For my money, David Camoron. In an attempt to unite his poxy party he created the Brexit shitstorm. Then he just walked away into some obscenely highly-paid job somewhere. Bastard.
TWAT OF THE YEAR
(32 posts) (13 voices)
Yes, he let the people of Britain have a say on the country's national policy.
What a twat! He should know better than ever to consult the riffraff.
And as you say, a complete twat because he then found some much better-paid employment. I mean, decent ordinary people like you and me would never accept a very well-paid job, would we? We'd all much rather work for shit money so that we could whinge about it all day.
Now Corbyn, there's role model for you. Wouldn't we all like to live like him, share his sense of achievement and bask in the universal respect and adulation which he enjoys?
Cameron & Corbyn, then. But at least Corbyn hasn't had any responsibilities yet. I don't blame Cameron for getting another job, but I do blame him for creating such a massive, misinformed uncertainty and running away from it, as did Farage
Have you seen the news report that Hollywood producers are considering a film about Farage (my nomination for twat of the year, btw)? Hopefully a straight to Betamax movie
Oh, and Titus, we frequently have an input into the country's national policy. It's called a General Election.
we frequently have an input into the country's national policy. It's called a General Election.
So how come it was such a shock when people were asked if they wanted to stay in the EU, and declined? That fact almost makes Farage look like the only political party leader who was not a twat.
(And please note, I did say 'almost'.)
Cameron was a massive twat. And Titus - you're miles out on this one. Cameron didn't give us a choice, he backed the whole fucking country into a corner. Which we responded to as best we could with no fucking information. Is that enough fuckings?
'twat of the year'..this year is a collective award to the 'lying twats' who put that
falsehood about the nhs on the side of the bus., and conned half a nation..
And Titus - you're miles out on this one.
Thank you Titus. We may disagree, but I laughed. And that's what life is about. Because without it we cry.
I know you're not everyone's cup of tea here, but just right know I love you to bits.
... the 'lying twats' who put that
falsehood about the nhs on the side of the bus., and conned half a nation..
As distinct, of course, from the other (almost) half of the nation - the gullible twats who believed Her Majesty' lying Chancellor of the Exchequer when he fraudulently assured them that after Brexit, every family in the country would be £4,300 a year worse off. Presumably we don't hear much comment about that ridiculous load of bollosck because the mugs who were conned by it now realise what gullible twats they were.
[Dumplicoted pest deploted]
He seriously underestimated it. It hasn't happened yet - we're still in the EU after all - but it will. And we won't even be able to say told you so, because everyone who voted it for it will be dead by then (c) G Lineker, 2016
Cameron - while I'd also question his motives in holding it at all, my vote for his Twatdom is actually for the way the referendum was organised and conducted, and the lack of any scenario planning around the outcomes (there were only two to work up FFS). For a question of this magnitude, much like the Scottish referendum, it was foreseeable that a close finish was a possibility and one which would be socially divisive, so it should have been addressed in advance - would a one vote majority seal the deal, would a 'clear margin' of 10% be required etc. It was also foreseeable that there would be legal challenges, but he failed to clarify the Govt's scope of legal decision making authority before rather than after the vote. The opportunity should also have been taken to get secondary non-binding votes alongside the actual referendum question about what the country thought were negotiable or non-negotiable elements of what 'exit' actually meant, e.g. free trade area membership, freedom of movement, right to remain etc. Having also promised that he would stick around to steer the country through any outcome, he bolted pretty much as soon as it went against him, revealing that no-one had a fucking clue what 'exit' meant in practice or what to do about moving the decision forward.
One horse race really
It's between Cameron and Death but you would have to say Cameron has definitely caused more pain and misery.
I'd agree Cameron. I think he's a very capable politician but he made the mother of all whoopsies with the Brexit planning.
He ballsed up the approach to the EU negotiation, by saying he'd campaign for us to stay in pretty much whatever he got. After the Greek government, with a nation in distress and a referendum behind them, caved in to the EU, the EU understandably thought no-one would ever leave, so gave Cameron sweet fuck all. He presented piffling concessions as triumph, but from that moment it became largely a question of 'are you going to take that / are you going to follow through?' for many of the British public, and that sort of emotion resonates.
Cameron left as much as possible open because he expected to win narrowly, so he didn't want anything like a 10% margin requirement etc to hamper that. He only said 'I'll stay whatever you decide' like in the Scottish referendum so he wouldn't lose votes to people who wanted him out.
But on that point, he lied, announcing he was scarpering on the morning after, and there it's no longer a question of making a poor judgement going forward, it's a question of going back on your word...and that will live with him, even once the errors are forgotten and in a decade to come he assumes the John Major 'voice of reason' role for the nation. He lied about continuing to lead the nation, and he ran away. Naughty.
Cameron - more like Twat of the Century frontrunner.
... Cameron ... he made the mother of all whoopsies with the Brexit planning ... He ballsed up the approach to the EU negotiation ... He ... said 'I'll stay whatever you decide' ... He lied about continuing to lead the nation, and he ran away ...
Agree with ID, for the above reasons, although technically these make him a cunt (= unreliable / untrustworthy / bad person) rather than a twat (= foolish / incompetent person).
