Conquer Club

So consensus is that he kicked arse in the chancellor's debate, and even people who won't vote Lib Dem are saying to me that he needs to be in the next cabinet.

For those unfamiliar with Vince Cable, there was a nice Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes about him:

Here

didn't even claim expenses for his train fares to london, let alone a 2nd home allowance.

i'd suck his dick, let alone give him my vote.

Good column, Cable was definitely the best of the 3 on the night and is the Lib Dems most influential election tool but he will suffer like all previous Lib Dem parties in that the traditional two parties have their core bases whilst the Lib Dems are spread out throughout the whole nation so they will never be well represented in a FPTP Parliament.

Titanic wrote:Good column, Cable was definitely the best of the 3 on the night and is the Lib Dems most influential election tool but he will suffer like all previous Lib Dem parties in that the traditional two parties have their core bases whilst the Lib Dems are spread out throughout the whole nation so they will never be well represented in a FPTP Parliament.

True, but as you're better on UK politics than I am, what would happen if we came to a coalition government? Could we end up with Cable as chancellor without a Lib Dem majority?

Symmetry wrote:

Titanic wrote:Good column, Cable was definitely the best of the 3 on the night and is the Lib Dems most influential election tool but he will suffer like all previous Lib Dem parties in that the traditional two parties have their core bases whilst the Lib Dems are spread out throughout the whole nation so they will never be well represented in a FPTP Parliament.

True, but as you're better on UK politics than I am, what would happen if we came to a coalition government? Could we end up with Cable as chancellor without a Lib Dem majority?

We could, but I doubt that will happen. Clegg doesn't really strike me as someone who is going to get into a coalition with one of the others and I can't see it being politically beneficial to be with either Brown (if he stays with a minority) or Cameron.

The rules that I came across recently (in which I learned a couple new things I didn't know) go something like this in no overall majority -

The ex-PM get the first chance to create a government even if they no longer have the largest party in parliament. If this involves a coalition with another party the smaller parties will want position of office (theoretically I'll say one of the grand offices and maybe a couple of the significant ones (maybe climate change/energy and education for Lib Dems)). This will be the ruling cabinet. I think the last time this happened seriously was during WWII when all 3 parties joined together in parliament, although this was under special circumstances.

If Labour can't make a coalition then the Tories (being former oppositions) are given a chance to get a majority with the same rules as above applying, that the coalition partners will want some of the cabinet positions.

After this, I think, the largest party will have to rule as a minority party which will inevitably lead to another set of elections 6 months down the road and all the parties just electioneering the whole time.

I was kinda doubting it would happen even if possible- it would involve elevating Cable over Clegg in terms of power. Still, voting for Osbourne in a period of crisis makes me shudder. Darling is a bit better, but he can't cut it.

I've always felt weakly lib-dem (much as the rest of the country that votes libe-dem)- I didn't like the other parties, and I felt that the Lib-Dems were the real third way. The last few years though, I feel that teh kind of reforms that the Lib Dems have asked for really need to be addressed. Even if they don't win, I really hope they gain a bit more support each year.

I think there is a strong possibility Cable will be chancellor. Sometimes a politician arrives (and while Cable is quite old he has only really arrived as a premier league politician in the last few years) who transcends party lines and Cable seems to be increasingly that kind of politician.

However, I would say that Cable has reached this position in part because of Osbourne. Not that I don't think Osbourne isn't reasonably able (I do) but because in times of such acute financial crisis the public demand maturity and experience. Osbourne is vulnerable to the charge of "What have you ever done?" This doesn't matter in times of economic prosperity but in these times it is a killer.

What is quite strange is that Cameron has been right on most political issues. Yet he has a blind spot where Osbourne is concerned. Why? Because Osbourne is the intellectual force behind the new conservatism. Cameron relies on him in a way that Blair never did with Brown; they are genuine pals of the first order (which I quite like) and if you consider Osbourne's input philosophically with their genuine friendship it is not surprising that Cameron is unwilling to drop him.

