The Tory party really is in a bad way. It’s stuck in a vice. On the one hand seemingly corrupt technocrats. On the other side ideological right wing nutters. How on Earth does it get out of this trap?
They are incompetent too.
Yes, Sunak is the Lampard of politics. Good player, hopless manager.
Lampard is doing just fine AFAIC.
I have no doubt the French think Sunak is doing just fine too ;-)
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Rishi is our worst Prime Minister ever, if judged by the narrow criterion of number of fixed penalty notices received.
Not sure why Tories are pretending to be shocked by these revelations. A cursory glance at the track record of these people a decade ago would have told you everything you need to know.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
I couldn't agree more.
The obvious response is not to vote for it. One does have to wonder how anyone thought a Boris Johnson led party would turn out any differently. Dogs that look like their owners.
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
I agree with this. 1997 probably wasn't realistically winnable for the Conservatives, but sleaze turned it into a massacre.
And that was with Major at the helm, and a problem with sleaze rather than full-frontal corruption.
Even for those not convinced Blair would change the country for the better (and promises were pretty modest and cautious in many ways) there was a strong feeling the stables needed hosing down. That made a win a landslide.
And it's hard, even for centre right posters here, not to conclude this administration is not so much a grubby stable as an open sewer at this point.
The reason why 1997 was such a massacre for the Tories was because Blair both won lots of inner city and suburban seats and middle English new towns at the same time as cleaning up in Wales and Scotland - he appealed to everyone. John Smith or Gordon Brown would have struggled to win the extra chunk of 50-60 seats that Blair did.
If there is a massacre in 2024-25 it will happen for different reasons.
Upper class twits Dull Management of decline Britain Trump populists Right wing, crash the economy in a fortnight, ideological zealots. Corrupt technocrats
It’s a hard one.
The number of groups of Conservative MPs (although they'd probably label themselves differently) shows how hard is Rishi's job of party management, which has already forced policy changes.
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
I agree with this. 1997 probably wasn't realistically winnable for the Conservatives, but sleaze turned it into a massacre.
And that was with Major at the helm, and a problem with sleaze rather than full-frontal corruption.
Even for those not convinced Blair would change the country for the better (and promises were pretty modest and cautious in many ways) there was a strong feeling the stables needed hosing down. That made a win a landslide.
And it's hard, even for centre right posters here, not to conclude this administration is not so much a grubby stable as an open sewer at this point.
I see little to look forward to in a Starmer administration, but you are right that that the stables need cleaning out anyway.
Does this overpowering stench of corruption bring forward the next GE? It feels like it should, but logically I don't really see the mechanism.
It needs about 40 Conservative MPs willing to commit career suicide because they can't justify this to their consciences any more. And that's really hard to see.
So instead, we get Micawber Principle Two/One, the one about hanging on because Something Will Turn Up.
Quite so. Few seem very hopeful, and the biting recession may still be to come, a the summer boat season, but they have no other strings left to their bow.
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
In terms of polling the major shifts from 92 to 97 were Black Wednesday and the election of Blair as Labour leader.
Bar Tatton and maybe Thanet South I doubt 'sleaze' changed the result in a single seat in 1997 otherwise
Cumulative effect, not individual incidents. All governments have individual scandals, but lots of them have a cumulative impact. I was involved in 97 at a significant level and worked in two target seats, one won and another just missed. Believe me sleaze was a major factor in 97.
The combination of incompetence and, to be polite, dubious means of self-enrichment is not acceptable and is leading to well-deserved bad headlines. What I'm saying is that claiming this is somehow entirely new or 'o tempora, o mores' when the previous (if we don't count the Coalition) administration broke manifesto commitments and lead us into war on a false prospectus is to overegg the current situation. The NHS database blew billions for nothing. Political incompetence should be highlighted by the media but the idea it's some sort of new thing or unique and special to the current lot is fiction.
I am afraid this still comes across as "Whataboutism".
There have been bad apples, no question, but the idea that a Chancellor could place the HMRC into such a conflict is, I believe, genuinely a new low. The integrity of British politics has never been neither as bad as feared nor as good as we hoped in the past, but this really is actually shocking.
Incompetence in making political decisions is corrosive, of course I accept that, but the idea that a great officer of state and a highly successful businessman would claim a "mistake" on such a scale, stretches credulity. I think that he knew that his tax affairs were sketchy and then he lied about it. Likewise Michelle Mone´s apparent personal enrichment at the expense of the state is under investigation, so I will simply say that if true, then that too is not merely incompetence, it is corrupt.
Does this overpowering stench of corruption bring forward the next GE? It feels like it should, but logically I don't really see the mechanism.
It needs about 40 Conservative MPs willing to commit career suicide because they can't justify this to their consciences any more. And that's really hard to see.
So instead, we get Micawber Principle Two/One, the one about hanging on because Something Will Turn Up.
Quite so. Few seem very hopeful, and the biting recession may still be to come, a the summer boat season, but they have no other strings left to their bow.
I don't think it will be a biting recession, just a long dragged out stagnation, with neither growth nor the creative destruction of recession. Just a zombie government staggering on.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
I couldn't agree more.
