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 poop.

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).

Will that be the one that many people said would not create growth and would, instead, cause more problems and a greater deficit?

The crux of the matter is we are in a Catch 22 position - all ideas for growth that I have seen involve further borrowing, which is how we got into this mess. To carry on doing that is just not an option. The idea is that we have to get back to somewhere near where we were at before / near the start of the long period debt-fuelled "boom" period by a process of "de-leveraging". That involves living standards and real wealth being diminished in as painless a way as possible. The capitalist way would have been to let the banks go bust, mass repossession of houses, mass foreclosure of business loans, etc. That was unpalatable, so people in power have played for time and continue to do so. But make no mistake, there is no way out that does not result in significant loss of living standards (which will inevitably also include public services, as seen in Greece, Ireland, and to a lesser extent, to date, here).

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.