Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

I do agree goldfinger that the government have got things wrong but to me the Labour plan of spend, spend is not the answer. We have seen the consequences with some of our neighbouring countries. Yes if there was someone better I would vote them.

Ignore the rumours: David Cameron and George Osborne stand or fall together




By Benedict BroganPoliticsLast updated: March 31st, 2013

520 CommentsComment on this article



Divorce is not on the cards

My colleague Paddy Hennessy has caused his usual trouble this morning by detailing the extent of backbench unhappiness with George Osborne. As Chancellor, George gets blamed for dud policies – the hit on stay-at-home mothers, for ex – while as elections supremo he is accused of bad political management. His anonymous critics say, in terms, that he is the source of all the party's woes. One is quoted as follows: “George must go. He might have helped push through gay marriage but in my constituency people are more angry about the removal of child benefit, a policy designed and implemented by a rich Chancellor in a safe seat with absolutely no idea how hard it is for ordinary folk. He has lost any political nose he may have had and is in danger of becoming a millstone round the Prime Minister’s neck.”

You may recall that before the Budget there was talk of a letter demanding his head going in to David Cameron if Mr Osborne failed to deliver… I forget. Paradise, or something. An overnight transformation of Tory fortunes. Actually, the Budget turned out to be rather clever in political terms. It may be open to all manner of criticisms for its macro choices (funny business with the BoE inflation target, doping of the housing market, and no hint of the big strategic decisions needed to recalibrate the size of the state), but it did the business for backbenchers by giving them things to brandish on the doorsteps. 'Do something', they clamoured, meaning 'save my seat', and he did: the Budget will help the Tory cause in 2015.

But it's made precious little difference to his standing in the parliamentary party. Like Dave, George is unpopular because over the years he has been unable to avoid giving the impression that being a backbencher is for life's losers. Consider that Tory quote. Take the class envy bit: who'd a thunk we'd reach a point in the Tory party where being well off was something to be hated for? The irony is that Mr Osborne carries his inherited privilege far more lightly than Dave. The point about the safe seat is more telling, but as Matthew Parris detailed yesterday, some of the leadership's most implacable critics are those who won't have to work too hard in 2015. Our anonymous MP also inexplicably pins gay marriage on George, when it was Dave who pushed for it.

Should we take it seriously? As displacement activity for attacks on Dave, yes. The recent attempts at forcing a challenge against the PM have come to nothing, so a new target is needed (by the way, I don't buy this idea that we now 'know' that 25 letters have gone in to Graham Brady. All the evidence points to him being as discreet as his predecessor. It may be true, but it's only a guess. Beware those who tell you they know otherwise). Mr Osborne is a good one. Hammering the join between PM and Chancellor is a way to force damage. It won't work, though. Why? There is no disagreement between them on economic policy, the central requirement for a change at the Treasury. They may at times differ on other policy areas, but they are united on the economy. Nor do any of the names suggested as replacements propose anything different. Changing Chancellors to do more of the same is, frankly, a turkey of an idea. The voters would laugh, and that would be that. True, in No10 it's been noticed that Mr Osborne's mojo is, shall we say, not quite what it was. But Mr Cameron knows that if Mr Osborne goes, he does too. And the Chancellor has known for years that he has no future without Mr Cameron's success. They remain inseparable. They stand or fall together. It is one of the Conservatives' great remaining strengths.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100209760/ignore-the-rumours-david-cameron-and-george-osborne-stand-or-fall-together/

Fred
We have had a fascist government from time to time. It is called Labour.

DC if your a trader rather than an investor you know you have to spend and take losses to make further gains in your portfolio. Its no diferent at government level.

Right off to watch spurs

Poor you :-))

Labour have never had a clue of how to create an environment that business can succeed in. Business is the engine that drives the economy. No benefits to society are created except by way of the wealth and success of businesses.

Its a slight bit different when the country is at risk. France has adopted that policy and gained nought, except being deeper in the red. Still think labour waffle and would not know how to handle the countries problems.

I agree with you Haystack.

Hays,

Do you think the selling off of the country's silver at the lowest going price was a brilliant idea.

Strange how many business owners I have known in the past thought they made more under socialist governments, (I was surprised at the time and will check why they said it to me. It wasn't to appear friendly, or humour me. I will have to look at periods of growth.

Also, reflect on the period of growth from about 200 on for a number of years.

The real problem may be the killing off of heavy and light industry under Thatcher and replacement and hype of the service and financial industries.

It isn't the production of wealth which is the problem, it is the purloining of it, that is the problem.

was it a good idea to sell off the gold?

industry was significantly helped down the road by militant (communist paid) trades unions with their restrictive practices and greed for more and more for less and less ..... you also choose to ignore that emerging markets such as china and india could/were/are knocking down costs so heavily that companies could not afford other than to go elswhere

finally, a good bit of meaningless and populist rhetoric that actually has no meaning let alone substance It isn't the production of wealth which is the problem, it is the purloining of it, that is the problem.

LOL Cynic the torries sold off far more than Browns Gold.

1. North sea oil revenues, to keep unemployed ....unemployed

2. Utilities...at knock down prices.

3. Council Houses........... now owned 66% by private landlords

4. Sale of Northern Rock at give away prices

5. Proposed sale of nationalised banks at knock down prices.


Their are more.

Your talking shite and posters here know this after you chickened out earlier today.

Cyners Ive let you off the hook up to now as i think your a good guy and online pal but please dont press me too much further as I will put to you what I had in mind yesterday evening and believe me you wont like it.

What a strange person goldfinger is. I thought Fred was odd, but goldfinger takes the biscuit. He spouts more rubbish than even Fred.

sticky - i'm sorry to say that you falsely accuse ..... i told you what i promised to do ..... you said i promised more ...... i challenged you to prove it by c+p from my posts .... you have signally failed to do so .... put up or shut up is the succinct response to you

btw, lest you should think otherwise (i'm sure you would!) i shall be off-line almost completely from now until sunday afternoon

Morning slaphead.

You might kid yourself what the chalenge was but everybody else knows what it was and youve chickened out Old Boy.

ps, have a good weekend at your sons.

thanks sticky .... chicken was not on my menu :-) ..... like i said, on this issue, i know what i offered to do, and showed the skeleton that i could/would do so..... so like i said, put up or shut up

he he.. ohhhh never mind cyners your still a good un.

Always will be.

Hays,

This sums up the present tory party.

Now this what happens when your chancellor goes walk abouts trying to con the public. Just 2 days ago the torries were only 7 points behind with the same poll, others have a far bigger gap.Now its 12.

Can you see what I mean cyners, right wing loons. You cant kid the electorate these days and get away with it. They will not be fooled especially the younger ones who have increased fees to attend UNI.

UKIP further denting torries.

Now this onelectionista‏@electionista53m
UK - YouGov/Sun poll: CON 30%, LAB 42%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%