The obvious response is not to vote for it. One does have to wonder how anyone thought a Boris Johnson led party would turn out any differently. Dogs that look like their owners.
Tory MPs didn't want Boris in 2016 so he backed down. Some of his supporters didn't think they wanted him in 2019 and were moaning about not getting through the ballots to face the member vote. When he was leader he somehow forced a mutiny despite being a massive election winner.
The lesson is Tory MPs were never really fans of his, they just correctly saw they would not win in 2019 without him.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
I couldn't agree more.
The obvious response is not to vote for it. One does have to wonder how anyone thought a Boris Johnson led party would turn out any differently. Dogs that look like their owners.
Nah sleaze and corruption is acceptable as long as we end wokeness
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
I agree with this. 1997 probably wasn't realistically winnable for the Conservatives, but sleaze turned it into a massacre.
And that was with Major at the helm, and a problem with sleaze rather than full-frontal corruption.
Even for those not convinced Blair would change the country for the better (and promises were pretty modest and cautious in many ways) there was a strong feeling the stables needed hosing down. That made a win a landslide.
And it's hard, even for centre right posters here, not to conclude this administration is not so much a grubby stable as an open sewer at this point.
The reason why 1997 was such a massacre for the Tories was because Blair both won lots of inner city and suburban seats and middle English new towns at the same time as cleaning up in Wales and Scotland - he appealed to everyone. John Smith or Gordon Brown would have struggled to win the extra chunk of 50-60 seats that Blair did.
If there is a massacre in 2024-25 it will happen for different reasons.
A lot of previous Tory voters stayed at home in 1997. The next GE could be similar.
Yes, the Conservatives won handily last time but the huge unpopularity of Corbyn and the desire for a majority to resolve the situation with the EU were massive factors.
They were damned fools for making the egotistical incompetent PM, and are paying the price for that tomfoolery now.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I have long-standing connections with Gibraltar and visit regularly for work. The Government of Gibraltar is meticulous about not upsetting the UK tax authorities and upholding the reputation of the services offered there. Anyone from the UK wanting to do any financial dealings there is told explicitly that they must ensure that they must disclose all details to HMRC in the UK. It is impossible for Zahawi and his advisors not to have known this.
Indeed. People characterising this as Zahawi's tax accountant making a bit of a costly bungle are being incredibly, unreasonably kind.
It was a fundamentally dodgy scheme, for which he has given constantly changing explanations to those investigating, together with copious aggressive legal threats.
The combination of incompetence and, to be polite, dubious means of self-enrichment is not acceptable and is leading to well-deserved bad headlines. What I'm saying is that claiming this is somehow entirely new or 'o tempora, o mores' when the previous (if we don't count the Coalition) administration broke manifesto commitments and lead us into war on a false prospectus is to overegg the current situation. The NHS database blew billions for nothing. Political incompetence should be highlighted by the media but the idea it's some sort of new thing or unique and special to the current lot is fiction.
I am afraid this still comes across as "Whataboutism".
There have been bad apples, no question, but the idea that a Chancellor could place the HMRC into such a conflict is, I believe, genuinely a new low. The integrity of British politics has never been neither as bad as feared nor as good as we hoped in the past, but this really is actually shocking.
Incompetence in making political decisions is corrosive, of course I accept that, but the idea that a great officer of state and a highly successful businessman would claim a "mistake" on such a scale, stretches credulity. I think that he knew that his tax affairs were sketchy and then he lied about it. Likewise Michelle Mone´s apparent personal enrichment at the expense of the state is under investigation, so I will simply say that if true, then that too is not merely incompetence, it is corrupt.
How do we know? Have HMRC investigations of politicians always been so public? If it happened in 1970, might it just have been shoved under the carpet?
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
The combination of incompetence and, to be polite, dubious means of self-enrichment is not acceptable and is leading to well-deserved bad headlines. What I'm saying is that claiming this is somehow entirely new or 'o tempora, o mores' when the previous (if we don't count the Coalition) administration broke manifesto commitments and lead us into war on a false prospectus is to overegg the current situation. The NHS database blew billions for nothing. Political incompetence should be highlighted by the media but the idea it's some sort of new thing or unique and special to the current lot is fiction.
I am afraid this still comes across as "Whataboutism".
There have been bad apples, no question, but the idea that a Chancellor could place the HMRC into such a conflict is, I believe, genuinely a new low. The integrity of British politics has never been neither as bad as feared nor as good as we hoped in the past, but this really is actually shocking.
Incompetence in making political decisions is corrosive, of course I accept that, but the idea that a great officer of state and a highly successful businessman would claim a "mistake" on such a scale, stretches credulity. I think that he knew that his tax affairs were sketchy and then he lied about it. Likewise Michelle Mone´s apparent personal enrichment at the expense of the state is under investigation, so I will simply say that if true, then that too is not merely incompetence, it is corrupt.
Pendant notice - he held a great office of state, he was not a great officer of state. The latter I believe are aristocrats who get pounced up titles like lord Chamberlain
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
I couldn't agree more.
The obvious response is not to vote for it. One does have to wonder how anyone thought a Boris Johnson led party would turn out any differently. Dogs that look like their owners.
