Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
Cause and effect go the other way.
From Reform's 2024 manifesto;
On housing, Reform aims to appeal to homeowners, including landlords. As part of the proposed changes to taxation, there is the idea of lifting the stamp duty threshold significantly in England and Northern Ireland. At present, those who move (rather than first-time buyers) pay stamp duty when buying a home for more than £250,000. Reform says this should rise to £750,000.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
On Trevor Phillips this morning both the SNP and Plaid ruled out the abolition of stamp duty [it is devolved - LTT in Wales - LBTT in Scotland]
Not exactly as if Ms Badenoch was actually prime minister, is it, or (so far) Mr Farage? Though it may well come up at the Holyrood and Senedd elections (seeing as it's a devolved matter).
The point I was making is that it is devolved and on present perception the SNP and Plaid will lead the devolved assemblies
Oh, I was agreeing and following up the implication of your comment.
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The other three all seem to be pretty decent people and do a lot of good work.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
And yet he was apparently the late queen’s favourite, to the tune of £12m. Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
There have long been stories that Andrew's father was Lord Porchester. The Queen spent a huge amount of time with him, going for weekends to Kentucky on horse-racing business. Mountbatten wrote to her, warning her off. The Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed to the normal 30 years - and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
An interesting theory, and some of us may live long enough to see those papers released…
One other thing occurs. The initial story was about Andrew staying in contact with Epstein longer than previously thought. I’m a bit conflicted here. Let’s assume he believed himself of be Epstein friend. What price loyalty to your friends, even if they turn out to have done bad things? Have we really become a shunning society? Certainly that’s what social media is like, and cancel culture. Genuinely believed Christians were taught to forgive?
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
Cause and effect go the other way.
From Reform's 2024 manifesto;
On housing, Reform aims to appeal to homeowners, including landlords. As part of the proposed changes to taxation, there is the idea of lifting the stamp duty threshold significantly in England and Northern Ireland. At present, those who move (rather than first-time buyers) pay stamp duty when buying a home for more than £250,000. Reform says this should rise to £750,000.
Too timid. Tories are being far bolder. That Reform proposal would have more impact with first-time buyers. The Tory proposal impacts those they need to win back - from Reform.
Not really - while the plan solves a number of problems (and if the figures are correct shows a major screw up by Hunt back in 2022/3/4 for not implementing it) - it reduces tax revenue. And currently we need all the tax revenue we can get..
Now removing stamp duty but a higher and simply property tax and I wouldn't have a problem with the policy..
We have to wait and see what Labour do ... and then the other parties can react all over again.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
Cause and effect go the other way.
From Reform's 2024 manifesto;
On housing, Reform aims to appeal to homeowners, including landlords. As part of the proposed changes to taxation, there is the idea of lifting the stamp duty threshold significantly in England and Northern Ireland. At present, those who move (rather than first-time buyers) pay stamp duty when buying a home for more than £250,000. Reform says this should rise to £750,000.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
Cause and effect go the other way.
From Reform's 2024 manifesto;
On housing, Reform aims to appeal to homeowners, including landlords. As part of the proposed changes to taxation, there is the idea of lifting the stamp duty threshold significantly in England and Northern Ireland. At present, those who move (rather than first-time buyers) pay stamp duty when buying a home for more than £250,000. Reform says this should rise to £750,000.
So even buying a barely more than average home in London and Surrey would still see you pay Stamp Duty under Reform unlike the Conservatives
Sure, but not everyone lives in London or [edit] Surrey. A lot of people are pissed off about the imbalance in house prices within the UK caused by sustained Conservative policy, and wouldn't be sorry to see that adjusted. That rise in threshold would suit them very well. And consider where Reform voters live.
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The kindest I can come up with is that Spare Heir is a terrible role to impose on someone. I don't know how you do it without going mad.
Harry did exactly the right thing by bailing out. I'm not sure he has handled it all well, but he's done better than his uncle.
Here’s an idea. Abolish the whole fiasco for their sakes. Forcing someone into even a guilded cage at birth is deeply immoral. They’ll have Sandringham, a decent sum of private wealth, and they can breed horses or whatever do.
Yeah, the monarchy’s popular, brings in some money, but so are Coldplay and Paddington Bear. Time to grow up a bit.
