Jump to content

Ask the Chancellors C4 8.0


dune
 Share

Recommended Posts

Should be an interesting warm up for the main leaders debates that will be taking place soon.

 

I think matey with the white hair and black eyebrows will come out of it better as he's good on TV, wheras George Osbourne comes accross as a bit of a pr1ck. Vince Cable will also be there and he talks some sense, but because he's a Liberal he's irrelevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be an interesting warm up for the main leaders debates that will be taking place soon.

 

I think matey with the white hair and black eyebrows will come out of it better as he's good on TV, wheras George Osbourne comes accross as a bit of a pr1ck. Vince Cable will also be there and he talks some sense, but because he's a Liberal he's irrelevent.

 

I too think Osborne is a prat. Too much of a public schoolboy and has never had a real job. So he's not fit to run the Treasury IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be an interesting warm up for the main leaders debates that will be taking place soon.

 

I think matey with the white hair and black eyebrows will come out of it better as he's good on TV, wheras George Osbourne comes accross as a bit of a pr1ck. Vince Cable will also be there and he talks some sense, but because he's a Liberal he's irrelevent.

 

Not if there's a hung parliament [-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rubbing my hands with glee at the thought of Osborne getting pulled to bits by the other two.

 

'Tis in my Sky Planner :)

 

Unfortunately for you Socialists only the saddos like you and me will be watching tonight and in the main televised debates - Brown v Cameron v the Liberal bloke who's name escapes me - Brown will come accross badly.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cable will take them both apart tonight.

 

Citizen Dave comes across, increasingly, as a smug bas**rd and Brown is just a c**k.

 

The biggest winner will be "none of the above" on the ballot sheet.

 

Where I work the swing voters just aren't bothering to vote this time around as they view politicians as all the same and all in it just for themselves.

 

I predict a record low turnout for a general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for you Socialists only the saddos like you and me will be watching tonight and in the main televised debates - Brown v Cameron v the Liberal bloke who's name escapes me - Brown will come accross badly.:)

 

I don't think we're saddos for taking an interest in the things that matter and coming to our (disparate) conclusions rather than forming our views from the media.

 

If others think so - well that's their prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour deserve to inherit the mess they have caused. Sadly the country is badly damaged and we have nobody in any political party who has the ****** to grab the nettle

 

Trouble is if any party did find the gumption to seize the nettle, 90% of the country would be squawking about the policies needed to sort the country out. What is needed is hughly unpopular and mutually exclusive to being re-elected at the end of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is if any party did find the gumption to seize the nettle, 90% of the country would be squawking about the policies needed to sort the country out. What is needed is hughly unpopular and mutually exclusive to being re-elected at the end of the term.

 

I think you misjudge "middle england" (i hate that term). When Thatcher came to power she got to grips with the Socialist mess and there was much crying from Union types, but she got re-elected because the silent majority knew that what she had done had been the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour deserve to inherit the mess they have caused. Sadly the country is badly damaged and we have nobody in any political party who has the ****** to grab the nettle

 

Strange I thought most of the current mess has been caused by dubious financial practices of wrapping up toxic loans into financial instruments no one really realised would be a problem till the popping sounds started.

 

As to grasping the nettle most (i.e. outside the tory party) experts warn about cutting public spending too soon. To cut it now would be like having a vigorous dance at the top of a cliff after clambering back up after being caught in a landslide. You might be okay but there is a substantial risk you could be plummeting down again because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conclusion: All pretty lame. Vince Cable came out best (as expected) but at the end of the day the Liberals can pretty much say what they like because they'll never be in a position to be held to account. Darling struggled and was clearly nervous - although tried to make a few funny comments which were pretty lame. George Osbourne basically came accross as a nob as expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Osborne did better than I expected :( But it was pretty tame and there wasn't actually that much time to debate, which was a shame.

 

Sort of agree, but he could only say what he'd planned to say if you know what i mean. If say Ken Clarke had been the Tory chancellor then him and Cable would've destroyed Darling. Darling was a nervous wreck and thus there for the taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At work you don't hear any neutrals blaming Brown (even though the majority think he's an idiot). They lay the blame squarely at the door of the investment banks.

 

Interesting, you don't hear anyone blaming Brown but the majority think he is an idiot. Hate to think what they thought of him if they blamed him as well.

