself resign as it would appear he does not accept the democratic process..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31464897 I like most always knew that the man was a fool but this as well as showing everyone just how much of an idiot he is, this is asking for trouble, as forcing anyone to have treatment would surely infringe their human rights, as would be denying them benefits on those grounds, not to mention he has clearly forgotten that our broken NHS cannot cope as things are now without adding more pressure, He and his cronies really have no clue, They have obviously lost some of the grey matter they where born with ,(assuming that they had sufficient to begin life with)

Try this little quiz and see what you score: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/who-said-it-david-cameron-or-an-eightyearold--ekct2q8Evx

Not sure if this is the right place to put it but.... http://legalaidandme.proboards.com/thread/8301/audacity-cameron-hypocrisy-help-buy

Anyone seen this? epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/33327

I am disgusted David Cameron is to be on the comic relief red nose day show....after causing hardship and homelessness to so many families ....have tweeted along with others in a mass 8pm tweet to express my disgust. I only just heard about this.

Lets just document the relevant bits of PMQ's yesterday: Derek Twigg: More than 2,500 households in Halton are affected by the bedroom tax. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation said this week: “The bedroom tax is ill-thought and unfair as thousands of disabled people will have no choice but to cut back further on food and other expenses in order to stay in their…homes.” Will the Prime Minister now drop this callous policy? The Prime Minister: Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a tax. Let me explain to the Labour party that a tax is when someone earns some money and the Government take some of that money away from them—that is a tax. Only Labour could call a benefit reform a tax increase. Let me be clear to the hon. Gentleman: pensioners are exempt, people with severely disabled children are exempt and people who need round-the-clock care are exempt. Those categories of people are all exempt, but there is a basic issue of fairness. How can it be fair that people on housing benefit in private rented accommodation do not get a spare room subsidy, whereas people in social housing do? That is not fair and we are putting that right. Edward Miliband: I notice that the Prime Minister has a new tactic, which is to ask me questions during our exchanges. All I can say is that it is good to see him preparing for opposition. The Home Secretary shakes her head. I am looking forward to facing her when they are in opposition. Let me ask the Prime Minister another question, because he did not answer the one about the bedroom tax. He talked earlier about the hardship fund. Let us look at the facts about the fund. Some £25 million of it has been allocated specifically to help disabled people hit by the bedroom tax, but how much do his own figures show he is taking from disabled people? The answer is £306 million. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people hit by his bedroom tax will get no help from his hardship fund? The Prime Minister: First, the whole House, and the whole country, will note that there was no apology for the mess left by the Labour party. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that his figures on the spare room subsidy are completely wrong. The last thing he said before sitting down was that we are cutting the money going to disabled people. That is simply not the case. In 2009-10 the money spent on disability living allowance was £12.4 billion. By 2015 it will be £13.3 billion. There is no cut in the money going to the disabled. This Government are protecting that money, in spite of the mess he made. On the spare room subsidy, pensioners are exempt, people with disabled children are exempt and anyone who needs help around the clock is also exempt. As he is fond of reading out letters from constituents, let me read from one I got on this issue from a pensioner: “We are expected to find up to an extra £60 per month out of our pensions for having extra bedrooms.” Of course, they are not, because they are pensioners and are therefore exempt, but they have been terrified by the right hon. Gentleman’s completely irresponsible campaign. Edward Miliband: I think what that means is that there was nothing in the briefing on the question I asked. Let me just make it clear, because the Prime Minister obviously does not understand it. His own impact assessment—he might like to read it, by the way—states that 420,000 disabled people will be hit by the bedroom tax by an average of £700 a year. That is £306 million. The money in the hardship fund allocated to disabled people is just £25 million. It is basic arithmetic. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people will get no help from the hardship fund and will be hit by his bedroom tax? The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, because anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy—[interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Members must not shout at the tops of their voices at the Prime Minister. The question has been asked, it was heard and the answer must be heard. The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman completely ignores the fact that anyone with severely disabled children and anyone who needs round-the-clock care are exempt from the spare room subsidy. The point he has to address is this: we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. That is up by 50% over the past decade. That is £1,000 every year for every basic rate taxpayer. We say that it is time to reform housing benefit, and it is only fair that we treat people in social housing in the same way as we treat those in private rented housing. He has no proposals to do anything about welfare, other than to put up borrowing. Edward Miliband: I think that we have established today that the Prime Minister does not understand his own policy. It is shameful to do this and not even understand the impact on the people of this country. He pulls out all the stops to defend the bankers and their bonuses, but he has nothing to say to the disabled people being hit by his bedroom tax. He stands up for the wrong people. It is no wonder his Back Benchers and the country think he is totally out of touch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Facts There is no exemption for disabled children who require their own room in the HB regulations. In fact the DWP are currently taking a case to Supreme Court to argue against disabled children being entitled to their own room. There is similarly no exemption for people requiring around the clock care in the HB regulations. You may be entitled to an extra room if you have a non-resident overnight carer, however this is not an exemption. Plus does not apply if your partner is your carer. If the Prime Minister (with all his special advisers) does not understand how the Bedroom Tax will work, god help the rest of us

Here http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/33327

But he rules out Mansion Tax http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19864056

Its been in the news all day-he did not know what Magna Carta actually means. He has obviously never had any letters from RLP............