Yet he should have. Once the crisis hit either Hague or Clarke should have been given the shadow chancellorship and Osbourne pushed to shadow foreign or trade. The Conservatives have been slipping in the polls ever since the public became aware that the next chancellor is going to be the man in the next government. And they don't see it as Osbourne. Personally I would have given it to Clarke (if he was physically able) as he was a great chancellor. If not, Hague who I still suspect will one day be prime minister.

So the Conservatives should have this election nailed down but a quite honourable loyalty on Cameron's behalf is hurting them terribly. Osbourne must have been able to recognise this and should have offered to move jobs. Maybe he did, who knows?

I still think the Conservatives will get the most seats and if I was betting man I would still go for an overall majority as well, for the English marginals are polling 45/25 tory. Yet if it is closer, than a deal with the Liberals it will be, Cable to be chancellor and the country will, I think, rejoice.

I write this as a very firm Conservative if anyone was wondering. I was listening to the most recent Any Questions (Radio 4) a couple of days ago and Cable was on. I was applauding almost all of his answers. He is at his peak and deserves power. And even as a Conservative I hope he gets it.

*edit* this is brilliant...http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... n-hard-man

Surely an April Fools, surely.....hilarious if its true, walking up to Cameron and putting him in a headlock during the debates...lol

"The bloodied and bruised Cameron could then be whisked to a nearby hospital, where a previously briefed team of doctors and nurses would demonstrate the efficiency and compassion of the NHS under a Labour government."

Fucking hilarious April Fools.

Mr Changsha wrote:I think there is a strong possibility Cable will be chancellor. Sometimes a politician arrives (and while Cable is quite old he has only really arrived as a premier league politician in the last few years) who transcends party lines and Cable seems to be increasingly that kind of politician.

However, I would say that Cable has reached this position in part because of Osbourne. Not that I don't think Osbourne isn't reasonably able (I do) but because in times of such acute financial crisis the public demand maturity and experience. Osbourne is vulnerable to the charge of "What have you ever done?" This doesn't matter in times of economic prosperity but in these times it is a killer.

What is quite strange is that Cameron has been right on most political issues. Yet he has a blind spot where Osbourne is concerned. Why? Because Osbourne is the intellectual force behind the new conservatism. Cameron relies on him in a way that Blair never did with Brown; they are genuine pals of the first order (which I quite like) and if you consider Osbourne's input philosophically with their genuine friendship it is not surprising that Cameron is unwilling to drop him.

Yet he should have. Once the crisis hit either Hague or Clarke should have been given the shadow chancellorship and Osbourne pushed to shadow foreign or trade. The Conservatives have been slipping in the polls ever since the public became aware that the next chancellor is going to be the man in the next government. And they don't see it as Osbourne. Personally I would have given it to Clarke (if he was physically able) as he was a great chancellor. If not, Hague who I still suspect will one day be prime minister.

So the Conservatives should have this election nailed down but a quite honourable loyalty on Cameron's behalf is hurting them terribly. Osbourne must have been able to recognise this and should have offered to move jobs. Maybe he did, who knows?

I still think the Conservatives will get the most seats and if I was betting man I would still go for an overall majority as well, for the English marginals are polling 45/25 tory. Yet if it is closer, than a deal with the Liberals it will be, Cable to be chancellor and the country will, I think, rejoice.

I write this as a very firm Conservative if anyone was wondering. I was listening to the most recent Any Questions (Radio 4) a couple of days ago and Cable was on. I was applauding almost all of his answers. He is at his peak and deserves power. And even as a Conservative I hope he gets it.

*edit* this is brilliant...http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... n-hard-man

I agree on much of this. Watching the debates over the last few months, Cable really came out as one of the few true heroes. Clarke I have a huge amount of respect for. Hague is good, but suffers unfairly from his Tory-boy image. He deserves a more prominent place, but more as a spokesman than a leader.

