The wrath of Osborne: Winners and losers

vermin

notsoblue wrote:

bushu wrote:

Still deserves a poke in the eye just for being part of the old boys club, whether this offends you depends what side of the fence you sit on.. either way he's a snob, whether he can fix our economy is a joke as this would empower the peasants to be of free will, not struggling to pay bills/feed kids & more importantly not doing the poorly paid jobs that made them rich in the first place..

I think its a bit silly to be against people like George Osborne because you feel he is only rich because of the poverty of others.

What I do think is relevant is how removed he is demographically from the average Briton. If you're going to usher in a huge period of austerity for the country, you should really be able to empathise with the people who will no doubt suffer as a result.

Empathy can be a very damaging emotion in this sort of situation; it's often better to have leaders who are well educated and socially aware yet somewhat detached. Osborne is both.

notsoblue

CiB wrote:

Not necessarily. He's there to do a job, one that some people believe he shouldn't be doing, His ability to do that job shouldn't rely on any empathy on his part with those at the sharp end of his reforms and corrections; better that he can distance himself from them and not lose his nerve out of sympathy for them - I mean us obviously. Us honest poor hard-working families [(c) All Parties] must stick together.

Well its a PR thing mainly isn't it. Unpopular reforms have to be made, and whoever pushes those reforms through will prioritise according to whats best for their own world view. It would be crazy to presume that reforms are being made that are objectively the best for everyone, and that hardship is being doled out equally.

If there was a hypothetical situation in which the new budget involved cuts and reforms that had a huge effect on people in the 20-30k income bracket, it would be more convincing if the chancellor responsible for the cuts and reforms *wasn't* a millionaire.

jamesco

vermin wrote:

Empathy can be a very damaging emotion in this sort of situation; it's often better to have leaders who are well educated and socially aware yet somewhat detached. Osborne is both.

That makes Osborne sound like a technocrat, rather than the utterly incompetent idealogue that he is. Take the UK Border Agency, for example: Osborne's cuts of 1/3rd of the staff has resulted in the agency turning into an utter shambles, hurting the UK economy and treating tens of thousands of people with cruel disregard.

This isn't austerity, it's self-mutilation.

notsoblue

vermin wrote:

Empathy can be a very damaging emotion in this sort of situation; it's often better to have leaders who are well educated and socially aware yet somewhat detached. Osborne is both.

I think its quite difficult to be both socially aware (in a meaningful way) and detached. If you've only ever used private hospitals, why bother to reform the NHS?

daxplusplus

CiB wrote:

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

No one challenged the problem with abolishing the 10% lower tax bands when Gordon announced that in his 07(?) budget (the problem being that it would hit the poorest the hardest - like duhh!). It took a year (more?) before people started to realise what was going to happen. So what chance anything as complicated as the above being challenged :evil

Not true. Within hours of the announcement, commentators from across the sepctrum had picked up on it and pointed out the effect of that change. The [then] opposition were all over him in Parliament the following day once they'd verified the figures and realised that not only was GB a fraud, he was also a crooked piece of work and a waste of oxygen.

It took a year to correct it; that's down to process, not apathy by opposition parties.

Sorry that's not how I remembered it .. also what I meant, although didn't state, by challenged was "brought to the public's attention via the media (TV really)"

Reading back through the thread I can see that challenged in Parliament makes a lot more sense :oops:

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

vermin wrote:

Empathy can be a very damaging emotion in this sort of situation; it's often better to have leaders who are well educated and socially aware yet somewhat detached. Osborne is both.

I think its quite difficult to be both socially aware (in a meaningful way) and detached. If you've only ever used private hospitals, why bother to reform the NHS?

Because, for one, if you get run over, or have a heart attack in the street, the ambulance will take you to an NHS hospital. This whole inverse snobbery thing - he's wealthy, therefore cannot possibly have any understanding of anything outside this section of society - is one step away from the bilge over the pond that suggested that you shouldn't vote for Obama because he was an intellectual (read: too clever).

I swore I wasn't going to get involved, and now look what you've made me do.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Because, for one, if you get run over, or have a heart attack in the street, the ambulance will take you to an NHS hospital. This whole inverse snobbery thing - he's wealthy, therefore cannot possibly have any understanding of anything outside this section of society - is one step away from the bilge over the pond that suggested that you shouldn't vote for Obama because he was an intellectual (read: too clever).

I swore I wasn't going to get involved, and now look what you've made me do.

Sorry

I was oversimplifying things, and as I said, its mainly a PR thing. Its easier to get shitty news if its coming from someone you can identify with. But I also think that there isn't one objectively correct route forward for the country, so political philosophy makes a difference. Its not a matter of inverse snobbery, or anti-intellectualism. There are intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum.

rick_chasey

It's more his CV to me doesn't lend himself to being a necessarily good treasurer.

