MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Seems too young to be a chancellor and his voice grates on me.
Does he really know what he's doing?
Do [u]any[/u] politicians know what they are doing?
The coalition speak of reducing the deficit, but the deficit is still growing fast.
The truth is were bust and no politician in a democracy would risk alienating their supporters.
We need to make huge cuts and instill a sense of personal financial responsibility (there are no free meals and you need to consider how you will take care of your own in the future without expecting someon else to bail you out).
However the last 20 years has laden us with high debts, high costs of living and hig taxes, so changing our ways is a tough call.
It's a mess!
The solution is low taxation to stimulate growth, but this would mean the end of our current expensive, unaffordable political system.
Does he really know what he's doing?
you're really asking that question in here? 🙄
Why dont you just ask what STW-leftie-forumworld think of Gary Glitter, or Maggie Thatcher?
Sandi Toksvig sumed him up best on Radio 4's News Quiz (well his party, strictly speaking)...
...As...
"Putting the "n" into the Cuts"
Why dont you just ask what STW-leftie-forumworld think of Gary Glitter, or Maggie Thatcher?
They are one & the same I believe
And that was long before the naughty mis-naming of The Right Honourable [s]C[/s]Hunt
So.... to summarise.... WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!
Looking at Gideon, I wouldn't trust him to run a bath. Let alone the countries economy.
Fear not though. Once he's delivered us all into an inevitable double-dip recession, and forced us all into poverty, he'll just say 'oops', have a bit of a guffaw, throw some buns around a restaurant, then swan off to Monaco to count the squillions of pounds that mater and pater gave him
****ing Tories!!!
Well Milliband and his shower would do no better. Financially, they are away with the fairies and it's a fact that they caused a great deal of the problems we face today.
Put in power again, Labour would destroy us - for sure!!! Anyone with a brain can see that!!!!
What we need is someone with a true commercial vision to get this country going again.
We need a radical re-think on our political system because it just panders to the whims of the electorate. It cheats everyone with it's deception and lies. We need some people in the driving seat with a bit of integrity and with trimmed down egos too!
What we need is someone with a true commercial vision to get this country going again.
Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: Bring on the Hush Puppies.
He is a lightweight plonker without a clue.
One of Camerons buddies from years ago tho
As predicted public sector spending is rising as the cuts cause increased unemployment benefits and decreased revenues.
At some point Cameron will have to sack him to survive I bet.
We'll never learn.
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be
curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work,
instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC
As predicted* public sector spending is rising as the cuts cause increased unemployment benefits and decreased revenues.
* by the government, the OBR, the Treasury.
You make it sound like rise in unemployment was unexpected, but somehow Tandem "The Sage" Jeremy was the only one to "predict" it? You're Vince Cable and I claim my £5 Tax Credit.
Jesus Christ!
The coalition speak of reducing the deficit, but the deficit is still growing fast.
Both of these can be true. As an example, the 2009/10 deficit (as opposed to debt) was 11.4%, up from 6.8% the prior year, according to the ONS, an increase of 4.6 points The numbers have since changed, and aren't the point at issue here, but you can see that it would be quite possible to reduce the deficit by, say, 50%, to an increase of 2.3 percentage points. This would still be a large increase, but the politicians would quite legitimately be able to claim an impressive reduction.
This is all based on the supposition that we can trust politicians and the drivel they all speak on economic matters - selective misquoting is the very best you can ascribe to them, and in many cases they're only one step away from outright lies.
Once they stop talking about [b]deficit[/b] (i.e. rate of increase or decrease in debt growth) and focus on actual [b]debt[/b] reduction, I'll start to listen.
With the towering economic colossus that is Alan Johnston opposing him he'll probably do OK 🙂
Spongebob - MemberWell Milliband and his shower would do no better. Financially, they are away with the fairies and it's a fact that they caused a great deal of the problems we face today.
Oh no its not. Its an opinion and a misinformed one.
Put in power again, Labour would destroy us - for sure!!! Anyone with a brain can see that!!!!
Given that under the last labour government we had the greatest period of financial stability I have known - compared to the utter chaos under the tories previously- I think this is foolish to say the least
financial stability
Which is metaphorically more stable, a predictable roller coaster, or an unpredictable cliff drop?
Stoner - look at the predictions form the government - that unemployment will fall as will public sector spending - this is what Osbourne said.
Still - its the usual toryboys creaming themselves over the ideological cuts cos it makes their pointless lives seem better to know that the oiks are going to be put in their place.
We need some people with a bit of integrity and trimmed down egos too!
