George Osborne's benchmarks

Once again a biased viewpoint. Can you please for once give us a balanced report. Not Labour Good Tory Bad that you keep churning out.

So are are you suggesting that what we are paying out in interest is creating value for our economy.

For it was only a couple of days ago that "Gordon" our leader, was warning our football clubs to get their finances in order. Perhaps he should be looking closer to home.

'Business investment and savings must, he says, replace debt as the foundation for prosperity.'
Now that's what I call insight!

Is this George Osbourne's equivalent of Brown's Golden Rule? I do hope that there is less wiggle room than GB's every changing definition of the economic cycle.
That has lead Labour to utterly destroy any wealth created in the economy in the last five years.
Oh and by the way, can you ask Mandy or Brown the next time you see them to stop talking about the paradox of thrift and Keynesian economics, spending during the recession to prop up demand only works when you have a surplus during the good years which you can then spend. That is basic GCSE economics. Do they think we are all thick?

"Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity - by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East."

The share-out of 'rising prosperity' has mainly been to the 'Haves' so far. Does this mean that the exponentially rising gap between directors pay and that of the rest of us hoi polloi will become Government policy?

Hope you were listening to Clare Short as well as Osborne Mr Robinson. Never was there a need for regime change in Britain as there is now, and we don't need a resolution in the security council to verify that. At least Osborne and the Tories have some semblence of a policy to reduce the massive burden of debt that Brown's incompetence has given us. Brown on the other hand has yet to tell anyone how he intends to proceed. Apart from his usual, sometime / never promises, Labour has as yet produced no concrete policy to reduce the debt .

Those "benchmarks" sound awfully woolly to me. Isn't it a bit like saying he's in favour of motherhood and apple pie?

It would be interesting to see some details here. And then to see some detail from Labour. Then we might be able to tell if there is actually any difference between them.

Nick, What are labour's spending/cut plans. Can you let us know as soon as possible.

Too little, too late?

Not that he is in a position to make a difference anyway, Tories aren't in power.

I find it odd that they are not promising huge changes and benefits with sweeping statements like Labour do?

Maybe they want to be honest?

It's not exactly rocket science, but it's still a huge leap forward from our position under Labour. The private sector has always created wealth, which is then passed via taxation to the public sector to spend. Simple economic truth.

Getting a greater involvement from the private sector across all areas of the country will reduce the imbalance we have today, where London and the South East generates money and other areas spend it. And actively sought investment in the North, Wales and The West will provide jobs and the hope of prosperity in areas where (so the old chestnut goes) the last Conservative administration crushed such hope.

Same old Tories? Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like a refreshing change to me, I can only hope that the electorate are intelligent enough to vote for change.

'Building a greener economy..' is an expensive waste of time unless we are to be funded by the rest of the World to help us adapt to Climate Change.

It is time that our politicians not only recognised that we are now very poor, which some to be fair do, but more importantly develop policies which also recognise this.

The major parties prat about as if all will be fine in 2012 or 2013 or 2014 or ........

I know, lets have a referendum on something irrelevant to show we are doing something!

6 DofM2:

Given that there's an explicit acknowledgement that we don't yet have that detail until after the speech, then of course it's "a bit wooly". Still - better that than keepign the status quo, where we'll very soon have a greater national debt that our GDP - people get their houses repossessed if they owe more than it's worth.

We need to reduce the overall deficit, and I'm glad that at least one party is addressing that fact.

What we need is regime change.

Call an election.

9. W L W.
"Same old Tories? Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like a refreshing change to me, I can only hope that the electorate are intelligent enough to vote for change".
.............
cameron worked with David Davis on the team briefing John Major for Prime Minister's Questions. He was poached by then Chancellor Norman Lamont as a political adviser, and was at Mr Lamont's side THROUGHOUT Black Wednesday, which saw the pound crash out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
He also had a brief spell as an adviser to then home secretary Michael Howard.
i can only hope that the electorate are intelligent enough to realise its the same old tories with just a diffent mask!

Nick,

could you not have waited until he had finished and published the benchmarks (assuming of course that he will)otherwise there is nothing to measure him against. All you have left me with is a list of airy fairy statements which I can read anything I like into depending on how I feel like viewing them. Some are so vague as to be baffling.

More detail or at least link to the press release so we can read the stuff.

1/10 for this one sorry. Not biased but not much good either.

13 lefty:

So you'd rather there was no private sector investment across the country as a whole? Certainly there's been no hint of anything like this from Labour. They just want to keep spending money we simply don't have any more.

We need public spending cuts because Labour have run up a huge budget deficit and national debt. They did this during the most benign economic times ever.

But Labour are in denial - publicly at least - about what is needed and refuse to tell us where they would cut, and by how much they will raise taxes. Massive rises in national insurance, basic rates of income tax, VAT to 20%, etc. post the election.

The Tories are trying to be more honest and will likely try to minimise tax rises which means tougher spending cuts; but they worry that their honesty ends up costing them the election. An invidious position.

That said, anyone objectively looking at the record rather than Labour's spin and machinations can only draw one conclusion.

One further irony: if I were Labour, I would be desperate to LOSE this election. The next parliament is going to be a political nightmare; I'm amazed Labour are dumb enough to want to win rather than lose and blame the Tories.

George Osborne obviously can't do sums. If this is a true reflection of Tory economic thinking we are all stuffed.

His proposals will boost and create a gigantic bubble economy without any question. He does not understand the British economy. To put it bluntly as soon as you attempt to relate the British economy all that happens is that you inflate asset prices and in consequence depress the general economy. All attempts at reflating the British Economy are doomed to absolute and dismal failure unless and until the propensity to inflate asset prices is stamped on very firmly.