Absolutely not. The last thing we need now is to replace our stable constitutional monarchy with President Farage or Starmer and divide us even more than we already are #godsavetheking
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The other three all seem to be pretty decent people and do a lot of good work.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
And yet he was apparently the late queen’s favourite, to the tune of £12m. Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
There have long been stories that Andrew's father was Lord Porchester. The Queen spent a huge amount of time with him, going for weekends to Kentucky on horse-racing business. Mountbatten wrote to her, warning her off. The Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed to the normal 30 years - and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
An interesting theory, and some of us may live long enough to see those papers released…
One other thing occurs. The initial story was about Andrew staying in contact with Epstein longer than previously thought. I’m a bit conflicted here. Let’s assume he believed himself of be Epstein friend. What price loyalty to your friends, even if they turn out to have done bad things? Have we really become a shunning society? Certainly that’s what social media is like, and cancel culture. Genuinely believed Christians were taught to forgive?
If only you had been Mandelson's PR guy, he would still be the US Ambassador.
A problem with modern liberalism, particularly of the left leaning sort, is that it treats unfairness in modern society as resulting from moral failings on the part of the majority. That in turn makes for endless sanctimony by my left liberal brethren that pisses even me off no end.
I agree, and it’s largely an Anglo Saxon phenomenon. See my similar comments on political environmentalism yesterday.
Unfortunately the alternative sort of liberalism, the one I am partial to, is even less popular: Euro-style technocratic governance, which treats every problem as first and foremost a regulatory challenge and would very much like politics to be boring. That just doesn’t fly in this social media day and age, even in its Euro heartland.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
On Trevor Phillips this morning both the SNP and Plaid ruled out the abolition of stamp duty [it is devolved - LTT in Wales - LBTT in Scotland]
Good, but probably too little to save the Welsh and Scottish Tories though do you think?
Tories are fiddling around the edges - same as Labour. And performative "we'll cut the civil service" - because *everyone* knows there's an army of penpushers - without being about to specify whom.
An idea: the Big Picture. Tories say "our national debt is grotesque. It's built over decades, including under our watch. A system which we now need to change. So we're going to make significant cuts"
A starter for 10. Our road network is shagged, the bits we do cost £stupid. Why don't the Tories propose private toll motorways? Easy planning clearance for companies who want to build tolled bypasses of the worst bits. We get new stuff without paying for it, it's pay and play for users.
Somewhat O/t and am I a miserable old git, but do I detect a considerable amount off chicken counting over the situation in Israel/Palestine?
The surviving hostages are not due to be released until Monday; surely the remnants of the Hamas leadership knows where they are? I can appreciate there could be issues over disinterring the bodies of those who have died.
Secondly, on BBCtv yesterday there were pictures of Hamas volunteers being armed to take over police duties, and talk of 7000 more. Who is going to disarm them, and how?
Thirdly, It would appear that the IDF is only withdrawing (if it is) from about half of the territory, and it will still control all the entry points. I've seen no mention of the naval blockade being lifted.
PS; the BBC does say that the aid trucks are getting in.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, as I steel myself for the long drive across the middle of France:
What’s missing from this smorgasbord of choice [in British politics] is a centre-right party that focuses on economic competence, encourages enterprise and keeps a grip on public spending, while being respectful of traditions such as the independence of a judiciary that has been admired by the rest of the world.
At their denuded party conference in Manchester, where outfits once worn by Margaret Thatcher were on reverential display in glass cabinets as if they were holy relics, there was the occasional glimpse of Conservatives remembering what once made them the market leader. The Tory core brand was trashed by what they did with their long stretch in power, but it transpires that it has not been entirely destroyed.
Many Reform-controlled county councils are indicating that they will have to hike council tax because the savings they thought they could make have proved to be imaginary. If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found. Their best long-term chance of revival lies in renewing themselves as a sensible party of the right that can be trusted with the economy, the national finances and public services – or at least less distrusted than their competitors.
Those voters who adore Reform are going to stick with the full-fat version, not be enticed by a semi-skimmed imitation from the Tories. The greater number of voters who are repelled by Reform are unlikely to be attracted to a Conservative party that spends its time doing karaoke Faragism. I think Mrs Badenoch half gets that.
