Cameron, David: A Profile

The (unauthorised) biography of David Cameron by Francis Elliot and James Hanning reveals some interesting information. A Channel Four film by Peter Hitchens also provides some detail. As expected, what David Cameron says should be monitored very carefully. He may have said it, but it was possibly penned by a speechwriter (ghostwriter).

The 'ordinary man, call me Dave' being portrayed by the Cameron public relations camp seems to be somewhat distorted and the leopard doesn't change its spots even using the device of a paradigm shift. Viewing the leopard from a different angle creates the illusion that something has changed, but it's nothing more than just the same leopard seen from a different angle.

Changing attitudes can be exemplified: David Cameron had described wind farms (2005) as giant bird-blenders. A wind turbine was placed prominantly, but incorrectly positioned, on the roof of his house (2006). The structure had been attached to the outside wall of the house on the other side of the chimney, about a metre away from the intended location. A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association said: "If a commercial wind farm was even a metre off it could lead to being sued in the High Court.

This is the current stance on ID cards and so...

...watch this space.

In 2005 he called for "a massive road-building programme":

• "The CBI itself has estimated that the costs to employers of transport congestion are around £20 billion a year. Britain now needs a concerted programme of road building, accompanied by the introduction of advanced traffic management methods, including new solutions for road charging based on usage and the time of day."
  

Presumably, " time of day" means the heaviest 'congestion' during business hours and will attract the highest charge. The wringing hands justification probably being that it is a "necessity" in order to reduce congestion. The truth would be to maximise revenue, of course. Business traffic during the working day can never be reduced unless...

...we all go on holiday forever.

It is increasingly becoming a 'Them' and 'Us' Britain: 'Them' being the government and 'rich' friends and 'Us' the citizens of UQ (aka UK) Ltd who provide for 'Them'.

I await the day that the British government is taken to court for its neglect of duty of looking after the interests of those citizens who elected it. Championing the cause of Human Rights on behalf of The British nation would be, of course,
Cherie Blair QC.

In April 2006 Cameron travelled across the Arctic, pulled by huskies to view melting glaciers. Exciting stuff: like watching grass grow.

• "This, along with better market incentives for low or zero-carbon fuel sources, will enable us to meet the need for an efficient transport network while tackling the even more important challenge of climate change," so says David Cameron.

Tim Yeo (MP for Suffolk South)

Reference to Cameron's opposition to "homosexuality in schools" and this had been supported by Tony Blair, promising to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (24th May), which deals with outlawing such behaviour. Repealed 18th November, 2003. It is, of course, the Opposition's duty to oppose.

Around three years later this had been spun around into supporting gay marriages.

But can school days influence behaviour or attitudes in later life?

Extreme privilege is not disguised very easily. Being born with a silver (platinum - DA) spoon in your mouth. The claim of a "normal childhood" and "normal university experience" depends on your paradigm shifting viewpoint. "Normal" can be described as being born to a millionaire stockbroker and a debutante, with a bloodline that connects to Elizabeth Windsor. And having a swimming pool, tennis court in the backyard (backacre?).

In 1974 (aged 8), Cameron was starting at Prince Andrew and Prince Edward's prep school. "Normal" ‘run-of-the-mill’ is a prep school with a background that included "eight honourables, four sirs, two captains, two doctors, two majors, two marchionesses, two princesses, one brigadier, one commodore, one earl, one lord, one queen (the Queen as parent of Prince Andrew and Prince Edward) and one viscount. In 1979 (aged 13), Cameron entered Eton. In 1987 (aged 21), Oxford. In December 2005 (aged 39) elected Leader of the Party.

All fairly ‘normal’.

He denies he is rich since he doesn't "own a private jet" and he describes the richest 6% of the British who have to pay inheritance tax (a rapidly increasing figure) as "ordinary tax-payers". That statement is becoming truer by the day. Mind you, his first flatmate was, apparently, one Peter Czernin, heir to a £1.5bn fortune.

This is "normal".

Such wealth can cause total blindness to others' perception of "normal". The "rich kid-poor kid" divide. Gordon Brown's Education Maintenance Allowances (EMA) gives up to £30 a week to stay on at school for children between 16 and 19 and parents earning £30,810/year household income threshold before tax. (Kids in full-time schooling don’t appear in the unemployed figures - DA). A potential big difference to the future prospects for tens of thousands of "poor kids". But according to Cameron's frontbench the EMA (now [04.09.2011] defunct, but see Department for Education)  is "a bribe":

• "The problem with society today is that no one will do anything for free, they always expect something in return. Now the government has resorted to paying people to stay at school and in Scotland children are given Xboxes if they buy healthy options at lunchtime. This bribery sets an impression in childrens minds [sic] that doing the right thing isn't expected, it's unexpected hence the rewards."

The European Social Chapter gives part-time workers, the right to parental leave, regular holidays and other basic protections. One of Cameron's "top priorities" is to pull out:

• David Cameron today pledged that a future Conservative government would pull out of the EU social chapter as a "top priority".

The Tory leader made the commitment in a rare Brussels speech, to his new Eurosceptic umbrella group, the "Movement for European Reform".

Cameron claims to enhance social mobility and the chances of "poor kids" getting on. But consider this:

• In the summer of 1988, the deputy director of the revered Conservative Research Department (CRD) received a mysterious phonecall. "The voice announced that it was calling from Buckingham Palace," write Elliott and Hanning. The anonymous caller went on: "I understand that you are to see David Cameron ... I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."