In short: house prices MUST be lowered at the same time as reflating the economy - don't do this and you and we are doomed!

"Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money" -
This has to be the starting place for economic recovery, surely.

If the Tories are actually saying there will NOT be "swinging cuts", then they have already failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Government expenditure needs to be reduced drastically and quickly, because the current level of debt will prove toxic to any 'green shoots' of recovery (the exact opposite of what Brown is telling us).

If the Tories want to win the next election, they really need to get their act together and stop flip-flopping (at least as reported) if they want to convince the voters that they actually have a plan.

Boabycat 3

"Oh and by the way, can you ask Mandy or Brown the next time you see them to stop talking about the paradox of thrift and Keynesian economics, spending during the recession to prop up demand only works when you have a surplus during the good years which you can then spend. That is basic GCSE economics. Do they think we are all thick?"

No-one is saying you are thick.Fact is counter-cyclical policies work whether you are in deficit or not.The US fisacal deficit was greater than ours prior to the recession and is now about the same.Their latest
GDP figures show a growth of 5%.Our spending has only stabilized the economy.Across the world recovery is fragile in an early phase of a major cyclical downturn.

When you are going in completely the wrong direction, you need to change course, in this case 180 degrees.

Perhaps Cameron and Osborne should turn up the volume on their Sat-Navs. It's telling them, "Turn around when possible".

The country does not need more of the same. We need 'regime change'.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Good lord, Georgie boy has been reading New Labour's manifesto.....

"By seeking to reassure the public that there will not be "swingeing cuts", David Cameron has acknowledged Labour's arguments that the wrong approach to public spending could pull the rug from under the recovery"


nail right on the head, if its not brought under control about 2 years ago , we are going to be in real trouble, guess what we are in real trouble. The wrong approach is to spend as if money (ie others hard work) does not matter.

#7 that easy they only have spending other peoples money plans

22

Yawn, remember what John Prescott did? Care to remind everyone which MPs are to be prosecuted for dodgy mortgage claims? Care to remind everyone which Lords were caught selling favours or influence for cash on tape?

No party has been immune to human failings by it's members, it does not make for an argument. Try tackling the ball and not the man - people may disagree with argument but they will respect you more. You come across of Damien McBride when you do this.

#22 lefty10

That's quite a list, but personal indiscretions of more than 20 years ago are hardly 'news' are they? You make no mention of all Labour's abysmal failures and deceit since 1997, the way they have messed up on everything they have touched, including the economy, constitution, devolution, Europe, civil liberties, crime, pensions, education etc etc.

You mention none of those things, but try to discredit the tories with out of date stories. I think you are scraping the barrel here! Are you one of Dolly's Wallies?

"He and George Osborne are finding it harder to convince the public that there is a risk in "doing nothing" about the deficit."

Are they? On what planet do people think that owing a trillion pounds and increasing that debt by nearly 200billion every year isn't a risky thing to do? Is that planet labour/bbc that you're talking about? It's certainly not the planet I'm on.


"David Cameron has acknowledged Labour's arguments that the wrong approach to public spending could pull the rug from under the recovery"

No he hasn't.
He's said that it's not a good idea to bankrupt the country or to make millions of people unemployed in the middle of the worst recession we've ever had. He has *NOT* acknowledged labour's arguments in any way; labour's arguments are "don't worry, everything's fine, we'll just spend more money."

Reading Nick's summary on this topic would imply that the tories are following everything that Brown's done/said and that they agree with everything he's done, and that's patently untrue.

The problem is that with a trillion pounds of debt and an *annual* overspend of nearly 200billion, you have to cut that down pretty quickly to avoid the international financial markets from fleeing the uk and leaving us in a zimbabwe situation. It's better to have, say, 50,000 people temporarily unemployed and to cut public spending than it would be to pretend that the debt isn't a problem and have the financial markets send us back to the stone age.

Nick, you can argue the points about when and how-much to cut as much as you want, but at the end of the day there's no choice; either we cut things substantially in the next 12 months, or we get sent back to the stone age by the international markets; the markets will make the decision for us if we don't make the right decision.

Having a trillion pounds in debt, a 200billion annual increase in that debt, and absolutely no plans to cut the debt isn't viable; the uk ratings would drop like a stone if we don't sort it out in the next 12 months, and that'd make the current recession look like an un-noticeable tiny blip.

25.
"that easy they only have spending other peoples money plans"

of course you are so wilted in your thinking you do not understand that other people have money because of OTHER people. those at the bottom of the ladder... the factory workers who make the product on minimum wage. simple economics. Unless of course you can give a common example of wealth created by wealth that didnt involve anyone earning very lttle...

22: Lefty10. Worry not, I have a long memory growing up under the Tories, watching my "Have-Got" middle class, Tory voting mates parents giving their children everything whilst I and a few other "Haven't-Got" children, me the son of a working class engineer, scraped by with just enough money to buy food while my shoes split as I out grew them but couldn't afford to have them replaced. I remember my mother being on a waiting list for a hysterectomy for years, suffering in pain month in and monnth out as the waiting list grew but the OR's and wards were closed, my Dad in tears as he tried to figure out how to pay his mortgage when interest rates hit 15%... I remember 18 years where this country was destroyed piece by piece by a privelaged few. And I swore I would do all I can to see they were never allowed to do it again.

For all the faults of the incumbent government, and no government is perfect, anyone how believes this isn't a vastly improved country now that in 1997 is living in the prverbial cloud cuckooo or your memories are shorter than I thought possible.