Only when the Conservatives frankly acknowledge everything they got wrong might they begin to claw back some public interest in what they would hope to do better in the future. And if they are ever to reclaim their historic calling card as the competent party, they will have to behave that way. The distinguishing feature of the frenzy of spending promises released for the conference was flimsily costed gimmickry. This was not designed to be an authentic programme for government, but a headline-chasing exercise to shore up the leader’s precarious position. There’s a potential road back for the Tories, but it will be long, it will be hard and they won’t progress along it until they cease plunging down dead ends.
His points are sensible but as he says Kemi unlike Jenrick half gets it in terms of what is needed to take on Reform and Farage. Hence she announced the Stamp Duty cut paid for by previously announced spending cuts.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
Yes, I agree.
Badenoch, I could see getting there in forming (and emphasising) an alternative economic policy by the next GE. She might not get there, but there were the vague hints of this in her speech this year.
I expect Reform to ape theStamp Duty cut. There is a danger in setting out popular economic policy until closer to the election.
On Trevor Phillips this morning both the SNP and Plaid ruled out the abolition of stamp duty [it is devolved - LTT in Wales - LBTT in Scotland]
One to watch I think. The SNP won't want to lose middle class voters, and there is general angst about our fertility rate. If I were to buy a suitable flat in Edinburgh with my partner to raise kids, it would cost me between £10k and £25k in tax. If it's framed as a tax on families I think the pressure would be too much - though I'm not sure how they would replace that £1 billion.
Its a great piece by Moon Rabbit and highlights some big issues the party has. Can I offer up another example? Farming.
Badenoch made a play of opposing Labour's farm tax - an idiotic tax that is easy to oppose. Farmers have been traditionally Tory voting and Eurosceptic, and Tories rightly believed their vote was in the bag.
From what Farmers are telling us, that isn't the case any longer. Farmers were promised that the oven-ready Brexit deal would replace EU subsidies with British subsidies. But a few transitory environmental ones aside, the money dried up.
Local Tories are still assuming Farmers will vote for them, and being given very short shrift by angry Farmers who feel lied to and betrayed.
For me one of the major problems the Tory party faces is a disconnect with reality. And its the same on policy after policy - thinking x because we think it so our base must think it, without realising the former base now thinks y. Labour have suffered the same delusions in the past, but its really bad now for the Tories.
The Tories biggest tax and spend policy is primarily that they are offering welcome tax cuts without offsetting these with unwelcome tax rises.
The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.
I was in the Bridgend Council depot which is now essentially a Portakabin. Ten years ago it was a huge 1930s built series of two commercial vehicle workshops with offices, both now razed to the ground. So vehicle maintenance is farmed out to the commercial sector and the cost per unit repair is probably a lot more expensive but the cost overhead has been lost, so a win on paper. So what of all those office staff running road gangs for hedge and verge management, pot hole repair and litter picking. Well the big stuff is farmed out to contractors whilst your hedges, verges, potholes an litter are just not trimmed, filled or picked anymore.
My biggest criticism of 21st century Tories (and Reformers) is they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Just to understand, if cutting civil service numbers means cutting the police, why didn’t the increase in civil service numbers mean an increase in police numbers?
Bravo.
Sorry to be pedantic, but the police are not civil servants, and therefore aren't included in the CS headcount. If anybody wants to actually know, rather than guess, about the Civil Service, this is invaluable:
I can't help thinking that the very large numbers in the DWP is not unrelated to the increase in claimants for various sorts of benefits. I'm less sure why there are so many in the MoJ.
That was kind of my point… @Mexicanpete wqs claiming that it wasn’t possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police
Read my posts. I said no such thing.
I used the police as an example of a cohort on the Government payroll having numbers cut and there being a negative impact.
Others have used perhaps a better example of immigration staff cuts leading to longer asylum claim lead times and thus the need for asylum hotels and the associated expense of that.
Tell me I'm talking bollocks by all means but please don't make the false accusation that "@Mexicanpete was claiming that it wasn't possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police".
"we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police
You know what, I’m going to go with my interpretation: you said that it wasn’t possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police.
I gave the police as an example of cutting the Government payroll having an adverse effect. It probably wasn't the best example, someone else suggested cutting immigration officers which has a particularly interesting outcome.
