UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35796861

Apparently after nearly 6 years of Tory cuts we need even more. It's not Gideon's fault though; it's the global economic situation to blame, although when banks were crashing around the world in 2008 it was apparently all Labour's fault.

How much will the Tories dismantle this country's institutions before we wise up to them?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I completely agree.... lets borrow Trillions and Trillions. Blaming Labours lax banking regulations for the crash.... outrageous!

In reply to Indy:

At the time of Labour's relaxed banking controls I didn't hear the Conservative party complaining about light touch regulation nor indeed calling for tighter regulation.

In reply to Indy:


I'm absolutely convinced the Tories would have regulated the shit out of the banks had they been in power.

In reply to Shani:


I can feel your angst from here. Come on say it.... Labour fcuked up and instead of just admitting it they try and blame everyone and everything else. They were the one in power they were the one that should have done something..... period.

In reply to Indy:

So what has Gideon f*cked up that's left him needing to blame the global economy?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

As neilh eloquently put it on the Labout thread, people are too quick to blame the government and the government cannot do much more than invest in infrastructure to influence the economy. And even that is of questionable benefit.

The gap in Gideon's budget results from a drop in corporate tax revenues owing to the global slowdown. This majority share of his shortfall is bugger all to do with his or the previous government's policies and there is literally nothing he could have done to avoid it, although it could be argued he might have foreseen it better, and cut sooner!! I'm not arguing for that, merely echoing another's wisdom that sometimes shit happens and you can only hope the government keeps things on a fairly even keel.

There is a further element however. Gideon is locked in a battle with Boris for the big job coming available in 2020 or sooner. And lines have been drawn over Europe. By emphasising the parlous state of the world economy Gideon sends a tacit warning that we should be wary which bridges we burn in June. Victory for the "remain" camp becomes a powerful endorsement of his candidacy.

Reason enough to vote the other way I imagine many might think!! My nephew works in the House of Commons and there is universal agreement there that Gideon is the ultimate politician, if not the most likeable.

In reply to Indy:


Of course Labour f*cked up on banking regulation. Of course the Conservative Party have to shoulder some of the blames as their job as opposition party is to effectively oppose. If they were as superior to Labour on financial issues as they claim they'd have spotted the f*ck up.

The Conservatives continue to f*ck up on banking regulation.

In reply to BnB:


You think government infrastucture investment is of questionable benefit? Really?


...and staff cuts and reduced funding at HMRC, failing to get a grip on aggressive tax avoidance generally, and the drag on the economy of austerity specifically.

In reply to BnB:

Oh, I agree - to some, maybe a large extent, the government is just an observer. I was more highlighting Osborne's hypocrisy.

I think where Govts do have a role is in setting the mood of the nation, and if Osborne is playing down the economy, which will end up being a self-fulfilling prophesy, to enhance his own political ambitions then he's an even more despicable shit than I previously gave him credit for.

In reply to Shani:




I think it can be exceptionally beneficial. But not in every case. I'm really not convinced that HS2 for example is going to produce a net benefit.


You're quite right that there are other factors and if you read on I did point out that the fall in corporate profits accounted for the majority of his shortfall, ie not all of it.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I think it's more a case of bigging up the threats than talking down the economy.

You think he's unique, as a politician, in putting himself before the nation's welfare? Really?

In reply to BnB:



Nope, which is profoundly depressing.

In reply to BnB:


I'd agree with you on HS2 in that I'm not sure a robust case has been made for it.

On a wider note, I'd be curious as to what kind of investments you think are exceptionally beneficial, and, when do you think those kinds of investments should be made?

In reply to Shani:
Transport is a good starting point, despite uncertainty over HS2. Investment in transpennine railway infrastructure would be a good starting point. To be fair, Gideon is a supporter. Others would argue for the 5th runway.

As for timing, it's always a good time to make a good investment.

In reply to BnB:


We are in agreement! (I suspect most of us on UKC are closer in opinion - and more reasonable -than forum based discussions would suggest. Much is lost in online communication and things can come across way rather terse at times).

