Tuesday 23rd September 2014

A home from home
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
User avatar
TheGrimSqueaker
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TheGrimSqueaker »

AngryAsWell wrote: This one is a bit fanciful, allowing (read, funding) those with an artistic talents to pursue their path in the arts because the world needs artists and the beauty they create as much as it needs weapon builders. :D
Well said, to all of it. Picked on this one line though because it brought back a memory; in 2010 Fiona Banner had an exhibition at Tate Britain where she used the products of the weapon builders to make her art! Truly swords into ploughshares, it was quite humbling.


http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/ ... and-jaguar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.
User avatar
AngryAsWell
Prime Minister
Posts: 5852
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by AngryAsWell »

citizenJA wrote:@AngryAsWell -
This one is a bit fanciful, allowing (read, funding) those with an artistic talents to pursue their path in the arts because the world needs artists and the beauty they create as much as it needs weapon builders.
Beautiful.

Really outstanding post, thank you.

Private companies are free to enter bids for rail franchise & must understand that all the requirements the government have in place to protect the interests of the people of the country must be adhered to. Every single one. Wonder how many private companies banking on rail franchise contracts will find it worth their while to work for a living. They are, of course free to leave.
Thank you, and agree on having strict terms and conditions on contract bidding, including paying a living wage.
:D
ohsocynical
Prime Minister
Posts: 10937
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by ohsocynical »

@PaulFromYorkshire:

Green/Shapps, bless his little cotton socks was quivering with barely contained pleasure when he Tweeted that he was going to be interviewed about Ed not bothering to mention the Deficit.
He really is twisted isn't he. And with such an innocent face.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
User avatar
AngryAsWell
Prime Minister
Posts: 5852
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by AngryAsWell »

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: This one is a bit fanciful, allowing (read, funding) those with an artistic talents to pursue their path in the arts because the world needs artists and the beauty they create as much as it needs weapon builders. :D
Well said, to all of it. Picked on this one line though because it brought back a memory; in 2010 Fiona Banner had an exhibition at Tate Britain where she used the products of the weapon builders to make her art! Truly swords into ploughshares, it was quite humbling.


http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/ ... and-jaguar" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Impressive! I've had that "what the hell was that" feeling - many, many years ago - when walking in Wales!! I may have walked passed her....LOL
ohsocynical
Prime Minister
Posts: 10937
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by ohsocynical »

citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html
It's going to be the middle classes that suffer worse if we have to start paying for our health. I honestly dont' think they realise how bad it can get.

They'll be paying a lot more for health insurance than they do in taxes especially if they have a family. They won't be able to afford a total cover policy, so if there's a need for intensive/lengthy treatment they will have to make up the difference and find thousands upon thousands of pounds extra. The hospital will chase them via a debt agency for the money they owe. Losing homes and going bankrupt is common due to medical costs.

The poor often go without any medial care and die sooner rather than later, but at least they're debt free when they go.
I've been there. It's a terrible place to visit, that place where there's no NHS.
My daughter lives there. Her health is awful due to years of neglect through not being able to pay for regular blood tests and checks. And although she's now insured through her husband, it's still not very comprehensive so there are still huge gaps compared to what she'd recieve over here.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. – Aesop
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

AngryAsWell wrote: Turning to Ed Balls - has anyone read his speech? I have and I don't see anything in it that's so god dam awful, considering the state the country is in.
Osborne's missed the deficit target again, and Balls is basically agreeing with him.
User avatar
refitman
Site Admin
Posts: 7692
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:22 pm
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by refitman »

citizenJA wrote:I love you all.

Goodnight.

JA
Goodnight JA.
User avatar
onebuttonmonkey
Committee Chair
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by onebuttonmonkey »

RobertSnozers wrote:Well said TGS
Absolutely and completely this.
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Well well

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 7m
Labour soars to 7-pt lead @Sun_Politics
User avatar
refitman
Site Admin
Posts: 7692
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:22 pm
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by refitman »

citizenJA wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:I see LDV have tried to be funny (they failed): http://www.libdemvoice.org/that-ed-mili ... ent-317091" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Delusional. They actually think the labour market is improving, and as for claiming that health and social care is being integrated... I'd laugh but it would be a bitter snort. Social care has fallen over and health has been left to pick up the pieces. Almost literally. The so-called Better Care Fund, on paper meant to promote closer working between health and social care, is basically just a means of filling a bit of the funding gap from NHS resources so the government can continue to claim they're not cutting the NHS
We'll have to fix that.
I see TE has weighed in (after my contribution).
User avatar
TheGrimSqueaker
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TheGrimSqueaker »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Well well

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 7m
Labour soars to 7-pt lead @Sun_Politics
And that has to be post-IndyRef polling, surely?

