How much do you think Cisco's paying erstwhile Brit PM David Cameron? Fearless scarperer-in-chief David Cameron is all set to dispense nuggets of Brexit wisdom to Cisco's October CIO conference – making us wonder how much he's earning for the stunt. The former prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is billed on Switchzilla's CIO Exchange conference website as giving the keynote …
...apart from, you know, running a hugely incompetent Scottish referendum process which came very close to resulting in the fracture of the Union (and still causing problems now), and then having learned nothing from THAT experience, calling another referendum purely to keep his own nut job right wing happy, then running quite possibly the most incompetent political campaign in living memory before quitting so quickly after the result that he left a vacuum so profound you could hear the popping sound from space as he made a run for it.
But apart form that....
.apart from, you know, running a hugely incompetent Scottish referendum
You forgot initiating the North African Clusterfuck by deciding that killing an already defanged Caddaffi is a jolly good PR as well as pouring oil onto the fire of the Syrian Clusterfuck. These are debts which even our grandchildren will be repaying for years to come.
@illuminatus
"calling another referendum purely to keep his own nut job right wing happy".
No, calling it because he was terrified of UKIP's growing support as the only party which was representing the majority of the UK population's views on the EU.
No doubt you think all the 17.4 million leave voters are nut job right wingers - but that's because you're a bigot.
No they're not "nut-jobs" but they are all woefully misinformed about the benefits and costs of the EU seemingly believing every lie from the Daily Mail and friends about the evil monster in Brussels.
They seem to want a return to the 70's, not the real 70's with 3 day weeks and the UK begging from the IMF but a fantasy idealized 70's which never happened.
"No they're not "nut-jobs" but they are all woefully misinformed about the benefits and costs of the EU seemingly believing every lie from the Daily Mail and friends about the evil monster in Brussels."
Or perhaps it is you who are misinformed? You seem to think that it's all fine to be in an organisation where the people who make the laws are not elected by the people, and cannot be removed by them. Sorry mate but voting for lawmakers took a long time and blood to win and I'm not willing to let that go.
"They seem to want a return to the 70's, not the real 70's with 3 day weeks and the UK begging from the IMF but a fantasy idealized 70's which never happened."
Eh? Not sure how you worked that out. But you lot want to go back to the -50's when Caesar made the rules.
"At it's peak it had 2 MPs. Nigel Fromage couldn't even hold on to his own seat.
Majority of the UK population? Growing support? Hardly. They don't even exist as a viable party anymore."
UKIP didn't need to get many, or any, MP's to scare the shit out of Dodgy Dave, perhaps you should read up on how the first past the post voting system works in marginal constituencies.
Majority of the voting population yes - definitely. We had a vote on it or didn't you notice? The rest either didn't know/care and left it to the voters, or are in the minority (like you I assume).
Growing support? Yes absolutely UKIP's support was growing massively in 2015 - hence Cameron pooping his pants and promising a referendum.
Anything else for me to knock down?
"Or perhaps it is you who are misinformed? You seem to think that it's all fine to be in an organisation where the people who make the laws are not elected by the people, and cannot be removed by them"
The EP is an elected body, and the Commission has representatives appointed by the elected governments of the member States. Do you really believe your MP drafts legislation? It's done mostly by civil servants and Ministers. Did you elect the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister?
And governments buy the loyalty of MPs with promises of well paid jobs and the threat of not being supported at the next election.
You have an incredibly naive and childish idea of how the British system works. Which is something I have discovered to be true of every single Leave voter I have ever met.
"The EP is an elected body, and the Commission has representatives appointed by the elected governments of the member States. Do you really believe your MP drafts legislation? It's done mostly by civil servants and Ministers. Did you elect the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister?
And governments buy the loyalty of MPs with promises of well paid jobs and the threat of not being supported at the next election.
You have an incredibly naive and childish idea of how the British system works. Which is something I have discovered to be true of every single Leave voter I have ever met."
Thank you for agreeing with me - the EU lawmakers are the Commission who are appointed by the EP, and they do not have to appoint members of the EP that were elected. Unlike our system where the PM is a duly elected MP.
Now our own system isn't perfect, but the EU system is clearly worse, and with no remote possibility of reform.
"incredibly naive and childish"
What is it with you remainers and having to throw insults about all the time. "Right-wing nutjobs", "misinformed", "Naive and childish". It's almost as if your arguments are not strong enough on their own merits and you need to back them up with insults.
i think that the point is, that in Europe, the council (made up of the prime ministers of member states) set the direction (e.g. "we think that there should be legal protection against this...") the Commission write the laws (e.g. formally defining what "this" is) and then the parliament vote on the proposed law, passing it if they agree and amending if they don't.
In the UK, the government sets the direction, the civil service write the laws and then the government vote on it, passing it if they agree and amending if they don't. Then it goes to the appointed / non-elected second chamber (the lords) to be passed up the line and become law.
You can be pro or anti europe/brexit but to me, there is not a lot of difference between those two systems. i'm not sure why people get so hung up on the role of the commission.
"You can be pro or anti europe/brexit but to me, there is not a lot of difference between those two systems. i'm not sure why people get so hung up on the role of the commission."
We can sack the government and parliament part of the equation, and what the civil service does is the responsibility of the government.
Please don't think leavers are saying that the system we have is wonderful - it's just better than the EU.
not sure i follow your argument...
we can remove european council members in exactly the same way that we remove the PM or chancellor (in fact, this is EXACTLY the same way, as people are only in the council when they are part of the government).
You can also "get rid" or the european parliament by voting out MEPs at the elections... again, very similar to the way that we can change the composition of westminster parliament (different way of adding up the votes, but the gist of it is the same).
Like the civil service, the commission largely exists outside of those two areas.
So again, i'm afraid that I don't really see the difference.
there is not a lot of difference between those two systems.
From the point of the UK there is one huge difference. If we don't like the direction set by the UK governemnt we can change it. We could elect a Monster Raving Loony Party government, or even an extreme nutter like Corbyn, and we'd get a change of direction.
We have no such say over the EU. Even if we returned a UKIP member for every single seat it would not make the slightest difference to the EU.
With only 12 members there was some chance of one country having some say, but with 28 every decision it takes will have to be sufficiently inoffensive that no-one dislikes it. That's a recipe for mediocrity and stagnation. Now, maybe some people will be happy with that, at least until some energetic rival like China, Korea or the US comes along and eats our breakfast, but many of us would like to be able to respond to that challenge as we see fit, and not simply to be patted on the head while Daddy tells us what to do.
You're changing the topic of conversation in an attempt to highlight one issue and by association prove your point, despite the fact that they are not really linked. Your new point is about scale, not the underlying structure.
The original proposal was that there is a democratic deficit in the EU that we do not have in the UK. I do not believe that to be the case, hence my post.
You are now saying that because there are more people in the EU than UK, that your opinion is diluted and that is the source of the problem. That's a different argument. That is about getting along with more people and having to get their agreement.
What you are missing is that this applies at all scales. You might as well argue that it's harder to get stuff done at westminster compared to your local parish council, because of all of those "other" people from the rest of the country. It's a matter of scale.
"Unlike our system where the PM is a duly elected MP.
Now our own system isn't perfect, but the EU system is clearly worse, and with no remote possibility of reform."
You see how you have to stretch like crazy to make your case?
Our PM is elected by the voters of one constituency only. The Conservative Party members - few of whom are elected - get to decide who is PM. I have no say in the matter whatsoever.
So how is the EU system "clearly worse"? You've used an adverb and a comparative neither of which has any factual justification. What you mean is, you think it's worse because you've been told to think it. I doubt you have any real experience of how government works, because if you did you wouldn't be so naive.
Our PM is elected by the voters of one constituency only. The Conservative Party members - few of whom are elected - get to decide who is PM. I have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Couldn't have said it better myself. No amount of buggering about with the electoral system (PR, FPP etc) has any effect on this fact at all. Nor does it change the fact that, whomever gets voted in by their party, the actual bills and changes are proposed, drafted and pushed through to statute by faceless, unelected civil servants who remain across governments - which explains why we keep coming back to this spying and encryption bollocks time and again on top of all the other utter tosh with which we have to live.
