- No less than 24 policy u-turns showing a total incompetence for strategic policy-making.
- Broke promise to balance the books by 2015.
- Increased the national debt enormously. Ironically, the nation’s finances are in a worse condition than what Gordon Brown left them in, contrary to the popular “we inherited a mess” scapegoat often asserted in parliament.
- Broke promise to not cut tax credits: He even clearly stated so on live television in relation to a question about whether they’d be cut:
No, I don’t want to do that. This report that’s out today is something I rejected at the time as Prime Minister and I reject it again today.
He later tried to do so anyway, but failed.
- Promised to cut immigration in the 2010 Conservative manifesto:
We will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.
And failed miserably, according to the ONS:
In 2015 alone, 270,000 people came to the UK from the EU. This is the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle. This is up from 264,000 in 2014.
- Taxes – Implemented the age-old Conservative idea of reducing taxation, assuming it would provide a monetary stimulus. It didn’t. It actually managed to worsten the budget deficit instead.
- Fantasist ideological pursuit of a deficit surplus: The UK has been in the red for the vast majority of it’s entire history. This is common among all other countries and economies too because economies are run prospectively, as all business does. Surpluses are only achieved by chance, and in times of strong economic growth, not during times of structural financial collapse, such as the time Cameron is living in, but clearly had trouble realising.
- Having called the EU referendum for no purpose other than electioneering, because UKIP were on the rise, and were winning over many traditionally Conservative voters. There were no plans to cater for a Leave scenario. There was no proper public or parliamentary discussion. No reports or studies were were comissioned. It was literally just an electioneering stunt.
- Being pro EU in the first place.
- Housing – Rejected amendments to help first time buyers by giving local people priority for homes built in their areas, and to make the discount on ‘starter homes’ permanent.
- Democracy – Pushing through profound and controversial changes to Britain’s laws without proper debate or scrutiny by exploiting statutory instruments.
- He magnanamously criticised Chilcot for outlining that a lack of procedural rigor was practiced during the run up to the Iraq war, because supposedly measures HAVE been put in place since then. Well then, if that were true, then why did Cameron have no reliable basis for claiming that there were 70,000 moderate Syrian rebels, while providing a case for military action against Syria? As it turned out, there were hardline islamists among the 70,000 strong Syrian moderate rebels. Had it been true that proper procedures were now place, that bullshit claim wouldn’t have been made. It’s Iraq all over again, and we haven’t learned a thing. This is also evident in his complete incomptence at dealing with the military operations concerning Libya.
- Cameron’s case for military action in Syria also failed to consider any of the following fundamental factors:
a) What effect (if any) in real measured terms is expected by Britains contribution, keeping in mind the US had until that point been conducting airstrikes for two years. Russia was also engaged in bombing campaign, and France too. Britain was set to contribute 8 Tornado’s and about 10 drones. while Russia alone had committed 50 combat aircraft. What were the realistic expectations, aside from the obvious posturing and stroking of ego?
b) Without a wider international force making military commitments, is Britain not making itself MORE vulnerable to ISIS terrorist attacks, by singling itself out?
c) What is the rationale for airstrikes as a counter-terrorist measure? Terrorism can be organised by 1 individual from the safety of his own home and an internet-researched bomb making kit.
d) Where is the analysis or debate on the cause of ISIS, with an aim to tackle the cause of the problem? The problem reaches as far back as the French Mandate of Syria post WW1. The planning (if any) is blinkered and not considerate of even short-term causality.
e) Where is the analysis for the funding of ISIS through Turkish oil deals, or Saudi financing?
f) Where is the analysis on the seized/supplied weapons from the US/UK to ISIS, in relation to the governments official pro-rebel stance against Assad.
g) What qualifications do politicians hold, if any, on the judgement of whether a military operation will be effective let alone achievable.
- The junior doctors contract dispute/shambles.
- Not having done anything to address rising wealth and income inequality.
- Not having done anything to acknowledge the failings of foreign and military policy including 9/11 and Afghanistan.
- Not having done anything to solve the housing crisis.
- Failed to negotiate any meaningful EU reforms.
- Not having addressed the democratic deficit.
- Not having done anything substantial in terms of parliamentary reform.