Cameron: Dim or Disingenuous?

In a letter broadcast on Channel 4 yesterday, MP David Willetts told the Prime Minister he considered the minimum unit pricing “very likely to be deemed illegal” under competition and trade law.

The minister added the Attorney General had already written saying the policy “carries a significant degree of legal risk”.

The letter is understood to have been sent four days before Mr Cameron publicly outlined the proposal to tackle the “scourge of violence” on Britain’s high streets.

So, by announcing it was he being dim, not realising that the policy won\’t work? Won\’t be allowed to \”work\”?

Or disingenuous in that it\’s waving a bit of policy about to appease the idiots while knowing that nothing will come of it?

Either way he\’s a scumbag or a politician but I repeat myself.

9 thoughts on “Cameron: Dim or Disingenuous?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    There’s nothing as pathetic as watching a stupid man doing something he thinks is clever.

    I vote for both.

    I don’t want to sound too depressing here but we are at a critical time with the world’s economies going into meltdown and it seems every single country (with the possible exception of Canada) would do better if their governments switched places with the work experience interns. It is so bad that a pedestrian Hausfrau like Merkel is looking statesman-like.

    What on Earth have we done to deserve such mediocrity?

  2. No, no, no, Tim. Haven’t you heard? Cameron’s an EU sceptic. This is part of a cunning plan to build up a stock of examples of HMG’ s hands being tied by the EU, so he can confront the federasts and outmanoeuvre them in the court of public opinion as a prelude to jumping the EU ship.

    Only thing is, who shall we then blame for micromanaging our intake of liquid?

  3. Have you seen the latest news from Australia on carbon taxes? The promised company tax cut, to offset the carbon tax, has been swept away and shovelled into election bribes. This is the problem with a Pigou tax, it’s never revenue neutral. The poltiical temptation to defer cuts forever to pay for today’s spending is far too strong.

  4. The Attorney General’s advice didn’t stop St Tone of JP Morgan going to war.

    The AG will be told to go away and rethink his legal opinion.

  5. I am still awaiting the explanation of why charging more to buy alcohol at a supermarket will prevent yoofs from emerging in an inebriated condition from a city centre bar (note, not a supermarket) and bottling each other.

  6. Quite predictable, representative democracy being a high pass incompetence filter. What other mechanism would have put an ex-GP in charge of 100,000 entrenched bureaucrats and the nation’s defences?

  7. “Or disingenuous in that it’s waving a bit of policy about to appease the idiots while knowing that nothing will come of it?”

    No, it’s not disingenuous it’s realistic. If we (the idiots) didn’t need to be appeased then politicians wouldn’t bother to do it. The fault lies in ourselves, as Mr Shakespeare pointed out five hundred years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *