Damn Read this on Cameron - you have to love the Guardian - he is responsible for said refugees and
more
So goodbye, David Cameron – Libya is not the only failed state you are responsible for
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/so-goodbye-david-cameron-libya-is-not-the-only-failed-state-you-are-responsible-for
<snip>
The charm offensive, the modus operandi, of our last prime minister is being decommissioned. David Cameron’s reputation is being shredded. It is as though he is made of nothing. He disappeared so fast it is hard to remember he was ever really there. For six years, or until he deigned to leave ... until the recklessness of the referendum that is. Now, too, is the recklessness of his foreign policy being exposed: the intervention in Libya with its horrible echoes of Iraq, done again without proper intelligence and soon shifting its goal, from the need to protect civilians in Benghazi, to regime change. Cameron’s aim, it seems, was to pose with Nicolas Sarkozy as a liberator. Never one to miss a photo-op! Libya slid into chaos and civil war. By then, Cameron had, of course, moved on – or as Obama said, become distracted.
There is an argument for saying it was Osborne’s budgets – often cruel, often aimed squarely at women and children – that helped Cameron lose the referendum. We were to be a high wage, low–welfare economy. The reality is a low-wage and low-welfare state. The boast of low unemployment has been achieved through zero-hours contracts and self-employment, which feels deeply insecure. The IMF repeatedly issued warnings over the imposition of such austerity, but Cameron chillaxed his way through it.
Still, he and his besties are what they are: posh boys who, despite having very little experience of life, believe they can order the lives of others. Arrogance does not quite cover such an attitude, which leads them to maintain they know more about schools than teachers, more about hospitals than doctors, more about the economy than the IMF. This isn’t managerialism, it is narcissism.
Ordinary folk have paid a high price for Cameron’s consistent self-belief. Some even mistook it for strategy. He was heir to Blair in this self-conviction, but lacked any actual vision. His was the shiny veneer that hid the ruthlessness of what his ministers were doing. The Lib Dems were picked off easily enough. But he could not see off sections of his party.
His refusal to see that “reducing the deficit” was hammering the public sector too hard, his refusal to tackle abuse of the tax system, of being intensely relaxed about unaffordable house prices, the ongoing lack of investment in public provision, these were choices he made for others suffer the consequences. What did he mean when he talked airily of “social justice”? Again, nothing. Pig-gate did not do for him, perhaps because it was not real. He had already done way worse things to the entire country right before our eyes.
