Cameron fails on immigration

Gordon was grieving , Mandelson pounced, Gordon went with them thinking John's legacy would carry on. All the rubbish about Gordon being moody and difficult because he was a surly Scot was dripped from the Blairites, Gordon was angry that his beloved party and he had been betrayed . Gordon knew a one eyed, single man would not have the same attraction as a married family man. If only he had met Sarah sooner how different things would have been . Since they left office Blair has concentrated on new careers , Gordon on charities, he believes education for all children is the way to peace , equality for women , a fairer world . He is a good man and I also admire him for turning all his personal tragedies into good for others . He lost his first child so started a charity for research into the causes of premature births, his third child has cystic fibrosis , he was devastated when that bitch Brooks printed this in The Sun, he has always kept his family life private.

I'm completely with you on that Anniebach. If only he had stood back then.

"Politicians and their electorates now have to make a choice. There is no middle way. The choice is between building walls and electrified fences, creating mass detention centres, organising mass repatriation and conceding to the fear of the other or it is to find a way of sustaining openness while doing the very best that can be done to allay the natural fears and apprehensions of host populations.

Above all, it is to recognise this is a European – even a global – problem. Germany needs Europe to rally to its side. Together with France, Angela Merkel has called for a pan-European response jointly financing appraisal and screening centres in Greece and Italy, co-ordinating reprisals against traffickers and sharing out the numbers of asylum seekers.

Inevitably, the Cameron government has given the initiative the cold shoulder, preoccupied with negotiating a one-sided relationship with the EU in which Britain accepts as few European obligations as possible, but retains all the gains."

From an article about asylum seekers.

A shame he believed Blair. The Labour party would not have lost its soul then.

I have to defend Gordon, he cannot 'do' tv because he doesn't 'do' false, he is kind, cares deeply for the vulnerable and his concern for children is something which has always driven him , he and Sarah work so hard and give much to childrens charities , they have their own charities too.he has a great sense of humour and is a caring, warm person . He was betrayed by Blair and Mandelson , John Smith wanted Gordon at his side , he saw Gordon as a future leader of the party as did Donald Dewer , as did many party members , if there had been a leadership contest after John died Gordon would have won

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/28/migrants-humans-drowning-suffocating-safety-statistics

Excellent article by Owen Jones.

I liked him as well. Unfortunate in that he was never able to present a face that appealed to the public. When he tried to smile it just didn't work. But an honest, principled man who believed in what he was doing.

I always liked Gordon. I was a bit scared of him though -he felt like a sort of stern headmaster. I never doubted that his heart was in the right place. I'd have voted for him!

Poor Gordon! Well, we have heard it all now.

Poor Gordon gets the blame for everything. Surely DC is going to have to accept responsibility for some of the things he has/hasn't done.

Not that it's got anything to do with his failure on immigration, but did you also notice he blamed Gordon Brown for widening the gap between rich and poor, trisher?

Well spotted, trisher. He did promise to cut immigration, and signed the contract.
In his vote blue get green days.

There was a contract the Conservatives issued. Apparently it has since disappeared from their website
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2979135/I-ll-cut-immigration-kick-Cameron-told-voters-election-numbers-arriving-soared-300-000.html
Interesting to read the Green promise as well- abandoned of course!

rosearered I thought it was agreed that threads can go in any direction depending on the posters. Whatever my original intention it doesn't stop you from debating any issues. If you are able to debate of course and not just condemn individuals.

Immigration is not about me, POGS. I take the situation far too seriously to hide behind the subject.
Your post and roses' say the exact opposite.

Do have a look at the timings, Ana. I was looking at other things when bags posted.
However, the Financial Times thought he had failed, and they are getting worried that he keeps telling everyone that the UK is not a good place to come to. Not the sort of message that a PM, who was in PR, should say, I wouldn't have thought.

Bags, I do not think that even Cameron knows what he meant, and he has certainly not told me.

For goodness sake DJ the OP has let the cat out of the bag with regards to the meaning behind the OP, it was an attack on the government and nothing to do with immigration quotas.

I am finding more and more threads are using serious subjects to try and give some posters a platform to make their attacks. In other words ' hiding behind ' serious topics, such as immigration, to make themselves look plausible. I think that is in poor taste but not surprising.

This thread is exactly what Trisher started it for, another yah boo sucks! To the Tories, it's not for any reasoned debate.Yet again.

Thanks for the link, dj. It's a very good article.

Perhaps I should explain my search for clarity on this thread. You see, I don't take a great deal of notice of Tory Party policy (avoid it like the plague as not what I'm interested in except in a negative way and therefore likely to be very annoying) so I genuinely didn't know what Cameron or the Conservative Party manifestos had said.

There is that about this thread: it made me find out more about the current state of play with regard to UK immigration. Thanks, trisher.

Don't you just love the way they talk over anyone who interrupts the flow of anti-government invective?

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61d3b368-4ca8-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html

The Financial Times must be wrong, too, trisher.

Re your most recent post, dj, I suppose you are the exception who does know what he meant regardless of what he said?

This gets more amusing by the minute!