David Cameron’s perennial bad judgement, as reported in The Financial Times.

Political Observer comments.

The reader should note, that the comments section, for this essay by Daniel Thomas and Jim Pickard has been , in Financial Times Speak, ‘Comments have not been enabled for this article.’ !

Headline: David Cameron quits as adviser to Afiniti after allegations against CEO

Sub-headline: Setback for post-political career comes after former PM was caught up in Greensill affair earlier this year


Here is where this essay begins to consider Cameron’s value as a marquee name for various Corporations, and the Washington Speakers Bureau, as a source of income for a former Prime Minister.

Cameron has since admitted to mistakes over his lobbying for the company, although he said he did not break any rules.

The former prime minister was paid more than $1m a year by Greensill and was given share options that could have been worth about $70m had the company floated on the stock market as expected. Instead, after Greensill filed for administration in March, the shares are worthless.

Greensill is now the subject of more than a dozen inquiries including an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the “financing and conduct of the business of companies within the Gupta Family Group Alliance (GFG), including its financing arrangements with Greensill Capital UK”.

One of those inquiries, by the Treasury select committee, found he had shown a “significant lack of judgment”.

Since leaving office after the Brexit vote in 2016, Cameron has made large amounts of money from making speeches, in line with many other prominent former UK politicians. He has been charging at least £120,000 an hour for speeches through his agency, the Washington Speakers Bureau, which describes him as “one of the most prominent global influencers of the early 21st century”.

Cameron’s exercise of bad judgement defines his career. The Reader should recall that Mr. Cameron lectured Jeremy Corbyn for his lack of patriotism, and for the greater political blunder of his shabby suit. Attribute these comments to Oxbridger snobbery, used as a political weapon!

Headline: UK Prime Minister David Cameron Calls Jeremy Corbyn a ‘Terrorist Sympathizer’

Sub-headline: Corbyn’s campaign responded to the attacks saying, “We won’t fight name calling by returning in kind, but we will challenge the cynical burying of debate.” 

British Prime Minister David Cameron delivered a heated speech Wednesday to his fellow Conservative Party members at their annual conference, in which he attacked the newly elected Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, accusing him of hating Britain and being a “terrorist sympathizer.”

“You only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a ‘tragedy’ …my friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathizing, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love,” he said to applause from the audience.

Cameron was referring to an interview Corbyn gave in 2011 to Iranian television channel Press TV, regarding the killing of the al-Qaida leader. When reading the whole quote, Cameron’s paraphrasing of Corbyn’s assessment of bin Laden’s death appears extremely selective:

“There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process. This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died,” Corbyn told his interviewer.

Indeed, critics say the Conservative Party has been using this interview out of context as a way to attack Corbyn.

The Labour leader’s team responded to the accusations through their Twitter account, explaining that Cameron is trying to avoid debating issues and instead opting for ‘name calling’ and personalized attacks.


Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.