People get the government they deserve; I must have been evil in a former life to think that I deserve another stretch under a Tory government headed by an ex-Etonian toff who's policy of the day is in response to the Suns newspaper headline. He will say and do anything to get a majority; as I said, people get the government they deserve. If people vote for him then on their heads be it. I for one will be sticking to Red come May.

Borrowing money from China to buy goods from China has created most of the mess we're in and excessive personal borrowing has caused much of the rest.

A full restructuring of the British economy is what Osbourne was proposing for we are crying out for businesses that can produce jobs.

For those fortunate to have the time to listen to what he had to say it all made sense although the disappointing questioning from most of the journalists present will not see this reflected in the media.

All they seemed interested in were cuts.

We already know there will be major cuts 'cos there is no alternative but the most important part is a plan to put the country back on track during and after those cuts.

Where is labour's such plan or is it more of the same until IMF come in and force even worse on us?

I give this a cautious welcome. The prospect of George Osborne as Chancellor is "just can't look" terrifying, but if we simply have to have him at Number 11 - and it's looking that way, isn't it? - then I'd rather he came with some benchmarks. Osborne running our finances WITHOUT any benchmarks? ... well you don't need me to tell you what might happen.

27. distant
i am by no means a "NEW labour" middle ground apologist. however as the title of this blog is George Osborne's benchmarks it seems prudent to give a reminder and note the obvious connections between now and then. blog 13. im pretty sure a conservative government would do nothing for the mass working class and osbournes benchmarks set put by nick have more than a strong aroma of old school right wing guff!

#11, WLW:

Oh, jolly good. I shall await all the carefully costed details with bated breath.

I'm reminded of a little test you can apply to policies to see if they are totally meaningless. Simply state the opposite of the policy: if you end up with something totally ridiculous that no-one in their right mind (or even Gordon Brown) would argue for, then it's a fair bet that the original policy is totally meaningless.

Let's try a couple of examples:

"Let's get Britain on the dole!" Hm. Hard to see anyone arguing for that.

"Let's completely destroy macro-economic stability". You get the idea.

22#

For Christ's sake lefty, dont be such a gimp.

So you can cut and paste old tory sleaze, big deal.

Mate, there have been VOLUMES written on New Labour sleaze over the last 12 years after BLiar reckoned they were going to be whiter than white!

Might be prudent to wind your neck in unless you want to be deluged with posts recalling chapter and verse of virtually EVERY single episode of NL sleaze going back to 1997, which a lot of us have burned into our brains. Dont need to go sniffing round wiki for it.

Aside from fixing the banks, and that would need greater clarification as the banks want no changes and we know the banks get what they want, the rest is kind of pie in the sky political word-play. All in the mood of "wouldn't it be nice if." None have a real plan because none know what to do. They had relied on the bankers but found that to be a bad decision and now have nothing but a handful of conflicting economic models designed to reflect the political aspirations of those who paid for them.

33#

Much rather right wing guff than the effluent, ponging stench of left wing hypocrisy .

BTW, wasnt Gordon all in favour of the ERM as well? More Labour selective memories!

31#

For those fortunate to have the time to listen to what he had to say it all made sense although the disappointing questioning from most of the journalists present will not see this reflected in the media.

All they seemed interested in were cuts.


Good call. Cuts, or threats of cuts breed fear, fear sells newspapers. Bosh. Worked very well for Paul Dacre.

Yep, Bryn..... you must have been pretty evil.

32. sagamix.
if the tories came out with something fresh and radical like..raising the taxable allowance to 12k, i would be the first to say.. great policy.
however.. this is my first impressions of the osbourne benchmarks

Create a more balanced economy - ensuring higher exports, business investment and saving as a share of GDP

a more balanced economy, meaning what?. . i wonder if when they say saving what exactly they mean. they cant mean joe blogs saving because he has no money to save? waiting for the exact details. have a feeling they are going to be super vague!

• Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity - by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East.

more privatisation!



• Get Britain working

obvious. but they will not mention the low wages or address monetary equality.


• Ensure macro-economic stability

obvious. any govt operating in this system would aim for this i presume


• Make Britain open for business

pure guff. obvious. same as any party.


• Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money
job losses. pay freezes, redundancies.


• Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy

what about a banking system that serves the peoples need.


• Build a greener economy

so get rid of the gas guzzling limo following cameron on his bike.


its just all so so ridiculous. same old same old.
if the bench marks mean nothing then it doesn't matter if he has any or not!

We are not there yet but this is another little piece of progress that indicates the political class are begining to think how best to approach our predicament. This isn't good enough but it justifies an E for effort.

It is more impressive than the government strategy which seems to be to bribe the electorate with their own debts having heroically privatised the banks losses and reinflated the bonussed bubble. They seem to be intent on fooling the electorate into thinking our problems can be solved by the printing presses. No thanks, Gordon, yours is the road to Carey Street and a future of grinding poverty.

Just seen the speech where Osborne announces this exciting (!) new initiative. The look on his face when he first says it ... "Benchmarks For Britain" ... is a picture. Both Buzzwords start with a "B" and you could see how pleased he was with the sound of it. Was very sweet. Like to think he maybe wrote it himself - do you think he might have?

Plenty of Mom and apple pie - very little indication as to how these objectives will be achieved.

It is good that he and Cameron have abandoned their insistence on immediate public expenditure cuts. But I suspect that the traditional Tory obsession with reducing public borrowing, except of course on defence, will resurface before long.

Our present financial problems are principally the result excessive private borrowing which, apart from causing a collapse of the system, squeezed out the public expenditure necessary to improve education and other services. Osbourne's programme does not propose anything to deal with this problem, which must be dealt with before most of the goodies he promises can be provided. Instead we will no doubt soon hear the old refrain that public expenditure must be reined in to allow the private sector to borrow more.

