My Labour contacts have been promoting Al Carns for a few months now.
On one hand, the idea of a backbencher taking on the leadership is a farce, on the other hand there is Lucy Powell and an endless list of utter non-entities.
As the cameras panned across the veterans striding proudly down Whitehall two Sundays ago, one lens fell on a tall, lantern-jawed figure in a dark grey suit and green Royal Marines beret. The BBC’s main announcer didn’t seem to notice him, or if they did, didn’t think his presence was worthy of comment.
But an increasingly significant number of Labour MPs have noticed him. To the extent that some of them have begun to quietly discuss whether he should become their next leader.
‘Al Carns’ name is now in the frame,’ one MP told me. ‘It may seem too soon. But to be honest, the party is becoming desperate. And a few people are starting to think it might be time to take a gamble.’
Carns, the recently elected member for Birmingham Selly Oak, certainly has the perfect CV for leading the mission impossible that is the task of dragging Labour back from political oblivion.
A former officer in the elite Special Boat Service, he was mentioned in dispatches, and won the Military Cross for his service in Afghanistan. More recently he was involved in some shadowy activities ‘advising’ the Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.
In other words, we've worked down the list, and once you rule out anyone who is too old and gaga, anyone who is too young and silly, anyone who has annoyed too many of their colleagues, anyone who has been in a scandal too recently, the next one left is someone who has been an MP for as long as Katie bloody Lam.
Either that or someone is trolling Dan Hodges, or Dan Hodges is trolling his readers.
As THIS IS A BETTING SITE, it’s readers might have been pleased to see a tip for Katie bloody Lam a few months ago at 100/1, as they can lay it off now at 12/1 on Betfair
Not the best tip in the world, it hasn’t won yet, but better than most of the others, so it will have to do. No one went skint taking a profit
You might be thinking in terms of "unlikely but not THAT unlikely" trading bets. And Lam was a good spot for that. Really.
But there are those on the right who are sincere in their Lam for Leader fandom, which is currently insane.
And it doesn't apply to Cairns, now he is being drooled over by Dan Hodges. The off-Broadway phase hasn't happened, and that's the profitable one.
I did one of those. Tipped and backed Michelle at 120 for WH24, laid her back at 15. Got no PB credit for it whatsoever. All I got was a bunch of "lol".
My Labour contacts have been promoting Al Carns for a few months now.
On one hand, the idea of a backbencher taking on the leadership is a farce, on the other hand there is Lucy Powell and an endless list of utter non-entities.
Separation of cause and effect strikes again.
The paucity of top talent now is an indicator of how awful MP recruitment was ten to fifteen years ago and how terrible retention has been since.
That the 2024 intake seems to have some impressive figures in it bodes well for British politics in the late 2030s... we just have to somehow survive until then.
My Labour contacts have been promoting Al Carns for a few months now.
On one hand, the idea of a backbencher taking on the leadership is a farce, on the other hand there is Lucy Powell and an endless list of utter non-entities.
Separation of cause and effect strikes again.
The paucity of top talent now is an indicator of how awful MP recruitment was ten to fifteen years ago and how terrible retention has been since.
That the 2024 intake seems to have some impressive figures in it bodes well for British politics in the late 2030s... we just have to somehow survive until then.
Alternatively it is the all-too-common projection to say that anyone who can string a sentence together that is unknown is "impressive". Once he's well known and put to the test will he still seem impressive or be like many of the litany of has-beens and never-were that were once touted as impressive?
Mamdani is a winner, and Trump loves winners, as long as they haven't won by beating him.
Trump said Mamdani won some of those who voted for him over Harris last year, he also said some of the former Bernie Sanders voters voted for him over Harris too as they are anti free trade like him and like Trump's tariffs
FPT #hyufd said: On average though Surrey is not only posher than Essex but probably the poshest county in England, although the Cotswolds belt of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and Berkshire and Bucks are not far behind, all also areas the LDs now have lots of MPs.
@HYUFD I agree with what you have just said there wholeheartedly. Don't disagree with a single word of it. Unfortunately this was not the point you were making in the first place when I pointed out that places like Guildford, Woking and Camberley were not full of posh people. The towns are not particularly posh. The countryside around is a lot posher.
Just by complete chance I was just sent the following link. As you will see I could have written it with Sheerwater and places in Guildford getting particularly reference for their deprivation. Remember I mentioned Sheerwater and you claimed it not to be deprived because of house prices?
They are posh towns, unless you define posh as aristocracy and landed gentry only.
