I really do not like David Cameron.
Now, I'm not great on my politics, so when I was asked ages ago to contribute to an article on Parents views of the election for the Inde (you'll find my post from the time here), I said that I didn't feel Brown could expect to be voted in again. So they just assumed I was voting Tory.
He's a smug bugger is Cameron, in the same way as Tony Blair was. Which was why I didn't like him either. It takes a lot more than a strong personality to run a country, especially one which exerts an authority along with the USA which we no longer really possess.
I have to say, to be fair, I would not like to have taken over from Brown. Although I think he was a scapegoat and far from responsible for the mess we find ourselves in, I think its more the fault of countless leaders going back before I was born. But Cameron and Clegg. No, not really fans.
Clegg seems to me to have forgotten rather conveniently that his party hates everything which the Conservatives stand for. I imagine that, had Clegg been part of a group of school mates auditioning for the X Factor, and imagine further that Cameron was in the Cowell role, and told Clegg he was the best singer but to drop the group to get famous, he would drop them in seconds for a bit of recognition. Its the same as the coalition, just without the dodgy dancing and high waisted trousers.
So far, so typical. We've already had sleaze, people reigning and Cameron cocking up figures.
But now, well, he's gone too far.
Yes, we have a large spending gap to fill, I don't disagree, and obviously, cut backs are needed.
So, does Cam The Man cut spending on the Olympics (what were we thinking? We'll never out do Beijing, and we've already spent shedloads more than they did)? No.
Does he get rid of subsidising further and unwelcome immigration? No.
Does he stop areas like where I live from building more unnecessary flats as housing for low income families, when the figures show its houses we need to home people stuck in bedsits for years? No.
No, Cameron's idea is to stop spending on the upkeep of play parks. So if your town has more than one play park, then they'll close for good due to them becoming unsafe.
His people feel that parks cost lots with no return whatsoever.
Well, I beg to differ.
They do give back. Because kids from all walks of life, from the richest to the poorest all use parks, because they are free. This means they get much needed exercise. And that means they are less of a drain on the NHS.
You cannot complain that the NHS is struggling to care for the amount of unfit kids in the country, then padlock the parks that are there for them to get exercise in. God knows, enough of them have hardly a playground big enough to play football in as a lot of schools sold excess land off for housing.
Parks are one of the few things the whole family can enjoy for free- if you go swimming, just paying for the adults will cost £6.50 each (that's at my local pool). And that's if you can take more than one child if you're on your own. In a park, the adult to kid ratio isn't a problem. They are enclosed, so you can sit on a bench and watch the kids safe in the knowledge they can't run off.
Milk was bad enough (and I don't doubt that they will slide that one in when we least expect it).
Its just not on.
DON'T PADLOCK THE PARKS!