I think the big loss to British politics may well be Gordon Brown. Terrible as a leader, but I don't think many can really slate him in any other position. I rate him much higher than some give him credit for, as long as he isn't party leader.

To put it short- I don't think Labour has a good leader at the moment, but they have a lot of people who are very good in certain positions.

I'm always intruiged my people who don't think Gordon Brown should be sent to the tower. On what basis do you consider his record as chancellor to be anything other than a complete disaster?

*edit* and who are these great Labour cabinet ministers you speak of? The current cabinet is at best a second eleven. This has a lot to do with Brown of course, but I'm also interested in which ministers you think are doing a decent job? I can think of a couple...

Mr Changsha wrote:I'm always intruiged my people who don't think Gordon Brown should be sent to the tower. On what basis do you consider his record as chancellor to be anything other than a complete disaster?

*edit* and who are these great Labour cabinet ministers you speak of? The current cabinet is at best a second eleven. This has a lot to do with Brown of course, but I'm also interested in which ministers you think are doing a decent job? I can think of a couple...

David Miliband, Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, Alastair Darling. They are all very good cabinet members.

How was Brown's reign as a chancellor a disaster?

Mr Changsha wrote:I'm always intruiged my people who don't think Gordon Brown should be sent to the tower. On what basis do you consider his record as chancellor to be anything other than a complete disaster?

*edit* and who are these great Labour cabinet ministers you speak of? The current cabinet is at best a second eleven. This has a lot to do with Brown of course, but I'm also interested in which ministers you think are doing a decent job? I can think of a couple...

I think Gordon Brown gets unfairly slated for his tenure as Chancellor. He gets blamed for not seeing the recession coming, but the fact is, very few people did anyway. And while he didn't take action against the banks and their excessive lending in the lead up to the recession, would George Osborne or even Vince Cable have done so? I doubt it.

As for the current cabinet, Darling, Balls and Miliband are all at least competent.

danansan wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:I'm always intruiged my people who don't think Gordon Brown should be sent to the tower. On what basis do you consider his record as chancellor to be anything other than a complete disaster?

*edit* and who are these great Labour cabinet ministers you speak of? The current cabinet is at best a second eleven. This has a lot to do with Brown of course, but I'm also interested in which ministers you think are doing a decent job? I can think of a couple...

I think Gordon Brown gets unfairly slated for his tenure as Chancellor. He gets blamed for not seeing the recession coming, but the fact is, very few people did anyway. And while he didn't take action against the banks and their excessive lending in the lead up to the recession, would George Osborne or even Vince Cable have done so? I doubt it.

As for the current cabinet, Darling, Balls and Miliband are all at least competent.

The 2005 Conservative Manifesto actually called for less regulation in the city. I agree that Brown is unfairly criticised because anyone who tried to sound the alarms was instantly pushed aside by the "mainstream" economists, but he did fail to act on a couple other things like rising house prices and expanding consumer debts.

and he did sell our gold reserves at the very lowest trough in their value for the last 15 years or so. being fair, that was fuckin' retarded.

khazalid wrote:and he did sell our gold reserves at the very lowest trough in their value for the last 15 years or so. being fair, that was fuckin' retarded.

How was he to know it was in a trough? The gold prices had been on a continuous downward spiral since the highs of 1980 and only really became a considerable amount higher with the huge increase in commodity prices starting in the 2005-06 period.

simply put, there was no need to do it. you acquire gold in boom times and sell it in busts. basic economics / function of currency thing. just a bizarre thing to do imo. i don't see how that is defensible for someone so apparently competent in macro-economics. at best it's indicative of the laxness with which they were guarding the fort.

Titanic wrote:

Mr Changsha wrote:I'm always intruiged my people who don't think Gordon Brown should be sent to the tower. On what basis do you consider his record as chancellor to be anything other than a complete disaster?

*edit* and who are these great Labour cabinet ministers you speak of? The current cabinet is at best a second eleven. This has a lot to do with Brown of course, but I'm also interested in which ministers you think are doing a decent job? I can think of a couple...