The elephant in the room, of course, is I cannot see a less worse system to replace it with unless we elect the MPs and the PM separately and get "none of the above" and write-ins on the ballot, which still doesn't tackle shifting Sir Humphrey from his cushy ministerial secretary role.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Try harder. The PM is selected by the Queen. It's only customary that she asks the leader of the largest party, on the assumption that they have the best chance of forming a government. There is no requirement that it be the leader of that, or any other party. It doesn't even have to be a member of the Commons.
Try harder. The PM is selected by the Queen. It's only customary that she asks the leader of the largest party, on the assumption that they have the best chance of forming a government. There is no requirement that it be the leader of that, or any other party. It doesn't even have to be a member of the Commons.
If she ever exercised that "right" or, indeed, any of the other constitutional "rights" she has as figurehead of state, the government would fall without question. The monarchy is tolerated because a) it intrigues Johnny Foreigner and b) would take too long to untangle from our constitution. Besides, Westminster has been cruising along on "Dieu et Mon Droit" for centuries as the basis for its mandate to govern. Good job it's in Norman French or the electorate might just twig what it means and decide to truly separate church and state.
If she ever exercised that "right" or, indeed, any of the other constitutional "rights" she has as figurehead of state, the government would fall without question.
Really? Didn't happen when Sir Alec Douglas Home (Baron Home of the Hirsel) was Prime Minister from 1963-1964 after MacMillan was taken ill. Granted, Home eventually renounced his peerage & got elected as an MP, but he was a Lord when selected.
Thank you for agreeing with me - the EU lawmakers are the Commission who are appointed by the EP, and they do not have to appoint members of the EP that were elected. Unlike our system where the PM is a duly elected MP.
@Tick
Wrong!! The European Parliament has much less say on Commissioners, and this is at the design of the National Governments, 'taking back control' or keeping it away from the public has been a thing a lot longer than pithy referendum slogans. The current Brexit is little more than rightwing national identity posturing by a strong tory backbench (whether they ostensibly leave and call themselves UKIP or not, they are agitators. We've already had May refuse Parliamentary oversight or discourse on her exit plan on several occassions and try to steamroll her vision, her plan through to whatever ripe or rotten fruiting like she's some ace striker going for goal from the other end of the pitch.
This is the shape of things to come, and this will improve the publics say in the running of the country not one whit.
The procedure for appointing a Commissioner is as follows:
The member state governments agree together on who to designate as the new Commission President.
The Commission President-designate, in discussion with the member state governments, chooses the other 29 Members of the Commission.
The new Parliament then interviews all 30 members and gives its opinion on the entire "college".
If approved, the new Commission can officially start work in the the January following the European Parliamentary elections.
"What is it with you remainers and having to throw insults about all the time. "Right-wing nutjobs", "misinformed", "Naive and childish". It's almost as if your arguments are not strong enough on their own merits and you need to back them up with insults."
This is just it. We don't have arguments, we have facts and every time we tell you brexiteers those facts you come back with ill-informed arguments. It is literally impossible for us to win. We say, look at this truth here and you just say "potato" or some other such utter nonsense and wander off muttering to yourself!
organisation where the people who make the laws are not elected by the people, and cannot be removed by them
The main complaint levied at the EU is the unelected manner of a lot of the decision making.
The European Parliament is limited by the appointed Executive Commission, it's not likely that way by accident or some nefarious plot, this is the decisions of heads of the individual goverment.
All leaving is doing is shifting the lawmaking north to London, but it'll mostly be the same laws except for Human Rights as they need to be curtailed apparently, and you'll still have the same say over the same faces and rosettes every couple of years and you'll vote blue, like your dad did, because the red is for immigrants and dole-scroungers and the country will continue to circle the drain while being sold off and the current MPs retire to France or somewhere nice with a good Health Service.
but they are all woefully misinformed about the benefits and costs of the EU
No, we aren't. Nor do we believe all the propaganda that remainers seem to swallow so gullibly.
seemingly believing every lie from the Daily Mail
Must be 30 years since I read a DM. Don't see it much here in France.
the evil monster in Brussels.
