Chancellor's Autumn Statement

Thrugelmir

BertieUK wrote: »

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

What matters is the finer detail in the Autumn statement and the impact it will have in the years ahead. That's the trouble with politics now. All presentation to the public. Quality of politicians is shockingly poor when it comes to their ability to manage finance of any kind.

CLAPTON

In the fullness of time, people will wonder at the the absurdity of a 'budget' or an 'Autumn ' statement,
just as they will also wonder how any set of people accepted that their money should be devalued every year as a matter of policy.

How amazing it is, that every UK political party BELIEVES that it is right, proper and correct to devalue peoples savings every year by at the very LEAST 2% and usually of course much more.

All of them, teflon tony, moron brown, those arrogant rich kids that don't know the price of milk believe this is actual a laudable policy aim.

Without the systematic devaluation of the value of our saving and incomes, the government of the day wouldn't have any fiscal drag and so nothing to 'give' away.

Most of the complications of our tax and benefits system come directly from the effects of fiscal drag as the government of the day wants to be seen as 'giving' something away.

amazing really

Moby

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It had nothing to do with speech impediment and all to do with the fact that Balls is a back room manipulator and bully who can't hack it in the public eye.

All this spewing of class warrior vitriol is very facile and tedious and last century. Some of us try to hold a reasonably intelligent discussion.

The problem is it is class war. I'm sorry you can't take the emotion out of politics. That's the whole point. Politics is war by other means, (whatever century you are in). I think someone famous actually said that LOL.

It says it all. Privileged Tories. Eton products, everyone of them. Suprise suprise, they all rise to the top. Again and again we see that power and influence in this country is controlled by a narrow network of individuals who generally tend to come from the same class and move in the same circles. That is simply unfair and needs to change. What is also so shocking but seems to pass unoticed is actual support for the Tories is hemhorrhaging in the North, Wales and Scotland. They rule due to their power base in the home counties. They can no longer call themselves a national party.

The last thing they care about are strivers, much more concerned with the
'vulnerable', including all the workshy, f e c k less losers and wasters whose
votes they hope to buy.

Labelling others from the safety of your computer is pretty low imo.....is this the 'intelligent discussion' you were talking about. This is what the tories are good at. They appeal to the lowest common demoninator emotions. They press those red buttons of anger that we all feel towards those who are 'getting something for nothing', the 'lazy' '!!!!less' 'asylum seekers' etc. They always have and always will and the self righteous Daily Mail types lap it up every morning in their armchairs. Osborne said in a recent speech ....how he was standing up for those who get up in the morning and go to work....while their benefit claiming neighbours lay in bed. He knew exactly what he was doing. Its partisan, low and divisive. A true leader would not do that. They would try to unify and look for common ground. Christmas is here....I recommend reading some Dickens. He called it right about how the workhouses would be used to cow the !!!!less.

But I wouldn't rule it out -- as Churchill said, the biggest argument against
democracy can be found by holding a five minute conversation with the average
voter.

Is this the same Churchill who turned the guns on the South Wales miners during the General Strike, who sent thousands of Australian troops to their deaths at Gallipoli, who thought we could continue with our 'Empire' after the war instead of having a bigger say in Europe....thereby leaving it to DeGaulle and the emerging German democracy to sew it all up.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Churchills scorn for the intelligence of the average voter might be because Churchill represented an elite whose whole political objective was to keep the average voter in his/her place??? Can't you see that?

chewmylegoff

pqrdef wrote: »

Well, if the buyers are going to hand over cheques for payment in full before they walk away with their shiny new 4Gs, whatever they are. But if he's booking the revenue as soon as the deal is done without waiting for payment, that does seem a little Enron-esque.

Because he will need to borrow that money. Or perhaps he can get the BoE to do some free 100% invoice factoring and then persuade the ONS it isn't borrowing. Well yes, of course he can.

He absolutely hasn't booked the income, he has included it in a forecast - I.e. he (well actually the OBR) has said "next march I expect to receive £x billion from the sale of 4g licences. What are they supposed to do in your opinion when forecasting borrowing?

ILW

Moby wrote: »

The problem is it is class war. I'm sorry you can't take the emotion out of politics. That's the whole point. Politics is war by other means, (whatever century you are in). I think someone famous actually said that LOL.

It says it all. Privileged Tories. Eton products, everyone of them. Suprise suprise, they all rise to the top. Again and again we see that power and influence in this country is controlled by a narrow network of individuals who generally tend to come from the same class and move in the same circles. That is simply unfair and needs to change. What is also so shocking but seems to pass unoticed is actual support for the Tories is hemhorrhaging in the North, Wales and Scotland. They rule due to their power base in the home counties. They can no longer call themselves a national party.



Labelling others from the safety of your computer is pretty low imo.....is this the 'intelligent discussion' you were talking about. This is what the tories are good at. They appeal to the lowest common demoninator emotions. They press those red buttons of anger that we all feel towards those who are 'getting something for nothing', the 'lazy' '!!!!less' 'asylum seekers' etc. They always have and always will and the self righteous Daily Mail types lap it up every morning in their armchairs. Osborne said in a recent speech ....how he was standing up for those who get up in the morning and go to work....while their benefit claiming neighbours lay in bed. He knew exactly what he was doing. Its partisan, low and divisive. A true leader would not do that. They would try to unify and look for common ground. Christmas is here....I recommend reading some Dickens. He called it right about how the workhouses would be used to cow the !!!!less.


Is this the same Churchill who turned the guns on the South Wales miners during the General Strike, who sent thousands of Australian troops to their deaths at Gallipoli, who thought we could continue with our 'Empire' after the war instead of having a bigger say in Europe....thereby leaving it to DeGaulle and the emerging German democracy to sew it all up.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Churchills scorn for the intelligence of the average voter might be because Churchill represented an elite whose whole political objective was to keep the average voter in his/her place??? Can't you see that?

Think you will find that most people do not want to be governed by lazy, uneducated chavs.

paulmapp8306

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.

Suppose that they do not manage to get the economy 'back on track' and unable to show that their policies are getting to grips with the situation that was,according to them, caused by the previous Government, and as time nears for the next General election, what direction will the Conservatives adopt in order to enable the public not to fall back on their old ways and elect the wrong party?

Would it be fair to say that a total change of leadership might be their saving grace, and put in leaders that have at least done jobs in the public sector, and have gained the respect ofthe public, rather than have leaders that who are at present dubbed as the 'poshboys' who have come from privileged backgrounds, and to give leadership to someonewho can understand what it is like at ground level, and to have come from a family background that worked hard for a living, by working their way up the ladder of success, then they would be able to address the people of this country on their level and have a better understanding of what it is like in the real world.

Are there any leaders in waiting that may fit this role?

Like Maggie you mean? yes please.

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

Think you will find that most people do not want to be governed by lazy, uneducated chavs.

Just because you have an expensive education, live in a well off family and mix the exclusive circles doesn't actually mean you are very intelligent, have any common sense, are hardworking and don't act like a chav.

I know a number of individuals that have had expensive private education and are still not high achievers. Their parents had high hopes but their sproggs just weren't up to it.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

He absolutely hasn't booked the income, he has included it in a forecast - I.e. he (well actually the OBR) has said "next march I expect to receive £x billion from the sale of 4g licences. What are they supposed to do in your opinion when forecasting borrowing?

Would that be the OBR that has proved so accurate to date? At least giving them the illusion of independence allows him to evade anyresponsibility.

No issue with them being included in forecasts, but why oh why do they always have to push on the income . Why not budget on worst case scenarios? Then they could at least give us good news when they improve up on them or not look bad for undershooting again.

I appreciate they need to include them for political reasons but that doesn't really help resolve the problems we face.

Optimist

Moby wrote: »

Is this the same Churchill who turned the guns on the South Wales miners during the General Strike, who sent thousands of Australian troops to their deaths at Gallipoli, who thought we could continue with our 'Empire' after the war instead of having a bigger say in Europe....thereby leaving it to DeGaulle and the emerging German democracy to sew it all up.

Has it ever crossed your mind that Churchills scorn for the intelligence of the average voter might be because Churchill represented an elite whose whole political objective was to keep the average voter in his/her place??? Can't you see that?

Could I just point out that after the war it was the Labour party who were in power and frittered away billions borrowed from the US on trying to retain the Empire.

Churchill didn't get back into power again until 1951 and he was all for Europe. In a speech in Switzerland in 1946 he was all for building a "United States of Europe".

Domfrizby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What matters is the finer detail in the Autumn statement and the impact it will have in the years ahead. That's the trouble with politics now. All presentation to the public. Quality of politicians is shockingly poor when it comes to their ability to manage finance of any kind.

This is true, its not what is best for the UK, its what is best to keep people happy for now so we can win as many votes as possible to stay in power.