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m
YouGov/Sun poll CON 31%, LAB 38%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRNS 5%

(Compare with yesterday, Con 33%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 14%, Greens 5%).

Seems like a good point to wish you all a good night. :-)
COWER BRIEF MORTALS. HO. HO. HO.
User avatar
AngryAsWell
Prime Minister
Posts: 5852
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by AngryAsWell »

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Turning to Ed Balls - has anyone read his speech? I have and I don't see anything in it that's so god dam awful, considering the state the country is in.
Osborne's missed the deficit target again, and Balls is basically agreeing with him.
Sorry I read it different. He can't ignore the deficit the press would not let him. 10p and 50 p tax rates, ministers pay cut by five per cent then frozen, house building, NHS, scrap Police and Crime Commissioners (and more to tired to post just now)- these things would never enter Osborne's head.
User avatar
danesclose
Whip
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by danesclose »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html
Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.
You could have read it when I posted it at 4:30 this afternoon ;)

(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
Proud to be part of The Indecent Minority.
User avatar
danesclose
Whip
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by danesclose »

Tweet from David Schneider:
Tories. Feel better about Labour's mansion tax to pay for the NHS by referring to it as the "15 spare rooms subsidy".
Proud to be part of The Indecent Minority.
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6175
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by gilsey »

danesclose wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html
Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.
You could have read it when I posted it at 4:30 this afternoon ;)

(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
I did read it earlier, and enjoyed it, so your effort was not in vain.

I'm glad Mr Gilsey went to the pub rather than watch the rest of the match, he is not a fan of penalty shoot-outs.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
User avatar
danesclose
Whip
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:06 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by danesclose »

gilsey wrote:
danesclose wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.
You could have read it when I posted it at 4:30 this afternoon ;)

(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
I did read it earlier, and enjoyed it, so your effort was not in vain.

I'm glad Mr Gilsey went to the pub rather than watch the rest of the match, he is not a fan of penalty shoot-outs.
Thanks, and apologies for sounding like a spoilt child, but football sometimes does that to me
Proud to be part of The Indecent Minority.
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

danesclose wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html
Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.
You could have read it when I posted it at 4:30 this afternoon ;)

(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
Missed it sorry, my quick scan of posts clearly failed.
Release the Guardvarks.
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

danesclose wrote:Tweet from David Schneider:
Tories. Feel better about Labour's mansion tax to pay for the NHS by referring to it as the "15 spare rooms subsidy".
Priceless. A top Viz top tip.
Release the Guardvarks.
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Well well

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 7m
Labour soars to 7-pt lead @Sun_Politics
And that has to be post-IndyRef polling, surely?

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m
YouGov/Sun poll CON 31%, LAB 38%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRNS 5%

(Compare with yesterday, Con 33%, Lab 35%, LD 7%, UKIP 14%, Greens 5%).

Seems like a good point to wish you all a good night. :-)
YouGov polling seems all over the shop, although Lab+3 Con -2 might just be normal variation. That of course might be post Ed Balls speech :P

But it is definitely post Eton Votes 4 English Laws.
Release the Guardvarks.
pk1
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by pk1 »

danesclose wrote:
(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
Commiserations to you. That shoot out was amazing & I was gutted Boro lost (nothing whatsoever to do with being a Man Utd fan of course.....ahem). Adam Reach should have got MOTM for his efforts in every part of the pitch.
pk1
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by pk1 »

Hearing Dave boasting about how Madge 'purred' at him conjured up some hideous imagery with them re-enacting the part played years ago by Rula Lenska & George Galloway.

We definitely need that puking emoticon......
pk1
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:58 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by pk1 »

Newsnight tracked down 'Gareth' & Emily Maitlis interviewed him, keen to find out I what his opinion was of Ed.

Her poorly hidden chuckle was cut short as Gareth said that he'd found Ed personable & interested in what he had to say. He also revealed that Ed's office had called him to tell him he would be featuring in the speech.

Asked if he was swayed into considering a vote for Labour, he replied that yes, he was leaning that way !

Well done Ed, now get your ass round my way to convince the locals you're up to the job - I will provide the refreshments :D
User avatar
TechnicalEphemera
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2967
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by TechnicalEphemera »

Stop press.

Actual insightful analysis by Nick Robinson.

Get me an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29332275
Release the Guardvarks.
User avatar
rebeccariots2
Prime Minister
Posts: 14038
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by rebeccariots2 »

pk1 wrote:Hearing Dave boasting about how Madge 'purred' at him conjured up some hideous imagery with them re-enacting the part played years ago by Rula Lenska & George Galloway.

