Wasn't he Greek?

I seem to recall Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mich & Titch singing about him

Some, but not others, as we can see from discussion here.

That's true but the reason is because those governments are running budget deficits and so are having to rely on borrowing as well as taxation, to meet their spending commitments. If they weren't borrowing they wouldn't have to worry about what the markets thought of their long term solvency.

It's only like saying if you were reliant on the bank lending you cash every month to pay your rent and bills, the bank manager would probably have a big say on your lifestyle...

It's anti-democratic – simple as.

And combine that with what Merkel and Sarkozy were proposing, which would have, in essence, outlawed stimulus/Keynesianism and, entirely undemocratically, effectively told the people of the EU that they could vote for anyone they wanted in future, but no party would legally be able to step outside a neo-liberal economic approach.

The UK would not, for instance, have been able to embark on the investment programme that lifted us from a massive deficit in 1945 to the wealth of the 1950s.

not quite Greek - actually born in SW France by a french mother and german dad - Red Danny as he was known was a major player in the 1968 Paris student riots and became a european cult figure - ultra lefty who is now recognisd as almost respectable by the french media etc

and wasn't the Beckham movie based on him - nothing to do with the 60s band......

Thankfully David Cameron rejected this evil neoliberal deal and made sure that the UK had nothing to do with it. George Osborne has also increased borrowing by £158bn over the remainder of the parliament compared to his plans last year so the UK is making a strong independent stand for fiscal stimulus.

Going back to the strong politician point, who are the strong big hitters of any party?

Farage is a man with balls, but UKIP are both a marginal party and seen as a joke in Europe.

Caroline Lucas is an MP i admire and apart from her anti Nuclear power stance is someone I'd love to see leading the country, she comes across as extremely passionate and well meaning MP rather than self serving.

In the Labour party i like Chris Bryant but not sure how he'd perform given the top job.

Farage is a total tossbag. He has not a single redeeming feature.

But not afraid to say what he thinks and always willing to take people on so strong regardless of peoples personal opinions of him. I'm not saying he'd be good as a leader of a country although i would like to see him win a seat in the commons just for more interest in PMQ's.

He's a rent-a-gob for a lunatic fringe party because he knows he'd never make it as a mainstream politician. That's not strength.

Having met the man (he's also a passionate sea angler), I cannot disagree. He's managed to get more than a few fellow sea anglers on his bandwaggon by simply taking an anti-CFP, anti-commercial fishing route. When I asked him how those who live too far from the sea or simply didn't want to climb on a boat (at not inconsiderable expense), or spend their time freezing on a beach, would get to eat fish, if it wasn't for commercial fishermen, he mumbled something about me not understanding the situation and then went back to his rods.

I'll save my celebration for when Cameron – or anyone else, for that matter – rejects neo-liberalism as a failed experiment that has done much damage to this country (and others) over three decades, and stops pretending that 'there is no alternative'.

And Osborne is grabbing a straws, since his original plans have simply increased the deficit and damaged the economy further.

Do you have a suggestion for improving the situation that doesn't involve further borrowing? If so, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear (as I would). Over to you.

As I have mentioned – more than once – we had a bigger deficit after WWII. We spent. We invested. We thus built prosperity.

It's patently fooking obvious that he doesn't, otherwise he wouldn't be borrowing even more than he said he would

Bit of a difference we were only competing with the USA in those days - and we still lost out to Germany and Japan! These days there is too much global competition - unless there was a very specific plan to prime a new industry where we had a lead it would be throwing good money after bad.

So we just build ever more supermarkets then?

The problem is short term-ism brought about by an adherence to neo-liberalism. All of the edlder statesmen mentioned previously were not shackled by being wedded to that.

Even Tory governments before Thatcher had were not a slave to neo-liberalism so had outspoken characters in the party. Today being outspoken means being Eurosceptic and that is your lot.

Ken Clarke tried to be a bit radical and was shot down. There is far too little difference between parties and within them these days.

Plenty of people are not afraid to say what they think but it quite often lands them in trouble.

It's easy to spout-off when you have been elected to a position you don't actually believe in.
Being afraid isn't an issue.

This is just so typical cop-out you. He is supposed to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, FFS, backed by a huge and expensive team of highly trained Whitehall "experts" not to mention those at the BOE etc etc. And you have the stupidity to imply that we have no right to comment on the fact he is screwing up his job, unless we can also give him a full written Manual containing the entire solution. What a muppet you can be.

Let me put this to you. Lets say you were under the consultant for a complaint. Let's say over several months his treatment was not helping, but making you feel progressively worse. So you go in to see the consultant. He being the top man, expert, and backed by an array of highly qualified talent. You say "Look, doc. The treatment isn't working, and I'm feeling worse".

Do you then think a reasonable response would be
"Do you have a suggestion for improving the situation that doesn't involve further xxxx treatment? If so, I'm sure I'll be pleased to hear it."

Georgie said his medicine would improve the patient but it hasnn't. The patient is rapidly deteriorating. Georgie said he would only need to borrow £X. But he hasn't. He's already having to majorly revise his borrowing figures upwards. In short, all George's indicated sums he has got plainly and comprehensively wrong, and is now winging it and blaming everyone and everything but himself.

So he's fscked the job. He knows it, you know it. I don't need to have a solution to say that. Though it does seem blindingly obvious to me that (as just one suggestion) putting people to work in major public projects would be at the very least a huge improvement on inexorably lengthening the dole queues at a rate of knots and increasing benefits payouts by billions.

We're effectively choosing ways to be poorer. The cycle of borrowing back money we'd just spent had a flaw - should have been obvious, with hindsight.


This happened at the level of people, banks and governments - it was a truly systemic problem.

So... higher taxes? Unpopular and hits growth. Thatcher wouldn't like it.
Spending cuts? Unpopular and hits growth. Thatcher would approve.
Print money/devalue the currency. Would boost exports. But buying stuff becomes more expensive. Inflationary.
Take your pick - they're all .

What worries me is that no steps seem to be being taken to address the underlying imbalance in our economy. Cameron seems content to prop up the system that failed. Getting through the current turmoil is the more pressing priority, admittedly, but I'd like to see an acknowledgement that we need to change Britain to avoid a repeat.

You really are a tiresome oik, always resorting to personal abuse.

You say he is screwing up, so I will ask you the legitimate question of why you think he's screwing up and what you think he may do differently. As you rightly say, he has a high-powered team of advisers (including the Bank of England) guiding him but you feel he and they are getting it totally wrong. Interesting that. I think the initials of your internet ID give me some insight into what your suggestions may be.

1. I have not given you any personal abuse, and your claim is just bollox.

2. If you'd actually read my post instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'd see I already answered both parts of your question.

3. He has admitted he got everything wrong, by revising all his figures and forecasts. Are you calling him a liar?

Arguably, at t=o he made the correct choice. He has then revised it based on events. The point about a "credible plan" is a valid and important one because, as the French have been pointing out, we're in a worse mess than most. So far, by the government's actions and rhetoric we've avoided higher borrowing costs. I do not think that will necessarily last and if it doesn't the country will then be in big danger of collapse (and with few friends to bail us out).