At no point did I say "it wasn't possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police". You have made that extrapolation on my behalf.
Let’s make it simple for you:
“Sack … civil servants … THAT MEANS things like fewer police”
“that means” is equivalent to “that equals”. There is no conditionality.
I still don't understand where I claimed "it wasn't possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police". The next Conservative Government can sack everyone working at HMRC, the DVLA and Companies House and yet still increase police numbers, even an ill educated serf like me understands that.
Anyway you are not going to concede so let's work on the premise that I meant to write whatever you believe I wrote.
Don’t be ridiculous. Your first sentence refers to you “things like the police”. HMRC, DVLA and Companies House are all “things like” the police. Nowhere did I claim that you explicitly said “the police” only
Face: you’ve been caught out and you are trying to wriggle your way out of it rather than admit that you have been speaking crap.
Don't you ever give up? I even conceded so you would finally call it a day.
So being as you couldn't bring yourself to move on, I will reiterate I did not write or even intimate "it wasn't possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police". You wrote that.
I’m sadden that that you are lying. I really don’t know why. It’s an unimportant point. I really thought better of you.
You wrote - and I have quilted the entire paragraph:
The offset is instead one of "we are going to sack a million wasteful civil servants" and that sounds great on paper but that means things like fewer police means greater crime. There is always a trade off.
Your statement was that ”to sack a million wasteful civil servants … means things like fewer police.
That’s is completely clear.
As yet above you claim: “ I will reiterate I did not write or even intimate "it wasn't possible to cut civil service numbers without cutting things like the police". ”
Enough. Shame on you.
Prison officers, then. (The MoJ is, I think one of the departments with the largest headcount, along with, eg the DWP.)
Which civil servants would you sack ?
If we were back in the EU we could swing an axe at the numbers in Revenue and Customs, for example.
Automation and productivity first.
An extraordinary amount of government is the pyramid of jobs “in the middle”. That is, people who are managing the managers who manage etc. This turn relates to humans being used to aggregate information, unclear reporting lines etc
It’s notable (and common) l, in descriptions of the NHS that front line staff, that they talk of having to do admin tasks themselves, lack of leadership and decision making *and* there are large numbers of drones in middle management who seem determined to stop improvements.
Too much management, and not enough Managers.
Tentative hypothesis.
It's not so much that there are lots of middle management drones, as email etc make it too easy for a small number of drones to cumulatively generate a lot of work for others.
You know, the "please fill out this survey- it should only take ten minutes, and I need 95% response rate! x" which is fine until half a dozen people do it at once.
It's not even always that the surveys aren't needed. But efficiently putting a small number of such people doing them in a central bubble divorces them from the main thing, whatever that is.
That, I think, is a part of it.
It’s not just in government of course. I saw exactly this kind of stuff at CitiGroup, before 2008.
The fix there was the post crash shakeout of the useless. Friends who work there tell me that it is re-accreting as we type…
I would propose *internal* consultancy groups. In each government department. But with movement between the departments over a career encouraged.
Full time civil service employees. We will have to break the banding rules, so some juniors will get paid more than Sir Humphrey.
Their role will be to create continuous, steady improvement in productivity, by aligning process with outcomes and automation. No stupid big bangs expected. Just “Department Z is 1.24% more productive as a result of our work this year.”
For buildout and other spikes in manpower requirements, they would hire in staff from a central governmental pool, individual contractors or small companies. The teams would be run by people from the internal consultancies always - this would be just adding extra bodies. This is to avoid the problem of external Big Consultancy becoming the tail that wags the dog.
One thing we do need to breakdown is the massive wall between public sector hiring and private, for permanent roles. Both can learn from each other.
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The other three all seem to be pretty decent people and do a lot of good work.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
And yet he was apparently the late queen’s favourite, to the tune of £12m. Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
There have long been stories that Andrew's father was Lord Porchester. The Queen spent a huge amount of time with him, going for weekends to Kentucky on horse-racing business. Mountbatten wrote to her, warning her off. The Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed to the normal 30 years - and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
An interesting theory, and some of us may live long enough to see those papers released…
One other thing occurs. The initial story was about Andrew staying in contact with Epstein longer than previously thought. I’m a bit conflicted here. Let’s assume he believed himself of be Epstein friend. What price loyalty to your friends, even if they turn out to have done bad things? Have we really become a shunning society? Certainly that’s what social media is like, and cancel culture. Genuinely believed Christians were taught to forgive?
If only you had been Mandelson's PR guy, he would still be the US Ambassador.
Tories are fiddling around the edges - same as Labour. And performative "we'll cut the civil service" - because *everyone* knows there's an army of penpushers - without being about to specify whom.
An idea: the Big Picture. Tories say "our national debt is grotesque. It's built over decades, including under our watch. A system which we now need to change. So we're going to make significant cuts"
A starter for 10. Our road network is shagged, the bits we do cost £stupid. Why don't the Tories propose private toll motorways? Easy planning clearance for companies who want to build tolled bypasses of the worst bits. We get new stuff without paying for it, it's pay and play for users.
I think the key in selling it is firstly to highlight the destination. A lean, mean, prosperous economy where if you work hard, you'll do well - very well. Lay out a road map, with waymarkers of success, and be plain about where you want to be at the end of the parliamentary term.
In the doing of it, we are going to have to have very significant cuts, and they need to be shared equitably. Some on PB who shall remain nameless are very keen on swingeing cuts to public spending on services and welfare, but they want commercial banks to continue to keep some £40bn a year in interest that the Bank of England (and through them the Treasury) pays them on interest for money that the Bank itself printed and gave them. Sorry but no. Unnecessary spending must be cut everywhere, not just on dole scroungers.
I would suggest that the money recovered from the above change goes straight on to debt repayment, which would calm any potential market uncertainty about the move.
The Bank also needs to be forced to hold bonds to maturity and stop its crazy taxpayer subsidised QT programme, saving more tens of billions a year.
Infrastructure spending also needs to fuck off, sorry. The State cannot be trusted to spend money wisely or make good decisions concerning infrastructure. Never has, never will. When the economy needs infrastructure, the need will become apparent, and can be addressed, probably with private investment getting to a certain point to underline demand, then the Government topping it up.
My one exception would be continuing HS2 to Crewe. I don't agree with HS2, but in this case there's no point in not doing this now. Find the money from public and private sources and get it done as cheaply as possible. Also extend it to Euston, but using entirely private money if possible.
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The other three all seem to be pretty decent people and do a lot of good work.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
And yet he was apparently the late queen’s favourite, to the tune of £12m. Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
There have long been stories that Andrew's father was Lord Porchester. The Queen spent a huge amount of time with him, going for weekends to Kentucky on horse-racing business. Mountbatten wrote to her, warning her off. The Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed to the normal 30 years - and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
Lord Porchester was known as "Porky" and he certainly porked...
I've seen photos of teenage Andrew and a young Porchie and there does seem to be a physical resemblance.
What to do about Prince Andrew? I favour an Act of Attainder, followed by lifelong imprisonment on South Georgia. He's one of those rare people who seems not to possess a single good quality.
What's his excuse, though?
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
The other three all seem to be pretty decent people and do a lot of good work.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
And yet he was apparently the late queen’s favourite, to the tune of £12m. Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
There have long been stories that Andrew's father was Lord Porchester. The Queen spent a huge amount of time with him, going for weekends to Kentucky on horse-racing business. Mountbatten wrote to her, warning her off. The Cabinet papers of the Macmillan government released for the year 1959 (the year that Prince Andrew was conceived) confirmed that the royal family was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions that year but the subject matter was sufficiently sensitive for the government to order that it be kept secret for a much longer period than normal. One of the items was stamped with a 50 year embargo - as opposed to the normal 30 years - and two items were locked away for 100 years not to be revealed until 2059.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
Lord Porchester was known as "Porky" and he certainly porked...
I've seen photos of teenage Andrew and a young Porchie and there does seem to be a physical resemblance.
I agree. And Edward is also perhaps a little in between - neither have the Prince Phillip countenance that is clear in Anne and Charles.
I don't really care if it's true, and it wouldn't make me respect the Queen any less. She did her duty by remaining loyal, and heaven knows Prince Phillip was no angel. Funny, if workaday infidelity whilst retaining rock solid public unity was such a thing with the Windsors, wonder why they failed to pass on the skill to their kids.