 

Laying the blame at the door of the investment banks is also interesting. If there was a 100 car pile up with exploding tankers and the sort of carnage that would live forever in the memory who would you blame? The drivers or the authorities who decided to relax or turn a blind eye to speed limits or road safety measures or hand control to another agency all together?

 

When Thatcher came to power in 1979 she was villified and hated until her Falklands coup in 1982. However, in that time she turned around a Labour disaster and what was perceived at the time as a massive deficit and made her cabinet push the boundaries of cost cutting regardless of currying favour with the electorate and those who doubted her actions. We all need to remember that it wan't until Thatcher and Howe's widely reviled budget in 1981(?) that the economy at that time began to turn around and Chancellor Howe may not have had the backbone to deliver it without being 'persuaded'.

 

Their surgey on the economy was drastic and I am concerned about the Tories approach this time unless they are going to renegade on their promises should they win the next election. If Cable was in the Labour camp I would be compelled to vote Labour for the first time in my life but living in a Tory stronghold what would be the point? I never vote in general elections as living in my area of Hampshire they would vote in a squirrel if they stuck a blue rosette on it.

 

These are worrying times and perhaps if Brown gets re-elected he won't be quite so shy to follow Thatchers path. He is certainly single minded enough but recently his determination I think has been muted by the looming election. At least he is not a PR politician as Blair and now more worringly Cameron who seems intent on using the Blairite text books and in my opinion he lacks gravitas as a serious politician and merely someone who went to Eton and no doubt won some public speaking awards. It wouldn't be so bad if he had politicians of any clout behind him and Osborne is an embarrassment and Hague hasn't exactly covered himself in glory recently and who does that leave us with Mr Hush Puppies himself?

 

I tend to agree with NickH that against my better judgement Labour more over Brown and a major cabinet reshuffle should stay put and sort out this mess. A mess that is many, many times worse than the £11bn or so Thatcher turned around and so someone who is willing to dig in for the good of the country than there own personal legacy and media profile should be PM. Brown is the only one of a poor bunch and Cameron and Osborne are beginning to be found wanting as purveyours of rhetoric and soundbites but no real plan - at least not a realistic one that they are communicating to the electorate.

 

As for Clegg and Cable, I always feel it is easy to challenge and make bold statments when there is no earthly chance of ever being solely responsible for the government of this country. Cable could really steal the headlines and possibly the votes if he defected left or right. Afterall, they are all so close to together he really only has to subtlely side step shuffle in a direction of his choosing and we would almost definitely get a chance to see if he is as good as he would like us to believe. Shell is not the UK or a bank for that matter but at least he has held a job. Come on Vince lets see you really put yourself in the firing line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't able to watch last night as I was out campaigning until near enough 8! Will watch it on-line in next couple of days.

 

One thing I would like to add, however, is that Vince Cable wouldn't be effective as Chancellor for Labour or Tories. He is able to talk sense because he is in the Liberal Democrats.

 

Might add some more comments when I have watched the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crowd seemed to be behind Vince and the Lib Dems, neither Darling or Osbourne got a lot of support. Great to see! :D

 

he,s the only one with brains unlike the dinosaurs who post their make believe world tory ,labour thatcher world nonsense,

its gonna be a hung parliment has the tories have never recovered from thatcherism, made them unelectable for 13 years despite cameron trying his best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\

Indeed, it was a case of......

 

1. Audience asks a question

2. Politician ignores this and gives an answer to a question that wasn't asked

3. In the event of not being able to do number 2, take a pot shot at one or both of the other two

 

They pretty much admitted that the cuts required after the election would be far deeper than those imposed by Thatcher, but none of them really said when and how it would be done (apart from the odd policy which doesn't even come close to making a dent in the defecit).

 

he,s the only one with brains unlike the dinosaurs who post their make believe world tory ,labour thatcher world nonsense,

its gonna be a hung parliment has the tories have never recovered from thatcherism, made them unelectable for 13 years despite cameron trying his best.

 

Whatever happens, the cuts are going to have to be in the region of 25%. The prospect of a hung parliament is becoming more of a reality and my fear is that this will paralyse any administration and the defecit will not get tackled, with potentially disastrous consequences. If it came to it, I would rather a Labour administration rather than a hung parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\

Indeed, it was a case of......