Tory MPs didn't want Boris in 2016 so he backed down. Some of his supporters didn't think they wanted him in 2019 and were moaning about not getting through the ballots to face the member vote. When he was leader he somehow forced a mutiny despite being a massive election winner.
The lesson is Tory MPs were never really fans of his, they just correctly saw they would not win in 2019 without him.
Typical self interest on their part. Elect a lying wife cheating grifter because he looks cuddly and desirable to enough people. He has left a government of "None of the talents" in his wake. I hope they get their just desserts.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
In terms of polling the major shifts from 92 to 97 were Black Wednesday and the election of Blair as Labour leader.
Bar Tatton and maybe Thanet South I doubt 'sleaze' changed the result in a single seat in 1997 otherwise
Cumulative effect, not individual incidents. All governments have individual scandals, but lots of them have a cumulative impact. I was involved in 97 at a significant level and worked in two target seats, one won and another just missed. Believe me sleaze was a major factor in 97.
Yes, I remember the mid nineties run up to the 1997 GE, and the sleaze of the government was palpable, and a factor driving votes to Labour. I was a member then doing canvassing.
John Major seemed decent enough, if rather grey and dull, but clearly wasn't in control of either his party or events.
History doesn't always repeat, but the atmosphere is rather like the fag end of previous Tory governments in 94-97 and 62-64
The combination of incompetence and, to be polite, dubious means of self-enrichment is not acceptable and is leading to well-deserved bad headlines. What I'm saying is that claiming this is somehow entirely new or 'o tempora, o mores' when the previous (if we don't count the Coalition) administration broke manifesto commitments and lead us into war on a false prospectus is to overegg the current situation. The NHS database blew billions for nothing. Political incompetence should be highlighted by the media but the idea it's some sort of new thing or unique and special to the current lot is fiction.
Neither of the two stories in the news is about political incompetence. One is about misleading HMRC about personal tax liability and the other is about appointing someone to public office immediately after they helped you to get a huge personal loan.
You do wonder if the persistent rumours that Dacre was in the running was nothing more than a bait and switch.
That was Ofcom, not BBC.
Yes. It was Charles Moore for the Beeb.
Moore has been pretty critical of Johnson. That was his mistake - if only he'd arranged a loan for the bloke.
Moore was the guy who demanded Johnson protect Owen Paterson, an incident which was the start of the fall of Bojo.
Its worth some reward them.
That incident really did tip me over the edge, I don't remember getting so mad before, it was such a grubby exercise of chumocracy protection with no regards for the facts of the situation it was infuriating.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
You do wonder if the persistent rumours that Dacre was in the running was nothing more than a bait and switch.
That was Ofcom, not BBC.
Yes. It was Charles Moore for the Beeb.
Moore has been pretty critical of Johnson. That was his mistake - if only he'd arranged a loan for the bloke.
Moore was the guy who demanded Johnson protect Owen Paterson, an incident which was the start of the fall of Bojo.
Its worth some reward them.
That incident really did tip me over the edge, I don't remember getting so mad before, it was such a grubby exercise of chumocracy protection with no regards for the facts of the situation it was infuriating.
And yet perfectly in character with Johnson.
A man like him must never be allowed near power again. Everyone said he would be terrible and he was.
Mr. Observer, the situation now is not great. However, pretending that dubious things have not occurred in the recent past is misleading. Consider the weapons of mass destruction. Or Brown reneging upon a referendum promise in a manifesto.
Personal greed and self-enrichment appears to be the sin of the incumbents, whereas the (in-office) vices of yesteryear seem to be more about misleading the electorate to the detriment of the nation and trust in politics (though there was the Ecclestone million too, of course). Is Zahawai's tax situation worse for the nation than Brown's insane carrier contract that funnelled public money into certain constituencies and made it cheaper to build two carriers than one (cancelling one of the two being so prohibitively expensive)?
Dear Dear, HYFUD could not have put it more Tory than that.
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
Well, bunging money at elderly people is usually a pretty good way of winning an election. They're just in such a bad situation that won't be enough this time.
Hunt focusing on over-55s outside scope of benefits
Considering: — funding scheme like Kickstart to get them back to work. Could be called ‘Reenter’ — specialist training — more flexible apprenticeships — expanding mid-life MOT
But is it radical enough?
Oh look young people do not exist. These people have got to go.
You do wonder if the persistent rumours that Dacre was in the running was nothing more than a bait and switch.
That was Ofcom, not BBC.
Yes. It was Charles Moore for the Beeb.
Moore has been pretty critical of Johnson. That was his mistake - if only he'd arranged a loan for the bloke.
Moore was the guy who demanded Johnson protect Owen Paterson, an incident which was the start of the fall of Bojo.
I'd not defend Moore's stupid support for his pal. Indeed, aside from actually having some relevant experience, he'd have been no better or cleaner a choice as Beeb Chair than Sharp.
But Johnson was the man making the decisions. That Johnson didn't say, "Sorry, Charles, I get that you're trying to help a friend... but interfering in a standards investigation would neither be right not effective" was the beginning of the end, more than the fact Moore asked. That was the blindingly obvious answer that I think any other PM would have given.
Mr. Osberver, while I agree on Sunak, and he's underperformed compared to my hopes/expectations, he's still a cut above his two immediate predecessors. Which is a bit sad.
