Having met the man (he's also a passionate sea angler), I cannot disagree. He's managed to get more than a few fellow sea anglers on his bandwaggon by simply taking an anti-CFP, anti-commercial fishing route. When I asked him how those who live too far from the sea or simply didn't want to climb on a boat (at not inconsiderable expense), or spend their time freezing on a beach, would get to eat fish, if it wasn't for commercial fishermen, he mumbled something about me not understanding the situation and then went back to his rods.

I'll save my celebration for when Cameron – or anyone else, for that matter – rejects neo-liberalism as a failed experiment that has done much damage to this country (and others) over three decades, and stops pretending that 'there is no alternative'.

And Osborne is grabbing a straws, since his original plans have simply increased the deficit and damaged the economy further.

Do you have a suggestion for improving the situation that doesn't involve further borrowing? If so, I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear (as I would). Over to you.

As I have mentioned – more than once – we had a bigger deficit after WWII. We spent. We invested. We thus built prosperity.

It's patently fooking obvious that he doesn't, otherwise he wouldn't be borrowing even more than he said he would

Bit of a difference we were only competing with the USA in those days - and we still lost out to Germany and Japan! These days there is too much global competition - unless there was a very specific plan to prime a new industry where we had a lead it would be throwing good money after bad.

So we just build ever more supermarkets then?

Plenty of people are not afraid to say what they think but it quite often lands them in trouble.

It's easy to spout-off when you have been elected to a position you don't actually believe in.
Being afraid isn't an issue.

This is just so typical cop-out you. He is supposed to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, FFS, backed by a huge and expensive team of highly trained Whitehall "experts" not to mention those at the BOE etc etc. And you have the stupidity to imply that we have no right to comment on the fact he is screwing up his job, unless we can also give him a full written Manual containing the entire solution. What a muppet you can be.

Let me put this to you. Lets say you were under the consultant for a complaint. Let's say over several months his treatment was not helping, but making you feel progressively worse. So you go in to see the consultant. He being the top man, expert, and backed by an array of highly qualified talent. You say "Look, doc. The treatment isn't working, and I'm feeling worse".

Do you then think a reasonable response would be
"Do you have a suggestion for improving the situation that doesn't involve further xxxx treatment? If so, I'm sure I'll be pleased to hear it."

Georgie said his medicine would improve the patient but it hasnn't. The patient is rapidly deteriorating. Georgie said he would only need to borrow £X. But he hasn't. He's already having to majorly revise his borrowing figures upwards. In short, all George's indicated sums he has got plainly and comprehensively wrong, and is now winging it and blaming everyone and everything but himself.

So he's fscked the job. He knows it, you know it. I don't need to have a solution to say that. Though it does seem blindingly obvious to me that (as just one suggestion) putting people to work in major public projects would be at the very least a huge improvement on inexorably lengthening the dole queues at a rate of knots and increasing benefits payouts by billions.

We're effectively choosing ways to be poorer. The cycle of borrowing back money we'd just spent had a flaw - should have been obvious, with hindsight.
This happened at the level of people, banks and governments - it was a truly systemic problem.

So... higher taxes? Unpopular and hits growth. Thatcher wouldn't like it.
Spending cuts? Unpopular and hits growth. Thatcher would approve.
Print money/devalue the currency. Would boost exports. But buying stuff becomes more expensive. Inflationary.
Take your pick - they're all .

What worries me is that no steps seem to be being taken to address the underlying imbalance in our economy. Cameron seems content to prop up the system that failed. Getting through the current turmoil is the more pressing priority, admittedly, but I'd like to see an acknowledgement that we need to change Britain to avoid a repeat.

You really are a tiresome oik, always resorting to personal abuse.

You say he is screwing up, so I will ask you the legitimate question of why you think he's screwing up and what you think he may do differently. As you rightly say, he has a high-powered team of advisers (including the Bank of England) guiding him but you feel he and they are getting it totally wrong. Interesting that. I think the initials of your internet ID give me some insight into what your suggestions may be.

1. I have not given you any personal abuse, and your claim is just bollox.

2. If you'd actually read my post instead of getting your knickers in a twist, you'd see I already answered both parts of your question.

3. He has admitted he got everything wrong, by revising all his figures and forecasts. Are you calling him a liar?

Arguably, at t=o he made the correct choice. He has then revised it based on events. The point about a "credible plan" is a valid and important one because, as the French have been pointing out, we're in a worse mess than most. So far, by the government's actions and rhetoric we've avoided higher borrowing costs. I do not think that will necessarily last and if it doesn't the country will then be in big danger of collapse (and with few friends to bail us out).