FT.com / UK - City analysis reignites Osborne tax row .
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, mounted a withering critique of Mr Osborne as part of a “team of young things whose life-time experience of business management is confined to the [elitist Oxford] Bullingdon Club bar account”.
Careful Vince - you forget they were too drunk to remember, and ran up the bills on the basis of a bottomless pit of Daddy's money.
I think you're just being too kind Vince. The reality is Osborne has experience of nothing at all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Mr. Murphy
With one phrase you have discredited your important contribution to the international financing discussion by personalising your comments in this way.
Whether you or I disagree with Mr. Osbourne’s view is one point provided that you or I argue in a dispationate and rational way. You state “you forget they were too drunk to remember, and ran up bills on the basis of a bottomless pit of Daddy’s money” which is neither rational nor dispationate. Your comment is from the playground and should be withdrawn.
Oh come on
Grow up
This is politics
And his name is Osborne not Osbourne
Why should politics be dispassionate? I completely disagree with you, Richard (not Murphy!).
James
I could not agree more
Take the passion out of me and I am nothing
To argue that I can’t tease George Osborne is absurd. He has not qualification to be Chancellor and a world view that has not prepared him for it
I think the ‘tease’ was a fair synopsis of that
Does it discredit me? Only in the eyes of those who do not esteem me – and I’m well aware there are plenty of those
Remember this:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Maxims for Revolutionists
I do not aspire to be reasonable
His name is George Osborne, but I guess he may let you call him Chancellor 😉
Wonder what you think the qualification for Chancellor is? To my mind the only qualification that matters is that you get appointed by the PM. History will be the judge, as a certain GB will find out soon enough.
Alastair
Maybe I’m just becoming a grumpy but candidly doing nothing but politics is insufficient training for this job
And some age helps too, I think
Chancellors should be at least 50 – but maybe that’s because I’m 51!
Except I make the point seriously. I was running firms and companies when I was Osborne’s age – and was pretty experienced. But experienced enough to be Chancellor? I just don’t know.
Now – another matter
But I’m not expecting the call 🙂
Richard
“Chancellors should be at least 50”
Let’s make that under 50 shall we? Brown’s first few years, when he was still following the Tory spending plans, weren’t that gobsmackingly awful. It’s only when he came of age by your measure that he showed himself to be a complete and total disaster.
(As you youself have admitted on the radio, we shouldn’t have been spending so much at the peak of the boom.)
Tim
Just to prove I’m a good Keynesian at heart….
Richard
@Richard
I agree that politics is about challenging ideas, debate and convincing opponents of the merits of your views. It is not about attacking individuals. Your point, as I understand it, is that Mr Osborne’s ideas are wrong and without basis. This is a valid argument and one to be debated. By personalising your comment you detract from its validity.
Your response to me (Grow up…This is politics) shows that your willingness to debate appears to be gauged by how much someone agrees with you and your chosen methods.
For the record, I am fairly grown up (early 40s)
I’ll debate with just about anyone
I am absolutely confident in my arguments and my ability to win debates
But you’re placing an artificial constraint on debate – the right to tease
In public life you should expect analysis of personal qualities for office – indeed, without it there is little chance of identifying the right candidate
So I used a little satire. I consider that entirely appropriate
Some do it to me. That’s also OK
And I’ve responded to you – isn’t that some indication of my willingness to engage with those who don’t agree with me?
Richard
@Richard Murphy
I violently agree with you on all but one point.
I fully support the right to tease someone’s ideas except where the teasing becomes personal. Personal qualities for office are essential – charisma, leadership, etc. and it is these that should be examined and judged. It is a sad inditement of politics today that people feel the need to question someone’s behaviour at university and make this relevant to how they are today in order to promote their own views. As Sir Humphrey would have said “it’s playing the man rather than the ball”.
Apologies for the delay but just got back from work