Sheerwater may have some pockets of deprivation but it still has an average house price higher than the average for all of Essex, let alone areas like Harlow, Basildon and Clacton and Southend
Sheerwater doesn't have pockets of deprivation. It is entirely deprived. The whole ward. @hyufd you clearly are talking about something you don't have a clue about. The neighbouring ward Maybury is also entirely deprived. These aren't pockets. You have no idea what you are talking about. Similarly Old Dean in Camberley and Park Barn in Guildford.
The higher house prices are because they are in Surrey, but they are still seriously deprived. When I lived in Surrey Heath over 15 years ago it was not uncommon for cars to be a blaze in the Old Dean.
FPT #hyufd said: On average though Surrey is not only posher than Essex but probably the poshest county in England, although the Cotswolds belt of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and Berkshire and Bucks are not far behind, all also areas the LDs now have lots of MPs.
@HYUFD I agree with what you have just said there wholeheartedly. Don't disagree with a single word of it. Unfortunately this was not the point you were making in the first place when I pointed out that places like Guildford, Woking and Camberley were not full of posh people. The towns are not particularly posh. The countryside around is a lot posher.
Just by complete chance I was just sent the following link. As you will see I could have written it with Sheerwater and places in Guildford getting particularly reference for their deprivation. Remember I mentioned Sheerwater and you claimed it not to be deprived because of house prices?
They are posh towns, unless you define posh as aristocracy and landed gentry only.
Sheerwater may have some pockets of deprivation but it still has an average house price higher than the average for all of Essex, let alone areas like Harlow, Basildon and Clacton and Southend
Sheerwater doesn't have pockets of deprivation. It is entirely deprived. The whole ward. @hyufd you clearly are talking about something you don't have a clue about. The neighbouring ward Maybury is also entirely deprived. These aren't pockets. You have no idea what you are talking about. Similarly Old Dean in Camberley and Park Barn in Guildford.
The higher house prices are because they are in Surrey, but they are still seriously deprived. When I lived in Surrey Heath over 15 years ago it was not uncommon for cars to be a blaze in the Old Dean.
It isn't, average house price in Sheerwater is £455,625 ie still higher than the UK average house price of £364,833. Go to most average towns on a Saturday night and somewhere you will often find a car ablaze
FPT #hyufd said: On average though Surrey is not only posher than Essex but probably the poshest county in England, although the Cotswolds belt of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and Berkshire and Bucks are not far behind, all also areas the LDs now have lots of MPs.
@HYUFD I agree with what you have just said there wholeheartedly. Don't disagree with a single word of it. Unfortunately this was not the point you were making in the first place when I pointed out that places like Guildford, Woking and Camberley were not full of posh people. The towns are not particularly posh. The countryside around is a lot posher.
Just by complete chance I was just sent the following link. As you will see I could have written it with Sheerwater and places in Guildford getting particularly reference for their deprivation. Remember I mentioned Sheerwater and you claimed it not to be deprived because of house prices?
They are posh towns, unless you define posh as aristocracy and landed gentry only.
Sheerwater may have some pockets of deprivation but it still has an average house price higher than the average for all of Essex, let alone areas like Harlow, Basildon and Clacton and Southend
Sheerwater doesn't have pockets of deprivation. It is entirely deprived. The whole ward. @hyufd you clearly are talking about something you don't have a clue about. The neighbouring ward Maybury is also entirely deprived. These aren't pockets. You have no idea what you are talking about. Similarly Old Dean in Camberley and Park Barn in Guildford.
The higher house prices are because they are in Surrey, but they are still seriously deprived. When I lived in Surrey Heath over 15 years ago it was not uncommon for cars to be a blaze in the Old Dean.
It isn't, average house price in Sheerwater is £455,625 ie still higher than the UK average house price of £364,833. Go to most average towns on a Saturday night and somewhere you will often find a car ablaze
... you're in Essex, right? Remind me never to go.
FPT #hyufd said: On average though Surrey is not only posher than Essex but probably the poshest county in England, although the Cotswolds belt of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and Berkshire and Bucks are not far behind, all also areas the LDs now have lots of MPs.
@HYUFD I agree with what you have just said there wholeheartedly. Don't disagree with a single word of it. Unfortunately this was not the point you were making in the first place when I pointed out that places like Guildford, Woking and Camberley were not full of posh people. The towns are not particularly posh. The countryside around is a lot posher.
Just by complete chance I was just sent the following link. As you will see I could have written it with Sheerwater and places in Guildford getting particularly reference for their deprivation. Remember I mentioned Sheerwater and you claimed it not to be deprived because of house prices?
They are posh towns, unless you define posh as aristocracy and landed gentry only.
Sheerwater may have some pockets of deprivation but it still has an average house price higher than the average for all of Essex, let alone areas like Harlow, Basildon and Clacton and Southend
Sheerwater doesn't have pockets of deprivation. It is entirely deprived. The whole ward. @hyufd you clearly are talking about something you don't have a clue about. The neighbouring ward Maybury is also entirely deprived. These aren't pockets. You have no idea what you are talking about. Similarly Old Dean in Camberley and Park Barn in Guildford.
