Chancellor's Autumn Statement

Thrugelmir

BertieUK wrote: »

I think that it true to say that neither Messrs Cameron or Osborne are very popular with many of the British people at this moment in time.

Though have an opportunity to gain a huge amount of creedance. Difficult choices need to be made. So I doubt their overly concerned about popularity.

pqrdef

Of course there was William Hague, but they tried him. They ran through quite a few leaders.

And they missed out on Ken Clarke because he reflected the pro-Europe views of the CBI, the IoD, the FSB, the whole business community. Just goes to show how far the shire Tories have moved away from their traditional friends and paymasters.

And there's the bind. A government that has any clue how to rebuild the economy isn't going to be Eurosceptic. But we got the sort of Tory party the voters wanted.

grizzly1911

Found this looking for something else. It was the summary I found interesting




The British Political Scene in the 1960's


Responsibility for British policy during the 1960s was shared between the Conservative Government of 1951-64 and the Labour Government of 1964-70. There were three Prime Ministers during the period, Macmillan (Conservative 1957-63), Home (1963-4) and Wilson (1964-70). General elections were held in 1959, 1964, 1966 and 1970. During the 1959-64 Parliament, the Conservatives held a majority of just short of 100; at the start of the 1964-6 Parliament, the Labour Government had an overall majority of just three; and during the 1966-70 Parliament a majority of around 100.
The 1960s are generally believed to have been a decade of rapid change in British society. Yet, it was also a period of preoccupation with national economic decline. Both Conservative and Labour Governments attempted a variety of experiments to boost Britain's underlying growth rate and competitiveness. But most of their energies came to be absorbed in 'crisis management' as they had to fight off a series of balance of payments and currency problems. We will see that all of this had a direct effect on the question of whether the UK should join the EC.
The governments of the time found themselves caught between external economic constraints, rising public expectations as to living standards and public welfare and their own claims that the economy was in principle manageable by the state to a high degree of precision. Each government of the period thus found itself victim of a high level of public disillusionment, with large 'mid-term' swings and by-election losses entering the political equation for the first time since the war. Economic 'panaceas' accordingly succeeded one another in quick succession.


http://www.leeds.ac.uk/politics/cbl/brit/scene.htm

Same old same old.

kabayiri

Let's look at what has happened in recent times by the government in power (of either colour).

They underestimated the extent of the GFC.
They didn't see a potential Euro crisis weakening our export markets.
They have consistently underestimated inflation.
They have been over optimistic on the time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

This sort of track history does not give me much confidence in the latest forecast being accurate. It all feels like they will say whatever they think will get past a public which is resigned to a miserable decade.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

They underestimated the extent of the GFC.

Who didn't ? Almost everybody got sucked in to the ponzi money making scheme.

A._Badger

pqrdef wrote: »

Of course there was William Hague, but they tried him. They ran through quite a few leaders.

And they missed out on Ken Clarke because he reflected the pro-Europe views of the CBI, the IoD, the FSB, the whole business community. Just goes to show how far the shire Tories have moved away from their traditional friends and paymasters.

And there's the bind. A government that has any clue how to rebuild the economy isn't going to be Eurosceptic. But we got the sort of Tory party the voters wanted.

Utter nonsense. Had we got the sort of Tory party the voters wanted, the voters would have voted for them.

What we have is a half-baked Conservative party put together in an attempt to counter the 'nasty party' image, led by a PR spiv who Tory party high command, mistakenly, thought would 'modernise' the brand.

All he has succeeded in doing is make it 'a different kind of toxic'.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who didn't ? Almost everybody got sucked in to the ponzi money making scheme.

I don't recall China or India blaming it for all their ills.

They have just got on with trying to invest in and grow their economies.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't recall China or India blaming it for all their ills.

Not comparable. When you consider levels of poverty in both countries. Both are far from completing their own industrial revolutions.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who didn't ? Almost everybody got sucked in to the ponzi money making scheme.

Easy money, at the time and allowed them hide the real problems for longer. Not surprising really.

I was never comfortable wit all that bundling and selling on of debt at the time. Taking the fees and just moving the debt on, relinquishing ownership and responsibility of the lending.

BertieUK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Though have an opportunity to gain a huge amount of creedance. Difficult choices need to be made. So I doubt their overly concerned about popularity.

I think that watching both the facial expressions of Messrs Cameron and Osborne smirking at the opposition did not do the Conservatives any favours at all.

A smirk is a smile evoking insolence, scorn, or offensive smugness. "A constant smirk upon the face, and a whifling activity of the body, are strong indications of futility," the Earl of Chesterfield once wrote in a letter to his son