35. perry needlessham
please post the labour ministers who went to prison, the labour ministers involved in monetary corruption and proven cases where they went to jail. please also note that this blog is entitled osbournes bechmarks! perhaps you could read the benchmarks and enlighten us oh great one, on their meaning and benefits. ie sort out the guff from deatiled policy?

#33 lefty

But if you really think it is relevant to remind us of some personal indiscretions of more than 20 years ago which have no bearing on the running of the counrty, it's odd that you don't think it is also relevant to remind us of more recent labour failures.

The list of Labour failures, to borrow your phrase (#20), "goes on and on and on..."

Selling gold at the wrong price, stealth taxes, raids on pensions, spending out of control, record deficit, biggest BOOM and BUST in history, giving away our EU rebate but failure to get anything in return (eg failure to get reform of Common Agricultural Policy), Nanny State (remember Ofsted telling two female police officers that sharing childcare was 'illegal'), failures of immigration controls, wasted millions on failed IT projects, failure to protect personal data, ID cards, Home Information Packs, Surveillance Britain, abuse of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, failure to keep manifesto pledge of a referendum on European constitutional treaty, failure of a fair system of devolution (no say for England)....

Your case against the Tories seems very weak in comparison to the years of Labour Failure.

We need regime change!

One more on the "I've just seen" theme ... Gordon announcing plans for 16 year olds to be given the vote! Really progressive idea, that. Inject some much needed youthful brains & enthusiasm into the political process. Didn't see ALL of the speech, though ... didn't catch whether it's going to come in for June. Can anybody enlighten?

45. distant
please refer to my earlier blog 44.

#42
I can think of 2 other words both beginning with 'B' that describe the Tories and their policies.

Yet more rhetoric...nothing new as usual!

He's just another blue coloured market fundamentalist who will probably take over from the red ones sometime soon!

its very very telling that while labour seem so easy to dismiss and castigate, no-one and i mean no-one on any of these bloggs can go through conservative policy and detail the benefit of their possible government.

45. distant. you have listed one of labours failings as "biggest boom and bust in history" please tell me as specifically as possible
a) how labour created the recession
b)what would the conservatives have done differently, thus avoiding the recession.
please be super specific.....

44#

I could tell you the Labour ministers who SHOULD have gone to jail.

The ones who SHOULD have been fired.

But, considering the amount of patronage and nepotism rampant within the party, and the fact that the police may as well be the armed militia wing of the Labour party theres fat chance of any of that!!

Which one's Osborne then?....Stan Laurel or Oliver Hardy???

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Sagamix and his new labour apologists have been bleating for weeks about the lack of tory policies and the moment they arrive we have push back...

Believe it or not, it is possible to have an economy that grows without government spending, intervention and support. You just need to create the right conditions.

But no, all we get form newlabour apologists is the ranting about housing booms and busts..some hypocrisy here perhaps? House prices go to six time income under newlabour then collapse, then rates are slashed and they shoot past six times again? Who's messing with the housing market here, lads? Not the tories...newlabour.

Anyway, ho hum. The tories have spoken and now it's up to lord Mandleson to perch his reading glasses on the end of his nose and say wisely 'these tory plans to boost the economy without government intervention are in danger of bossting the economy without government intervention'. YEs, Lord Mandy, they are. And how exciting is that? At the same time as we restructure and reform the public sector to make it pay its way after twelve years of newlabour profligacy.

Finally we have adebate; between a party that dares to suggest an economy can and should grow without government support and a party that is desperate to believe the only thing propping up the economy is the lifeline of more and more government spending.

Simples.

Call an election .. I'm ready to vote.

Exactly the right approach to get Britain out of this mess. This has my full support. George Osborne has identified the problems and sees the solutions.

I do not believe that the Conservatives will hold off on cuts, I think they will begin straight away if and when they come to Government. The markets will dictate this not Government. It is the only sensible thing to do.

However whether the Conservatives can deliver with a hostile public in tow, with all the hard decisions they will have to make is another question.

God lefty you can be such a dork at times....

"40. At 2:20pm on 02 Feb 2010, lefty10 wrote:

32. sagamix.
if the tories came out with something fresh and radical like..raising the taxable allowance to 12k, i would be the first to say.. great policy.
however.. this is my first impressions of the osbourne benchmarks

Create a more balanced economy - ensuring higher exports, business investment and saving as a share of GDP

a more balanced economy, meaning what?. . i wonder if when they say saving what exactly they mean. they cant mean joe blogs saving because he has no money to save? waiting for the exact details. have a feeling they are going to be super vague!"

Raise the tax allowance to 12K? And take even more out of taxation? Where are you going to make up the shortfall, oh wise one?

Joe Bloggs has no money to save? Not true. If Joe Bloggs has no money to save then why for months has there been a recorded effort to pay down personal debt? Theyve got money to save, but are getting poor investment rates for it.

"• Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity - by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East.

more privatisation!"

Theres next to nothing left to privatise that between you, Labour and the Old Tories havent sold off already or PFI'd up to the eyeballs! Try harder!!!

"• Get Britain working

obvious. but they will not mention the low wages or address monetary equality."

So what do you want? Money for nothing??? when the immigrants will do it cheaper?

"• Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money
job losses. pay freezes, redundancies."

No it means better value for money or out you go. You dont just take the money hand over fist and then deliver incompentant services just to keep some public sector couldnt get arrested anywhere else monkey off the dole. NO deal. The private sector have had all three of those things, job losses, pay freezes and redundancies. If their product was as crap as half of the public services are, they would have gone out of business. The public sector cannot and should not be insulated from the same crap the rest of us are having to go through.

"• Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy
what about a banking system that serves the peoples need."

That should be part of it, but the economy is about more than just the people, especially the sinky's.

"• Build a greener economy
so get rid of the gas guzzling limo following cameron on his bike."

And two jags prescott while we're at it, driving 400 yards in a Jag so that the missus that he cheated on doesnt get her hair blown about? Do me a favour.

as Neil pointed out, it would have made a change if the lobby crew had bothered themselves to have heard out the rest of the speech instead of dashing to ring in their copy as soon as they'd heard the opening two paragraphs. Maybe you'd have found out more then to be prejudiced about.

Has George Osborne ever had a proper job, involving REAL involvement with the economy or society ? Has David Cameron ? Come to think of it, have Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown ? We're being run by people with no right to talk about benchmarks, because they've got no underpinning experience of real life. Leading lights in school and university debating socities they may have been, but they're not fit for anything else. Caledonian Comment

#47 lefty

You are still scraping the barrel, trying to trade on yesterday's news - actually news from 20 years ago.

If you want to go trawling, how many times has a sitting Prime Minister had to help the police with their enquiries?

What about the ruined country and wrecked economy?

Apparently you have nothing to say about Labour Failure....

45 DT:

Difference is, with the last Conservative Government, we had a few ministers who were rightly sacked, prosecuted, and where applicable jailed for personal indescretions, personal sleaze, feathering their own nest so to speak. They were a) the minority, albeit a high profile minority; and b) correctly dealt with when things came to light.

In this administration, we have corporate sleaze of the highest order, and at this current time the number of people for whom sleaze of similar levels has been virtually proven but are still in post as Labour MPs and Ministers beggars belief. You all know the names, so no point tiring my fingers typing them all in.

But it's all about having the job (and the salary, the power, the position, the expenses, etc) and they appear to care nothing about DOING the job. Maybe that's not surprising, given their inability to do the job to any competent standard. all they can do is snipe whenever there's a credible alternative, as seen by the contrasting styles over the apst few days:

Conservative: new ideas, setting standards and benchmarks, outlining what they would actually do, and when, if they win the exection.

Labour: Mandy comes out with some cheap "Laurel and hardy" gag.

I know whose credibility is looking best at the moment, (clue: Mandy is the one looking and sounding like a bad night-club comic)

Gordon versus Dave. Jesus wept. Has this country ever needed so much and been offered so little?


I'm praying for a hung parliament.

50 Lefty10

If you don't know already what caused the recession or the 'boom and bust' then you are unlikel;y to want to hear it now.

Next five years of labour might cheer you up.

Booming public sector creating more jobs and middle classes dessimated by high taxation to pay for it.

Booming welfare state again funded by middle classes and working classes if they still have a job.

High interest rates leading to house price crash and rising repossessions because Brown ignored warnings that selling debt would cost more if he did not heed market warnings.

Banks having to write down losses from commercial and private property deflation so needing even more help from taxpayers.

Not enough taxpayers left to pay for all of this. Help!

Labour accuse the Conservatives of a Laurel and Hardy approach to the economy. Have you seen Peter Mandleson standing next to Gordon Brown?

46 Saga:

It can't come in before the election. Even if there were enough parliamentary cycles to get this through, I doubt there's enough votes in the house. The other parties and the Lords would throw it out and Brown can't force this through using the Parliament Act the way Bliar did with Fox Hunting.

Reuters are highlighting:
"Osborne will keep rates lower for longer than Labour"

Calling All Savers, Calling All Savers, Calling All Savers

Warning, Warning, voting Tory will seriously damage your wealth!!!!

It strikes me that the Tories haven't though this one through have they, as there are many more savers than borrowers and theses are exactly the prudent people that are supposed to be natural conservative aren't they? Looks to me that the Tories have well and truly abandoned the savers.....

So far Osborne's stuff has come across as so much waffle. Let's put substance to it....targets would be better - with penalties for not meeting them.

The main thing that puts me off the Tories is that they want to win this election. That's crazy. We all know that drastic cuts will be needed. £1.5 billion is nowhere near enough. There is no recovery. So no amount of soft pedalling now will convince me.

It isn't like the Thatcher days. The UK has nothing more to privatise or sell and the only body interested in buying UK gilts is the BoE. It's one helluva mess.

"56. Caledonian Comment wrote:
Has George Osborne ever had a proper job, involving REAL involvement with the economy or society ? Has David Cameron ? Come to think of it, have Alastair Darling or Gordon Brown ? We're being run by people with no right to talk about benchmarks, because they've got no underpinning experience of real life. Leading lights in school and university debating socities they may have been, but they're not fit for anything else."

Absolutely right! The country is to be run by inexperienced children. Clegg's no better.

I have a suggestion to kickstart our highstreets, and get them back to being buzzing hives of activity :-

1. To encourage new business, slash BUSINESS RATES. It seems that as our streets are full of empty shops, we can negotiate the rent but not the rates. Strangely though, I don't see anything in return for my business rates, I still have to pay to have my bins emptied privately, water, sewage etc still all have to be paid!

2. To crack down on crime, make sentances fit - get rid of Asbos, kids love them!!

3. Bring back National Service if a child of 16 leaves school, they should not be allowed to go straight into the benefits system, what have they contributed towards it - NOTHING!
The choices should be a) full time education, b) an apprenticeship, c) employment, d) National Service. This will sort out quite a few social problems.

4. As for Import & Export, why do we need so many food stuffs from abroad, when we produce so much of our own, we should be BUYING BRITISH, support our farmers and producers here, keep our money in this country.

