Cameron? Anyone?

[LondonMix]

That's true, they didn't reduce the deficit as much as they wanted to. Partly because of the the evolution of GDP growth during and post crisis and public backlash against austerity.

The point was that it needed addressing which is all I ever said about it. I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make. The deficit is roughly half of what it was as a percentage of GDP at its worst, which honestly is still too high relative to long term growth prospects of the country.

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's true, they didn't reduce the deficit as

> much as they wanted to. Partly because of the the

> evolution of GDP growth during and post crisis and

> public backlash against austerity.

>

> The point was that it needed addressing which is

> all I ever said about it. I'm not sure I get the

> point you are trying to make. The deficit is

> roughly half of what it was as a percentage of GDP

> at its worst, which honestly is still too high

> relative to long term growth prospects of the

> country.

This thread started as a question as to whether Cameron would be missed or not. I'm simply making the point that alongside the damage to public services etc he has done he and Osborne manifestly failed to meet the targets they set themselves on deficit reduction.

[LondonMix]

Okay, so I'm guessing you won't miss him then!

I don't think Dave was great but I'm not sure any of the likely alternatives in either party will be better. In fact, some I fear are considerably worse ideologically.

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Okay, so I'm guessing you won't miss him then!

>

> I don't think Dave was great but I'm not sure any

> of the likely alternatives in either party will be

> better. In fact, some I fear are considerably

> worse ideologically.

Not so you'd notice, but I agree we could well be in for something worse, especially with the confidence to chuck their weight around the new constituencies plus Labour's disappearance in Scotland will give them.

[Blah Blah]

Cameron and Osborne protected those that vote for them, such as the over 65s, and ringfenced so many areas (to get votes) that welfare was only one of three areas open to them for cuts. At the same time, investment and growth have fallen to all time lows, (and quantative easing is no replacement for public investment). Osborne achieved practically nothing in 6 years of government.

And yes, our welfare state, NHS etc were born into an era of higher income tax, and not just by one or two pence either. It seems ridiculous that income tax remains some holy grail that can not be touched.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Totally agree with that blah

[LondonMix]

Cutting the deficit by 50% isn't nothing. I'm not saying you have to agree with his policies but its kind of ridiculous to suggest absolutely nothing was achieved and I say this as someone who thinks the former government was wrong on their approach to education, the NHS, the nature of certain cuts among other things.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Very littke was achieved (dint be so literal). osbourne failed by his own standards.

[Blah Blah]

Making cuts is easy LM. Any accountant can do that. The real measure of achievement is growth, investment, improved social mobility, improved living standards. Osborne achieved not a bit of any of that. He treated the nations economy like that of a household, when the two are not the same. He is one of the most unimaginative chancellors of all time.

[LondonMix]

Making cuts isn't easy politically or practically. Also, the economy has grown-- actually up until Brexit the economy with the cuts was the fastest growing in Europe and unemployment was also low which was finally starting to feed through to real wages. Again, I have my criticisms of Cameron and Osborne (some scathing) but they are balanced by at least being able to acknowledge the facts of what they have done.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Osborne repeatedly missed his own targets on which he asked us to judge him. I will, thanks George.

Sure, he did bring down the deficit, but more slowly than Labour had said they would - a rate which Obsorne had claimed would be disastrous. Both him and Cameron talked down the economy in the early days of their first term and did a lot of damage in the process. All to make political capital by suggesting that Labour had crashed the economy and left us 'like Greece'.

They repeatedly took decisions which weren't thought through and weren't in the national interest in exchange for small, short term political gains.

Cameron's decision to gamble on Brexit was cavalier.

Oh, and then there's Libya of course.

Any achievements are well outweighed by their failures. The net result, is probably worse than nothing. I believe that history will judge both him and Osborne rather badly.

[JohnL]

I think Osborne will just be forgotten (Sometimes I almost liked him but not quite - why would a sensible man do the below)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/oct/07/who-told

I get the feeling Cameron's reputation will be trashed.

Edit: actually thinking of it - they were a bunch of d**kheads :)

[malumbu]

I feel like a complete light weight compared to the debate above. But let me throw some more (albeit simplistic) issues into the the nix.

