Cameron, David: A Game Of Double Standards

It is alleged that (ordinary man, call me Dave) Cameron has rented out his own (£2.7m) property while taking advantage of the 'grace and favour' address of No 10 Downing Street. It's probable that a mortgage covers the Notting Hill property and as such the interest will be paid by the taxpayer as an MP expense. The rules about claiming rent and mortgage interest are not discussed here, but see section 2.1.3.1 Rent or mortgage interest (page 18 of The Green Book). This, in principle, could get tricky (for the electorate to understand): how does a (coalition) prime minister register a second home (in Notting Hill, London) even though the primary home is technically owned by the state? Certainly, as a 'grace and favour' (free rental) address, it does not belong to the incumbent/s. Given a (temporary) property to call home for free with all expenses/living costs/modifications/extensions/refurbishment/restyling paid for by the state (taxpayer) while still receiving income from the technically primary home, has an immorality attached to it.

Cameron pledge (April 2009)

As an electorate paying for all of this, is it being heavily short-changed for the provision expected for it? Everyone else appears to suffer the consequences except those fire-walled/ring-fenced at the top of the pecking order. Politicians first, everyone else second. This, of course, excludes anything 'royal', however minor or otherwise.

Nothing has changed: governments may alter the labels, but the same game-set-match is still played right up until the (very) bitter end. The game commences after the election is concluded (day one), but the set-match part is a done deal by the end of the first 100 days of power (or earlier). The ridiculous claim that everything is done to serve the people is still paraded in public whereas the clear message to the public is: we're in for 5 years or so and now you can't get rid of us, whatever we do or don't do. Politics will always have a stench attached to it as a concept.

Hopefully, there should be more (The Daily Telegraph) about this in the days/weeks to come.

Where Clegg lives is of little consequence. Spain, maybe?

The background of Cameron is one that involved public relations (after fast track and complete education through the established-establishment route) and as such is an appalling example of how it just doesn't work. For all the rhetoric, Cameron has already failed at an early hurdle. Only 1700+ days to go (assuming a 5-year stretch only). Once wealth is in the blood it seems just too hard (if not impossible) to let any financially advantageous situation escape. Cameron is a (very) wealthy individual, yet the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude clearly transcends everything and protecting their own (maybe: DA). While the British population is collectively being exhorted to accept massive cuts, Cameron fails to heed his own advice. Public relations should clearly indicate that to encourage the target to accept this change, the message must be backed up by actions.

It is, but the direction is diametrically

opposite to where it should be going

It would have been a relatively small amount to sacrifice in order to show sincerity and encourage public support. But like the monkey with a closed fist inside the sweet jar that won't let go of the goods... too late now and if this is public relations training then obviously it will constantly fail. Always look to see who benefits. Answers regarding true beliefs and standards are usually forthcoming.

It's quite incredible, but not at all unexpected. The first 100 days of power are over and now events are moving in the way they are expected to go and Cameron has created a massive rod for his own back and at the same time distanced any public support for the difficult times ahead. That is difficult for everybody else except Cameron and the already extremely wealthy. This is British (establishment) politics and the rich-poor society. Instead of a true leader showing the way, this one simply takes advantage of a trivial amount in Cameron monetary terms (£72,000) and torpedoes any (if genuine, but now highly suspect) real conviction for change.

Predictably, it also seems that Clegg is showing his real motivation of power lust. The question about motives must be asked. Is it a Clegg personal ambition for power or a real desire to lift the (Lib Dem) party to greater heights that enables Clegg to apparently sacrifice the party ideals? The Lib Dem MPs considering deserting the Coalition Ship for the Labour camp is the clearest sign yet of failure. It's a disaster, yet the Cameron and Clegg behaviour clearly indicates where true aspiration may be found. Whenever a compromise is accepted then some will win more than others potentially lose. It is the nature of compromise. Giving up some ground to gain ground. The balance between winning and losing may become very skewed and totally unacceptable. The compromise would ideally satisfy all parties involved, but actually causes more resentment as being forced to give up something precious becomes repugnant. Compromise is inevitable: it is the nature of a coalition.

But this is politics where the very quaint (and unreal or naïve) concept of fairness cannot exist.

Statesmen these people are not and it seems never will be whatever the rehearsed speech (author unknown). The real change must start with these people themselves. It just never does. It's all backward 'progress' and should offer no surprises.