We definitely need that puking emoticon......
Thanks. It's not just me then.
Working on the wild side.
User avatar
onebuttonmonkey
Committee Chair
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by onebuttonmonkey »

Now then, Mr. Squeaker.

First of all, thanks for the long and considered reply. I'm too tired to do it justice, but I didn't want it go unanswered - it more than deserves a better response than this, and apologies if this is a bit incoherent.

One thing that struck me about both of our posts is how similar our aspirations are, not just for Labour, but for what politics can and should do, if you strip away our differing amounts of hope in how we read the present. (For me, that's why I tend more towards Ernst's position, and keep banging on about how the opposition has to offer something more explicit in the way of vision and something to vote for). Anyway, I've no intention of reigniting old squabbles in talking about Ed Miliband. I think it's more the case that our similarities have gotten lost along the way.
firstly, I don't think Ed Miliband is infallible (as both you and Notso have both suggested I do) but I do think he is by far the best option we have at the moment, and a worthy successor to John Smith; he makes mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes as we all do, I just don't feel concentrating on them when their are bigger battles to fight is productive.
So Miliband is the reason I rejoined the Labour party, last time. If I've been angrier at him than I would at others, it's because he seemed to be the biggest example of the changes the party needed to go through after Blair and the best hope for them; because I had more hope at stake, it's easier to feel more let down. (That might be why the LibDems are so much more resented than the Tories are for having done the exact same things as them). My problem not his, in part. I never required him to be infallible - for all I'm an idealist, I'm also a cynic with a long memory, and if I thought he was infallible, I'd run like stink out of terror. Enough Infallible Leaders. It's a very fallible world. They don't belong in it.

It's because he's not infallible that it's fair to recognise when he makes a mistake, otherwise the response to - and recognition of - his success looks no different to what's been said when he needed to be better. There's bigger battles to fight, as you say, and that's why it's a complete waste of effort to try and claim those that he's lost are in some way a win - or to fight the need to talk about the bad as well as the good. Giving someone a good mark every time is as bad as giving a bad one - both make every single thing they're supposed to grade meaningless. It devalues both good and bad. For all you see me exuding nothing but criticism, I've not done that, although it certainly seems the occasions when I do criticise him are remembered far longer than the others. That's probably my own fault for being better at writing damning snark than I am at giving praise, but all the same - you misremember my attitude to Miliband if all you remember is when I've criticised him. If I've accused you of saying he's infallible, there are times when you seemed, to me, to refuse to let any criticisms of him go unchallenged. But maybe I've missed your criticisms of him on the way, too.
So it is about choosing your battles, deciding priorities, and the first priority is not purging the Labour Party of Blairites, the first priority is getting Miliband through the door of Number 10; because if that doesn't happen then the Blairites will swarm back out from underneath their rocks and take back control of the Party, and then we are all truly screwed. But when he and Justine are over the doorstep, the rules change ..... I don't know how old you are, but do you remember when Labour took control of the GLC back in 1981? The election was fought and won by the very moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was then ousted the very next day by Ken Livingstone; from '81 until '86 Livingstone's GLC was the only effective opposition to Thatcher.
For the record, I much preferred when the party was a broader church (there's nothing like a good, old-fashioned left-wing schism to liven up a dreary October Thursday night meeting, is there?). I exactly don't want a purge, because a one-sided party can't even march - it just hops round in circles. Any group with only one view in it ends up making itself at least ridiculous and, at most, dangerous. I also don't think marching backwards would get us anywhere: the golden socialist unity of the past is as much a myth as the scary stories the right tell the kiddies about the unions.

For all that, and for all I know it's not all Blarites now, there's more than one way to move to the right than calling it triangulation and then bombing somewhere sandy - and the socialist Trojan Horse that Blair wasn't is far more common than what happened back in the days of the GLC. I just don't see it happening in these times. That's because direction the parliamentary party - like all the parties - has gone in is one where the centre has become the left, simply by standing still. I know it's different, but I am very much not alone in feeling alienated and abandoned as a result. And we can't be a successful party by stopping talking about that every five years there's an election - that only makes it worse by limiting what getting elected can allow us to do. So I'm still working out where I stand on the "if you want to change it, join it," point, because, well, you know. At the moment, I'm more in the "I can't change it so I won't join it," camp. You know the reasons - I respect your disagreements, but need more from the party to be convinced to actively support and engage. We'll see.
That is what I find so frustrating. To me exactly that radiates from so many of your posts and, after the repeated occasions where I was condemned as "an apologist", I've tended to steer clear. So let me make my position equally clear.
BTL over there - as opposed to over here - is so often a cauldron of unreason, it's natural that we both go on the attack. I bloody-mindedly try to apply the same standards of criticism to my preferred political stance as I do to others (I'm one of those), but I don't deny I'm angrier when I feel let down by my own side, for want of a better description. You are usually very quick to defend Labour and Ed from all sorts of idiotic attacks - often rightly enough, but, for my own part, I see you defending things that simply don't deserve defending and can't be safely dismissed. From there, if we clash, it's an easy step to seeing nothing more in the other than an apologist versus an enemy of the party. And neither of those simplifications are any truer than the other, for all our genuine and healthy differences of opinion about where the party is. I'm sometimes far too eager to call every prang a pile-up, but, to me, you sometimes seem as equivalently eager to try to win every battle, to airbrush every car crash. Maybe I need to let some mistakes go. But picking our battles goes both ways.

