Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Time for Osborne to go

"Greater self-love hath no man than he lay down his best friend for his political career"


Anonymous said...

Well of course Osborne should go, in fact his original appointment as chancellor was idiotic, just because he was at Eton with his friend.
But, no point in removing him if similar principles will determine his successor.
Only John Redwood will do. Only Redwood looks competent in a government of political careerists.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Darling's low rating was because he was incompetent.

Osborne's low rating is because he refuses to hand out funny money to all and sundry.

He should not go, any more than Lawson should have gone when faced with the 365 "teenage scribblers".

If Cameron moves Osborne now, he might as well resign himself and let Milliband have a go, because it would mean a complete loss of credibility and would signal an intention to start the presses rollling again.

Anonymous said...

Osborne, is competent?

Pull the other one, George was hoping for a miracle and for Britain's economy to grow its way out of recession through a national demand led recovery [typical of all recoveries of the last fifty + years].

He's made no cuts, he has pared slightly - the budgets of some departments but HMG spending has gradually and stealthily risen. There have been no cuts in real terms and as the dole queue has lengthened borrowing rises.

QE, is an unqualified failure - nobody knows what it does but we do know, that it causes inflation and that has further reined in already weak demand.

Hoping for the best was Georgie boys' motto and that is just fumbling and shambling economics.

The real public debt is upwards of £3.5 trillion when the public sector pension liability is factored in, we are in dire straits.
Plus, with personal debt at an estimated £1.4 trillion, a consumer led demand boom was just wishful thinking on George's part.

This slump is going to go on, world demand is low, the eurozone is up shit creek and nations like China, India and Brazil are growing less, indeed China is in some economic trouble herself.
The latest monthly borrowing figures were a disaster for the Treasury and the Chancellor, the bad news keeps on coming.

There is a way out but it is [politically] very unpopular and some very harsh measures would have to be implemented.
But what an outcry this would cause, the BBC would be up in arms - of course you could silence their bleating in one go - privatise the BBC. this country has become lazy and far less resiliant and George knows it, the cuts that never were will have to become real very soon.

He hasn't got the bottle or the wherewithal - time to go George and let someone who knows what he and the economy of the country is all about, John Redwood.

Anonymous said...

Although we seem to be in agreement, anon 1 is not the same posteras anon2.

Rush-is-Right said...

Michael Gove aside, Cameron has surrounded himself with fuckwits and nonentities.

That he could leave John Redwood on the back benches tells you everything you might want to know about the man. Half muppet, half buffoon.

DeeDee99 said...


Redwood doesn't fit the essential Cameron profile of being (in political terms) youngish, reasonably telegenic, PR-savvy, on-board with the social democratisation of the Party, a fan of Blair and pro-EU.

Goodness, the man can't even sing the Welsh National Anthem. What possible good would he do in the Treasury.

Chloe Smith and GeorgieBoy fit the bill so much better.

G. Tingey said...

Redwood is completely out of touch with practical reality.
Forget it.

The country (any country) is NOT a "company" and running it as if it was one, does not work.
Similarly, the country is not a "planned socialist entity" either, and running it as if it was one, also does not work.
I suggest you study Paul Krugman on this one .....

Weekend Yachtsman said...


Blimey, if I thought I needed to study him, I'd just end it all now.

Osbourne is not competent, of course, but practical politics requires that he be left in post - to move him would discredit what he was trying to do (which was correct) rather than what he has actually done (which has been half-hearted, tentative, and slow).

What we need is for Osbourne to act with the determination, confidence, and panache of Lawson; but that won't happen because he is not Lawson and doesn't have Lawson's boss backing him up.

Redwood is sound on some things, but is just as much of a statist and managerialist as all the others, and is widely regarded as being from Mars. Competent he might be (compared to the others) but again practical politics makes it impossible to have him in the government.

Image does matter.

G. Tingey said...

To realise how utterly incompetent and dogma-driven Redwood is, read ANY post by him pertaining to the railways - he seriously suggested, recently (one of his blog posts) that 30 tph was not enough, why couldn't we have 45?
You what?

Meanwhike: Osbourne ...
Back to selling Wallpaper?