David Miliband, Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, Alastair Darling. They are all very good cabinet members.

How was Brown's reign as a chancellor a disaster?

I suppose it would depend on your core political beliefs...to an extent. Also, be aware that such a question really demands a minimum of 3,000 words in response. There may be holes in this merely due to my desire for brevity.

I would begin with taxation and taxation as a proportion of GDP. This grew year on year during the Brown era and, apart from possibly with the NHS (and it took a good few years of incredible waste in this area before labour began to sort it out), was mainly all spunked up the wall. Why? Because Brown never really got beyond raising revenue as a political aim...what to do with all that money? Well he left the details to other people.

He increased the number of people dependent on the state either through being public sector workers OR through creating a mess like the tax credits system, which for often the first time, made people previously independent of the state dependent upon it. This was entirely political and (unless you are a fan of big government) wrong.

He made the treasury a 'policy department' (thus going against hundreds of years of tradition). Why? Mainly so he could stop Blair from getting his hands on this area of government. The effect? Untrained treasury staff suddenly in control of billions of pounds literally spunking it away while the traditional departments role was taken away to be replaced by 'do what the treasury say and yes, in this ridiculous detail'.

From this we get targets. Need I say more?

He fucked the army over helicopters and no amount of Labour spin is going to change that fact.

Unrestrained immigration. I don't mean this in the pop-eyed 'hate the foreigners way'...I would hope obviously if you know anything about me at all. I simply mean that Brown quite deliberately encouraged a massive increase in low-skilled foreign labour to keep wages down, which screwed the British working class quite royally in the private sector. Unless they went on the dole or got a public sector job, which was discussed above.

Believe me I could write much, much more but I'll stop there. 6 points is enough. My main point is that waste under labour was horrific, the increase in the size of the public sector was completely unacceptable, the treasury became a spending department (in effect..and mainly for Brown's ego IMO), he fucked the army royally, he never balanced his budgets (for his projections were always laughably wrong after 2001) and therefore he left the country in a position that IF WE STOPPED GROWING we were in deep, deep shit.

You'll have noticed I haven't even bothered to get into the fact that he led the country into the worst bust since 1945. My party will bang on about this at the election because it is simple to understand. Yet his real crimes (and I use that word deliberately) were much earlier: to see his role as entirely political when a half decent individual would see that being chancellor (and therefore safeguarding the nation's wealth) demands a sense of apolitical honour the man entirely lacks.

Oh, and I didn't even get to pensions!!!

I'm a bit tired so don't take this as my definitive arguament on Gordan Brown.

Taxation: As a % of GDP, it has gone up about 2% since their victory in 1997 although this does not tell the whole story as huge tax revenues were gained from the super rich and city profits and bonus's. The NHS (and education) only saw their dramatic increases in funding from Labours second term and only then the the budget deficits start to happen. Don't agree that huge amounts has been wasted by Labour (can you point to any proof of this?)

The treasury question is much different to how you stated it. Brown didn't get it out of Blair's reach, Blair promised Brown more independence as chancellor if he supported him as leader (which he did) so Blair gave more tolerance to Brown then pretty much any other PM to chancellor.

No one in politics or media was asking for helicopters in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. If the 8 helicopters which the MoD fcked up were out in service most of this fuss over nothing would not have happened. Also the helicopters are not some silver bullet which will solve all the problems. Most of the deaths are from IED against soldiers on foot patrol which they will still have to do, helicopters or not.

"he never balanced his budgets" - not true

Titanic wrote:

khazalid wrote:and he did sell our gold reserves at the very lowest trough in their value for the last 15 years or so. being fair, that was fuckin' retarded.

How was he to know it was in a trough? The gold prices had been on a continuous downward spiral since the highs of 1980 and only really became a considerable amount higher with the huge increase in commodity prices starting in the 2005-06 period.

The big problem i have with the way in which Brown sold the gold isn't that he may of missed the best time to sell, but that he announced he was going to sell it before he did so.

