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).

Tell George it's not an option, he's borrowing more.
In fact, tell Cameron that George is borrowing more, because Cameron doesn't seem to realise it judging by his PMQs this week when he scoffed at the opposition about "wanting to borrow more, which is what got us into this mess in the first place".

But George is doing it not to boost growth, nope, he's doing it to pay dole and because he's getting less in tax take.
Maybe he hasn't twigged that if you will allow businesses (e.g. Vodafone) to avoid tax (e.g. £6bn) when you've already got a legal judgement to force them to do so, you will get less tax take, won't you?

Look at the French going on the attack.

It's every man for himself in this crisis.

It was a response to the fact you didn't like the fact I (unwittingly) quoted an independent think tank that you think (probably rightly) is Eurosceptic.

I originally quoted the Guarniad, a quote which which you ignored, and I followed that up with a joke suggesting that I couldn't find anything more left wing than that to support my argument.

I was replying to a charge that Blair would have successfully sorted this problem. Apparently he was such a good negotiator that it wouldn't have been any problem whatsoever for Tony to have sorted this. My argument, which I stand by, is that he failed to deliver what he set out to deliver in previous negotiations and therefore the idea that he would have sorted this one was flawed. That's my view and the one I stick with. It isn't a support for Cameron - I haven't stated my view on Cameron's performance at the last summit nor have I stated my view on the single market.

As you well know I have worked for a French multi national for 22 years who manufacture in this country mainly because they sell lots of their products in this country and it makes sense to do so. Of course there are exports and imports involved and the single market is crucial. Unfortunately the single market is no longer the main issue - which it should be. As the doomed single currency in the Eurozone breaks down we see individual countries (and at the moment one predictable one in particular) begin to lash around and attack us because they wish they hadn't joined. Amusingly the likes of Blair (and that political genius heavyweight Ashdown) have said within the last month that we still could join. Whoever was slagging Brown in a previous post should think again. He might have destroyed Britain's private sector pension industry with the removal of tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds (the single main reason today why public and private sector employees are at odds with each other in regard to pension provision) but at least he stopped Tony from joining the most ill thought out Franco German project of all time that was always doomed to failure. The five economic tests - well done Gordon.

We need another Labour Government:

The Labour message that 'everyone can have anything now without paying for it' is far more appealing than the coalition message that one must pay for what one consumes.

The economic boom of the last 10 years was an illusion built largely upon cheap credit and people getting rich quick off the back of massive rises in the housing market. Now the time has come to repay the debts the economy has gone massively t1ts up.

Don't worry i'm sure a resource based economy is just around the corner.

Soylent Green, it's the new black

I didn't [idislike[/i it. I pointed out that it was hardly a balanced take on what happened.


I didn't ignore the Grauniad quote. I didn't comment on it because there was nothing in it that I had a problem with, although subsequently I've commented that I don't agree with your interpretation of what they had to say. That probably explains why I didn't understand your quip about the SW.


And I wasn't supporting Blair [iper se[/i nor agreeing with the position that he would have sorted the current situation with a snap of his fingers. I think he was a far better diplomat and negotiator that Cameron will ever be, but the main thrust of my posts were disagreeing with the accuracy of the evidence presented rather than agreeing with the opposite view. If you see what I mean. 3.93115234375:10