Comments
One other thing occurs. The initial story was about Andrew staying in contact with Epstein longer than previously thought. I’m a bit conflicted here. Let’s assume he believed himself of be Epstein friend. What price loyalty to your friends, even if they turn out to have done bad things? Have we really become a shunning society? Certainly that’s what social media is like, and cancel culture.
Genuinely believed Christians were taught to forgive?
NEW THREAD
Unfortunately the alternative sort of liberalism, the one I am partial to, is even less popular: Euro-style technocratic governance, which treats every problem as first and foremost a regulatory challenge and would very much like politics to be boring. That just doesn’t fly in this social media day and age, even in its Euro heartland.
An idea: the Big Picture. Tories say "our national debt is grotesque. It's built over decades, including under our watch. A system which we now need to change. So we're going to make significant cuts"
A starter for 10. Our road network is shagged, the bits we do cost £stupid. Why don't the Tories propose private toll motorways? Easy planning clearance for companies who want to build tolled bypasses of the worst bits. We get new stuff without paying for it, it's pay and play for users.
Somewhat O/t and am I a miserable old git, but do I detect a considerable amount off chicken counting over the situation in Israel/Palestine?
The surviving hostages are not due to be released until Monday; surely the remnants of the Hamas leadership knows where they are? I can appreciate there could be issues over disinterring the bodies of those who have died.
Secondly, on BBCtv yesterday there were pictures of Hamas volunteers being armed to take over police duties, and talk of 7000 more. Who is going to disarm them, and how?
Thirdly, It would appear that the IDF is only withdrawing (if it is) from about half of the territory, and it will still control all the entry points. I've seen no mention of the naval blockade being lifted.
PS; the BBC does say that the aid trucks are getting in.
It’s not just in government of course. I saw exactly this kind of stuff at CitiGroup, before 2008.
The fix there was the post crash shakeout of the useless. Friends who work there tell me that it is re-accreting as we type…
I would propose *internal* consultancy groups. In each government department. But with movement between the departments over a career encouraged.
Full time civil service employees. We will have to break the banding rules, so some juniors will get paid more than Sir Humphrey.
Their role will be to create continuous, steady improvement in productivity, by aligning process with outcomes and automation. No stupid big bangs expected. Just “Department Z is 1.24% more productive as a result of our work this year.”
For buildout and other spikes in manpower requirements, they would hire in staff from a central governmental pool, individual contractors or small companies. The teams would be run by people from the internal consultancies always - this would be just adding extra bodies. This is to avoid the problem of external Big Consultancy becoming the tail that wags the dog.
One thing we do need to breakdown is the massive wall between public sector hiring and private, for permanent roles. Both can learn from each other.
In the doing of it, we are going to have to have very significant cuts, and they need to be shared equitably. Some on PB who shall remain nameless are very keen on swingeing cuts to public spending on services and welfare, but they want commercial banks to continue to keep some £40bn a year in interest that the Bank of England (and through them the Treasury) pays them on interest for money that the Bank itself printed and gave them. Sorry but no. Unnecessary spending must be cut everywhere, not just on dole scroungers.
I would suggest that the money recovered from the above change goes straight on to debt repayment, which would calm any potential market uncertainty about the move.
The Bank also needs to be forced to hold bonds to maturity and stop its crazy taxpayer subsidised QT programme, saving more tens of billions a year.
Infrastructure spending also needs to fuck off, sorry. The State cannot be trusted to spend money wisely or make good decisions concerning infrastructure. Never has, never will. When the economy needs infrastructure, the need will become apparent, and can be addressed, probably with private investment getting to a certain point to underline demand, then the Government topping it up.
My one exception would be continuing HS2 to Crewe. I don't agree with HS2, but in this case there's no point in not doing this now. Find the money from public and private sources and get it done as cheaply as possible. Also extend it to Euston, but using entirely private money if possible.
Just some witterings.
I don't really care if it's true, and it wouldn't make me respect the Queen any less. She did her duty by remaining loyal, and heaven knows Prince Phillip was no angel. Funny, if workaday infidelity whilst retaining rock solid public unity was such a thing with the Windsors, wonder why they failed to pass on the skill to their kids.