A few weeks later, Cameron started work at the CRD and began a swift ascent of the party bureaucracy.

Another description:

• He got his first job in business because his father was the CEO's stockbroker. His first paid job because an uncle (the Queen's equerry) put pressure on in the right place: he wanted to know why he had been turned down. We don't know why he was "turned down" (how dare you! - DA), but unsuitability doesn't matter in "normal" backgrounds.
  

Tax cuts:

George Osborne (what they want you to know)
heir to a baronetcy (what they'd prefer you didn't)

Baronetcy

There is a need for "flatter taxes". According to Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, the creators of the concept of flat taxes:

• "it is an obvious mathematical law that [flatter] taxes on the successful will have to be made up for by higher taxes on average people."Cameron has also pledged to reintroduce the Married Couple's Allowance.

Cameron's method of describing Gordon Brown's adjustments and it seems reasonable since these are in order since 1997:

• He abolished Family Credit
• He introduced the Working Families' Tax Credit
• He introduced the Disabled Person's Tax Credit
• He introduced the Childcare Tax Credit
• He introduced the Employment Credit
• He abolished the Married Couple's Allowance
• He introduced the Children's Tax Credit
• He introduced the baby tax credit (sic)
  
• He abolished the Working Families' Tax Credit
• He abolished the Disabled Person's Tax Credit
• He abolished the Children's Tax Credit
• He abolished the baby tax credit (sic)
  
• He introduced the Child Tax Credit
• He abolished the Employment Credit

(Introduced) - (Abolished) = Zero

This provides a good example of:

"the best place to hide a tree is in a forest"

Put another more enlightening way would be the introduction of, and the subsequent removal of, various credits. The only credits that have been introduced AND remain:

Introduced: Childcare Tax Credit
Introduced: Child Tax Credit
Introduced: Working Tax Credit

ADDITIONALLY Abolished:
Family Credit
Married Couple's Allowance

Baby Tax credit: Introduced
Baby Tax Credit: Abolished

Children's Tax Credit: Introduced
Children's Tax Credit: Abolished

Disabled Person's Tax Credit: Introduced
Disabled Person's Tax Credit: Abolished

Employment Credit: Introduced
Employment Credit: Abolished

Working Families' Tax Credit: Introduced
Working Families' Tax Credit: Abolished

Determine the significant differences between:

• Childcare Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and Children's Tax Credit (Abolished)

Child Tax Credit is a replacement of Children's Tax Credit
(started: 6th April 2001 and ended: 5th April 2003
ie Introduced and Abolished 2 years later)

• Working Tax Credit and Working Families' Tax Credit (Abolished)

And note the position of the apostrophe:

• Working Families' Tax Credit could be a generic term for the tax credit applying to more than one family, but why not Working Family's Tax Credit.

A pedantic point perhaps, but the legal definition could be significant. This is academic anyway since it's been abolished, but it's worth noting.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer probably takes a few minutes looking after the interests of the majority ('Us'). The rest of the year is consumed with providing for 'Them'.

"What kind of incentives does this system create?" Cameron asks.

zzzzz...

It should, of course, be mentioned that the wealthy generally employ a tax accountant who looks after the every day tax changes that might be applicable. I would suggest that the tax credits that Gordon Brown "tinkers" with aren't of much interest to those with the "real money". All of us 'Us' can spend our time doing exciting things like sorting out our complicated lives. It isn't really that complicated, but the forms to complete suggest it's complicated.

• I remember completing my first tax return "book". It took up about 2hrs of a Sunday afternoon. It was incredibly non-sensical, and so very confusing, quite often a calculation involving multiplying by zero to get zero. The status sheet I eventually received from the Inland Revenue (as it was called then) was a simple calculation that probably took 2 minutes to prepare and work out.
  

There are only three tax credits that remain:

Childcare Tax Credit
Child Tax Credit
Working Tax Credit

Not difficult so you could be misled into imagining. It could be simple, but unless you really need to examine the verbose disaster do something else. These are classic examples of how not to write, unless it is deliberate and calculated intention to confuse. It is very easy to give something away and then take it back. All this will apparently reduce any chances of getting what you're owed and so leads to the disgrace of the state claiming back from low income families who have unwittingly been overpaid.

Is that 'unwittingly' been overpaid by incompetent government or the 'unwittingly' accepted over-payment by those who assume government cannot be wrong?

Apparently, only 56% of people entitled to the Working Tax Credit actually receive it (that is surprisingly, to me, an incedibly high %age). This could be because of the confusion introduced using similar names for credits. Introduction then subsequent removal of a tax credit over time has led people to believe no credit remains. Introduction of a similar sounding name is easily overlooked by:

"...people face a hugely complicated system that soaks up their time"

According to Cameron:

• "...even with all the difficulties, we should acknowledge the value of in-work benefits. Conservatives first introduced tax credits to Britain, and we will keep them."
  

Along with the cut in inheritance tax proposed these two items account for some tinkering with the redistribution of wealth. The rich will benefit much, much more than the poor or "middle-rich".

This is a perfect example of the student (rich and so by definition incredibly bright) instructing the less intelligent teacher how to 'get it right'. Wealth is often perceived as demonstrating a higher understanding of things that "ordinary" people cannot comprehend.

It's a predictably patronising and hugely arrogant stance. The background of public school and Oxford can lead to this rather odd belief:

The "I'm better than you" syndrome.

Paradoxical scientist
Truth