Metropol

Can someone who wants Vince Cable to be chancellor actually explain at length why this would really be a good idea?

Is it because Cable has the air of a caring grandfather, coupled with a snappy, Hollywood-esque name?

I think it probably is. Otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't get it.

Chie wrote:Can someone who wants Vince Cable to be chancellor actually explain at length why this would really be a good idea?

Is it because Cable has the air of a caring grandfather, coupled with a snappy, Hollywood-esque name?

I think it probably is. Otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't get it.

Vince Cable has spoken the most honestly of all would be chancellors, and the Lib Dem economic policy is the best for the country. If we have to have him as chancellor in order to get these policies in, then so be it. Also whilst the Tories wanted less regulation, as did industry leaders, he wanted more. Had Vince's warnings been heeded, we wouldn't have this huge debt and huge deficit.

Aside from the LibDem economic policy, which in my (and many other people's) opinion is far and away the most positive and realistic of the three, Vince Cable has struck a chord with the public for his catchy one-liners as interim leader but more poignantly his foresight and honesty with regards to the financial collapse.

It's all very well for the Conservatives to say that everything Labour did to the economy was wrong, but where were they in the years before the whole thing became undone? Should a citizen concerned with the economy vote for the party which said little to nothing about Labour's economic policy until the collapse or should they vote for the party with a gentleman at the front who correctly predicted said policy's failure?

I'd suggest Ken Clarke before any of the wannabe three options at present.

He is tried, tested and was broadly successful.

The problem with any economic policy is its always cyclical. Everything expands and contracts naturally, the only thing the government can effect is the speed.

I was watching 'Yes Minister' the other day and it struck me how much of the issues raised in it are still being raised today. The country is like the weather, its pretty much imposable to predict what will happen in 1-2 years time.

GavBelfast wrote:I'd suggest Ken Clarke before any of the wannabe three options at present.

He is tried, tested and was broadly successful.

Let's forget about his position within British American Tobacco for just another decade or two then, nevermind the fact he strongly opposes Cameron on several issues.

Chie wrote:Can someone who wants Vince Cable to be chancellor actually explain at length why this would really be a good idea?

Is it because Cable has the air of a caring grandfather, coupled with a snappy, Hollywood-esque name?

I think it probably is. Otherwise, I'm afraid I just don't get it.

Oh come off it Chie, you just like osbourne because you both look 12.

Sput wrote:Oh come off it Chie, you just like osbourne because you both look 12.

I don't like Osbourne or Cameron. I preferred Clarke and Hague.

I had a flick through the LibDem manifesto last night and some of their policies are outrageous. For example, they want to increase the 18 - 24 adult learning grant for college students from £30 to £45 per week and scrap the lower tier minimum wages for young workers.

The whole point of the lower NMW is that it encourages employers to take on young people who lack experience (which I'm kicking myself for not taking advantage of when I was younger as I could've amassed enough money to pay for a deposit on a small house by now ).

Leveling the playing field will place young people at a huge disadvantage in the job market and, together with the increased incentive to carry on returning to further education every year, will lead to a prevalence of eternal students who don't even think about looking for a job until they're well into their 20s.

How is that going to help reduce the budget deficit and eventually clear the national debt? Are we just going to import even more foreign workers to do the jobs that under 22s will no longer be doing?

I think I'd rather grit my teeth and tolerate four more years of Labour than be governed by a Lib-Lab coalition, or even worse, a LibDem government. They're bonkers, absolutely bonkers.

WillPS wrote:

GavBelfast wrote:I'd suggest Ken Clarke before any of the wannabe three options at present.

He is tried, tested and was broadly successful.

Let's forget about his position within British American Tobacco for just another decade or two then, nevermind the fact he strongly opposes Cameron on several issues.

And your point is?

By describing it as bonkers you're suggesting there's no rational basis for doing any of them. How confident are you of that, chie? I mean, do you think if I hit a couple of search engines for half an hour I might be able to turn up something that suggests it's not insane or that if I ran the numbers for your "house" it'd be realistic?

GavBelfast wrote:

WillPS wrote:

GavBelfast wrote:I'd suggest Ken Clarke before any of the wannabe three options at present.

He is tried, tested and was broadly successful.

Let's forget about his position within British American Tobacco for just another decade or two then, nevermind the fact he strongly opposes Cameron on several issues.

And your point is?

what i THINK he's suggesting is that it might not be okay to have a chancellor with ties to an industry that's heavily taxed and the focus of government policy.

I know, MENTAL isn't he.