[bobcar]

Originally Posted by smudges dad

Don't particularly like Balls, but Osborne really has to be the most odious man in parliament.

He also comes across as very cowardly the way he sent a junior minister to face Paxman last week and get the flak he should have. Balls has his faults but cowardice isn't one of them.

[ardmajell55]

Originally Posted by petertard

That is the question.

It's like asking which occupant of the asylum should take over. Cameron has decided, predictably enough, that too many tories are in with the banks so a proper inquiry is out of the question. Who is surprised?

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by petertard

That is the question.

After a close, hard fought race, they tied for last, along with all other politicians.

[C19th Fox]

Neither.

Both are smarmy. Neither did any good for the reputation of Parliament on Thursday. It was a pity that Speaker Bercow was not in the chair to shut them up.

[Judge Mental]

Osborne's only previous work experience was folding jumpers in a shop. Balls at least has solid knowledge of economics.

I find Osborne smug, slimy and cowardly.

Balls is unpopular and also a big smug but he's feisty and gets maximum points for annoying the Tory front bench.

[Middleotroad]

Shouldn't the question be who has less integrity? In this instance Osborne wins by a long shot.

Parliament resembled a right bear-pit on Thursday. . But Ed Balls seemed to be less of his usual WUM self. In attempting to make Balls' supposed involvement in the Libor debacle the main focus of the debate, Osborne managed to make him look slightly victimised. That takes some doing.

[swingaleg]

Do you think Osborne's apology should be printed in this weeks New Stateman with the same prominance and article size as the original article ?

Meanwhile the magazine is now reporting that Osborne's backbenchers are getting fed up with his obsession about Ed Balls.............they think it's got to the stage where it's distracting him from both his jobs as Chancellor and Chief party strategist............neither of which he's doing very well

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...tience-osborne

[ThePhotographer]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Osborne's only previous work experience was folding jumpers in a shop. Balls at least has solid knowledge of economics.

I find Osborne smug, slimy and cowardly.

Balls is unpopular and also a big smug but he's feisty and gets maximum points for annoying the Tory front bench.

At least Osborne has had a real job in a retail store.

Thousands of people are employed in retails stores and do a damn good job!

Yes, Balls may be educated in economics, but so what? That does not mean he has the answers to everything. If anything, economists have been shown to be flawed and that economic text books need to be shredded and revised.

There are economists that work in the IMF, but yet every time I see the IMF mentioned they are always having to change their stance from previous statements or expectations.

I'd rather have a chancellor that has a wide view on the world and that is Osborne. He has worked in the private sector in a retail job and is also rich and good family connections. He has a good perspective on reality that is not narrow minded like Ed Balls.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by ThePhotographer

At least Osborne has had a real job in a retail store.

Thousands of people are employed in retails stores and do a damn good job!

Yes, Balls may be educated in economics, but so what? That does not mean he has the answers to everything. If anything, economists have been shown to be flawed and that economic text books need to be shredded and revised.

There are economists that work in the IMF, but yet every time I see the IMF mentioned they are always having to change their stance from previous statements or expectations.

I'd rather have a chancellor that has a wide view on the world and that is Osborne. He has worked in the private sector in a retail job and is also rich and good family connections. He has a good perspective on reality that is not narrow minded like Ed Balls.

Nothing wrong with folding towels in Selfridges, it's an honest job, but it doesn't really compare by way of previous experience for the role of chancellor to writing for the Financial Times and being chief economic advisor to the treasury - also real jobs by the way.

What has being rich with good family connections have to do with his integrity or suitability for his role - so he's got rich parents and has had every privilege in life. Since when did that make you intelligent, hard working, honest or competent?

Both Balls and Osborne have specific political and economic views - that doesn't make Balls any more narrow-minded.

[Delboy219]

I'm reminded of this awesome South Park episode when polls like this come up.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-m...andwich7om.jpg

[ThePhotographer]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Nothing wrong with folding towels in Selfridges, it's an honest job, but it doesn't really compare by way of previous experience for the role of chancellor to writing for the Financial Times and being chief economic advisor to the treasury - also real jobs by the way.

Writing for the Financial Times is not something I look for in a Chancellor, and being the chief economic advisor to the treasury is not that impressive either considering the mess the Labour government left this country in.

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

What has being rich with good family connections have to do with his integrity or suitability for his role - so he's got rich parents and has had every privilege in life. Since when did that make you intelligent, hard working, honest or competent?

He has a wide field of view and is able to have perspective unlike Ed Balls' narrow minded ideological view.

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Both Balls and Osborne have specific political and economic views - that doesn't make Balls any more narrow-minded.

Ed Balls is a disaster and was a cog in the machines that savaged this country's economy.

[leetay1]

Ahh the Labour tactic of selective misquoting has done it's work on the Labour voters on here.

George Osborne never accuse Ed Balls of being involved just that he had questions to answers which has been confirmed by The Spectators James Forsyth on Twitter......

"James Forsyth ‏@JGForsyth

NB Osborne didn’t say Ed Balls was the one who was ‘clearly involved’. But that 'he has questions to answer as well’ "

If the Labour voters bothered to read what was actually said word for word and compare it to the two attempts by Ed Balls to quote him you'd notice that Ed Balls on both occasions ommitted the part where George Osborne said he had questions to answer. That's a deliberate misquote and he did so create a smokescreen for Labour's gross incompetence on banking regulation during their time in office.

Furthermore he hasn't climbed down from his comments he's simply corrected Ed Balls twisted and completely inaccurate version of it.

The ignorance of Labour voters never seizes to amaze me.

[jjne]

Originally Posted by leetay1

The ignorance of Labour voters never seizes to amaze me.

So it never amazes you?

[swingaleg]

To quote from the New Statesman itself..........

"After his aides were forced to "clarify" that he had never alleged that Ed Balls was personally involved in the Libor scandal (rather that he had "questions to answer", a distinction without a difference if ever there was one)"

from the article linked to earlier

Of course Osborne was suggesting that Balls was personally involved !

He thought he was scoring points but it backfired and his backbenchers are getting fed up with his obsession with Balls which is clouding his judgment

[Majlis]

Originally Posted by swingaleg

To quote from the New Statesman itself..........

Why are you quoting from the Staggers - the interview was in the Speccy.

[jjne]

Originally Posted by leetay1

Ahh the Labour tactic of selective misquoting has done it's work on the Labour voters on here.

George Osborne never accuse Ed Balls of being involved just that he had questions to answers

Only in the sense that Osborne used weasel words.

He states the following in that article:

1) Those in the "Labour government and the people around Gordon Brown" were "clearly involved".

2) Ed Balls was "Gordon Brown's right-hand man for all of [the period in question]".

Of course he is personally accusing Balls of involvement!

[David Tee]

Originally Posted by swingaleg

To quote from the New Statesman itself..........

"After his aides were forced to "clarify" that he had never alleged that Ed Balls was personally involved in the Libor scandal (rather that he had "questions to answer", a distinction without a difference if ever there was one)"

from the article linked to earlier

Of course Osborne was suggesting that Balls was personally involved !

He thought he was scoring points but it backfired and his backbenchers are getting fed up with his obsession with Balls which is clouding his judgment

Not on this planet, they're not.

Their problem with Osborne is that he gives way too often to the Lib-Dems. And that's all. Where Balls is concerned, the Tory backbenchers won't be satisfied until he publicly humiliates him - and they'll be firmly behind him every step of the way.

[leetay1]

Originally Posted by jjne

Only in the sense that Osborne used weasel words.

He states the following in that article:

1) Those in the "Labour government and the people around Gordon Brown" were "clearly involved".

2) Ed Balls was "Gordon Brown's right-hand man for all of [the period in question]".

Of course he is personally accusing Balls of involvement!

And there goes another example of selective misquoting.

You Labour lot must be infected with selectivemisquotingitus.

[jjne]

Originally Posted by leetay1

And there goes another example of selective misquoting.

You Labour lot must be infected with selectivemisquotingitus.

Firstly I am not Labour.

Secondly it is you who is selectively quoting. I have the damned piece in front of me.

I can only go by the quotes highlighted in the piece.

"As for the role of the Labour Government and the people around Gordon Brown -- well I think there are questions to be asked of them [...] They [the Brown Circle] were clearly involved and we just haven't heard the full facts, I don't think, of who who knew what when [...] My opposite number was the City Minister for part of this period and Gordon Brown's right hand man for all of it. So he has questions to answer as well. That's Ed Balls, by the way".

That is the sum total of the Spectator's quotes of Mr Osborne. There are no more in relation to this part of the piece.

Explain why my summary was 'selective'.

He does state that the "Brown Circle" (Forsyth's words) "were clearly involved". He does state that Ed Balls was "Gordon Brown's right hand man for all of it". And he makes no distinction that would suggest that he thinks that Balls, as Brown's "right hand man", is any less involved than the rest of this "circle" who are "clearly involved".

If I am "selectively misquoting", then so is The Spectator. It's as simple as that.

[jjne]

By stating that Ed Balls was Brown's "right-hand man" he is linking Balls, by name, to his earlier comment regarding those around Gordon Brown were "clearly involved" in pressuring Barclays to manipulate the Libor rate. For what is someone's "right-hand man" if not someone in that person's circle, and a very important member of that circle at that?

I agree that the accusation is not explicit (for such an accusation would be libellous), and I said as much in my earlier post. It is, however, a clear attempt at guilt by association.

James Forsyth himself emphasises this point, referring to Osborne's comments on the scandal as a "chance to destroy Balls's reputation", and questioning if "it is also intended to bring into question Balls's defence that he couldn't have known about any rate-fixing as he was Secretary of State for Children at the time".

[swingaleg]

Originally Posted by Majlis

Why are you quoting from the Staggers - the interview was in the Speccy.

Sorry..................I couldn'r remember the name so I just googled osborne balls libor and got a link to the New Statesmen............

[WindWalker]

Originally Posted by David Tee

Not on this planet, they're not.

Their problem with Osborne is that he gives way too often to the Lib-Dems. And that's all. Where Balls is concerned, the Tory backbenchers won't be satisfied until he publicly humiliates him - and they'll be firmly behind him every step of the way.

Posted in another thread:

Originally Posted by WindWalker

Can George go on with declining backbench support?

Could his obsession with Balls be his undoing?

Yesterday’s fierce clashes in the Commons between Osborne and Balls have raised further questions about the future of the chancellor coming as it does after what are widely regarded as his budget cock-ups
According to a report behind the paywall in the Times there’s growing unease amongst Tory MPs over his approach to the LIBOR scandal and the way that he’s allowed his response to ” be dominated by personal attacks on Ed Balls.”
It says that “normally loyal MPs” are saying that he has a “disproportionate obsession” with the shadow chancellor. The report goes on:

“..One Tory said Mr Osborne’s obsession with Mr Balls and ‘Whitehall sources’ was a ‘red herring.’’ They added: “There was no smoking gun.”

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/ind...bench-support/

Interesting comment, anyone with access to the Times to confirm the report?

[RandomJointer]

Osborne is out of his depth, has trashed the economy and is the worst Chancellor in my lifetime.

So I vote Balls on the grounds that his bluster is mostly harmless whereas Osborne is doing real damage day in, day out.

[Palafrugel]

Can anyone tell me how to make a poll on these boards?

[Musicman103]

There is nobody in parliament who I detest more than Balls.