He si no better than the previous grifters, you are deluded MD.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I have long-standing connections with Gibraltar and visit regularly for work. The Government of Gibraltar is meticulous about not upsetting the UK tax authorities and upholding the reputation of the services offered there. Anyone from the UK wanting to do any financial dealings there is told explicitly that they must ensure that they must disclose all details to HMRC in the UK. It is impossible for Zahawi and his advisors not to have known this.
Indeed. People characterising this as Zahawi's tax accountant making a bit of a costly bungle are being incredibly, unreasonably kind.
It was a fundamentally dodgy scheme, for which he has given constantly changing explanations to those investigating, together with copious aggressive legal threats.
It is extremely unlikely the accountants are to blame. If they were, he could sue the life blood out of them.
You can be sure that to the extent the knew about it they covered themselves with all manner of caveats and indemnities.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
I don’t buy public school veneer as ‘nice’. It’s shop bought.
Sunak being not as bad as Boris does not make him good. Being not as inept as Truss doesn’t make him competent. Where Sunak is worse than his dismal predecessors is that he seems to lack any political antennae whatsoever. He’s trying so hard for people to love him, but the more you see the less there is. It’s bizarre.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
What is it about Zahawi that makes him essential to this government? Or is it just that sacking him for tax dodging and lying raises the bar and imperils a lot of other ministers?
In fairness, he seems to have done a very competent job as Vaccines Minister. Competence is such a rare trait these days you can understand why they are reluctant to let it go.
You have to be kidding David. He did a few TV spots in between grifting.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
If it's under 10 I think he can count it a win of sorts. But whilst it gets striking nurses off the news it's hard to see how it improves his political position rather than, he hopes, stops the bleeding.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
Mr. Observer, the situation now is not great. However, pretending that dubious things have not occurred in the recent past is misleading. Consider the weapons of mass destruction. Or Brown reneging upon a referendum promise in a manifesto.
Personal greed and self-enrichment appears to be the sin of the incumbents, whereas the (in-office) vices of yesteryear seem to be more about misleading the electorate to the detriment of the nation and trust in politics (though there was the Ecclestone million too, of course). Is Zahawai's tax situation worse for the nation than Brown's insane carrier contract that funnelled public money into certain constituencies and made it cheaper to build two carriers than one (cancelling one of the two being so prohibitively expensive)?
The answer is prosecution. Hopefully conviction. And a suitable sentence, as set out in the sentencing guidelines.
The answer is not, as happened with CashForHonours that “prosecution is not in the public interest, because it would be partisan. Because everyone does it when they are in government. So it is unfair to prosecute the current office holders for actual crimes committed”
"Hunt in talks all week on 3 areas: — 18-24s — women/childcare..."
Which makes the accusation 'young people do not exist' [to Hunt] a little unfair.
The tweet says over 55s are the focus it's not unreasonable to conclude the others are after thoughts, else the story would have no need to specify one as more important
Upper class twits Dull Management of decline Britain Trump populists Right wing, crash the economy in a fortnight, ideological zealots. Corrupt technocrats
It’s a hard one.
The dull management of decline ones are easily the most palatable.
Morning all! On this very forum in the past I have heard shrill voices claim that when I said "the Conservative Party is openly corrupt" that 'this is a very serious libel' blah blah fucking blah.
The Conservative Party. Is openly, grotesquely, gratuitously, corrupt. As an institution.
"That's libel that is, I'll sue" is literally what Zahawi said when people - truthfully - reported that he was under investigation.
So what do we do about it? Because its clear that the party and its remaining toadies don't give a rat fuck. The entire ethos of what their proud and upstanding party once stood for swept away by the PPE Fast Track and undeclared loans and tax evasion. Apparently not only is there nothing to see here, but people should just look past all of this and still vote for the party.
The danger is that we slide further down the morality sewer and our polity starts to resemble America more and more...
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
It also sets out a different stall for this year's pay round. I am watching it closely, as it affects my own plans.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
It would be a considerable help to Zahawi if Stephan Shakespeare and Peter Kellner can issue a statement backing up his recollection about the founding of YouGov and the allocation of equity to Zahawi's father.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
It is precisely this kind of inevitable result that no strike deals are based on. The arbitration/pay review body gets to the outcome that everyone knows is going to happen without the cost and disruption of strikes, go slows, work to rule etc etc.
Can we please apply late 20th cent management structures and policies to 21st cent public sector employment.
I completely understand that applying 21st cent policies/structures in the 21st cent would be too radical to be conceived of.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
It’s quite hard for unions not to win in certain strikes. The old fashioned miners strike approach, of downing tools and effectively closing pits cannot apply for nurses, doctors, etc. There is no way that those workers would do that. But whereas the miners were an obvious remnant of the hard left, that’s not the case for the current strikes (rail possibly excepted).
You can certainly argue that the government could have settled sooner. I would have for the nurses certainly. There ought to be something there other than just the frankly pathetic clap for carers.
I don’t think it’s helpful to frame things as winner and losers either. The reality will be short of the initial position on both sides.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
Prepare to be seriously disappointed.
Well Brown was about 50x better than Sunak and I thought he was awful so I don't think I will be.