Oh my aching sides. Yes... the modest and public-spirited have always been drawn to Westminster politics 😀
Its all academic anyway. What the last few years have proved is that it isn't the politicians that are running the country, its the bankers. No political party will say boo to them as they are all in their pockets. The Tories are their natural friends, but what was Blairs first job on leaving office?
So... its back to business as usual in the city. Untroubled as they are by any new regulation.
Within a couple of years, we'll be in the middle of the second wave of the banking crisis, as the TRUE value of their (and now our) liabilities become obvious. The stuff they... erm... forgot to mention
And when that happens then will make this lot so far look like a tea party. Its armageddon I'm afraid
Not that anyone in any political party will dare to mention any of this. NA NA NA NOT LISTENING!!! Perhaps if we don't talk about it, it won't happen. Fingers crossed eh?
He's done remarkably well at deflecting much of the flack that should've landed on him at the Lib Dems. Ole Vince and Nick have really got covered in it, whereas he's still held up by the Tory-boys as a shining example of what we should all worship.
I really don't like him, I really don't trust him and I disagree with his and his party's ideaology. That Cameron chap seems a bit dodgy too.
Hopefully soon someone* will realise that we all need to rethink how this country's going to operate longterm, and not just worry about screwing over another bunch of people/countries for a quick buck (yep, buck, not quid). "Commercial vision" is an oxymoron.
FGS I wasn't going to comment but... no I'm still not going to bother.
I just don't understand why Tories, will not and do not accept that the actions of Gordo saved us from proper financial ruin. Dave commended him on this at the time but now prefers to talk about TINA & ALF to implement his ideology now.
****** I commented.
TJ - do you ever read stuff?
Unemployment forecast to INCREASE through 2010 to 2011
Stoner - getting into an argument with TJ about economics is like throwing your shoes at the sky to protest against clouds.
I'd leave it if I were you. For your own sanity
incoming moccassin!
Stoner - yes. I read osbournes speech where he predicted unemployment would fall as a result of his cuts. That is what he claimed
Of course loads of other folk told him it was balderdash and the lastest figures prove it.
Direct quotes from Osbourne in November
"Their central forecast is for sustainable growth of over 2% for each of the next five years and employment rising in each and every year."
The unemployment rate was expected to be 7.9% this year, down from the earlier forecast of 8.1%. The forecast for next year was unchanged at 8%.The OBR's decision to cut the predicted reduction in public sector jobs to 330,000 followed the Government's decision "to cut welfare bills rather than public services".
Mr Osborne said: "Those headcount reductions that still need to take place will happen over four years, not overnight.
"And the OBR forecast is that private sector job creation will far outweigh the reduction in public sector employment."
Stoner - getting into an argument with TJ about economics is like throwing your shoes at the sky to protest against clouds.
TBH, you could reverse the names and the sentence would still stand.
I read osbournes speech where he predicted unemployment
[s]come on then. Linky-linky. Lets see the context, whats the timing of the turning points he was talking about?[/s] [i]posts crossed. Will come back below.[/i]
And you're quite right binners. I blame spongebob for coming up with such a dumbarse question.
Thing is I too think Osborne a plonker, but it's not because of his politics, his schooling, the fact he sometimes wears a black tie at dinner or any other pathetic ad-hominem. It's because he hasnt made a technically literate defence of his plans, his wider economic philosophy, or demanded, and demanded and demanded any answers from the other parties on how to re-gear the economy. No party (small "p", TJ) deserves to criticise without at least coming up with some costed viable alternatives.
There was some pathetic weasel of a Union rep from Somerset on R4 the other day, consistently managing to avoid the (rather wet attempts by the interviewer) question of what his Union would propose as alternative solutions to budget balancing for Somerset council.
[img] 
[/img]
Put in power again, Labour would destroy us - for sure!!! Anyone with a brain can see that!!!!
See, I was a bit unsure about that, but when I read it again I was completely convinced by the extra exclamation marks.
The unemployment rate was expected to be 7.9% this year, down from the earlier forecast of 8.1%. The forecast for next year was unchanged at 8%
thanks for the quote then.
Here we have it ^ Osborne confirming that expectations were for unemployment to rise next year over this. The fact that the observed data suggested better employment results somehow makes him a liar does it?
You live in a contorted world of foamy-mouthed ranting TJ.
lol!
Oh dear Stoner.
Osbourne said unemployment would fall. The OBR said it would not. This was in November
Latest figures show unemployment and deficit figures to be much much worse than either predicted.
You will not be able to pretend your tory fantasy is working soon as it will be obvious to everyone that the course Osborne is steering us down will end in vastly increaed unemployment and a far worse deficit as he puts us back into recession.
This is the lesson from history.
TJ, how can you say that we had the most financial stable time under Labour, of course we did cos they spent the next 25 years worth of budgets!
O my o my o my.
Osbourne said unemployment would fall. The OBR said it would not.
over which periods? Your quotes are out of context.
[i]"Their central forecast is for sustainable growth of over 2% for each of the next five years and employment rising in each and every year."[/i]
If that's a quote of Osborne, who is the "their" that he is quoting?
TJ, i think its you with the MASSIVE issue regards to politcal idealism and that you live in a strange world of denial becasue of your hatred towards the blue corner 😉
**** knows why he is Chancellor.
Degree in History then worked for the Conservative party. Where are his credentials in Economics?
Economics is a broad subject ranging from nearly a proper science at some of the more mathematical end to a more soft science at the political end but it's something that requires some technical knowledge and experience. Not just pure business side economic experience either as you have look at some of the effects of the decisions in a special context rather than all growth is good no matter what. Osborn seems to show no experience in any of these area according to his work history but yet he is in charge of the budget!?!
**** knows why he is Shadow Chancellor.
Postman and then worked for the Labour party. Where are his credentials in Economics?
If there was an entrance exam, even Vince would flunk it.
you do realise that he has a team of people working for him that probably do know a bit about economics?
si - because by any objective measure we did. Continuous low inflation and continuous growth until the banking crisis - which was not of Labours making.
These are the facts. stable growth, low inflation, low interest rates for more than a decade
Compare that with the previous tory administration with repeated recessions, high inflation and high interest rates
The conclusion I've reached is that they're all equally as bad as the next party.
During their time in power, New Labour did nothing to address the specific concerns which prompted me to vote for them in 1997 while managing to alienate me completely along the way. You all know the drill by now, but so far as I'm concerned the years 1997-2007 amounted to a criminal waste of an opportunity and I'll never vote Labour again.
The Tories on the other hand seem to have very little idea of what the heck they're trying to achieve beyond making everything more expensive. I strongly suspect that George Osborne's face will soon be adorning dart boards all over the country.
Having said that, I voted Lib Dem...:-(
Si i think its you with the MASSIVE issue regards to politcal ignorance and that you live in a strange world of denial becasue of your hatred towards the red corner
TandemJeremy - Membersi - because by any objective measure we did. Continuous low inflation and continuous growth until the banking crisis - which was not of Labours making.
well, it sort of was.
GB / Al Darling were at the wheel, fully aware that banks were selling debt packages as 'investments'. then making even more money short-selling shares in the same companies that bought the 'investments'*.
they did bog-all to stop it.
the tories did bog-all to stop it.
we did bog-all to stop it.
GB/Al darling were at the wheel, fully aware that any economic growth was in large part down to individuals re-mortgaging every 6-months so they could buy shiny things.
and did bog-all to stop it.
we all did bog-all to stop it.
(*you have to admit that 'the bankers' have been really very, very clever)
I voted for the National Party.
Postman and then worked for the Labour party. Where are his credentials in Economics?If there was an entrance exam, even Vince would flunk it.
I don't supported shadow chancellor and never stated I did but he doesn't have the job. I find it a joke the way politicians are chosen for their rolls. Technical positions of great importance handed out seemingly willy nilly.
Good job Gordon ended boom and bust!
Oh.....
Surely, there can be no doubt that Labour presided over one of the most stable and benign economic times any of us can remember?
Whether it was merely their good fortune to do so, a squandered opportunity or down to astute financial management by Brown will be debated for years and will inevitably be coloured by political opinion.
Like I said, its all academic. If we look at recent history
Labour Government = we're *ed
Tory Government = we're *ed
Con-Lib alliance = Hmmmmmmmmmm. Now let me see......
What its going to take is someone to finally point to the emperor's (not-so) new clothes
Fact: (or possibly my opinion): The Milton Friedman, Chicago school of unregulated market caplitalism advocated by all the major parties (YES, EVEN THE ****ING SNP BEFORE YOU START TJ) just leads to repetitions of the same boom and bust cycle. Except they're getting more and more severe ewith every cycle.
So... what chance of surviving the next (pretty immanent) one? We need an alternative. Except nobody in Westminster dares to mention this. We' really are doomed!