But how does this borrow & spend (on infrastructure) square with your 'magic money tree' comments on the previous thread? Your advocacy for national infrastructure investment is exactly what the current Labour leadership is proposing so do you support it (at least in principle)?

In reply to Indy:


Hmmmn, the Conservatives DID support the light touch regulation, that remains a fact, Mr Strongly Spoken Person.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I'm borrowing here from a comedian but I think it's worth doing so,

Politics in Britain is about the only place where it's acceptable to blame something now on what someone did decades before, you wouldn't stand for going into Greggs, ordering a pasty, being given a shoe, and being told 'sorry, this used to be a Timpsons'

In reply to Shani:

That comment was made in relation to the electorate's prevailing economic appreciation. The "money tree meme" if you like. It wasn't a critique of policy. That's why Labour is playing the same card.

The astuteness of the spending defines the quality of the borrowing!!

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

How about a Beef Wellington?

In reply to Indy:


Get a grip. This is about no steady hand on the tiller for 30 years. No change coming soon.

In reply to BnB:



But in principle you'd support increased government borrowing to fund large infrastructure projects in the current economic climate?

In reply to Shani:
I support infrastructure spending. Not the same thing as increasing borrowing. All western governments borrow all the time after all so it's a very grey area to hypothecate funds derived from borrowing as opposed to taxation. I could just as well ask you why don't we just raise the basic rate of tax by 1p?

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


Eating anything from Greggs taste like trying to eat a shoe if you ask me so bad example.

In reply to BnB:

Two reasons:

1) We can currently borrow more cheaply than ever before - 10Y bonds hit an all time low in Feb 2016.

2) a penny on income tax would exacerbate a demand side problem and raise what, £5bn a year or so? Might as well cancel Trident and raise a more substantial amount.

In reply to Indy:

My dog has a soft spot for Greggs - they can't be all that bad.

In reply to Shani:


If the crash had happened under the Conservatives then I would have blamed them but it didn't so I don't. I was going to add are labour 'blaming' the Conservatives for anything positive they's done but I couldn't find anything positive they'd done so bummer

The irony of all this is that its Labour that's promising 'responsible' rules to control it's spending. Fiscal Creditability they call it. The reason Labour has been forced to announce it is all you need to know about Labour and the spending of (other people's) money.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You obviously know a great deal about economics, what would be your solution to our current predicament?

In reply to Indy:



You're falling in to boring and out dated party politics. How can you compare New Labour with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour, never mind comparing Gordon Brown's economics with those proposed by John McDonnell? To tar such diverse policies as "Labour" is vacuous.

The crash was a problem of neo-liberal economics, not of any one political party. You CAN blame national government for the degree of exposure.

Now in absolute terms and on average (per year in power), it would appear that Conservative governments have ALWAYS borrowed more than Labour governments. In addition Labour governments have ALWAYS paid off more debt than Conservatives. This kind of pisses all over your last paragraph.

Now talking of spending 'our' money, Osborne is selling off as much of our state assets as he can. And cheaply. These are OUR assets and we should all be appalled at this - moreso if you have kids or are under about 30.

Furthermore, rather than borrowing INCREDIBLY cheap money he is pushing more PFI on to the UK people and underwriting expensive projects funded by foreign SOVERIGN wealth funds. So rather than us making a profit from things like new nuclear, we will take all the risk and support the Chinese and French governments to invest for us (hey, they've got to dump that steel somewhere).

But instead of talking policy, let's squabble about bipartisan political identity instead eh?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I wonder what you (and others) think you gain by referring to George Osborne as Gideon?
I assume its an expression of your utter contempt for him but in so doing you undermine any chance you may have of persuading an open minded reader of the validity of your case. I may be persuaded by your argument, but not by your contempt.

His name isn't Gideon and even though it was, its not like he had any choice in the matter, do you always judge people by the sins of the father? And in any case, even if he was called Gideon is that such a bad thing, any worse than say Tristram or Chuka?