5. Put limits on what our Goverment can and cannot do without OUR SAY-SO, we did not want a war - was that not clear enough?

6. Banks should not be aloud to charge what they want when they want, the whole banking system is rediculous and should be reformed. NO big bonuses, higher interest for savings, and a limit to how many cards and loans one person can have/borrow - surely thats just common sense?!?

ALSO:
I live in a Tory constituancy, and the differences between a very Labour constituency and a very Tory one, is laughable - why anyone would vote for the Tories is beyond me!
Would the Tories really make this country any better for the average working person in the UK - I think much much worse is the answer.
As for Labour, not really much better, but unfortunatley, the lessor of two evils.

#44 "please post the labour ministers who went to prison, the labour ministers involved in monetary corruption and proven cases where they went to jail."
Easy.
Lord MIke Watson,MSp & MP was sent to prison for arson when caught setting fire to the curtains at Prestonfield house hotel following a political awards ceremony. A crime rather more serious than Archer or Aitken.

Lord George Foulkes spent the night in a police cell for assaulting a female pensioner after getting drunk as a lord at a Scotch Whisky Association junket.

Wendy Alexander broke the law and ws forced to admit doing so when trousering an illegal donation from a Jersey based businessman and then covering it up by lying. A crime punishable by 12 months in prison and an unlimited fine.
She was spared prison thanks to the electoral commmision (appointed by her old mentor (G Brown) and Strathclyde police ignoring public complaints.

All a matter of public record and well know to everyone in Scotland. I am surprised that a member of Labour central office wouldn't be aware of these crimes.

Ron Davis being arrested for his nocturnal activities on Clapham/Wimbledon Common.
Peter Hain and his £100,000 donations
I could add that JG Brown claims 2nd home benefits despite only owning ONE home.

Nick, I feel you have rushed out this blog and therefore as a single statement it cannot stand on its own. ( sorry, I know you can never win. I won't start on the bias argument normal directed towards you).

It appears the main issue we are missing is the Tories will look to privatise and to put public sector work in the hands of private companies if they get into power. As private companies work on the basis of maximising shareholder value , this will result in massive job cuts and the potential of moving work out of the country. You only need to look at the Tories' relationship with Google and Murdoch. Nick - are you looking forward to your new employer being News Corp ?

West_London_Willy

And I thought it was only me that thought Mandy looked like something out of 'The Good Old Days'

Oh yes they did....

Oh no they didn't...

Sadly, for newlabour, Mandy is one of those people you begin to love less on acquaintance. At first he's mildly amusing, then you begin to think you may have misjudged him, then you realise he is one of the most patronising, sycophantic individuals you have ever set eyes on.

A bit like all the rest of the newlabour mob.. 'We're on your side'

Oh no you're not.

Call an election.

55. perry neeham.
you have the virtue of ignorance perry. unable to see beyond the hand in-front of your face. stuck in a world of narrowing politics.
ill do this slowly so it sinks in....

"Joe Blogs has no money to save? Not true. If Joe Blogs has no money to save then why for months has there been a recorded effort to pay down personal debt? They've got money to save, but are getting poor investment rates for it."
...........
the people who do have money and are paying down debt do not represent the many who have none and cannot save. another planet perry! away with the fairies you are!


obvious. but they will not mention the low wages or address monetary equality."
So what do you want? Money for nothing??? when the immigrants will do it cheaper?
...........
how is addressing monetary inequality anything to do with money for nothing. im talking about the very hard working on low wages. astounding ignorance again.
ps. The “immigrants” are people. you understand? Human beings. I sense the derogatory tone!

...
Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy
what about a banking system that serves the peoples need."
That should be part of it, but the economy is about more than just the people, especially the sinky's.
..........
the economy should be more than just about people?. what else should it be about then.... are you feeling ok perry. weird!
ps. the sinkys? appalling. really appalling

perhaps you will answer blog 44. although i sense this will be quite difficult for you!

0. At 2:20pm on 02 Feb 2010, lefty10 wrote:

"...its just all so so ridiculous. same old same old.
if the bench marks mean nothing then it doesn't matter if he has any or not!"

===

Agreed.

What you need is a strong, non-negotiable bench mark that defines your commitment to fiscal responsibility..... like Gordon Brown's "Golden Rule".

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#54:

"George Osborne has identified the problems and sees the solutions."

Help me out here, Susan. What exactly are the solutions that Osborne sees? I can see a lot of vague hand-waving aspirations, but not any solutions. Any idea what they might be?

It would be much more helpful if Labour supporters came out with reasons why they feel these economic policies by Osborne will not work instead of this tired old rhetoric.

I guess the answer is that at last we are getting some sensible proposals for a way forward in Britain, and they fear for their party.

13. At 12:15pm on 02 Feb 2010, lefty10

Some figures for you:

Cost of Black Wednesday to UK economy - £3.3 billion

Cost of selling half of UK gold reserves at a 20 year low - £4.7 billion

And despite what you are inferring, Labour, and in particular, Brown's shadow Treasury team were also in favour of ERM membership:

"Although the undignified 1992 departure from the Exchange Rate Mechanism did most damage to the Conservative government of John Major, some of the blame rubbed off onto the Labour economic team, which had supported British membership enthusiastically."

William Keegan, The Prudence of Gordon Brown, Wiley

#56 Caledonian Comment - you asked "Has George Osborne ever had a proper job, involving REAL involvement with the economy or society?"
Osborne's father and uncle set up Osborne & Little in 1968. This upmarket fabric and wallpaper designer turned over £26.2M last year, though, with a £7.5M loss compared with a £1.8M profit the previous year, the company was clearly feeling the effects of recession.
George Osborne has therefore been immersed in the world of industry and commerce all his life. Whether this makes him qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer is a different matter but he certainly has a more relevant background for the job than either Brown or Darling.
Hope this answers your question.

lefty I think you are rude and not listening to any argument.