I will agree with you there Binners
Nooo, noooo - he must be right. I'm banking everything on the indisputable (TJ et al) [b]fact[/b] that there will be a 2nd recession followed by a financial meltdown, caused solely by the Tories of course, and I'll be able to purchase a house for thruppence halfpenny, which I will pay for cash, as obviously no mortgages will be available. In fact I may buy several and rent them out to people who have become jobless and had their homes repossessed. Obviously a good result for them as they will have a nice roof over their heads without the financial headache of paying a mortgage.You live in a contorted world of foamy-mouthed ranting TJ.
Then, once labour get back in and sort out the Tory mess and restore full employment, my properties will be worth a fortune.
Sounds like a win win situation to me 😐
😯
ahwiles is spot on.
i'm really not, i'm an idiot.
[i]we had the most financial stable time under Labour, of course we did cos they spent the next 25 years worth of budgets![/i]
Too right, well put !.
[i]These are the facts. stable growth, low inflation, low interest rates for more than a decade[/i]
TJ. Now this is what boils my urine with you. You insult us all by expecting us to swallow that.
Growth came cos GB employed eveyone. How on earth were we to keep going with so many people working for the government ?.
Low inflation ?, yeah, well only after GB decided to start using a different index, moving away from the RPI and using CPI.....
WHY ?, to suit and to hide his wreckless spending.
And you try to fool us into not seeing this.
You're not the only person to have been living in the UK since 1996, and I have to point out that your recollection and selection of certain economic [i]facts[/i] go only to suit your side of the arguement. Therefore by your very biased perspective, your comments are not taken seriously.
GB was a total borrow and spend freak and you know it.
How in the world did GB think he had the right to borrow and spend so much in my name ?.
The short answer is he didn't.
I recall listening to radio interviews where when he was asked about the massive debts he was getting us into, he replied by pointing out that other countries had greater deficits / debts.
WTF !, so he was saying that its OK, I'm gonna borrow and spend some more !!!
Totally bonkers and you know it.
Just when was the NU-Labour borrowing party going stop ?, when we all worked for the state ?, when we reached economic meltdown as they have in Greece ?.
You're away with the fairies if you think Labour ever had a clue.
Your NU-Labour economic growth was funded by borrowing, we all know it, yet you seek to portray this in an uneven and deceptive fashion to support your own political leanings.
Its really very sad.
Almost as sad as the realisation that you're too old and set in your ways to see the truth as regards Labour and their endemic short comings born of their idealogical baggage.
And after 13 years of messing it all up ?, yeah, right, someone, the tories, anyone. They're going to fix it all in less than a year ?.
Please, get a grip, this mess, the mess 13 years of Labour brought us to, isn't going to be cleared up in 11 months now, is it.
😉
**** knows why he is Chancellor
Chancellors aren't economists, they're politicians. What's important is who they go to for advice. I suspect one of the reason we're not in an even bigger hole is that Alistair Darling (who people forget was the chancellor when it all hit the fan) was prepared to listen to people who appeared to know what they were talking about, unlike his predecessor who thought he knew everything. So far I suspect Osborne is listening to other people, mainly because he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who can think for himself. Who knows how long that will last; chancellors with their own ideas are dangerous.
i'm really not, i'm an idiot.
That makes you more qualified than recent candidates. awhiles for Chancellor!
Captain
It is a FACT
Low inflation, stable growth, low interest rates for over a decade
On topic I reckon:
[url= http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/12/five-facts-about-osbornes-permanent-vat-rise/ ]5 facts about VAT rise[/url]
“When Mr Osborne said that “the years of debt and spending” made the £13 billion increase in VAT unavoidable you might just as well say it was his desire to cut other taxes that made it so”
I dont disagree with LFF on VAT.
Its a nasty regressive tax. If we're going to keep VAT it should be cut on a wider range of goods, be used more often as a tool to encourage consumption choices like energy efficient products/fuels/installations, and have variable rates to simulate a luxury good tax.
Some of the vagaries of VAT exemptions need to be sorted out.
No VAT on new build, but VAT on extensions etc...
just going through the VAT reclaim on my self-build now.
"Why dont you just ask what STW-leftie-forumworld think of Gary Glitter, or Maggie Thatcher?
They are one & the same I believe"
That is deeply offensive.
It is a FACT
Low inflation, stable growth, low interest rates for over a decade
Indisputable TJ.........and then the shit hit the fan due to problems entirely outside Mr Brown's control ! Shame really as he was damn near perfect and continually told us that it was [b]his policies and financial prudence[/b] which made UK Ltd solid as a rock. (errr not Northern obviously 😳 )
well acttually woody i think you are right the global economic meltdown was out of browns control
it would have been the same result whether we were under the torries or labour
yes you can criticis each parties reaction to events - do they improve the consequences or make it worse for example. Labour no more caused the sub prime housing market in the USA to collapse and the knock on effects in the global banking structire than the Tories caused the defecit. How each reacts to these scenarios can be judged. Brown did well IMHO re fiscal spending and convincingothers of this. The tory policy needs time to se if it is a great success or a dreadful failure.
