George Osbourne

[Barrel of Fun]

1) I do not see the problem with the amount of Etonians in the cabinet. Inverse snobbery, perhaps (amongst other things).

2) Why should the retirement age not be increased? There are plenty of people that are fit and able to work beyond 60/65 and life expectancy has increased a great deal relative to the ages set many moons ago.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

life expectancy has risen to 85 , people aged 20 at the moment could well live to over 100.

 

[User removed 4]

He is a slippery character, i'd rather have the experience of Brown any day over this little mess of a man.

I agree, brown's "experience" has proved invaluable so far

 

[Normal Rob]

I agree, brown's "experience" has proved invaluable so far

first sensible thing you've said.

 

[User removed 4]

first sensible thing you've said.

recognising and acknowledging sarcasm is one of a myriad of things you're not very good at , isnt it ?

 

[folkestonesgull]

I don't see a problem with increasing the retirement age, when it was set at 65 average life expectancy was about 75.
With life expectancy increasing well into the 80's now there is no reason (providing you look after your health) that you could not work longer.
Also, this is only the state pension afterall - How many people actually retire at 65 now?if you are relying on the state pension to fully fund your retirement you are f*cked anyway

 

[Simster]

Would you have preferred YOUR bank to go the wall WITH YOUR money in it

I presume you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course I wouldn't - the fact is that the government had little choice but to bail out the banks, otherwise we'd have had half the populations wandering around with wheelbarrows of worthless banknotes just as happened in the great depression of the '30s when the US government refused to bail their banks.

But seeing as billions have been spent getting us out of this mess, what serious measures have the goverment implemented to ensure this doesn't happen again?

 

[The Large One]

I presume you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course I wouldn't - the fact is that the government had little choice but to bail out the banks, otherwise we'd have had half the populations wandering around with wheelbarrows of worthless banknotes just as happened in the great depression of the '30s when the US government refused to bail their banks.

But seeing as billions have been spent getting us out of this mess, what serious measures have the goverment implemented to ensure this doesn't happen again?

But this is the point. Osbourne's plans was to NOT bail them out, with the probable result of them going to the wall.

 

[User removed 4]

But this is the point. Osbourne's plans was to NOT bail them out, with the probable result of them going to the wall.

So why do the labour supporters on NSC keep banging on about the tory toffs and their spiv banker friends ??

 

[Simster]

But this is the point. Osbourne's plans was to NOT bail them out, with the probable result of them going to the wall.

No, that wasn't the point I was replying to at all.

But on the point you do make here, I completely agree with you. If Osborne had left them to go the wall, we'd have had a depression, not a recession.

 

[Normal Rob]

recognising and acknowledging sarcasm is one of a myriad of things you're not very good at , isnt it ?

Hook line and sinker once again Bushy - you're great sport, if a bit too easy to reel in!

 

[User removed 4]

Hook line and sinker once again Bushy - you're great sport, if a bit too easy to reel in!

Only in your mind, you've tried these tactics before when you've not really had an answer.

 

[Normal Rob]

Only in your mind, you've tried these tactics before when you've not really had an answer.

honestly Bushy - it's like checking lobster pots with you to see if you've blindly fallen into another trap that's been laid.

Intelligent you are not.

 

[User removed 4]

honestly Bushy - it's like checking lobster pots with you to see if you've blindly fallen into another trap that's been laid.

Intelligent you are not.

course it is , dont you realise no-one is falling for the "ive laid a clever trap " ploy ? second thoughts , course you do , your just hoping the old emperors new clothes trick doesnt get questioned.

 

[Normal Rob]

course it is , dont you realise no-one is falling for the "ive laid a clever trap " ploy ? second thoughts , course you do , your just hoping the old emperors new clothes trick doesnt get questioned.

can i play you every week?

 

[User removed 4]

can i play you every week?

yes please.

 

[Normal Rob]

Then i'm sure we'll cross swords again. however one thing that we will probably agree on is that this spat has run it's course.

'til next time...

 

[beorhthelm]

But this is the point. Osbourne's plans was to NOT bail them out, with the probable result of them going to the wall.

why do some people mislead themselves? after first going along with the Labour policy, the Tories drifted off to oppose the manner and amounts of the bailout, essentially to place "clear blue water", to present an alternative for the sake of it. At the end of the day we cannot be sure what the Tories would have done if actually in power at the time: would they have followed the same advise given to Brown/Darling (wasnt actually there idea, just championed it) or would they have gone off and done their own thing? staring down the barrell, i pretty confident i know what would have happend.

point of all this, is why keep banging on about what another party might have done? other than to create a nice little distraction of course from the FACT that Labour took us into recession - after pronouncing the death of boom and bust.

 

[London Calling]

why do some people mislead themselves? after first going along with the Labour policy, the Tories drifted off to oppose the manner and amounts of the bailout, essentially to place "clear blue water", to present an alternative for the sake of it. At the end of the day we cannot be sure what the Tories would have done if actually in power at the time: would they have followed the same advise given to Brown/Darling (wasnt actually there idea, just championed it) or would they have gone off and done their own thing? staring down the barrell, i pretty confident i know what would have happend.

point of all this, is why keep banging on about what another party might have done? other than to create a nice little distraction of course from the FACT that Labour took us into recession - after pronouncing the death of boom and bust.

Weird post. Govt Ministsers are just that, they are Politicians, some will have great other skills eg Bariisters etc

They listen, briefed by their Civil SErvants, in this case BoE and Consultants employed by the Service, then they take their Political judgement.

,

 

[sten_super]

Weird post. Govt Ministsers are just that, they are Politicians, some will have great other skills eg Bariisters etc

They listen, briefed by their Civil SErvants, in this case BoE and Consultants employed by the Service, then they take their Political judgement.

,

But the vast majority of the civil service is apolitical. It would most likely have been almost exactly the same people from the Treasury advising Brown if it had been Cameron. If you really think that party politics had a particularly big role in these decisions then I think you are a bit deluded. What it ultimately comes down to is what is the best course of action to enact damage limitation. I think that's part of the reason that the political parties in this country are as close (at least once in government) as they are.