Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Good, still think he's a prick for sacking that drugs adviser.
There might be someone with a basic knowledge in economics take the post.
that replacing him with Ed Balls is a great idea though? I thought they were after a break from Brownite economics...ed balls might as well be Brown?
in the commons since the election.
if he can make sense, then maybe people won't hate him too much.
is this the Law?
semms like a narrow pool to draw from
The civil servants, i.e. people trained and with specific knowledge of the subject do the crucial numbers work. There is a quote an old chancellor of the exchequer made on this but I cant remember it off the top of my head.
I always thought he was a terrible choice for shadow chancellor, and the drugs council fiasco was the main reason I didn't vote Labour last time round.
Afaik she's every bit as qualified as Ed, though.
I know there's very little choice in their ranks but they're going to be unelectable
Because of the really infamous Ed Balls?
By the next election the economy will have collapsed under the weight of the cuts and Ed Balls will have been proven right.
Because, you know. HE IS RIGHT.
Though we're getting into the meowington-bothering "Brent's back!" apostrophe of possesion/omission territory.
Colleague 1: "I see Alan Johnson's going. Personal reasons. Probably had an affair.
Colleague 2: "Blackmail?"
Me: "Could have been with a white bloke, we don't know.
I'd been told that Johnson doesn't get along with Ed as he was a big Dave fan. He's apparently been undermining him a bit, and he also says that any Labour minister who wants to make a commitment that involves a financial pledge (i.e all of them) have to fill in a form and will be told in 2 weeks whether they can. True Labour statism at work!
I dislike Ed Balls, and I think his thoughts on deficit reduction could be a gift to the Tories.
BUT he fucking knows his economics and he's an adept Parliamentarian. Will be nice to see how Gorgeous George reacts when Balls gets up in his face (sorry couldn't resist)
but surely by now people are beginning to see through their bullshit? If nothing else, people are bored of hearing the cuts message, they've repeated it to death and as the law of lying tells you: if you tell a lie small enough often enough, people stop believing it because they get totally fucking bored with it.
There will be a lot of strife as the coalition pushes through their radical agenda and as people realize this Ed Balls will be able to destroy George Osborne with his actual knowledge of economics and the Tories will lose credibility on the economy.
I mean speaking wise. But he's not been put under any pressure by a man trying not to make any mistakes.
Will be good to see how Osbourne reacts when someone tries to properly rattle him
bas wi wipe the foor
he wouldn't be pursuing such an aggressive programme of cuts?
(unless he's just a destructive arsehole, of course, in which case he shouldn't be chancellor anyway)
are supported by people who DO know something about economics?
You're talking as if EVERYONE thinks the cuts are not the way forward economically for the UK, which quite frankly is not the case.
(What I mean of course is ^this).
But every time they've tried to apply their ideas they've gone disastrously wrong. Just so you know. I mean, just because the sun rose today doesn't mean it will tomorrow, but it does intuitively seem to make it more likely.
his degree was PPE, he was an economics writer before going into politics when became a economics advisor to brown in the mid-nineties. he was working there for a decade before he became an mp and he stayed in the treasury until 2007.
osbourne by comparison hasn't hd anything to do with economics before 2004 that i can tell.
now you could argue that all this experience hasn't served balls well but you can't say that he doesn't know his stuff. osbourne should be crapping himself.
but the fact that you have this depth of knowledge means that you're more likely to pick us up when we try and cover for our lack of knowledge. it's not a question of being right so much as knowing when the person your arguing with is wrong or on shaky ground.
osbourne simply doesn't have the same depth of knowledge as balls. he may have better ideas but he's much more likely to have weak points in his knowledge, and balls is far more likely to spot them than johnson ever was.
we can let this point retire gently with the understanding that whatever happens, pitting two of the most unpopular politicians in the country against each other is going to be decidedly amusing.
It's like someone said on Twitter about the tube strikes:
We should lock Boris Johnson and Bob Crow in a room together and... actually, that ought to do it.
he had all this economic experience in real life and he was so much more qualified than Osbourne who everyone said was an idiot. And yet Cable had to make a pretty humiliating u-turn and say Osbourne was actually right all along and he'd got it all wrong.
yes he's now signing off on osbourne's plan to emphasise deficit reduction but he's still making public speeches that emphasise caution, and that's because that's his job for both the liberals and the coalition. it's just good and pragmatic pr.
They look bloody horrible.
That is rough. Drug adviser fiasco aside (god, I was so cross about that) AJ struck me as one of the more affable, human types amongst the rest of gordo's unfortunates.
it's not as if the Conservatives would have behaved any differently on the drugs advisor issue.
who wanted to ban alcohol. (well, he didn't say so in many words, but that was the logical outcome of his dangerous "alcohol kills more people than drugsz" rhetoric: this might be true but its not due to alcohol being inherently more dangerous and we all know people are too stupid to understand subtleties beyond the headlines) Alan Johnson was right to sack him.
He said that prohibition of alcohol didn't work either. His argument was that if you're going to have legalised alcohol, there's an inherent logic fail in also prohibiting other recreational drugs.
Yeah but if he knew anything about how drug stories are reported he'd have realized the headline would be: "ALCOHOL MORE DANGEROUS THAN HEROIN."
That logic fail is avoidable with a cultural exception clause for alcohol anyway.
should refrain from actually giving that opinion because the tabloids might turn it into a sensational headline?
Imagine how little would get said or done if everyone followed that line of reasoning.