'I don’t buy public school veneer as ‘nice’. It’s shop bought. '
Nice line that, Jonathan.
It chimed with me because I have just finished reading A Spy Among Friends. It's much better than the TV series, which I also enjoyed.
Everybody agreed Philby was utterly charming. He was also an utter shitbag, purely evil you could argue.
I have to confess I too was once charmed by Johnson and voted for him to be Mayor of London once. In my defence the Labour man Ken Livingstone but I guess I could have voted Green.
Anyway, thought for the day. Feel free to use this as a handy metaphor for a political career of one’s choice.
“For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.” Sir Raymond Priestly
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
When you reach 55 I hope you don’t count yourself as elderly. Retirement age likely pushing towards 70 so at 55 you likely have 15 years left. Helping (if needed/wanted) those in that age range back to work brings skills and experience back, and is good for the person too.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
That doesn't read like he really is sorry for his misogynistic rant about Meghan.
Looks like Clarksons career is something else that the Spare can add to his tally list.
Unlikely. He has years on his Amazon contract, is still churning out writing. He’s also in his sixties and may be happy to wind down a bit on dimly squat.
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
When you reach 55 I hope you don’t count yourself as elderly. Retirement age likely pushing towards 70 so at 55 you likely have 15 years left. Helping (if needed/wanted) those in that age range back to work brings skills and experience back, and is good for the person too.
In IT it’s long been recognised that pushing people out because “they’re too old” is a mistake. In fact, a number of startups, to my knowledge, deliberately hire some grey beards. Just for the bit at the meeting where they tell you about how that clever new idea recreates *this* fuckup from 2 decades back.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
This has been the let loose your frustrations at government corruption hour, thank you for tuning in.
The other thing to remember is that the expenses scandal played badly for Labour in the run-up to 2010, even though the greedy MPs were from all parties. It's not rational, but it plays into "time for a change", which is what a fair chunk of most elections is about.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
I think Sunak is incompetent and useless and was clearly promoted way above his ability - I said this all way back in early 2020 and everyone said he was amazing because he was giving out free money - but he's clearly better than Johnson.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
Still barking I see
Morning Malc,
You’re on fine form, as always. How are d your doing with the gee gees.
Hope you’re all well up there. It’s a chilly day down here in south Durham.
Although I’m more sympathetic than most to Zahawi’s tax affairs (a 30% penalty is not imposed for dishonesty) the overall level of sleaze in government is sickening.
You need to be more careful with your wording, I think. The 30% penalty is imposed because HMRC concludes proving dishonesty is more effort than it's worth. They want a simple life, to collect some taxes and move on. Particularly when dealing with a high profile and not at all careless individual backed up by lawyers and accountants.
Zahawi is very lucky in his treatment compared with many others at the receiving end of HMRC investigations.
This case really puts the lie to the "tax avoidance good; tax evasion bad" distinction and is worth putting into the public domain for that reason alone.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
If it's under 10 I think he can count it a win of sorts. But whilst it gets striking nurses off the news it's hard to see how it improves his political position rather than, he hopes, stops the bleeding.
Zahawi is left with claiming incompetence not malice, but either means he should not hold a senior position, even the sinecure from being party chair. 'Its too complicated' is not an excuse for someone who held one of the most powerful offices in the land.
The Boris stuff is as people note no surprise, but the others involved in this particular shadiness makes it worse. Appearance of impropriety has always been a no no as much as actual impropriety, and they don't care about either.
On why Sunak doesn't act well for one there's every reason to assume he thinks none of them have done wrong, but also his position is too weak. There's been no recovery so he cannot upset the faction of his party who would be upset at punishing incompetence and corruption. Which I guess is a large part of it?
Sunak is not a bad man, but he is politically weak and also highly inexperienced. The overall demands of the PM job at this time, under these circumstances, are too big for him and do not suit his skillset. He is a project manager not a leader.
Sunak was Boris’ yes man in the treasury and bragged about taking money away from deprived areas. Sunak is less nice than you give him credit for.
I am not saying his nice, I am saying he is not a bad man. Johnson is a bad man. Sunak looks worse than he is, IMO, because he is doing a job that is beyond him.
Feels like he has made a lot of mistakes in less than 4 months in office.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick Strikes - nurses in particular Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly Triple lock Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
I've been a Rishi backer ever since I met him on a CalMac ferry in 2020. What I saw was a guy who was doing both a great job politically and with communicating those policies. I saw a guy who quite effortlessly chatted with the normals on the back of the boat. Who had a great team around him who were organised and effective.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
It wasn't sleaze which did for the Tories in 1997, it was Blair and New Labour and Black Wednesday and the fact they had been in too long.
'Sleaze' might add to the general impression a tired government needs to go but it rarely switches the votes of any voters beyond those which have already gone anyway.
It certainly won't produce an 'extinction level' event for the Tories. That would only be if Farage's RefUK overtook them as the main party of the right
All what you say is true, but sleaze was also a significant factor. Wikipedia has its own page on the Back to Basics campaign and the implosion of that from 92 to 97.
I agree with this. 1997 probably wasn't realistically winnable for the Conservatives, but sleaze turned it into a massacre.