Nowhere untill Micheal Howard nominated him as shadow chief sectary to the treasurer does he have any credentials to suggest he's suited to the role.

If I was involved in a headhunting search for the next treasurer of the UK, he wouldn't have been on my short-list.

NFA - not enough relevant experience.

confused@BR

Is that a mnemonic for (k)Nows F*ck All? If so, you're right

rick_chasey

No Further Action .

cyclingprop

bushu wrote:

Still deserves a poke in the eye just for being part of the old boys club, whether this offends you depends what side of the fence you sit on.. either way he's a snob, whether he can fix our economy is a joke as this would empower the peasants to be of free will, not struggling to pay bills/feed kids & more importantly not doing the poorly paid jobs that made them rich in the first place..

Just as all the people in the North do, for being Northern.

jamesco wrote:

Osborne's cuts of 1/3rd of the staff has resulted in the agency turning into an utter shambles, hurting the UK economy and treating tens of thousands of people with cruel disregard.

This isn't austerity, it's self-mutilation.

You genuinely think the UKBA was not a shambles before? (Not saying austerity has helped btw)

CiB wrote:

Not true. Within hours of the announcement, commentators from across the sepctrum had picked up on it and pointed out the effect of that change. The [then] opposition were all over him in Parliament the following day once they'd verified the figures and realised that not only was GB a fraud, he was also a crooked piece of work and a waste of oxygen.

It took a year to correct it; that's down to process, not apathy by opposition parties.

Gordon had a septic nose?

jedster

"Their stated aim was to support asset prices, yet again, no-one ever challenged why on earth they would do that????"

Actually, I think plenty of people did but the answer is this:
1. Bank lends £900 against an assets valued at £1000. Of that £900, £45 is the banks equity, £855 is BORROWED from other people.
2. Borrower gets into trouble, can't repay loan. If asset can be sold for at least £900 net of costs, all is good (for the bank and all the people who lent to the bank).
3. If asset falls in value to £800, then bank has written off its equity and needs to find £55 equity to repay its lenders. That equity is not available to leverage up to make loans to other borrowers. The availability of credit in the economy has shrunk, businesses can invest less, interest rates go up, etc, etc
4. Given the horrible state of the banks and their importance to keeping the economy moving, Govts have a big interest in propping up asset prices...

On the topic of why the OBR forecasts were wrong the short answer is the famous quote "making predictions is difficult, particularly when they are about the future". More helpfully, most analysts/economists around the world have been too optimistic about economic growth, particularly in Europe*. For some reason, they expected the Euro crisis to be a long way to being resolved by now. I didn't but most did. OBR has been wrong but they are hardly alone in that.
* Just in case its not obvious - UK can't make itself immune to what's going on with out trading partners.

gabriel959

TheStone wrote:

He basically waffled for a while an announced nothing.
Balls was even worse than normal in reply, can't see him lasting much longer.

Basically, whichever govt is in power, the same things will happen. Too much tax (on those that bother paying) and too much spending (including way too much waste). There is no gilt market any more. The Bank of England has just printed the last few years like Zimbabwe.

+1

jamesco

cyclingprop wrote:

You genuinely think the UKBA was not a shambles before? (Not saying austerity has helped btw)

I used to moan about them taking 4 weeks to process my 2 earlier applications, but now that I'm in the sixth f'kin month of waiting (having paid a thousand quid for an hour's work which still hasn't happened) it really is off the scale. Osborne's redundancies have destroyed the UKBA; it was completely predictable and therefore inexcusable of him to have gone ahead with it. Family in hospital and I can't travel; yep, I'm bitter about what the Tories are doing.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gabriel959 wrote:

TheStone wrote:

He basically waffled for a while an announced nothing.
Balls was even worse than normal in reply, can't see him lasting much longer.

Basically, whichever govt is in power, the same things will happen. Too much tax (on those that bother paying) and too much spending (including way too much waste). There is no gilt market any more. The Bank of England has just printed the last few years like Zimbabwe.

+1

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

On the BBC website there's a clip of Balls' response. He utterly bogs up his lead-in killer line, not due to a stammer, but because of nerves. This leads to much hilarity, and rightly so. Miliband's face is quite amusing. He appears to be struggling to contain his surprise. Harman is asleep with her eyes open, by the look of it.