It's not evil, just unnecessary, autocratic, paternalistic, and places its own continued existence above any actual benefit for its so-called citizens.
because, I suppose, you think there are enough horrible British people in France already and you want to make sure that no more of them get in to disturb you, or what?
No, because I plan to leave France when I retire, and I'd like to return to a prosperous and successful UK, despite the best efforts of remainers to ensure that won't happen. We had a successful trading partnership in the EEC, but over my many years in France I see just how much damage the political union of the EU and the Eurozone have done, and the UK needs to leave in a reasonably organized fashion before it all falls apart.
Sadly there is as much chance of that Bloody Stupid Woman in No 10 managing that as there is of the EU actually being successful.
>Sadly there is as much chance of that Bloody Stupid Woman in No 10 managing that as there is of the EU actually being successful.
Has any UK government of the last 40 years been capable of a feat of the magnitude of Brexit and achieving anything other than failure?
Don't get me wrong, May and her cronies have made every mistake in the book and invented a few new ones of their own, and the rampant pleonexia of the tories is particularly unsuited to anything that involves thinking beyond the next backhander.
I don't think that any of our ruling elite *ever* could have managed it either.
then when your retire you can buy, I dunno, a small town in the UK.
Hmm, I like the idea, although there aren't many secret volcanic caverns available for my lair in the UK these days.
Sadly though it won't work. Selling my family house in France might just buy me a small flat in the UK, since I don't live in one of those bits of France where all the Brits are buying up Chateaux and inflating prices.
leave France when I retire, and I'd like to return to a prosperous and successful UK
Well, good luck with that. All the attempts made in the last 2 years to alienate our largest trading partners will kibosh that.
We had a successful trading partnership in the EEC
Because we were a member..
want a return to the 70's, not the real 70's with 3 day weeks and the UK begging from the IMF
..and ransom powercuts, cars that were of somewhat variable quality depending on which day they were made and obvious paedophiles running major BBC programmes..
Oh - and the decade that taste forgot - up until about 1977 anyway.
Those of who were kids in that era really, really don't want to relive it - except maybe the summer of 1976 which appears to have made a comeback this year.
"No, calling it because he was terrified of UKIP's growing support as the only party which was representing the majority of the UK population's views on the EU."
At it's peak it had 2 MPs. Nigel Fromage couldn't even hold on to his own seat.
Majority of the UK population? Growing support? Hardly. They don't even exist as a viable party anymore.
>> "No, calling it because he was terrified of UKIP's growing support as the only party which was representing the majority of the UK population's views on the EU."
>>
> At it's peak it had 2 MPs. Nigel Fromage couldn't even hold on to his own seat.
What was hitting the Conservatives more was that losing a few percent of the vote in a marginal constituency to UKIP would mean that Labour or the LibDems would sneak in ahead.
"At it's peak it had 2 MPs. Nigel Fromage couldn't even hold on to his own seat."
that's one blinkered view of it, but the bigger picture was that a lot of traditional conservative voters were voting ukip. Its not so much that UKIP were going to win seats, but take enough votes to loose them some of the marginal constituencies.
Cameron ran an election saying that if they win there would be a referendum to ask the nation if we would stay in the EU or not. UKIP did not field candidates in the marginal areas and were telling the supporters to vote conservative.
if Cameron had not given the referendum then he would have been out and ukip would have won a few more seats. possibly more seats than the liberals
if Cameron had not given the referendum then he would have been out and ukip would have won a few more seats. possibly more seats than the liberals
So he created all of this disruption and probably what will be the worst financial crisis this country has yet to face since we had to get involved when that Austrian painter decided Poland¹ looked nice this time of year just to hold onto "power"²?
What a shining wit! That said, who was the credible alternative? Millipede Minor? Niggled Fromage? Turncoat Cleggy? Don't make me bloody laugh! All of the parties should hang their heads in shame after presenting this shower for us to choose from.
¹ Then they were handed over to the USSR after they'd basically kept the RAF flying with their bravery. No, I wasn't there, but I still feel terribly guilty because we treat Polish immigrants like shit without thinking about their families' contribution to our country's freedom, quite apart from xenophobia being just a bit mad.