And that was with Major at the helm, and a problem with sleaze rather than full-frontal corruption.
Even for those not convinced Blair would change the country for the better (and promises were pretty modest and cautious in many ways) there was a strong feeling the stables needed hosing down. That made a win a landslide.
And it's hard, even for centre right posters here, not to conclude this administration is not so much a grubby stable as an open sewer at this point.
The biggest factor to the Tories defeat in 97 was Major winning in 92 for which he should be given credit. But that meant 5 more years for people to get fed up with the Tories and also the replacement of Kinnock by Blair (via John Smith).
But @HYUFD is wrong about the sleaze. The cumulative effect was huge, made worse by the Back to Basics campaign and 5 years of scandals. Presumably hyufd was a spotty teenager at the time whereas some of us were planning and taking part in these campaigns. In 97 I was involved in two of the top targets. Prior to the election we had commissioned a professional survey in one of them and also ran the campaigns at near LD by election levels in both, so we had the data from across 2 whole constituencies. We also had the national data guiding us on what to focus on. Sleaze was big in the campaigning.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
When you reach 55 I hope you don’t count yourself as elderly. Retirement age likely pushing towards 70 so at 55 you likely have 15 years left. Helping (if needed/wanted) those in that age range back to work brings skills and experience back, and is good for the person too.
It’s fine trying to get over 55s back into work however they have to overcome age prejudice with employers. Coming back to the world of work should be more than just part time jobs in B&Q and Sainsburys.
If you’re over a certain age, and free of mortgage, you’re seen as not being a viable long term prospect for a business or a potential ‘bed blocker’ for ambitious younger people.
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
When you reach 55 I hope you don’t count yourself as elderly. Retirement age likely pushing towards 70 so at 55 you likely have 15 years left. Helping (if needed/wanted) those in that age range back to work brings skills and experience back, and is good for the person too.
Sure, all that is true but the age group that has been hardest hit in recent times is under 40s. They are being royally shafted on housing in particular.
With the government almost silent on them, and the media scathing of their concerns with silly memes about avocados and iphones, expect some hostility back even if it is not productive.
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
The Conservatives need to go into opposition, and ideally in the next few months. Let Labour have a chance to mess things up.
It very much feels like 1995, with the Conservatives out of ideas, mired in sleeze and a change was coming. Unlike 1995 however, Sunak has proved himself to be worse than John Major, and whilst Hunt may be competent he's been pretty invisible since last November. Also unlike 1995, the economic situation is dire, we have a major war in Europe that needs facing (I know we had Yugoslavia, but Ukraine-Russia is a lot more dangerous), we're recovering from a global pandemic and finally we've decided to shoot ourselves in the head over Brexit.
In 1995, Labour could wait two years. Nothing was likely to rock the boat economically and Major/Clarke were fairly decent. I don't think we can wait two years now. We need a GE. Ideally in March.
Mr. Pioneers, entirely possible the PCP is almost ungovernable. Couple that with a less than happy situation economically and even a strong leader would find it a challenge.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
When you reach 55 I hope you don’t count yourself as elderly. Retirement age likely pushing towards 70 so at 55 you likely have 15 years left. Helping (if needed/wanted) those in that age range back to work brings skills and experience back, and is good for the person too.
The emphasis on the over 55's seems to be getting them back into the workforce, rather than bunging them sweeties.
Not sure what "Mid life MOTs" means. There is no capacity in the NHS for that when we are so bogged down in waiting lists. Perhaps it means being reviewed by DHSS contractors so their disability payments are stopped.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
He should focus his ire on the planning system given all the reported refusals around things he wanted to do on his farm.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
How is its a loss? If the Nurses settle for 9% and for months the government have endlessly repeated that its an independent pay review process and 4% is all you're getting and no we won't even discuss it, how is that a win?
The government's position was not 9%. It was 4% They will have not only caved in, they have also destroyed the notion that the independent pay review body is independent (with the reports that they have already directed it to find a very small % this year).
And the best fail of all - getting the majority of right thinking people to not only back the nurses over the wazzock ministers, but back the other strikers as well.
Just chiming in to say how wonderful it is that the chatbot passed an MBA exam but failed a bunch of others. Maybe we can replace the MBAs with chatbots and save billions.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
The nurses were asking for19%, they are apparently about to settle for less than inflation, that is a real terms cut. In what world is that a loss for the government?
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
The govt offer was 4% and the nurses asked for 19%. If we settle at 9% after several months of strikes that is most certainly a loss for government. We could have settled at less than 9% (6-8%) if we were proactive in late summer or autumn or around 9% anytime without strike action.
9% now is not more than 8% in the summer unless it is backdated. What I find frustrating, and not just with the nurses, was that the government pay review body line was never ever going to work when inflation had soared from about 4% to more than 10% by the time the award came to be implemented. That was so obvious that it should have been acknowledged in a grown up way and resolved.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
I thought Leon came up with with this kind of crap on his own. I'm disappointed to find out that he might just be copying it from Jeremy "Aga Supper" Clarkson.
