George Osbourne throws his toys out of the pram...

1235789

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    Can you tell me roughly when they proposed this, I'm assuming it will be in Hansard?

    I'm not tribal. I am not a member of any political party. I'm just presenting facts. If I agree mostly with labour, then thats fine. Other people may agree mostly with other political parties. That doesn't make me tell anyone that they're 'tribal'
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PCRose wrote: »
    I'm with you. I watched this morning and he still comes across as a moron to me. He has no depth to him at all and daren't stray from a script in case he puts his foot in it. Watch this space, he's going to be useless.

    Regardless of which political party we support, we don't want the government to be useless, even if we don't support or vote for them. However, Mr Osbourne is completely out of his depth, he proved it as shadow chancellor and is proving it now. Very bad times ahead for this country sadly due to a clueless government.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    I'm not tribal. I am not a member of any political party. I'm just presenting facts. If I agree mostly with labour, then thats fine. Other people may agree mostly with other political parties. That doesn't make me tell anyone that they're 'tribal'

    I agree with you, it's a common sideswing at people who dare question the "Coalition".
  • SCD-ObserverSCD-Observer Posts: 18,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    I'm not tribal. I am not a member of any political party. I'm just presenting facts. If I agree mostly with labour, then thats fine. Other people may agree mostly with other political parties. That doesn't make me tell anyone that they're 'tribal'

    You don't have to be an official member of a party to be their fanboy/gal. :p
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    I agree with you, it's a common sideswing at people who dare question the "Coalition".

    The coaltion government is less than a week old, so shouldn't you give it time to do something before attacking it? :mad:

    We should support the fact that two different parties have put aside differences in order to save the British economy.
  • walesrobwalesrob Posts: 369
    Forum Member
    glory1986 wrote: »

    In my opinion, it's very cheap and quite low really. It really is the same old conservative party. It actually is quite nasty underneath it all.

    ..and its your opinion based on rubbish printed in todays Guardian newspaper. Neither you or The Guardian know the exact details, so maybe its better to pass opinion once the deed is done in June, until then, its nothing but "parlour talk" as someone said in another forum.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wallster wrote: »
    The coaltion government is less than a week old, so shouldn't you give it time to do something before attacking it? :mad:

    We should support the fact that two different parties have put aside differences in order to save the British economy.

    Well a lot of people are commenting based on the coalition's policies which in my view are wrong, incorrect and actually threaten the economic recovery.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's like the previous Chief Secretary is saying: Haha! Gotcha!

    :mad:
    Apparently Liebour did their best to waste all the money on pointless contracts before the election, just shows how much they love this country (and not power of course).....:mad:
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    Well a lot of people are commenting based on the coalition's policies which in my view are wrong, incorrect and actually threaten the economic recovery.

    Can you explain, with reference to the coalition document and other factual sources, which policies you disagree with (and why)?

    Or are you just another Labour sock puppet hovering around to call the Tories names like "nasty"?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    wallster wrote: »
    The coaltion government is less than a week old, so shouldn't you give it time to do something before attacking it? :mad:

    We should support the fact that two different parties have put aside differences in order to save the British economy.

    By the same token, shouldn't we wait before heaping praise on it?
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    Well a lot of people are commenting based on the coalition's policies which in my view are wrong, incorrect and actually threaten the economic recovery.

    Which policies are wrong, in your opinion?
  • Mr JonMr Jon Posts: 535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    Can you tell me roughly when they proposed this, I'm assuming it will be in Hansard?

    Yes, I'm sure it will be...
    Have no idea of the time/date it was said, but remember it being discussed at the time. I'm sure it'll be quite easy for you to look up, if you want clarification.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,104
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thepuffin wrote: »
    Can you explain, with reference to the coalition document and other factual sources, which policies you disagree with (and why)?

    Or are you just another Labour sock puppet hovering around to call the Tories names like "nasty"?

    Taking money out of the economy immediately for a start, this ridiculous swedish schools policy which even the swedish government have admitted that it has failed and therefore cancelling the schools building program which will mean schools will fall into disrepair like it did before under 18 years of tory government. That's just two things to start off with.
  • walesrobwalesrob Posts: 369
    Forum Member
    glory1986 wrote: »
    But listen to the tory statements; it's the thatcher psychology they've all got. This emergency budget seems to be a smokescreen to continue the failed thatcher policies of the 80s and 90s which led to 18 percent interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment while a very small rich segment of society benefitted.

    Ah, right ok. So the truth is there is no deficit, and the Tories are here to continue the work of Thatcher. Sorry, but I've read some rubbish in my time, and for your comments, you are awarded Gold medal. ;)
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    Taking money out of the economy immediately for a start, this ridiculous swedish schools policy which even the swedish government have admitted that it has failed and therefore cancelling the schools building program which will mean schools will fall into disrepair like it did before under 18 years of tory government. That's just two things to start off with.

    Why is taking money out of the economy bad?

    Why is the Swedish schools policy "ridiculous"?

    Your arguments lack depth and stink of resentment because your team lost the election. Can you try a bit harder to join in mature debate rather than mudslinging?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,848
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mr Jon wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure it will be...
    Have no idea of the time/date it was said, but remember it being discussed at the time. I'm sure it'll be quite easy for you to look up, if you want clarification.

    I've tried but I can't find it, maybe you should back up your claims? Then we can see what the dates were and if the proposals were put forward too late and the result being that they would have done nothing until passing the responsibility to the Bank of England.
  • B-29B-29 Posts: 2,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wallster wrote: »
    The major reason for the overspend is not the bank bailout. The problem is that taxation doesn't meet government spending so Labour borrowed to maintain public expenditure at a level we can't afford.

    You got it smack on, shame some won't see it .
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    glory1986 wrote: »
    Taking money out of the economy immediately for a start, this ridiculous swedish schools policy which even the swedish government have admitted that it has failed and therefore cancelling the schools building program which will mean schools will fall into disrepair like it did before under 18 years of tory government. That's just two things to start off with.

    Let us start with the "taking money out of the economy". Cutting 1% of government expenditure is hardly going to depress the economy. It is money we don't actually have in the first place...
  • PCRosePCRose Posts: 502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    wallster wrote: »
    The coaltion government is less than a week old, so shouldn't you give it time to do something before attacking it? :mad:

    We should support the fact that two different parties have put aside differences in order to save the British economy.

    Before the election the Tories were boasting that we'd get a Government on Friday that would be rolling its sleeves up and getting things done and getting Britain moving again. They've had days now, so where are the results as opposed to the weasel words of announcements?
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    wallster wrote: »
    I'm sure there will be lots of anti-Conservative threads, but they should be based on real issues, policies etc and not just a lot of hysterical ranting.

    There is no substance to this thread.

    I think someone needs to go back to some of the anti-Labour / Gordon Brown threads. Then they should ask why there should be a total change in behavior just because the ConDems are in power.

    However, maybe the lefty rants will be a bit more even tempered than lots of the anti-left rants?:)
  • Turnbull2000Turnbull2000 Posts: 7,588
    Forum Member
    It seems to me that the major reason we are overspent is the bank-bailout. .

    No, that's not the major reason.
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PCRose wrote: »
    Before the election the Tories were boasting that we'd get a Government on Friday that would be rolling its sleeves up and getting things done and getting Britain moving again. They've had days now, so where are the results as opposed to the weasel words of announcements?

    You may not have realised it but unfortunately the Conservatives didn't get a majority and so they couldn't get started sooner. A coalition has been formed with the Liberal Democrats and a common platform of policies had to be established.
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    trickyvik wrote: »
    Can you tell me roughly when they proposed this, I'm assuming it will be in Hansard?

    This is the closest I can find on a cursory examination: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080218/debtext/80218-0004.htm

    Specifically the third point by George Osbourne under the heading "18 Feb 2008 : Column 24" where he states:

    The Chancellor had opportunities to avoid the disaster of nationalisation last autumn, and he missed them. He has the opportunity now to avoid the disaster of nationalisation by opting instead for a reconstruction led by the Bank of England, and he will not take it.
  • SpacedoneSpacedone Posts: 2,546
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    Apparently Liebour did their best to waste all the money on pointless contracts before the election, just shows how much they love this country (and not power of course).....:mad:

    Name those pointless contracts please.

    If you can't then it's just spin from the new government to shift the blame for the cuts they're going to introduce next Monday. Apparently.
  • PCRosePCRose Posts: 502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    wallster wrote: »
    You may not have realised it but unfortunately the Conservatives didn't get a majority and so they couldn't get started sooner. A coalition has been formed with the Liberal Democrats and a common platform of policies had to be established.

    Are you for real? Yes, fortunately they didn't get a majority, but they have had days now after that got done.
Sign In or Register to comment.