You shout about 20 year old misdemeanours and ignore what is staring you in the face.

The banks took approx £180 billion. Brown and his cronies spent the rest + 200billion of QE.
The banks brought labour up short.

The crisis could not have happened if the regulation had not been changed in 1997. Who was in 11 Downing Street then?

you also scream about what it will cost.....what has Brown et al said about their proposals and what they will cost....NOTHING.

So perhaps a little civility and humility may go a long way.

This vague sloganeering is all very well but frankly, what the Tories need to offer is a distinct and detailed alternative to the government's own strategy - and this isn't it.

Considering the widespread contempt for Brown, no doubt they will pick up plenty of votes anyway but as it stands, the words 'frying pan' and 'fire' spring to mind.

67. graves 202
Lord MIke Watson
a lord. Resigned from SCOTTISH parliament.
Lord George Foulkes. Another lord. Not an elected mp.
Wendy Alexander
the Electoral Commission concluded in February 2008 that Alexander had taken 'significant steps' to comply with funding regulations and decided there was no basis for further action.As part of the Electoral Commission ruling, they also stated that Alexander "did not take all reasonable steps" and that "there is not sufficient evidence to establish that an offence has been committed". These mixed messages have resulted in a number of people questioning the decision, including Alex Salmond the head of the Scottish Government who likened the result to a not proven verdict.
In a separate development, a few days earlier in February 2008, the Scottish Parliament standards watchdog reported Alexander to the procurator fiscal for failing to declare as gifts the donations that were made to the fund for her campaign for the Scottish Labour Party leadership. Alexander had been told by the parliamentary authorities that there was no need to declare these donations as gifts. In previous leadership campaigns, campaign donations were not treated as gifts. Again the subsequent investigation led to a decision by the Crown Office to take no further action
Peter Hain and his £100,000 donations
Peter Hain's campaign failed to declare £103,156 of donations, contrary to electoral law. On 3 July 2008, the Metropolitan Police announced that they had referred Peter Hain's case to the Crown Prosecution Service. On 5 December 2008 the CPS announced that Hain would not be charged because Hain did not control the members' association Hain4Labour that funded his campaign.

In summary. a good try but relevance issues as lords, cases dropped and not in the same league as the sword of truth (an mp)

ah yellowbelly.
i wondered where you had gone
no syber stalking comments from me or suggestions you complain to the moderators. glad to see your back. and no name calling from me to you or acussations you get in a temper and your pants get all twisted.
glad your back :-)

#1. At 10:47am on 02 Feb 2010, Chris London wrote:

"Once again a biased viewpoint. Can you please for once give us a balanced report."

Hmm, the left are always quick accuse a right bias, the right are always quick top accuse a left bias and the centre are always quick to accuse press of not listening to them...

it would be much more helpful if all these conservative supporters could explain exactly what these policies mean in detail. specifics. especially as this blog is about osbourne. this blog is about osbournes benchmarks!!!!! that way when we realise they cant put any meat on the bone and its clear the benchmarks are right wing hot air and guff they will have nowhere to hide and we will get a real insight into the sort of dark, self interested personalities that will vote for this party ;-)

personally i cant wait for more conservative policies. especially the detail. that way it can be dismembered and be shown a) for what is really is
b) who it will benefit. c) who it wont benefit.
of course if they come up with something good...... id be pleased to see it...

Watching Dave and George flip flop on policy reminds me vividly of Black Wednesday with David Cameron standing in the background as the then Conservative government lost billions of pounds of tax payers money. Voting them in will be a complete gamble. David Camerons hysterical flip flopping as the pressure of a little tightening of the polls serves as a timely reminder that he is a great danger to the economy, because he has had everything in life handed to him on a plate and never had to work for anything.

robin @ 53

"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Sagamix and his new labour apologists have been bleating for weeks about the lack of tory policies and the moment they arrive we have push back"

These are not policies, Robin, they're benchmarks. "Benchmarks for Britain". Weren't you listening to the man?

willy @ 62 ... re votes for sweet sixteens.

"It can't come in before the election."

Ah, okay. Well that's a shame.

Thanks for clarifying.

The media focus of Osborne`s economic announcements this morning has been on the timing and extent of cuts.He did however set out his model for gtowth and it is worthwhile examining the assumptions behind this.

An economics model configures institutions,processes,conditions and policies.Osborne for instance brings together central government,private capital,saving,investment,regulation and policy.

He believes that private capital should be the engine of growth,that investment should come from private saving,not government, which should be reduced in scope and function,that the economy should be de-regulated compatible with stability, and that taxation should reward enterprise and effort.

Those of you familiar will economics you will recognize our old friend the free market model of capitalist enterprise. It was a model familiar to both Marx and Keynes,but by Keynes` time, the institutional basis of competitive free market capitalism was already under strain.

The size of average industrial enterrprise had already swollen from the typical Victorian enterprise on which the model was based.By 1940,200 American Corporations were responsible for 60% of output.The process of consolidation has continued,1000 large corporations dominate the production,distribution and exchange of the entire capitalist world.

These giants regulate the market on their own behalf,they fix prices to consumers and suppliers,theyh manipulate consumption through advertising,they dominate politically through lobby,pressure and donation.

The second huge modification to the market economy has been the inexorable growth in the economic role of the state,through the trade cycle beginning in the thirties,subsequently through growth of the military sector in peacetime unknown in the 19th century.