² See other comments for why this word was placed in quotes.
> Majority of the UK population? Growing support?
Maybe not now, but at the time, definitely so. Don't forget they polled more votes than the SNP, who have many more seats in Parliament.
The only reason they imploded is because they were set up to fight the battle, not clear up the mess afterwards. Neither UKIP, nor Cameron, nor any sensible person, expected the vote to go in favour of brexit. Cameron thought, along with apparently politically-informed people, that offering the brexit referendum was an empty promise to silence the whingers. Not his fault he was wrong about that, though you seem convinced that blaming him as an easy target (because he's doing something else now?) is better than blaming those more directly responsible. There's a long enough list still active in UK politics, after all.
"At it's [sic] peak [UKIP] had 2 MPs"
The issue wasn't how many MPs that UKIP could get, it was how many Tories they could scupper. UKIP was always a protest-and-pressure party.
Even with Comrade Corbyn whipping up the yoofs who yearn for socialism (we'll do it right THIS time!), and Maybot running a truly catastrophically inept campaign, the collapse of the kippers kept her in Downing Street by the skin of her fangs.
"At it's peak it had 2 MPs"
Also at its peak it had 20%+ of the vote. Were a referendum not called many of the extra 31% who voted for Brexit would have deserted the main parties. With the two main parties being destroyed UKIP could have gained an overall majority with less than 40% of the vote in the next election. Whilst you may not like the end result of Cameron's actions a quite possible alternative is that Nigel would be our next PM and Brexit would happen with a political mandate, no referendum and UKIP negotiating with the EU.
"At it's peak it had 2 MPs. Nigel Fromage couldn't even hold on to his own seat."
UKIP does however have 24 of our 73 MEP's one of whom is Nigel Farrage. It is by virtue of this, the majority party for the UK in Europe.
The fact that they ever got into that position should tell you they were not a threat to be considered lightly.
It should also tell you quite how representative the European Government is.
UKIP does however have 24 of our 73 MEP's one of whom is Nigel Farrage
Which is a classic case of hypocracy. They are perfectly happy to take their pay an pension from the EU, despite all their rhetoric about the evils thereof.
And Farage, when questioned about it basically said "why should I suffer?"
Which sums him up.
We alway hear about the 17.4 million as if there were no votes going the other way. There were. We had a pathetic remain campaign run by an ineffective Tory leader and on the other side tortoise faced tosser, Boris and a collective set of lies on the side of a bus. The remnants of UKIP now are the natural home for the illiterate dregs of the BNP and Britain First and any far right fringe group that Trump fancies retweeting the propaganda from. The fact is there were almost as many people voting against Brexit and since the Tories don't seem able to organise a piss up in a brewery the populace are seeing through the lies. If, as seems likely, there is no deal, I forsee the UK being dumped out of the EU, huge queues at Dover and every other port as the EU starts imposing border controls and customs checks for those travelling through Europe, prices will increase as the tariffs come into play and lots of rather pissed off people looking for someone to blame for the whole mess. Carping on about the will of the 17.4 million might not be so popular then.
hugely incompetent Scottish referendum process which came very close to resulting in the fracture of the Union
History has hardly yet begun to tell. The current incumbents may very well put his blundering well into the shadow with their own.
Now we only have the centrist and extremist nutjob right wings left in the tory party.
Scotland will eventually leave, as England continues to march to rightwing bands (it's the 12th of July every day, propped up as they are by the DUP) while Scotland continues with strong Socialist tendencies.
Unfair? Really?
This is the guy that overturned our entire foreign policy for 40 years to fix a problem with his own party. When he lost he ran away rather than fix the problem that he had created.
He will be remembered as one of the worst Prime Ministers we've had. Danny Dyer got it absolutely right.
In his defence, he is arguably not the worst Conservative Prime Minister of my lifetime - or at least since the 70s. The current one ran possibly the worst general election campaign possible and appears to have made every mistake in the book around the ongoing negotiations - including trying to put Parliament into recess early at a very critical time for the future of the country just to giver her another few months in the job.
This is the guy that overturned our entire foreign policy for 40 years to fix a problem with his own party. When he lost he ran away rather than fix the problem that he had created.
Sorry, sarcasm doesn't carry very well in text. I do love equal up and down votes. Reminds me of something, just can't quite place it...
Where, pray tell, did these opinions come from? Who had the far-right clamouring for isolationism in the form of UKIP (I still think that should be Britain's own AirB'n'B), Rees-Mogg et al? These populist opinions don't just fall through a crack in the space-time continuum. They come from the general public who, as a group, are only as smart as the most stupid member - an axiom which also applies to political parties.
As you rightly say, Dave's mistake wasn't his inability to predict what the flag-waving clans would do in a referendum or the probable response from Europe regardless of the result of the referendum, i.e. if it had gone the other way they'd be pushing for common currency, Shengen and political union because we'd voluntarily weakened our position as a special case sovereign nation.
Promising the referendum itself was the mistake and it was in his manifesto when he took to the polls to unburden himself of Cleggy. The general public responded on pretty much that issue alone Everything that came thereafter was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
All we got was a bendy Boris and our bus fare home...
. He was a far better slimy-lying-git-in-chief than The Old Grey May-or or Tony B.Liar
True, unlike Bliar Call-me-Dave at least delivered the referendum he'd promised, even if he was dumb enough to think his negotiated "peace in our time" letter-waving would be enough to make people vote to stay in the EU.
Whatever he's being paid to speak, it's too much. Maybe we could have a whip-round (or send a whip round?) and pay him to shut up?
GBP= 1.48 USD or 1.29 EUR 23/06/2016
GBP= 1.31 USD or 1.12 EUR 22/07/2018
So we've lost 13% against the USD and 15% against the EUR. That means anything we buy from them is that much more expensive.
Wonder why we've had 3% inflation the past couple of years? This is why.
Wonder why you pay the same for that carton of juice that was once 1 litre and now only 850g? This is why.
And if you think it's bad now, just wait until we have a no-deal exit.
March 30th this year the GBP was already back at the pre-referendum level, and the EUR was only high because it spiked before the referendum, it's pretty much at it's 10 year average.
Eurozone inflation has also risen to 2% recently.
And if you think it's bad now, just wait until we have a no-deal exit.
The pressure at the moment is coming from the uncertainty. Once we exit, deal or no-deal, it will stabilize. Financial markets hate uncertainty over everything else.
Where on earth do you get that idea?
As long as the City traders get their cut when paper money (or its computer equivalent) moves around, why would they care about uncertainty? They *might* care about being locked out of markets to which they've previously had access by default.
I couldn't really give a shit about whether the EU or the UK are more democratic (I do think - check my old posts - that the UK system is horribly undemocratic though).
What worries me most is that the EU makes much better decisions and better laws for the good of all of us than the UK ever has. Our worlds a better place for it. In new world we have to be like (or in slavery to his hedge fund) Jacob Rees Mogg . . . Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccc........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once we exit, deal or no-deal, it will stabilize
And all the stuff that we buy from the EU will now attract a 30% tariff. So power (we buy a lot from France), corn, wheat, milk, cheese, coal... (etc etc) will all go up by 30%
So yes, it'll stabilise - at a 30% increase in costs. And since trade deals usually take 10-20 *years* to negotiate (unless you accept blatantly unfair terms and idiocies like corporate investor courts) it's not a situation that's going to improve quickly.
Also, costs will go up because shipping lamb from NZ or beef from Canada costs a whole lot more than buying those from The Netherlands or France.
In fairness the being known as G thing might be more to do with stopping people mangling the pronunciation of Guillermo than it is to do with being hypercool.
In a world where people often don't bother to learn the correct pronunciation of names from countries other than their own, I'd imagine having people call you Gwill-err-moh instead of Gee-yair-moh becomes a little tedious after a while.
This post has been deleted by its author
"lessons in leadership at an extraordinary and turbulent time in global affairs"
I presume he is going to talk about how his actions demonstrate how not to lead as it can lead to extraordinary and turbulent times in global affairs.
What an arse. History will not look kindly on the porcine player.
I am amazed that anyone wants to listen to these has-beens or perhaps in some cases never-was's. They are legends only in their own minds and as often happens with politicians (and ex-politicians) they mistake activity for success.
The title question stands, whose life is actually vacuous enough to warrant listening to these types, let alone paying a wodge of cash to listen to these types.
You'd imagine some former MP's would be a good after dinner speaker because of their charisma.
Farage would perhaps be one. Boris ( although he's not currently a former MP ) would probably make an excellent after dinner speaker.
But Cameron? Cisco have plenty of those in a VP Of Sales job.
Is it charisma they have? Or is that just pre-election? Or pre-vote?
Afterwards, I would put it down to Bullshitting ability.
I wonder why there was never a set of MP Top Trumps.
I'd start with Charisma (Bullshitting ability), Intelligence (how well they line their own pockets with the countries money), Empathy (how much they care aboutt their constituents post election.
Anyone care to dance with any more?
....when the facts are contrary to their political leanings/opinions. Just like we keep hearing "far-right nutters" but *never* "far-left nutters", of which there are plenty. Remember "political correctness" and all the baggage that goes with it (mustn't say particular words in case we offend the little petals, and the fact that there are about 24 genders these days, no more just male and female) - that's all from the far-left nutters. But no-one mentions it.
“The only IT related pronouncement I can recall Cameron making was his endorsement of Fruit Ninja.”
Well that and identifying prolific Twitter users as Twats on the Absolute Radio breakfast show...
Although come to think of it he might have had a point there...
It's generally not appreciated that when the media make a statement like "how much he's earning for the stunt", they should be saying "how much he's being paid for the stunt".
"Earning" implies that Cameron will have to do some real work of some merit to be paid, whereas he's undoubtedly going to be regurgitating hogwash while people throw money at him. Well worth a miss...
to choose such a failure for a speaker. Presumably, he got this stint through his contacts in cisco who had too much money to burn
...
Honestly, I would like to hear what he's got to say, just not too...much. And I wonder how much he pays the poor soul to write that crap for him...
This post has been deleted by its author
I vaguely remember afer all these comments that the original question posed in the article was on the lines of how much should or will Cameron be paid for this speech ?
Frankly I have no idea, merely that however much or little it may be it willl be too much.
This is after all the man who bequeathed us this whole Brexit mess by his almost criminal act of offering the Euro-sceptic wing of his party a referendum, with constitutional consequences for the whole UK, purely to buy support over an internal Conservative Party problem. It is not totally unlikely that a possible consequence of this act of his could be the break-up of the UK.
It is ironic but in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum one of the most telling arguments against Independence was that staying in the UK was the only way to guarrantee continued membership of the EU !
To use a colloquialism - Aye, right !
Chris Cosgrove
It is not totally unlikely that a possible consequence of this act of his could be the break-up of the UK
I'd go as far as to say that it's a very likely outcome. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain.
Wales might stay in a rUK but I doubt whether NI would - once the current DUP realise that there's nothing more in the trough for them and they'll discover (amazingly) how green the grass is on the EUther side of the border..
So that'll be the "United Kingdom of England and the Occupied Territory of Wales" then. Alfred the Great would be proud.
I vaguley remember, after all these comments, that the original question posed in the article was how much do think Cameron will be paid for his speech ?
I have no idea how much he will receive for these efforts, only that however much it may be it will be too much.
This after all is the man who is directly responsible for the whole Brexit mess with his almost criminal act of offering the Euro-sceptic wing of his party a referendum, with binding constitutional consequences, to solve a purely internal problem inside his own Conservative Party and, incidentally, to save his job. It is by no means imposible that this mess could lead to the break-up of the UK.
It is ironic, but in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum one of the most tellilng arguments against independence was that only by staying in the UK could we guarrantee continued membership of the EU.
To use a colloquialism, Aye, right !
Chris Cosgrove
I'd question the wisdom of the Cisco Management. How on earth did they think Cameron? If I were them, I'd get my moneys worth by getting him to do a jump the shark stunt for the entertainment value. Better still, just throw him in with the shark - probably make the shark jump out of the water
If it were up to me, Baroness Trumpington...
There's always that option for him. He should feel at home given his time at spinning at Carton TV.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