The Greenest ever government. It wasn't. The Lib Dems managed to curb some of the excesses and maintain some green credentials. To his or others' credits at least he kept the barking climate change skeptics at some distance, they seem to be encroaching now....

Big Society. A brand that lost credibility but there was some good stuff there, even if it wasn't new. The proposals that volunteers would lead much more community work was daft - there are many times when you need professional oversight.

No top down reorganisation of the NHS on my watch. Bally hell what a mess. Ditto education.

I am still trying the fathom out the unachieavable commitment on reducing immigration. Wonder which SPAD or mandarin came up with this one.

Anyway some food for thought and great to have a more informed rather than casual view

[LondonMix]

Cutting the deficit without causing a recession requires constant recalibration based on current facts and evidence. That's why its not a simple accounting task and that's why cutting more slowly at times, was the absolute right decision. Being critical of what is a monumentally difficult economic and political balancing act at what was a time of extreme market volatility entirely misses the point.

Now, on Libya, the NHS, the mishandling of specific cuts, certain education reforms etc, there is a lot of space for criticism of specific policies. Brexit was of course a ridiculous gamble to take and a major political miscalculation and will be his legacy.

However, policy on raising the minimum wage, gay rights among other things means I can't in fairness pretend the Cameron administration were villains. They made mistakes (serious mistakes). Every administration makes certain mistakes and without Brexit, I actually think Cameron's legacy wouldn't have been half bad. I would never want to be a politician because its literally impossible to get it all right and yet for those that oppose you that is the only standard they hold the opposition to, which of course is ridiculous.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Osborne repeatedly missed his own targets on which

> he asked us to judge him. I will, thanks George.

>

> Sure, he did bring down the deficit, but more

> slowly than Labour had said they would - a rate

> which Obsorne had claimed would be disastrous.

> Both him and Cameron talked down the economy in

> the early days of their first term and did a lot

> of damage in the process. All to make political

> capital by suggesting that Labour had crashed the

> economy and left us 'like Greece'.

>

> They repeatedly took decisions which weren't

> thought through and weren't in the national

> interest in exchange for small, short term

> political gains.

>

> Cameron's decision to gamble on Brexit was

> cavalier.

>

> Oh, and then there's Libya of course.

>

> Any achievements are well outweighed by their

> failures. The net result, is probably worse than

> nothing. I believe that history will judge both

> him and Osborne rather badly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't think reducing the deficit was / is easy. I do think they painted themselves into a corner by ring fencing certain budgets and I also think they cut too quickly at the beginning which along with their dire warnings about the state of the economy, slowed the recovery (which was well underway) considerably.

Luckily they recognised this themselves and slowed the cuts as you say. The fact is that Labour warned them that they were cutting too far, too fast, and was roundly mocked by Osborne (who then later did exactly what they'd been proposing in terms of the rate of deficit reduction).

In many other areas they made pretty terrible choices. That doesn't mean *all* areas, of course. But overall, Cameron and Osborne will not go down in history as great leaders IMO.

[????]

But who does?

Churchill clearly - but really only the 2nd WW, after that terrible

Atlee - true, radical reforming govt (but everyone forgets they were kicked out pretty swiftly to be followed by a decade of Tory rule

Thatcher - saviour of the nation or satan and creator of all that is evil in the world today

To my mind Wilson's 60's govt were pretty good in terms of Social Reform (abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality) and avoiding Vietnam but ultimately poor on economy and Wilson is blighted by his terrible 70s govt.

It's a tough old world

[Earl Aelfheah]

True

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Atlee - true, radical reforming govt (but everyone

> forgets they were kicked out pretty swiftly to be

> followed by a decade of Tory rule

A few points about the Attlee government, just for interest: firstly they were re-elected for a second term in 1950 with more votes than they gained in 1945, 1.25M more than the Tories, albeit with a greatly reduced majority of just five seats. In 1951 George VI told Attlee that he was worried about leaving the country for a tour of the Commonwealth in 1952 with the government holding such slim majority, as it wouldn't do for him to be out of the country when/if the government fell; instead of giving this the horse's laugh it so richly deserved (ironically George was then too ill to go anyway and sent his daughter Elizabeth instead), Attlee mistakenly agreed to hold another election. In the election Labour actually gained a quarter of a million more votes than the Tories and National Liberals combined (48.8%-48%), more votes than any party had gained in history (a record not beaten until the Tory victory of 1992), but due to the vagaries (absurdities?) of first past the post the Tories ended up with a majority of fifteen. All ancient history now, but it's surprising how many people aren't aware of the circumstances.

[????]

Interesting.

Even though it was a less cynical time, I'm sure he (Atlee) must have also hoped he'd increase his narrow majority. :)

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting.

>

> Even though it was a less cynical time, I'm sure

> he (Atlee) must have also hoped he'd increase his

> narrow majority. :)

Oh yes, that was certainly an element - he hadn't allowed for the fact that he was losing a lot of his most popular figures (Bevan, Cripps) to old age and that the Tories had a lot of younger MPs from the 1950s cohort who, by all accounts, ran a very efficient campaign. Plus the Churchill factor, in 1945 a lot of returning servicemen, while admiring the wartime leadership, held Churchill and his class as being responsible for plunging the country into two world wars in two generations; by the '50s he was starting to be regarded with more nostalgic fondness.

[LondonMix]

This is exactly my point. In the US, its exactly the same. I'm not sure there is a human being capable of what could be universally acclaimed as good leadership. There are extremely tough choices to be made in politics and no crystal ball. The hubris it takes to even think you are capable of running a country like the US or the UK explains why these guys are all somewhat unhinged. It takes a deluded level of self confidence to make these kinds of calls and decisions. I can pontificate on my keyboard but in real life the weight of it would give me heart attack. Do you see how old every US president looks by the end of the 8 year tenures? Its like the picture of Dorian Grey!

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But who does?

>

> Churchill clearly - but really only the 2nd WW,

> after that terrible

>

> Atlee - true, radical reforming govt (but everyone

> forgets they were kicked out pretty swiftly to be

> followed by a decade of Tory rule

>

> Thatcher - saviour of the nation or satan and

> creator of all that is evil in the world today

>

> To my mind Wilson's 60's govt were pretty good in

> terms of Social Reform (abortion, capital

> punishment, homosexuality) and avoiding Vietnam

> but ultimately poor on economy and Wilson is

> blighted by his terrible 70s govt.

>

> It's a tough old world

[JohnL]

I feel for Hillary then.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is exactly my point. In the US, its exactly

> the same. I'm not sure there is a human being

> capable of what could be universally acclaimed as

> good leadership. There are extremely tough

> choices to be made in politics and no crystal

> ball. The hubris it takes to even think you are

> capable of running a country like the US or the UK

> explains why these guys are all somewhat unhinged.

> It takes a deluded level of self confidence to

> make these kinds of calls and decisions. I can

> pontificate on my keyboard but in real life the

> weight of it would give me heart attack. Do you

> see how old every US president looks by the end of

> the 8 year tenures? Its like the picture of

> Dorian Grey!

>

[Blah Blah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Making cuts isn't easy politically or practically.

> Also, the economy has grown-- actually up until

> Brexit the economy with the cuts was the fastest

> growing in Europe and unemployment was also low

> which was finally starting to feed through to real

> wages. Again, I have my criticisms of Cameron and

> Osborne (some scathing) but they are balanced by

> at least being able to acknowledge the facts of

> what they have done.

'Up until Brexit' (which they have led us to btw) - and then let's try comparing the UK to any number of nations instead of equally stagnant EU countries. I'll spare you the same sarcasm directed at me by your selection of 'facts'.

[LondonMix]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you think I was.

You saying there was no growth, when there was clearly growth is just factually incorrect. Growth in 2014 was 2.9% and in 2015 was 2.2%. That compares favourably to the global average and is high relative to other developed countries.

My view that the record pre-Brexit wasn't bad is my view and I have clearly stated that I think the referendum was a mistake and will ultimately be Cameron's legacy. What exactly is your problem with me talking about his record pre and post Brexit?

If you can't take people disagreeing with you without becoming petulant I'm not sure what you enjoy about debating issues on the forum...

[????]

I think many people who hate the Tories don't realise the situation in other countries .....LM is right our Growth has been relatively healthy in the past few years compared to most other big economies.......our employment has also been good (although many are relatively low paid and insecure jobs); relatively and in a very globally insecure picture the economy hasn't done badly in some metrics compared to many other countries - growth/Employment especially.