Finally the free market model of capitalist enterprise assumes what I will call the paradigm of automaticity:-meaning that markets, if left to their own devices, will produce optimum results.In the event of a slump,not unknown to the victorians,you allow prices to fall to the point where demand resumes.

The thirties tested this model to destruction.At whatever level of price,there was no demand for goods and services.Oil was 5 cents a barrel in Louisiana,wheat burned on the prairies,people starved in the towns. There was no automatic recovery,the New Deal,the rise of Fascism,the war economies of WW2 grew from the collapse of the free market.

This is an overview,the lesson I would take is that if Osborne bewcomes chancellor he will have to confront the model of the world as it is,not the one inside his head.Big beasts,state,corporation,military.The present crisis,political instability,global warming looks set to exarcerbate these trends.

#83. At 5:36pm on 02 Feb 2010, lefty10 wrote:

"personally i cant wait for more conservative policies. especially the detail. that way it can be dismembered and be shown a) for what is really is
b) who it will benefit. c) who it wont benefit."

Tory supporters could say exactly the same, Labour still have not costed their own policies, just vague suggestions, and they are the party who have access to the details that Osborne won't see until he is sitting behind a desk in Treasury.

Back in 1997 both Blair and Brown made capital out of the fact that they could not give precise details and costings until/if they were elected, why do you know expect Cameron and Osborne to do what neither Blair or Brown were able to do in 1997?...

lefty @ 40

"if the tories came out with something fresh and radical like raising the taxable allowance to 12k, I would be the first to say ... great policy."

Me too! That "double the PA" policy in particular, I like. As do the LibDems, who seem to be best on tax ideas right now. I'm actually desperate to praise the Cs for something ... they're quite likely to be our next government, after all ... but I just CANNOT find anything.

pop @ 48

"I can think of 2 other words both beginning with 'B' that describe the Tories and their policies."

Mmm. Quite so.

And "Bloody Brilliant" would NOT be those words, I'm betting.

77.
The crisis could not have happened if the regulation had not been changed in 1997. Who was in 11 Downing Street then?
.....
did the conservatives oppose this regulation change?

you also scream about what it will cost.....what has Brown et al said about their proposals and what they will cost....NOTHING.
.....
this blogg is about osbournes benchmarks


So perhaps a little civility and humility may go a long way.
......
perhaps you could give that advice to certain people who are asking questions about a conservative govt. certain people who have perhaps lost their homes or have been made redundant or struggling on low incomes or worse. perhaps if they remember the last conservative govt they might be entitiled to ask questions to a future con government questioning them with agression. civility doesnt seem to have changed things for the better in this country. apathy is all too common. equality wider than ever. and humility! well i think alot of peoples pride and self worth are low enough already!

graves @ 67

Hi there! Isn't it the "Federer is over the hill" man?

Hope your political punditry doesn't flow from the same Well of Wisdom.

42. At 2:27pm on 02 Feb 2010, sagamix wrote:
Just seen the speech where Osborne announces this exciting (!) new initiative. The look on his face when he first says it ... "Benchmarks For Britain" ... is a picture. Both Buzzwords start with a "B" and you could see how pleased he was with the sound of it. Was very sweet. Like to think he maybe wrote it himself - do you think he might have?

===

Better to be a financial alliterate than a financial illiterate!

#68 nerdsunited wrote:
"It appears the main issue we are missing is the Tories will look to privatise and to put public sector work in the hands of private companies if they get into power."

You mean the £200 billion PFI contracts that Labour have already made with the private sector, and which we have to fund over the next 20 years.

If you want to make party political points then try to keep up.

68. At 4:21pm on 02 Feb 2010, nerdsunited
"It appears the main issue we are missing is the Tories will look to privatise and to put public sector work in the hands of private companies if they get into power. As private companies work on the basis of maximising shareholder value , this will result in massive job cuts and the potential of moving work out of the country. You only need to look at the Tories' relationship with Google and Murdoch. Nick - are you looking forward to your new employer being News Corp ?"

And what have Labour been doing for the last 13 yrs then, Local Government and Central Government bodies encouraged to use software solutions provided by a company set up by Liam Byrne prior to his meteoric rise as an MP.

Partnerships with Microsoft, Cisco and HP for digital inclusion in some areas, who is getting the profit there.

PFI and sponsored colleges, who gets that profit, not taxpayer.

PFI hospitals where the payment to the contractor is £30 mil a yr.

Health care buildings such as Clinics built by private company then leased back.

Just a few, plenty more

OK, does ANYBODY here know what the Tories' policies for achieving these worthy aims actually are?

#46 saga

I think there is a good case for increasing the vote age, not lowering it!

Personally, I think around 35 would be about right - after people have had some experience of life and paying taxes!

#43 stanblogger wrote:
"But I suspect that the traditional Tory obsession with reducing public borrowing, except of course on defence, will resurface before long."

Minor point in the overall scheme of things, but last week Brown announced an increase in defence spending, and promised to spend more on defence than the Tories.

Do try to keep up.

Which is harder, I wonder - picturing Gordon Brown as a small boy, or George Osborne as an adult?

Perhaps my problem with Osborne (and it is my problem, not his) is that I always think of him and Cameron as schoolboy chums. Cameron probably the more dominant, then as now. Demanding to have a look at Osborne's homework or else, that kind of thing. Nothing too sinister, just run-of-the-mill boarding school jinks. Reach for your ankles, Osborne, I'm driving ...

#58 West_London_Willy

"Labour: Mandy comes out with some cheap "Laurel and hardy" gag."

It's a bit rich Mandy calling them Laurel and Hardy - particularly when it is Gordon and Alistair who have gotten us into "another fine mess".