It was such a car crash, with the Leavers' lies about the NHS on their bus, which prompted Gideon's lies about how much it would cost each family. Then his threats to do a nasty mini-budget. It just lurched from one pack of lies to the next. What a fucking mess!!
It was such a car crash ... It just lurched from one pack of lies to the next.
Agree. It was also a dialogue of the deaf:
"Leaving will cost us money". (No mention of any higher or more noble political / philosophical aspect, other than brain-dead twaddle about 'racism', as though the 'the rest of the world' was somehow less racially diverse than the EU.)
"We don't give a fuck about the money. We just want our national independence back". ("We didn't fight the Spanish Armada / Napoleon / the Nazis because it would 'make us wealthier' - we did so to preserve our national independence".)
[FFS. Duplicate post deleted. Again.]
Nice to see Titus explaining the difference between being a twat & being a cunt
The scope of this thread seems to be the UK, but if it's international there's really just 1 contender who's red-faced, yellow-haired, head & shoulders above everyone else; who's sole aim is to screw money from everyone in the US, whether they voted against him or for him, who has total disregard for the rest of humanity, probably because he was bullied at school about his stupid surname. Yes, the winner has to be Trump
I think Trump will walk away with International Twat 2017, but the world still has a couple of weeks before he starts
The bloke who drove a truck into loads of people on Nice seafront. Now there was a twat. A monster. Cameron was just weak-willed and badly advised. Trump will be lucky to see out his first term.
I didn't much care for the twat dentist who shot the old lion, either.
I'm not really sure why Cameron gets so much flak over the Brexit issue. He had the referendum plans in his general election manifesto, and possibly because of this he achieved an unexpected victory. So presumably a lot of people wanted a referendum - from both sides of the argument. So, horror of horrors, he stuck by his election pledge and gave us a referendum.
And he strongly backed the remain campaign.
So when he ended up on the losing side, I think his position as PM, and also as any sort of front bench MP, was untenable. I think he had to resign.
So, in summary, he gave the electorate what they wanted, fulfilled an election promise, and did the honourable thing by stepping down when defeated.
Well that's one way of looking at it, RT
An alternative one might be : panicked about UKIP; didn't have sufficient control to be able to trust his backbenchers; utterly failed to achieve a worthwhile renegotiation in Brussels; oversaw the most cack-handed referendum in the history of referendums; panicked again and ran away.
Why 'cack-handed' referendum? The campaigning might have been cack-handed, but that is a different issue. At least the referendum produced the right result, which is all that matters.
I can imagine if we'd had a referendum in 1939 "Should Britain declare war on Nazi Germany?"
The nice, peace-loving humanitarian pacifists would have warned us that opposing Hitler would damage the economy, cost each of us £423 17s 6d a year and lead to injuries, loss of life and damage to property. "Hitler and his mates might not be very nice chaps but we shouldn't be racist in our feeling towards the Germans, despite WW1".
There should have been a campaign against warmonger Churchill and a Chilcot inquiry into all the loss, damage and destruction caused by us belligerently declaring war on another sovereign country. Especially since, at the time, we didn't know that they had weapons of mass genocide.
Well said Titus. If you find your way back to Hansard as I suggested previously (it's freely available online) as mentioned last time you tried to equate leaving the EU with joining WW2 (and honouring treaty obligations agreed by Parliament years earlier, not determined by a referendum or, as you sometimes suggest, decided without Parliamentary debate) this is an excellent example of how Parliament works. It would have made a good model for debating continuing or ceasing EU membership.
As I pointed out in a previous (and apparently ignored) response to your strange views, the decisions regarding entering into that war were made over many debates and months, yet were finalised only when it was inevitable that Hitler was hell-bent on invading Europe. That Parliament swung behind the decision as it did was probably largely influenced by the fact many MPs had lived and fought through the previous war; that they did so with the knowledge of the horrors and the subsequent recession and hardship is testament to their integrity. The general support from a generation of voters who also stepped up to fight is also something to be proud of, and certainly not deserving of being dragged into an ill-researched snipe. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Now can you stop making ill-informed and stupid comparisons on one of the darkest decisions this country has made with the referendum, which while divisive was really just an attempt to keep a political party intact.
throngsman: you flatter my post with a more considered and better-informed response than it deserved.
I was simply (and admittedly, rather clumsily) trying to make the point that our decision to declare war on Nazi Germany was not driven by financial considerations but by more fundamental political principles.
Whereas the recent 'Remain' campaign was largely a narrow "Oooh leaving will cost us money" assertion rather than an appeal to some higher political principle. This was a waste of time because many Brexiteers simply didn't believe the gloomy financial forecasts; or even if they did, regarded it as a price worth paying.
The Remain campaign was like telling an unbearably henpecked husband or a bullied wife that getting a divorce would cost money and leave them worse off. Not really the point; the Bexiteers wanted to leave the EU because they wanted to leave the EU. Simples.
All credit to Theresa May - she grasped this quicker than most politicians, many of whom still haven't yet 'got it' at all.
"throngsman: you flatter my post with a more considered and better-informed response than it deserved."
Why 'cack-handed' referendum?
- the question was overly simplistic
- there was zero effort put into providing voters with rational information
That's it. Applies to many walks of life, not just referendums - to arrive at a valid conclusion you need a well-framed question and the relevant information. Neither of which we had on this occasion.
You must log in to post.