 

1. Audience asks a question

2. Politician ignores this and gives an answer to a question that wasn't asked

3. In the event of not being able to do number 2, take a pot shot at one or both of the other two

 

They pretty much admitted that the cuts required after the election would be far deeper than those imposed by Thatcher, but none of them really said when and how it would be done (apart from the odd policy which doesn't even come close to making a dent in the defecit).

 

 

 

Whatever happens, the cuts are going to have to be in the region of 25%. The prospect of a hung parliament is becoming more of a reality and my fear is that this will paralyse any administration and the defecit will not get tackled, with potentially disastrous consequences. If it came to it, I would rather a Labour administration rather than a hung parliament.

 

if its the will of the people i would rather have a hung parliment then governments which has a massive majority even when more people voted against them ie thatcher ,blair years.

the present voting system is a joke .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two problems with a hung parliament IMO.

 

1. It causes a loss of confidence in the global economy that is never sure which way said parliament will jump.

 

2. It hands disproportionate power to minor parties who will ally themselves to whatever policy suits them best. This leads to wishy-washy politics driven by a party / parties who do not command even a large minority of the vote.

 

I would rather Cameron formed a strong government than have a nebulous, indefinable hung or minority government.

 

However, obviously, I would rather Brown formed a strong Labour government :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two problems with a hung parliament IMO.

 

1. It causes a loss of confidence in the global economy that is never sure which way said parliament will jump.

 

2. It hands disproportionate power to minor parties who will ally themselves to whatever policy suits them best. This leads to wishy-washy politics driven by a party / parties who do not command even a large minority of the vote.

 

I would rather Cameron formed a strong government than have a nebulous, indefinable hung or minority government.

 

However, obviously, I would rather Brown formed a strong Labour government :)

 

what rubbish its common in europe to have partys working together but its the same old nonsense put about by tory and labour supporters who love to do what the like and not answer to anyone. during the 2nd world war there were Labour leaders into the 1940 government Churchill was going against a deeply held dislike, disdain even for their socialist views. Two of the Labour men became part of his five-man war cabinet, the inner core of his government charged with preparing the country for defence and ultimately for victory: these were Clement Attlee as Lord Privy Seal, and Arthur Greenwood, Minister without Portfolio. Ernest Bevin, head of the Transport and General Workers Union, was made Minister of Labour, a strange bedfellow with one of his de facto closest collaborators in the war effort, newspaper magnate Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production.

its about time the party's put the country first and work for the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it came to it, I would rather a Labour administration rather than a hung parliament.

 

I would rather Cameron formed a strong government than have a nebulous, indefinable hung or minority government.

 

See, we're not so diametrically opposed afterall. We are prepared to put our politics aside for the good of the nation. Could 'we' (that's you and me) be the future of British politics?????

 

As it happens, the polls are pointing to a hung parliment, but these are based on people answering specific questions. However, how many of these will turn out to vote?

 

Due to the expenses scandals, party donations and cabs for hire, I suspect that the turnout will be incredibly low, especially when considering the troubled times in which we live.

 

Turnout will be the key and I think that Cameron will scrape home, not because people want him, but more for the fact that most people can't be arsed.

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I take on board your points about the wartime cabinet, SolentStars I just don't think the main parties would work together in normal circumstances.

 

Their basic tenets mean that they do have conflicting views on what's best for the country, in spite of the popular held belief that they are all the same.

 

If they were all so similar, Johnny and I wouldn't be having nightly 'debates' now would we? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I take on board your points about the wartime cabinet, SolentStars I just don't think the main parties would work together in normal circumstances.

 

Their basic tenets mean that they do have conflicting views on what's best for the country, in spite of the popular held belief that they are all the same.

 

If they were all so similar, Johnny and I wouldn't be having nightly 'debates' now would we? :)

 

Although the policies are similar, what drives the parties (ie their core beliefs) do differ. As for what can be done going forward.....not alot considering there is no money in the Bank. Therefore all parties are restricted for the next 1-2 parliaments at least. The mess could take a generation to sort out.

 

It did make me laugh how labour were saying that cuts had to be made, but what differentiates labour and the tories is that the tories 'enjoy' cutting spending, whilst Labour don't. Desperate stuff if you ask me.