You would have thought Clarkson might have thought it prudent to talk about cars for a bit. There’s definitely a trend of celebs going a bit funny when they come a cropper on the internet. Rather than shutting up for a bit, they seems to double down desperate to prove to an uninterested universe that they were right all along. The trouble is the trolls respond and before you know it the celeb is living in a bed sit , appearing on gb news launching their own political party.
I have a little bit of sympathy for Clarkson. He's getting old and I guess he increasingly finds the world governed by rules and values that are unfamiliar to him. He needs to listen to The Times They Are A Changin' and follow Bob's advice.
Clarkson is an excellent motoring journalist. He should go back to his roots and ditch the celeb/pundit nonsense and talk about cars. Occasionally do a Grand Tour special like Morecombe and Wise for the noughties nostalgia market.
Some fine displacement activity from Jezza, distracting from the bin fire of his own career. They’ll be making it illegal for old blokes to turn up the collars of their vastly unsuitable leather jackets next.
That doesn't read like he really is sorry for his misogynistic rant about Meghan.
Looks like Clarksons career is something else that the Spare can add to his tally list.
Nah. People like Clarkson. He is v popular however stupid his comment was.
There was a good piece the other day, that Amazon were looking to end the contract, since numbers were tailing off. So the row over the column may have provided pretext, but it wasn’t the cause.
Yes it's trans rights that will surely bring back that Tory poll lead.
We've tried this in Oz, you will lose.
I've said it before and will again, but the position on trans etc might well be reasonably popular, but you cannot make an entire campaign based on it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617093394915905536
If there is a massacre in 2024-25 it will happen for different reasons.
There have been bad apples, no question, but the idea that a Chancellor could place the HMRC into such a conflict is, I believe, genuinely a new low. The integrity of British politics has never been neither as bad as feared nor as good as we hoped in the past, but this really is actually shocking.
Incompetence in making political decisions is corrosive, of course I accept that, but the idea that a great officer of state and a highly successful businessman would claim a "mistake" on such a scale, stretches credulity. I think that he knew that his tax affairs were sketchy and then he lied about it. Likewise Michelle Mone´s apparent personal enrichment at the expense of the state is under investigation, so I will simply say that if true, then that too is not merely incompetence, it is corrupt.
I mean, I love the Royal Family! LGBT, NHS, love it, let's annoy some snowflakes
The lesson is Tory MPs were never really fans of his, they just correctly saw they would not win in 2019 without him.
Yes, the Conservatives won handily last time but the huge unpopularity of Corbyn and the desire for a majority to resolve the situation with the EU were massive factors.
They were damned fools for making the egotistical incompetent PM, and are paying the price for that tomfoolery now.
https://twitter.com/brokenbottleboy/status/1617086860194357248?s=61&t=gAPnahhc3T_fC3-o8dKkMg
It was a fundamentally dodgy scheme, for which he has given constantly changing explanations to those investigating, together with copious aggressive legal threats.
Deals are now close with rail workers and firefighters
Some ministers hope this will unlock talks with other unions and mean domino deals
The expectation is nurses could get around 9%
So just to confirm, the unions have won. Weak and weird Rishi has failed, what exactly was the point in this argument? The man has no political ability whatsoever
John Major seemed decent enough, if rather grey and dull, but clearly wasn't in control of either his party or events.
History doesn't always repeat, but the atmosphere is rather like the fag end of previous Tory governments in 94-97 and 62-64
That incident really did tip me over the edge, I don't remember getting so mad before, it was such a grubby exercise of chumocracy protection with no regards for the facts of the situation it was infuriating.
But then I think Starmer is about 50x better than Sunak.
March 15 budget will focus on economic inactivity, seen as key to strikes as labour shortages drive inflation and give unions leverage
Hunt in talks all week on 3 areas:
— 18-24s
— women/childcare
— over-55s (the focus)
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1616724415986688000
FFS these people are so useless. Stop bunging elderly people money, do they ever want to win an election again???
A man like him must never be allowed near power again. Everyone said he would be terrible and he was.
Considering:
— funding scheme like Kickstart to get them back to work. Could be called ‘Reenter’
— specialist training
— more flexible apprenticeships
— expanding mid-life MOT
But is it radical enough?
Oh look young people do not exist. These people have got to go.
Nothing but love from this dispassionate observer of the Royals.
But Johnson was the man making the decisions. That Johnson didn't say, "Sorry, Charles, I get that you're trying to help a friend... but interfering in a standards investigation would neither be right not effective" was the beginning of the end, more than the fact Moore asked. That was the blindingly obvious answer that I think any other PM would have given.
Braverman, Zahawi, Williamson, Jenrick
Strikes - nurses in particular
Levelling up - amounts too low, not enough localism and allocate poorly
Triple lock
Silly things like seatbelt gate, Charles to the climate conference
He is clearly a weak leader with poor judgment. I thought he was (relatively) good as Chancellor.
"Hunt in talks all week on 3 areas:
— 18-24s
— women/childcare..."
Which makes the accusation 'young people do not exist' [to Hunt] a little unfair.
You can be sure that to the extent the knew about it they covered themselves with all manner of caveats and indemnities.
Arguably, to answer my own question, it is a world where 9% is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of staff retention but Sunak has not lost in any conventional sense.
