Is Gordon Brown an economic illiterate?

chucky

so you've now changed your story from this...

nickmason wrote: »

But I'm wondering whether you have something more robust than ad hominem attacks against these newspapers?

to this - weak, nicky, very weak...

nickmason wrote: »

as I assumed you wouldn't resort to ad-hominem attacks against them - as you do Cameron, Osborne, and now me.

attack is a strong and very emotive word which is great but very far from the truth. but after your inaccurate and recent mis-information from last week we're used to that from the try party, aren't we not...

but back to your point - how is me mocking how inept Osborne is allowed not allowed. the only place that it's not allowed in your little tory handbook.

you're very edgy nicky - don't worry one more day and your job will be done here :T

pwllbwdr

Is it possible to have an "ad-hominem" attack against an organisation such as a magazine?

chucky

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Is it possible to have an "ad-hominem" attack against an organisation such as a magazine?

nick mason works for the Tory party - he's one of the tory rampers trying to spread the tory word on this forum.

according to him you should obviously not to be able to critisise the tory party.

the biggest irony is that the title of this very thread is 'Is Gordon Brown an economic illiterate?'.
our beloved nick doesn't seem to get upset with that particular ad-hominem attack (even though it could be very true about Mr Brown). i wonder why he doesn't get so upset about this???

to add just last week he started a thread on something completely not true and a blatent lie just to gain some points for his beloved tory party...

just let me know nicky and i'll post the link to the thread where you lied right here :money:

nickmason

I have a feeling that this is going to be completely useless. But anyhow.

1) My question was whether you would address the observations made by respected, non-tory newspapers that the tories were the best party to solve our economic problems. As pwllbwdr points out, these papers might be immune from the ad-hominem attacks you use against Cameron, Osborne, and now me. Oh by the way, you should have answered the first question, as the Evening Standard has now also come out for David Cameron:

If the point of British elections nowadays is largely to test the characters of the would-be premiers, Mr Cameron is the clear winner.

so you might want to add that to the list of publications you could respond to.

2) To clarify - I don't work for the Tory party. I'm a volunteer. I work for a charity, the RNIB, and prior to that I worked at Amnesty International. I mention this because I am well aware of criticism of the tory party. I know many members of the Labour party, indeed a number of their elected representatives, and we have excellent debates without ever suggesting that either can't be criticised. I'd just appreciate it if - for once - you would actually try and engage in a similar debate.

3) Do you think your position is hypocritical, calling me a ramper? You are obviously trying to damage the tory party, with your continued attacks. Incidentally, as someone else pointed out (in generality), your trolling is likely to send people in the opposite direction.

So there you are chucky. If you feel like engaging, please answer the questions in 1 and 3. If you'd rather I ignore you, then don't!

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

your trolling is likely to send people in the opposite direction.

i was going to reply addressing your points and had the post ready to go but then i read the above. i'd rather not engage with someone who has an agenda due to his cult following of a political party and who gets mortally offended trying to turn into something that it isn't if David Osborne is questioned about his ineptness in his economic theory.

nickmason wrote: »

You are obviously trying to damage the tory party, with your continued attacks.

you're a bit of a joke nick in your response above because i don't want to vote or will vote for any of the political parties, this all a political game for you as you continue to defend the tory party instead of defending what is right or wrong...

i have no political agenda here unlike yourself. they're all as bad as each other. the tories have the liability of your beloved Osborne who nobody is allowed to mock.

i'm actually not sure what is worse having brown or osborne in your government...

tomterm8

nickmason wrote: »

I have a feeling that this is going to be completely useless. But anyhow.

1) My question was whether you would address the observations made by respected, non-tory newspapers that the tories were the best party to solve our economic problems.

What the Tory's can't answer is how they will cut the deficit by more than 6% of GDP, while not cutting "front line services", reducing the tax burden, and making everyone feel jolly good.

Even labours plans can't do that.

Saying you're better at cutting the deficit than Labour is a crock of... stuff.. because they hired the guy who came up with labours plans.

So... how do you sustainable cut a deficit, while reducing tax take, and while a large tranch of baby boomers are now starting to retire?

I don't think you can.

I think the only thing the government can do is increase taxation, cut services, and cut pension benefits. I think that is the only course that is possible to take.

And yet, all three parties are not being honest about it.

The tory's may enter power tomorrow, but if they keep their promises, I think the country is heading towards disaster.

And I think the same about the labour party.

PhylPho

Gawd's sakes, chucky, leave it out. Osborne is perfectly fitted to the role of a Tory Chancellor. He understands what people are going through. He's so poor, he had to claim £47 off the taxpayer to purchase some DVDs of a speech he had made himself about how a Tory Government would provide value to the taxpayer. Can't get better than that.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

i was going to reply addressing your points and had the post ready to go but then i read the above. i'd rather not engage with someone who has an agenda due to his cult following of a political party and who gets mortally offended trying to turn into something that it isn't if David Osborne is questioned about his ineptness in his economic theory.

you're a bit of a joke nick in your response above because i don't want to vote or will vote for any of the political parties, this all a political game for you as you continue to defend the tory party instead of defending what is right or wrong...

i have no political agenda here unlike yourself. they're all as bad as each other. the tories have the liability of your beloved Osborne who nobody is allowed to mock.

i'm actually not sure what is worse having brown or osborne in your government...

Chucky, if your view is a "plague on all your houses", and you do just want to mock the lot of them, then of course you can. I find it a bit frustrating, because I'd much rather people did try and engage in a sensible debate. (Probably because I'm not very good at mocking!)

There are vast differences between the parties on policies and philosophies, and actually most of them are - in my view, and broadly speaking - laudable. TomTerm8's point about dealing with the deficit is valid to an extent; and I do agree that we have a problem in that the people of this country don't seem to have understood the depth of the economic problems we face. (we've done this to death, but) one of the problems of me posting under my own name is that you aren't going to find me saying anything that is going to embarass the Tories, particularly the evening before a GE. There are also benefits to it, in that it does keep me honest (for instance in the past when I've talked about local government issues), and has been appreciated by others.

If you really think that my response to you is a joke, then okay, but for what it's worth, I'm trying to engage, but am hacked off with the fact that you never do seem to back up your comments. And what was with the Louis Vuitton comment on the other thread?

Exocet

Well it's nearly over now. Decision day tomorrow, and then we'll see what Friday brings. For all the parties it's been a false six months or so - I hope that whoever gets in secures a decent mandate (or that it is a sensible coalition) from the people, so that we have a chance of getting through the austerity measures in one piece.

What I would like for a brief period (I don't expect too much) at the beginning of the new Parliament would be some honesty and common sense about how we deal with our problems. With some facts about the future in front of us we have a chance to plan, save, organise our lives and finances to keep everything (home, life, work) ticking along during some expected to be tough times.

Really, for all the words, and the debates, it is a poor comment on our system that were any of the politicians to tell the truth they would not have a hope of entering office. I blame Simon Cowell.

chucky

PhylPho wrote: »

Gawd's sakes, chucky, leave it out. Osborne is perfectly fitted to the role of a Tory Chancellor. He understands what people are going through.

are you being serious!!!!!

you need to re-read the script.