In doing this you come across as mean spirited (at best) and perhaps even a bit of a tw@t. It tells me more about you than it does about him. I should point out I'm not an uncritical admirer of George Osborne but I don't share the visceral loathing of all politicians that many do, nor do I for politicians of any particular party, even ones I would never dream of voting for. I prefer to judge them on their merits in the belief that no side in politics has a monopoly on the truth.

In reply to BnB:

Given we can borrow more cheaply than ever, and given that we need to invest in our infrastructure (not least power generation, but also perhaps fibre optic broadband), would you agree that now is a great time to borrow money and to undertake such investments?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

hahaha, until pec objected to your calling him Gideon, making me curious enough to google it, I hadnt realise quite what a privileged upbringing the man who is selling austerity to the rest of us had ! "His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet, co-founded the firm of fabric and wallpapers designers Osborne & Little.[2] His mother is Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, the daughter of artist Clarisse Loxton-Peacock."

they really are an over privileged bunch of psbs and gs, not only totally out of touch with daily reality for the majority of people but with complete contempt for us

In reply to Indy:
Pre 2008 the tory party wanted even looser banking control. Labour stopped this, had they not done so the uk crash would have been a lot worse.
It was a WORLDWIDE banking crash so how it was labours fault is beyond me. But the Tory propaganda machine made an excellent job of convincing the public it was labours fault.

In reply to John2:


When have I claimed that? I was making the point that Osborne was being hypocritical blaming the global situation for current woes when the Tories span and spin the problems in 2007 / 2008 as being solely down to Labour's incompetence.

I am however convinced that a large part of the economy is down to the mass psychology of the people, so when you create fear like Osborne has done, you make people think twice about buying things, hiring staff etc, creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In reply to pec:





It just gives me a little smidge of satisfaction that if he read it, it would piss him off a bit. I guess that makes me a bad person but I can live with it.

In reply to pebbles:


Yes, everyone should be born into poverty! That'll learn them!

Politics of envy is never pleasant.

In reply to pebbles:


While "out of touch" is a legitimate accusation, I'd be wary of using "privileged" to infer that someone is without talent. I worked my way with state support from working class roots to Oxford University where I found myself in the company of the rather posh descendants of Benjamin Britten, the Sainsbury and Lever families, Boris' future wife, and a certain D Cameron. Not one of them struck me as undeserving of the opportunities that Oxford confers. They were without exception highly able offspring of exceptionally talented people.

In reply to Big Ger:

as opposed to the politics of greed?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I'm sure he'll feel suitably chastised next time he logs on, you know, for some advice on economic policy matters for example.
Anybody know what his username is? I'd be keen to see what he's done on grit recently.

In reply to pec:


Pec?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Just be aware that some people think it's anti semitic to label him as "Gideon". Possibly trying to highlight the Jewish name as an insult (even though he is not Jewish)

Not saying that's why you have done it at all, but it has been others motives

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I never knew that. I'd have thought a stronger link amongst the working and middle classes was the belief that such a name rarely manifests outside of the upper echelon's of society.

Certainly for the working man under 50, I'd imagine that when people think of 'Gideon', this is what comes to mind:

youtube.com/watch?v=ue2k1vwHXB8&

In reply to Big Ger:


yes because that is obviously the only conclusion that can be drawn from it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


This often gets trotted out but doesnt really add up. I would have thought Gideon would be far more likely to be associated with Christianity nowadays at least for anyone who has ever stayed in a hotel and looked in the drawers (or got given one at school).

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Noted. It wasn't why I did it, no, but I understand the point.

In reply to pec:



I would imagine that if he were to seek advice on economic matters he would approach those whose interests he intended to serve - Rupert Murdoch, Nat Rothschild etc. Not you or I.

In reply to Shani:

I had no idea either, I read it while ago in a newspaper and thought it was interesting. I mentioned it only as I am certain no one on here would use it in that manner but would want to know that occasionally it could be interpreted that way.

I have been known to use derogatory terms for politicians myself