 

In some respect, I hope there is a Labour Government, because when the cuts made are significantly more than those imposed by Thatcher, I would be keen to see if Brown will get the same hatred fuelled responses in the political debates of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a hung parliament there will be policy stasis, infighting, indecision, all of the things that you do not want when you are dealing with the mountain of debt our country has. If the Socialists get in again it'll be bad, but if either the Socialists or the Conservatives have to work with the wishy washy Liberals it'll be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I take on board your points about the wartime cabinet, SolentStars I just don't think the main parties would work together in normal circumstances.

 

Their basic tenets mean that they do have conflicting views on what's best for the country, in spite of the popular held belief that they are all the same.

 

If they were all so similar, Johnny and I wouldn't be having nightly 'debates' now would we? :)

 

i agree but all parties have coalitions within them left right and centre but to deal with any problem is having the will to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a hung parliament there will be policy stasis, infighting, indecision, all of the things that you do not want when you are dealing with the mountain of debt our country has. If the Socialists get in again it'll be bad, but if either the Socialists or the Conservatives have to work with the wishy washy Liberals it'll be a disaster.

 

ha ha you really are so predicable:D its like a parrot repeating a party line;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"None Of The Above" would be the clear winner if it were to appear on the ballot paper.

i agree in most areas you know who will get elected,its like turkeys voting for Christmas,the major party's only worry about marginal seats because they have to fight for their votes.

none of the above would win hands down in this crap voting system:supz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree in most areas you know who will get elected,its like turkeys voting for Christmas,the major party's only worry about marginal seats because they have to fight for their votes.

none of the above would win hands down in this crap voting system:supz:

 

I think it has less to do with a crap voting system and more to do with crap people to vote for on all sides. You could have the most perfect voting system in the world and it would still deliver the same = crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after thirteen years of labour and with a useless unelected pm for last two years, the country definitely needs a change

 

Does it? Its a sad day when the only thing their opponents appear to be saying is vote for us because we are not them! Have they not heard of the phrase out the frying pan and into the fire? Just because the tories are not labour does not make them better. They should be trying to prove they will be better not giving themselves a hernia jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon. We will cut the deficit, no wait a minute we will cut taxes (lets not mention the inheritance tax cuts for the very wealthy we have already proposed even though we need every penny we can get).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it has less to do with a crap voting system and more to do with crap people to vote for on all sides. You could have the most perfect voting system in the world and it would still deliver the same = crap.

i think you would find more people would vote if the system Represented their actual vote,in most parts of the country its wasted vote because you know who will get elected under the present system the perfect example is that the torys could have more votes then labour at the next election and still not win the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after thirteen years of labour and with a useless unelected pm for last two years, the country definitely needs a change

How many more times is this going to be trotted out ?

No Prime Minister is ever elected, he is appointed by invitation from The Queen, on the advice of the Privy Council. As with all other MPs, Gordon Brown HAS been elected - by his parliamentary constituency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many more times is this going to be trotted out ?

No Prime Minister is ever elected, he is appointed by invitation from The Queen, on the advice of the Privy Council. As with all other MPs, Gordon Brown HAS been elected - by his parliamentary constituency.

 

:rolleyes:

 

You know exactly what pav is saying. The general public voted in the Socialists led by Tony Blair. That was the package that was voted for. Not the Socialists led by Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

You know exactly what pav is saying. The general public voted in the Socialists led by Tony Blair. That was the package that was voted for. Not the Socialists led by Brown.

But it was a good enough process for Alec Douglas-Home to be appointed as a Tory PM in 1963, John Major ( Tory ) in 1990, and even Churchill ( Tory ) in 1940, all unelected by this definition. ( And AD-H wasn't even an MP, he was moved from the House of Lords and had to win a contrived candidacy in a by-election in a safe seat to get admitted to the Commons ) :cool:

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it was a good enough process for Alec Douglas-Home to be appointed as a Tory PM in 1963, John Major ( Tory ) in 1990, and even Churchill ( Tory ) in 1940, all unelected by this definition. ( And AD-H wasn't even an MP, he was moved from the House of Lords and had to win a contrived candidacy in a by-election in a safe seat to get admitted to the Commons ) :cool:

 

But didn't Major win a leadership election?

 

How many Labour MP's voted for Brown????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twist this as you undoubtedly will, but there were no challengers to Brown.

 

Which gives Major even more credibility.

 

Major had to beat Douglas Hurd (a true statesman) and Heseltine (one of the tory heavyweights who defeated Thatcher). It was like a Saints vs Man U + Liverpool cup final.

 

Brown got through on a pools panel score draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})