Osbourne sis a lightweight IMHO and detahced from reality. I have little faith in him to care oir knwo what the average person actually wants ans he really only hangs with and knoews rich folk. All in this together ny arse
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
This is going to be the same old pish in this thread obviously but here's a couple of comments:
1) Anyone who calls George Osborne "Gideon", all you're doing is undermining your own argument. Childish meanspirited nonsense that just makes it look like you lack any actual content
2) Similiarly anyone who looks at UK debt and disregards the fact that the banking bailout is essentially secured lending on the assets of various banks, has absolutely no grasp of the facts.
rubbish calling gideon gideon is perfectly justified,
it serves as a reminder that he is not in this together with the rest of us and is infact the eldest son of four children. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet etc etc
feudalism is alive and well in the uk
Osborne worries me. Claimed on R4 this morning VAT was a more progressive tax than income tax.
"kimbers - Member
rubbish calling gideon gideon is perfectly justified,
it serves as a reminder that he is not in this together with the rest of us and is infact the eldest son of four children. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet etc etc"
It's making fun of the new kid with the funny name, for something he's got no control of. Ad hom attacks are pretty much the lowest common denominator. Get into what he's done not where he comes from, it's not particularily hard to do.
Fair enough if he calls himself Gideon.
But is his chosen name, George, a political deception?
As for...
Get into what he's done not where he comes from, it's not particularily hard to do.
Please enlighten? SFA comes to mind, except political croneyism and belong to an elite club (much the same as most of the career politicos TBH)
rkk01 - Member
"Fair enough if he calls himself Gideon.
But is his chosen name, George, a political deception?"
Obviously not- he chose it when he was 13. If he'd changed it with a view to making himself more electable then it'd be fair play.
No argument there Kimbers but when it happens under the auspices of a sanctimonious **** who was so utterly convinced that both he and his policies were infallible, he deserves all the flak he receives.it would have been the same result whether we were under the torries or labour
Regards Gideon calling himself George...
Meet Gordon:
[img] 
[/img]
you missed my point northwind his name is indicative of the fact that hes got his position by breeding rather than ability
i mean what name is more ballachingly posh than gideon?
pathetic ad-hominem
I fugging [i]hated[/i] the "Piers Gav" brigade. I don't need any other reason. 😈
Besides, given that it is axiomatic for Stoner that he is intellectually superior to everybody on STW (and possibly the internet), the real question should be: why doesn't he step up to the challenge? There's a [i]big[/i] pair of Hush Puppies awaitin'... can you fill 'em, comrade? I'm sure we could stump up for a bottle of cheap red (Seven Hills, screw top - a real keeper) as some kind of incentive. 😉
Behave Noteeth. Stoner's too frightened to even meet little harmless me lest I make him cry like a little girl, much less actually do something himself to actually genuinely benefit the society in which he lives. Too busy looking down on us all from his self-build VAT reclaimed loft....
C'mon Stoner; I'll buy you a pint and we can discuss economics.
kimbers - Member
"you missed my point northwind his name is indicative of the fact that hes got his position by breeding rather than ability"
No, I understand your argument perfectly, I just consider it pretty pathetic- that you want to criticise him and think that the best thing to go after him with is who his background is. What matters is how he does the job.
[i]Behave Noteeth[/i]
I swear to Gawd/Keith Bontrager, that if there was a group ride involving ALL STWers (inc all lurkers, trolls, attenshun whores, audi drivers, cheese nichers, the awesome & the banned), it would either usher in the New Golden Age of Consensus and Harmony or trigger another Civil War (dibbs on the roundhead body armour, please). Whatever, it's got to be worth a try...
Perhaps CG could look into it?
I'm with the Civil War idea. Although with me about it would be a particularly Un-Civil War...
As for the 'Gideon' thing; I don't get what the problem is? Just a name, no? I mean, Margaret Hilda Thatcher's hardly all that posh, is it? Surely something like Anthony Wedgewood Benn is a little more highbrow?
We need an alternative.
I have explained this before. It's [b][i]Elfinism[/i][/b]. The only answer to all this 'mess'.
Obviously not- he chose it when he was 13. If he'd changed it with a view to making himself more electable then it'd be fair play.
Like James Gordon Brown did, you mean?