Sunak being not as bad as Boris does not make him good. Being not as inept as Truss doesn’t make him competent. Where Sunak is worse than his dismal predecessors is that he seems to lack any political antennae whatsoever. He’s trying so hard for people to love him, but the more you see the less there is. It’s bizarre.
Looks like Clarksons career is something else that the Spare can add to his tally list.
The answer is not, as happened with CashForHonours that “prosecution is not in the public interest, because it would be partisan. Because everyone does it when they are in government. So it is unfair to prosecute the current office holders for actual crimes committed”
Feel free to use this as a handy metaphor for a political career of one’s choice.
The Conservative Party. Is openly, grotesquely, gratuitously, corrupt. As an institution.
"That's libel that is, I'll sue" is literally what Zahawi said when people - truthfully - reported that he was under investigation.
So what do we do about it? Because its clear that the party and its remaining toadies don't give a rat fuck. The entire ethos of what their proud and upstanding party once stood for swept away by the PPE Fast Track and undeclared loans and tax evasion. Apparently not only is there nothing to see here, but people should just look past all of this and still vote for the party.
The danger is that we slide further down the morality sewer and our polity starts to resemble America more and more...
Can we please apply late 20th cent management structures and policies to 21st cent public sector employment.
I completely understand that applying 21st cent policies/structures in the 21st cent would be too radical to be conceived of.
You can certainly argue that the government could have settled sooner. I would have for the nurses certainly. There ought to be something there other than just the frankly pathetic clap for carers.
I don’t think it’s helpful to frame things as winner and losers either. The reality will be short of the initial position on both sides.
'I don’t buy public school veneer as ‘nice’. It’s shop bought. '
Nice line that, Jonathan.
It chimed with me because I have just finished reading A Spy Among Friends. It's much better than the TV series, which I also enjoyed.
Everybody agreed Philby was utterly charming. He was also an utter shitbag, purely evil you could argue.
I have to confess I too was once charmed by Johnson and voted for him to be Mayor of London once. In my defence the Labour man Ken Livingstone but I guess I could have voted Green.
I wonder if Labour could fuck everything up over this one relatively minor issue. The public is on the side of the Tories
https://twitter.com/baskerville448/status/1616410527051448320?s=61&t=X1_wyIcjQSMLzX2EVBb6-g
You’re on fine form, as always. How are d your doing with the gee gees.
Hope you’re all well up there. It’s a chilly day down here in south Durham.
Zahawi is very lucky in his treatment compared with many others at the receiving end of HMRC investigations.
This case really puts the lie to the "tax avoidance good; tax evasion bad" distinction and is worth putting into the public domain for that reason alone.
But that was then. I expected him to bring that same feel into his new office. And its been the opposite. So either he is a prisoner of the different tribes in the party, or it was all a shiny veneer, a bullshit bubble protecting the rather weak / insecure reality, or both.
But @HYUFD is wrong about the sleaze. The cumulative effect was huge, made worse by the Back to Basics campaign and 5 years of scandals. Presumably hyufd was a spotty teenager at the time whereas some of us were planning and taking part in these campaigns. In 97 I was involved in two of the top targets. Prior to the election we had commissioned a professional survey in one of them and also ran the campaigns at near LD by election levels in both, so we had the data from across 2 whole constituencies. We also had the national data guiding us on what to focus on. Sleaze was big in the campaigning.
If you’re over a certain age, and free of mortgage, you’re seen as not being a viable long term prospect for a business or a potential ‘bed blocker’ for ambitious younger people.
With the government almost silent on them, and the media scathing of their concerns with silly memes about avocados and iphones, expect some hostility back even if it is not productive.
Let Labour have a chance to mess things up.
It very much feels like 1995, with the Conservatives out of ideas, mired in sleeze and a change was coming.
Unlike 1995 however, Sunak has proved himself to be worse than John Major, and whilst Hunt may be competent he's been pretty invisible since last November.
Also unlike 1995, the economic situation is dire, we have a major war in Europe that needs facing (I know we had Yugoslavia, but Ukraine-Russia is a lot more dangerous), we're recovering from a global pandemic and finally we've decided to shoot ourselves in the head over Brexit.
In 1995, Labour could wait two years. Nothing was likely to rock the boat economically and Major/Clarke were fairly decent.
I don't think we can wait two years now. We need a GE. Ideally in March.
We've tried this in Oz, you will lose.
It'll be interesting to see what Labour do when they inherit a bad situation. I suspect they'll try whacking the rich, drive many of them off, then bring in taxes on the middle class (or they might just glut on borrowing) for spending, some of which is much needed (judiciary).
Not sure what "Mid life MOTs" means. There is no capacity in the NHS for that when we are so bogged down in waiting lists. Perhaps it means being reviewed by DHSS contractors so their disability payments are stopped.
The government's position was not 9%. It was 4% They will have not only caved in, they have also destroyed the notion that the independent pay review body is independent (with the reports that they have already directed it to find a very small % this year).
And the best fail of all - getting the majority of right thinking people to not only back the nurses over the wazzock ministers, but back the other strikers as well.
I think it is perfectly possible that the public will back the government position on this and then vote them out of office.
Even if the Ukrainians get an unconditional surrender of the entire of Russia, it wouldn’t move the polling either, I think.
He could have a happy life.