What if you changed those last three words to "pay their dues"? It's quite odd how we demand large companies pay their fair share of tactics and legislation should be passed to enforce this but not with the country as a whole
What anyone - companies, governments, individuals - should be expected to do when confronted with an unexpectedly large bill with a demand for instant payment is eaxmine it in detail. As far as I can tell, this is what is happening.
I wish you were wrong. It seems few want to look at UKIP's domestic policies. If they did they'd see they're a party of the rich just like the parties they claim to be different from.
Sorry, but none of them is "a party for the rich" - that is a cliche that is used when rational criticism is unavailable. Both Labour and Conservatives (and Lib Dems, really) genuinely wish to govern this country for the general good, not to benefit any particular group. They have different ideas about what is best, that is all. The sooner we can ignore this hogwash about Tories hating the poor and Labour crushing the rich, the sooner we can have a sensible debate about what needs doing. I am fed up with posturing and want thought and explanations. It is that posturing that has directly encouraged the "growth" of UKIP - none of the major parties are allowed to speak intellectually about their policies, so a party that has no sane policies can look as good as any other.
It's not. Cameron just wants to look good at home and to look good entails you must be anti Europe
Interesting statement! If by "looking good at home" you mean he (or anyone really) seeks to reflect the general domestic opinion, is that not Democracy? And should the democratic view be followed even if, in the case of, say, Europe, it is manifestly, stupidly wrong? Of course, anyone may be wrong about what the populace is thinking.
SNP reckon that Cameron knew about this in May
.Ah, the SNP, that completely disinterested purveyor of truth and accuracy.:roll:
Is Cameron a buffoon or up to no good?
Something of a fallacious dichotomy here. Cameron is patently not a buffoon, and it is difficult to see what "no good" he might be up to. A possible alternative is: earlier in the year, HMG were informed of a likely adjustment to reflect relative economic growth; when the details were given, HMG were unsurprisingly taken aback, particularly given the short notice; they examine the "workings" and express their disquiet. In other words, HMG are acting just as one would expect any sensible organisation to act.