If a country is going to sell it's gold (a large amount) you do it quietly, and you get the best price for it. Alerting speculators that a huge amount of gold is going to be sold isn't going to get the British the best deal is it?

All the current politicians are a bunch of cunts. I couldn't care less who wins the next election. They are career politicians. Married to each other or sons / daughters of previous politicians. It's a closed shop.
Neither party will do anything radical to solve the underlying problems that exist with large businesses managing to exert persuasion over politicians making decisions that favour them, rather than the people.

We've had these spivs selling off everything in order to keep things looking OK. Thatcher sold off the council house stock, utilities have been privatised to try and convince the electorate that the private sector would run them more efficiently, and are now in the hands of foreign companies.

So now we have no real money in the bank, no housing stock and our basic utilities are in the hands of profit making foreign corporations.

We are so far up shit creek, that if Vince cable pulled an outboard motor out his racksack and I were in the boat, I'd pull a hammer out of mine and start to smash a hole below the waterline because we can't afford the fucking petrol for the outboard.

spot on ped. having as i do a great reverence for one k.marx, it is perhaps easier for me to admit (despite it being tempered by the iron ghosts he has bequeathed to the world) that it is time for britain to start the long, hard road of re-nationalising the utilities and the rail network. is there a less radical solution left that i am missing? our infrastructure is in absolute tatters. i pay over 5 pounds a day for rail travel, and nearer to 7 pounds if i'm traveling before 10am, for a 15 minute journey, on a 3-carriage train which will usually have no sitting room. and i don't even live in london!

i won't even get started on the water companies...

I've been searching the internet for a video of Vince Cable when in the commons (before the credit crunch blew up) he predicted the credit crunch. Gordon Brown replied to Vince in some condescending way that Vince didn't know what he was talking about and the labour back bencher's all cheered on the prime minster.

Now, if i were in the Liberals and were going to make a party political broadcast in the run up to the election - I would take this video and show it. But I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Can anyone help me out?

Cant seem to find the video, but its gotta be somewhere out there as it was in Parliament.

Titanic wrote:Cant seem to find the video, but its gotta be somewhere out there as it was in Parliament.

Do you think that neither of us can find such a video weird? I would of though that footage would of been very widespread / easy to find.

Pedronicus wrote:I've been searching the internet for a video of Vince Cable when in the commons (before the credit crunch blew up) he predicted the credit crunch. Gordon Brown replied to Vince in some condescending way that Vince didn't know what he was talking about and the labour back bencher's all cheered on the prime minster.

Now, if i were in the Liberals and were going to make a party political broadcast in the run up to the election - I would take this video and show it. But I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Can anyone help me out?

I found this transcription but no video. Was this what you were talking about? It seems to be along the right lines.

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

May I add my best wishes to the Chancellor and his family? I also extend a welcome to the new Conservative Treasury spokesman, with the personal hope that he has a happier fate than an earlier commuter from Rothschild's to the House of Commons, Norman Lamont.

On the housing market, is not the brutal truth that with investment, exports and manufacturing output stagnating or falling, the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level? If the Bank of England is correct in its expectations of a market correction and rising interest rates, what action will the Chancellor take on the problem of consumer debt, which is rapidly rising, with 8 million annual visits from the bailiff?

Mr. Brown

The hon. Gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, that spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the British economy. As the Bank of England said yesterday, consumer spending is returning to trend. The Governor said:

"there is no indication that the scale of debt problems have… risen markedly in the last five years."

He also said that the fraction of household income used up in debt service is lower than it was then.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the overall picture of the British economy. Yes, during the period of world downturn, when the rest of the European economy was not growing at all, it was necessary for both consumer spending and public investment to contribute to the growth that we have achieved in Britain; but he can see that business investment and manufacturing output are starting to return and that the export position will improve over the next period. What the Bank of England said yesterday about the prospects for growth, compared with what people said when we gave our Budget forecast in April, suggests that we have been right about the prospects for growth in the British economy, and the hon. Gentleman has been wrong.