One of the things I've always disliked most in politics is the need for MPs who are looking at a trainwreck in their backyard to have to claim it's a success. They know it's a disaster. The interviewer knows it is. The people watching it know it is. And yet everyone crucifies them if they say it is, while at the same time, the same would-be crucifiers sit there complaining about the way these MPs are denying what we all know to be true. It's idiotic and it kills debate. We can't change that from here, but I think we do need to be careful about the how the way in which we talk to each other appears to those outside our own well-worn habits in discussing politics. We forget that we're already zealots, by everyday standards.

Worse than that old chestnut is that we now have Shapps-trolls calling everything Labour do a disaster, regardless of whether it is or not. We owe it to ourselves not to become too much like a mirror image of them - I don't mean doing the same to the Tories (they deserve it, ha ha), I mean being overly defensive about ourselves in turn. It's just as big a danger as too much negativity, and for all it's done for the best reasons, it's very offputting to those we need to include, because it's just as flawed a method. Our shared strengths depend on acknowledging our weaknesses - and being just as careful about obsessing about the negative as we are about dismissing a problem out of hand, or of dismissing something that others care deeply about as trivial, a battle not worth fighting; of glossing over the kind of thing that troubles those less positive than you or, on my better days, I. Of people who more in need of the acknowledgement of being listened to than being told it doesn't matter with what looks to them like a line. They're wrong to dismiss your passion for Labour as a line, but we've lost them no matter how right you might be.

Can we do better? I think we both have tonight. And it could be worse: it could be rusty. What baffles me about him is how he seems to be able to type at the same time he's already giving himself a round of applause for what he's typing. We're his "two daftest lefties," apparently. I'll drink to that.
User avatar
onebuttonmonkey
Committee Chair
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed 27 Aug, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by onebuttonmonkey »

Right. 7,000,000 words later, it's me for my bed. Goodnight all, and thanks for restoring some of my capacity for hope.
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

danesclose wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Mrs TE sent me this link in shock.

The Telegraph!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... ution.html
Very, very good. Thanks Mrs TE.
You could have read it when I posted it at 4:30 this afternoon ;)

(Sorry if I'm sounding arsey but I've just watched my team lose the longest penalty shoot out in history) :fire:
Sorry danesclose :oops:
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Turning to Ed Balls - has anyone read his speech? I have and I don't see anything in it that's so god dam awful, considering the state the country is in.
Osborne's missed the deficit target again, and Balls is basically agreeing with him.
Sorry I read it different. He can't ignore the deficit the press would not let him. 10p and 50 p tax rates, ministers pay cut by five per cent then frozen, house building, NHS, scrap Police and Crime Commissioners (and more to tired to post just now)- these things would never enter Osborne's head.
But they're not macroeconomic points, good though they are. No justification economically at all. Balls has the problem of being too close to Brown. He needs replacing by someone who wasn't and who can argue for less tight policies. Surely pointing out that Thatcher and Major would never have done what Osborne is doing should be a political goer?
Tubby Isaacs
Prime Minister
Posts: 9949
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Post by Tubby Isaacs »

AngryAsWell wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote: Turning to Ed Balls - has anyone read his speech? I have and I don't see anything in it that's so god dam awful, considering the state the country is in.
Osborne's missed the deficit target again, and Balls is basically agreeing with him.
Sorry I read it different. He can't ignore the deficit the press would not let him. 10p and 50 p tax rates, ministers pay cut by five per cent then frozen, house building, NHS, scrap Police and Crime Commissioners (and more to tired to post just now)- these things would never enter Osborne's head.
But they're not macroeconomic points, good though they are. No justification economically at all. Balls has the problem of being too close to Brown. He needs replacing by someone who wasn't and who can argue for less tight policies. Surely pointing out that Thatcher and Major would never have done what Osborne is doing should be a political goer?
Locked