I cannot believe my eyes,samcam,will and kate,the queen opening the Paralympics and that dumb **** borris after all they have done to kill Remploy and send us all into a life of destitution,i hate these people,may god not forgive them...... And i heard ATOS are a sponsor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9410053/Cameron-austerity-will-last-until-2020.html I can't see it happen as the currency will be tory testicles long before then! I'm going home at the weekend to a country hit by the same crisis as the UK, but currently managing to scrape along on its near 8% growth. I guess the secret is in fixing what needs to be fixed rather than blaming it on others, not realising that you can't fix a problem when you are lying about its cause. If the UK is going to be printing money until 2020, and the euro finds a solution, then being euro based and borrowing sterling could mean paying back less than was borrowed to clear a shorter term sterling loan.

http://www.itn.co.uk/home/47362/Cameron+leaves+daughter,+8,+in+a+pub

Plans for dramatic cuts in government subsidies for onshore windfarms are being drawn up by the Treasury in a move that seriously undermines David Cameron's claim to be running "the greenest government ever". The Observer has learned that George Osborne is demanding cuts of 25% in subsidies, a reduction the industry says would "kill dead" the development of wind power sites. The Treasury's stance has put the chancellor at loggerheads with the Liberal Democrat energy secretary Ed Davey, whose party strongly supports more renewable energy. Osborne, whose reputation has taken a dive following his widely criticised budget and a subsequent string of U-turns, has been under heavy pressure from Tory MPs to reduce the billions spent on green commitments. In February more than 100 Conservative backbenchers wrote to the prime minister demanding cuts to the £400m a year public subsidies for windfarms which they see as evidence of too much Lib Dem influence over coalition policy. A prominent opponent of onshore wind power is the Duke of Edinburgh, who is said to have described turbines as useless and to believe they will never work. Tim Yeo, Tory chairman of the all-party energy and climate change select committee, said the Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), which is headed by Davey, were following different agendas. "This is an example of where Decc's attempts to stimulate renewable energy are being hampered by Treasury intervention," he said. "The way to deal with this – and realise the savings the Treasury wants to achieve – is to have more onshore renewable energy, which requires lower levels of subsidy, and less offshore, which requires more. We need to change the balance." Critics accuse the chancellor of pandering to Conservative backbenchers who do not want turbines built in their constituencies, believing they will damage their prospects of re-election. They argue the cuts make no economic sense, because alternatives, such as siting the turbines in the sea, would be much more expensive. "This is a reckless act of political opportunism by a chancellor keen to boost his popularity among his backbench MPs," said Juliet Davenport, chief executive of renewable electricity supplier Good Energy. However, Chris Heaton-Harris, a Tory MP who led the backbench campaign for cuts, said he was greatly encouraged. "I want to see a dramatic cut," he said, arguing that onshore wind power was expensive compared with gas and that it would drive up fuel poverty. However, proponents of wind power point to rocketing gas prices and the air pollution and climate change benefits of renewable energy technologies, of which onshore wind is the cheapest. "It is crackers to kill dead the deployment of the cheapest renewable technology if you genuinely are worried about the cost," said Gordon Edge, policy director at industry group RenewableUK. A source at one of Britain's big six energy companies said: "It's perverse – you get less renewable energy bang for your buck. It only makes sense if you don't like windfarms in your constituency." After becoming party leader in 2005, Cameron adopted the slogan "vote blue, go green" as he made the environment the centrepiece of his drive to modernise the Conservatives. Shortly after entering a coalition with the Lib Dems he promised to lead the "greenest government ever", adding that "nowhere are long-term decisions more needed than actually in the fields of energy and climate change and environment". But Osborne has made clear that he does not believe the green agenda can remain a priority when cash is short and the deficit needs to be reduced. With his own political fortunes on the slide, Tory MPs believe he can be persuaded to back their anti-green campaigns. This year the government angered green campaigners by announcing plans to slash subsidies for solar energy, a move the industry roundly condemned. There are more than 3,000 wind turbines in the UK countryside and the debate has become more polarised in the past two years, with a tripling of local opposition. However, a large majority of the public remains in favour of wind power, even if it is placed within a few miles of their home. The Treasury declined to comment, but a spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which runs the subsidy scheme, said: "It is vital that our support for renewable electricity both encourages investment and represents value for money for consumers. The government will publish the new support levels shortly." According to sources, the decision has been delayed by the Treasury "crawling all over" the new rates put forward by Davey. Decc's initial proposal in October, delayed by wrangling, was for a 10% cut in the support for onshore wind under a scheme called the "renewables obligation". But the Observer was told the Treasury has demanded a 25% cut. "The delay means the whole of the UK's renewables investment portfolio is being jeopardised by Osborne's pandering to Tory backbenchers," said a source. "It is total prioritisation of politics over the economic interests of the country." Davenport said: "The 10% proposal was the product of independently commissioned analysis by Decc. If the Treasury swoops in at the last minute and shortcuts that process, the credibility of the government's renewables policy will be in tatters, along with the prime minister's claim to be the greenest government ever. Of course, some might argue that is precisely what the chancellor wants to achieve." The setting of subsidy levels is a negotiation between industry and government, according to Michael Liebrich, chief executive of analysts Bloomberg New Energy Finance, who made an influential presentation to David Cameron and the world's leading energy ministers in May. "If you cut too fast, you damage the industry and the supply chain, but if you go too slow, you create subsidy junkies," he said. Liebrich's presentation showed the global average cost of onshore wind was falling, but he said using that to justify cuts in the UK was wrong: "Just because the best windfarms in the world are competitive [with gas] does not mean the average ones are yet." He added that large scales, fast planning and good grid connections made US windfarms much cheaper than those in the UK. There are 320 onshore windfarms in UK, a third of them in England. Many more are awaiting construction or planning permission. With thanks to the Guardian.