But the front page of the Guardian today has a shot on the front page of the Chancellor and the PM pissing themselves at Balls, with the headline "At least someone's laughing; Osborne cuts benefits and Whitehall spending; Growth forecasts worry ratings agency". All intended (it seems) to portray them as laughing their heads off as further austerity measures are announced. That isn't reporting; it's blatant mis-reporting that is intended to mislead.

graeme_s-2

To be fair to Ed Balls I think what completely threw him is they were expecting the defecit to have increased and the Chancellor announced it had decreased. The reason it had decreased is because they'd used the proceeds from the 4G spectrum auction to offset it, even though the auction hasn't taken place yet.

cyclingprop

jamesco wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

You genuinely think the UKBA was not a shambles before? (Not saying austerity has helped btw)

I used to moan about them taking 4 weeks to process my 2 earlier applications, but now that I'm in the sixth f'kin month of waiting (having paid a thousand quid for an hour's work which still hasn't happened) it really is off the scale. Osborne's redundancies have destroyed the UKBA; it was completely predictable and therefore inexcusable of him to have gone ahead with it. Family in hospital and I can't travel; yep, I'm bitter about what the Tories are doing.

Really? A friend of mine commented his last application took under two weeks to process and return (last month).

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

I didn't have you pegged as a typical labour voter.

rick_chasey

I'd imagine John Prescot's formative years are more typical of life for the average Brit than George Osborne's.

For example.

Not that that means too much, but the public buy into people's provinance. It's fair enough. We're shaped by our environment. Some say that the more priviledged environment makes for better leaders, others feel that that enviornment means they're not connected enough to the public they're trying to serve to make them good leaders.

It's worth considering, even if you end up dismissing it having done so.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

I didn't have you pegged as a typical labour voter.

What or who is the typical Labour voter?

I've been over this, growing up where I lived you voted Labour. You voted Labour because when using national averages people from my area had less and Labour represented the working man. You voteed Labour because your parents did and they voted Labour because their parents did, and those parents, my Grandparents, faced adversity of an unfathomable kind and Labour - the more socially liberal of the two - appeared to acknowledge the plight of ethnic minorities. The Tory approach was somewhat lacking, lending itself to 'just fecking get one with it'.

So if you were me you were conditioned to vote Labour and see the Tories as a party you simply do not vote for.

Balls in the cabinet is going to test that conditioning.

tailwindhome

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

I didn't have you pegged as a typical labour voter.

He's conflicted.

He so wants to be Greg but knows his parents will be ashamed of him.

He also is handicapped with a human heart.

It's like a Darth Vader's move to the dark side or something.

notsoblue

TailWindHome wrote:

He's conflicted.

He so wants to be Greg but knows his parents will be ashamed of him.

He also is handicapped with a human heart.

It's like a Darth Vader's move to the dark side or something.

DDD, I don't think I've seen a single post of yours that makes you sound like you would ever comfortably vote labour. You keep going on and on about your British-Caribbean roots as if it makes you somehow special that you have right wing urges.

Daz555

Il Principe wrote:

Cancellation of the 3p rise annoys me. Govt already subsidies motorists enough as it is.

Really?

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd imagine John Prescot's formative years are more typical of life for the average Brit than George Osborne's.

For example.

Not that that means too much, but the public buy into people's provinance. It's fair enough. We're shaped by our environment. Some say that the more priviledged environment makes for better leaders, others feel that that enviornment means they're not connected enough to the public they're trying to serve to make them good leaders.

It's worth considering, even if you end up dismissing it having done so.

Have you put Spellcheck on your Christmas gift list?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

I didn't have you pegged as a typical labour voter.

He's conflicted.

He so wants to be Greg but knows his parents will be ashamed of him.

He also is handicapped with a human heart.

It's like a Darth Vader's move to the dark side or something.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Graeme_S wrote:

To be fair to Ed Balls

You can stop right there with that sort of foul mouthed rant. We'll have none of that sort of thing around here, thank you very much.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I heard Balls on the radio this morning playing the "I'm disabled" card. My aneurysm rate went through the roof.

Labour will not win the next election with Balls on the shadow cabinet. I can't bring myself to vote for Labour given his now very visible role that led to this recession. I am not alone, so why Labour has not caught on to this and acted is beyond me. They're about as removed from the voters as they acuse the Tories of being.

I didn't have you pegged as a typical labour voter.

He's conflicted.

He so wants to be Greg but knows his parents will be ashamed of him.

He also is handicapped with a human heart.

It's like a Darth Vader's move to the dark side or something.

I'd thought of it more as this

Coach H

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'd imagine John Prescot's formative years are more typical of life for the average Brit than George Osborne's.

Or what Prescott has carefully embelished into his formative years. The only graft Prescot has ever done is the pursuit of avoiding hard graft and letting his 'Union Brothers' pay for the privilage

graeme_s-2

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

To be fair to Ed Balls

You can stop right there with that sort of foul mouthed rant. We'll have none of that sort of thing around here, thank you very much.

Sorry, I've had a long week. Don't know what came over me :oops: