Reply to: Start of a new era

[Doggy Styles]

Christ, are you really this dumb?

Of course every chancellor (Which is all I'm talking about btw) is inexperienced at being a chancellor. But you'd like to think maybe they'd make up for it by having been in politics for a long time, maybe even have, like you know, been a government minister in the past (Plenty of tories to choose from so far), or alternatively had actually managed a business/knew the private sector etc or worked their way up through the ranks (Based on ability, not your best mate liking you).

Then they get a crack. FFS the guy has less experience in politics than most of us have in IT, never mind the job he's now got.

In 2009 Osborne was the only politician in a senior position at the party conferences to tell voters the truth about the deficit and its future effects, and that his party's most important job, if they won the election, was to reduce it and why. None of the experienced politicians would say it, but he did, and what's more it was his idea to do it. If he hadn't, this election would have again been about who could conjure the most money out of thin air.

If you want the same old sh*t in charge, you get it. Thankfully we've turfed a lot of it out of government, and some new faces with new ideas (such as balancing the books!) are having a go.

Experience is a great quality, but sometimes it is the wrong kind, and its not as important as doing the right thing.

[Gonzo]

The job of the chancellor is not to generate money, it is to divide up other people's money. People are going to be upset about having money taken away from them. There will be competing claims from different people to receive that money back, some will be happy some won't.

In that respect I think it is more diplomacy than anything else and I am not convinced that a great degree of economic knowledge is required for the job.

[snaw]

Bring back the experienced Gordon Brown, eh!

I would hazard a guess that every new prime minister and chancellor starts off as inexperienced in the job. I might be wrong of course...

Christ, are you really this dumb?

Of course every chancellor (Which is all I'm talking about btw) is inexperienced at being a chancellor. But you'd like to think maybe they'd make up for it by having been in politics for a long time, maybe even have, like you know, been a government minister in the past (Plenty of tories to choose from so far), or alternatively had actually managed a business/knew the private sector etc or worked their way up through the ranks (Based on ability, not your best mate liking you).

Then they get a crack. FFS the guy has less experience in politics than most of us have in IT, never mind the job he's now got.

[Churchill]

Ahh. So it's all about eduction, and nothing else?? Nothing innate in a persons intelligence whatsoever, rather just the schools you go to etc.

I think you're confusing the ideas of maximising your potential - due to a good education, with actual intelligence. You can't shine tulip as they say. Prince Harry's is a good starting reference point.

I wouldn't trust that f**ker with a helicopter gunship either!

[cailin maith]

How bizarre, a better education doesn't make you smarter. I wish I hadn't bothered now.

I think snaw means that just 'cos you go to a good school doesn't mean you take advantage of the better education.

[snaw]

How bizarre, a better education doesn't make you smarter. I wish I hadn't bothered now.

Ahh. So it's all about eduction, and nothing else?? Nothing innate in a persons intelligence whatsoever, rather just the schools you go to etc.

I think you're confusing the ideas of maximising your potential - due to a good education, with actual intelligence. You can't shine tulip as they say. Prince Harry's is a good starting reference point.

[Doggy Styles]

my thoughts exactly. We now have the weakest most inexperienced chancellor of all time. Alongside two of the least experienced leaders of all time. God help us all.

Bring back the experienced Gordon Brown, eh!

I would hazard a guess that every new prime minister and chancellor starts off as inexperienced in the job. I might be wrong of course...

[Doggy Styles]

Anyway, going to the best schools etc just means you've had a better education, it doesn't make you smarter. I'd go with the guy who rose above all that and still made it to the one who had it handed to him on a platter every day of the week.

How bizarre, a better education doesn't make you smarter. I wish I hadn't bothered now.

[lilelvis2000]

Clearly it's not that important that the man charged with taking the reins of the UK's economy during one of the worst periods in modern history has some sort of economic / business background, or maybe the years of experience in politics to handle this big a role.

[snip]

my thoughts exactly. We now have the weakest most inexperienced chancellor of all time. Alongside two of the least experienced leaders of all time. God help us all.

[TimberWolf]

Clearly it's not that important that the man charged with taking the reins of the UK's economy during one of the worst periods in modern history has some sort of economic / business background, or maybe the years of experience in politics to handle this big a role.

No wait a minute, he's 38, he studied history (Didn't do that great) and he's never worked in the private sector, he couldn't get into journalism so instead went into politics and in his infinite wisdo, despite having staks of cash he flipped his home during the expenses saga ...

OK, let me ask you this - apart from being his best mate what is it that qualifies Osbourne to be Chancellor? I don't think he'd make anyone's shortlist other than Cameron.

I'm not tory bashing btw, I'm just George bashing - I don't get it, at all.

I had Gordon in mind, but yeah Osborne looks to be the biggest weakness in Camerons' team, but he hasn't had time to prove it yet.

[snaw]

How much of the donkey work (calculations, projections, numerical analysis, etc) does a Chancellor or PM do? Is he more of an source of half-baked ideas and the front man for the resulting analysis of backroom people who have been given a rough objective and who are less numerically challenged?

Clearly it's not that important that the man charged with taking the reins of the UK's economy during one of the worst periods in modern history has some sort of economic / business background, or maybe the years of experience in politics to handle this big a role.

No wait a minute, he's 38, he studied history (Didn't do that great) and he's never worked in the private sector, he couldn't get into journalism so instead went into politics and in his infinite wisdo, despite having staks of cash he flipped his home during the expenses saga ...

OK, let me ask you this - apart from being his best mate what is it that qualifies Osbourne to be Chancellor? I don't think he'd make anyone's shortlist other than Cameron.

I'm not tory bashing btw, I'm just George bashing - I don't get it, at all.

[TimberWolf]

I'd think anyone who gets to the position of challenging for position of prime minister is far from average. Leading the country isn't an intelligence test, or we'd have smart PM's (And I don't recall too many of them). And FFS the guy who's job it is to fix the deficit, despite the best education money could buy has a 2nd clas degree in history from oxford, I;m not to sure how that qualifies him ....

Anyway, going to the best schools etc just means you've had a better education, it doesn't make you smarter. I'd go with the guy who rose above all that and still made it to the one who had it handed to him on a platter every day of the week.

How much of the donkey work (calculations, projections, numerical analysis, etc) does a Chancellor or PM do? Is he more of an source of half-baked ideas and the front man for the resulting analysis of backroom people who have been given a rough objective and who are less numerically challenged?

[snaw]

You're right. Don't pick people who've been to the the best schools and universities to get the best education money can buy. The average man in this country is not very bright and thinks beer and football are more important than the economy.

Why do you want a leader who is 'average' or 'in touch'? That's really not their job. When you have 60million people to lead, being able to empathise with bin-men isn't really going to fix the deficit.

I'd think anyone who gets to the position of challenging for position of prime minister is far from average. Leading the country isn't an intelligence test, or we'd have smart PM's (And I don't recall too many of them). And FFS the guy who's job it is to fix the deficit, despite the best education money could buy has a 2nd clas degree in history from oxford, I;m not to sure how that qualifies him ....

Anyway, going to the best schools etc just means you've had a better education, it doesn't make you smarter. I'd go with the guy who rose above all that and still made it to the one who had it handed to him on a platter every day of the week.

[MarillionFan]

Genius, and true.

Bollocks. IQ Distribution is Normal. But if you start with IT Contractors (then cough, you're right!)

[Doggy Styles]

You're right. Don't pick people who've been to the the best schools and universities to get the best education money can buy. The average man in this country is not very bright and thinks beer and football are more important than the economy.

Why do you want a leader who is 'average' or 'in touch'? That's really not their job. When you have 60million people to lead, being able to empathise with bin-men isn't really going to fix the deficit.

Genius, and true.