The higher house prices are because they are in Surrey, but they are still seriously deprived. When I lived in Surrey Heath over 15 years ago it was not uncommon for cars to be a blaze in the Old Dean.
It isn't, average house price in Sheerwater is £455,625 ie still higher than the UK average house price of £364,833. Go to most average towns on a Saturday night and somewhere you will often find a car ablaze
... you're in Essex, right? Remind me never to go.
Rural Essex not a town, no cars ablaze in this bit anyway but go to Basildon, Clacton, Thurrock, Harlow, Colchester or Southend on a Saturday night and certainly possible somewhere in one of those towns a car will be ablaze
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
I thought you rather dismissive of @Roger . Just my opinion which I would otherwise have kept to myself had you not responded to my rather curt post.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
Oh, well yes but he’s a ####.
I thought that word was banned!
Not that @Roger needs me to ride shotgun on his behalf, but from my side of the fence he is very readable and a great deal more interesting than those who attempt to cancel him.
What, ####? No. #### is banned but #### is ok. I’d hope I would have been banned immediately had I written ####.
Clarke seems to be wearing pretty well, but I was struck by the threadbare nature of his Starmer/Reeves critique. His criticisms were mostly about presentation and political management (though he did attack Reeves for refusing to cut spending - correctly imo).
Antony Seldon, another centrist 'grandee' was even worse on his book promotion interviews. His attack was mainly that Starmer shouldn't have sacked Sue Gray or dared to rebuke Chris Wormald. In other words that his lack of success is because he isn't enough of a creature of the establishment.
Neither had anything to say about or any solutions to the UK's deeper issues - the difficulties of building, investing, starting or running a business. Public sector underperformance. Centrism is an empty vessel these days. It has been found out.
My view is nobody has 'solutions' as such because all politicians can do in a democratic developed nation is make things slightly better, slightly worse, or a lot worse. There isn't a 'lots better' option. Not in any sort of electoral timeframe. People believing otherwise is largely what fuels populist chancers. Not blaming people btw - it's what almost all politicians seeking office tell them. That they can fix things.
That's fairly obviously untrue though isn't it? We could have a country where you could still build infrastructure without bat tunnels and endless legal challenges, we could have a country where you can start a business without being taxed and regulated out of it. We could have energy that isn't four times the cost of the USA's energy. None of these things are outlandish desires - they're being done in other countries as we speak. Where we are is as a result of deliberate and sustained policies. It just so happens they're policies that you've staked much of your personal identity on, and you can't let go, or admit you've been wrong.
We can improve things. But don't fall for any 'transformation' nonsense.
No, I don't have much personal identity at stake in this. I'm just into realism.
I think Reform and the Tories both have a pretty good idea of the challenges. I don't see much complacency there. What isn't realistic is that we can just replace Morgan McSweeney, Reeves, or even Sir Useless himself (as some on your side are now coming to terms with) and paint a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig, and things will somehow improve.
Yes the Tories smashed it out of the park from at least 2019, particularly with the Truss budget that you still consider to be the most Conservative budget since 1986, and Nigel? He has all the answers, Trump adjacency, Putin fanbois tee shirt, and eulogising Nathan Gill's probity.
Yeah, the Tories and Reform have a "good idea of the challenges".
This sort of idiotic post rather proves my point.
Sort of reminds me of Starmer at the dispatch box - zero engagement with the issues at hand, just some mindless, desperate blabbering about Truss.
Have I gatecrashed humourless deluded Tory night on PB? Sorry about that. So as not to cause unnecessary offence I have you and @biggles in mind.
Eh? My only substantive post this evening was to ponder in a geeky manner over what someone meant by “Cabinet Minister”.
I thought you rather dismissive of @Roger . Just my opinion which I would otherwise have kept to myself had you not responded to my rather curt post.
Anyway Altered Images from 1981 are on BBC4, so please excuse me. I wouldn't want to be disrespectful to Clare Grogan and not give her my full attention.
Oh, well yes but he’s a ####.
I thought that word was banned!
Not that @Roger needs me to ride shotgun on his behalf, but from my side of the fence he is very readable and a great deal more interesting than those who attempt to cancel him.
What, ####? No. #### is banned but #### is ok. I’d hope I would have been banned immediately had I written ####.
Thank you for clearing that up. I am relieved you didn't call anyone a ****.
Yes, the Polanski Greens have now taken the place of Your Party as the natural home for the Corbynite Starmer hating old leftie.
Though Your Party could still win a few seats in Muslim heavy areas like Birmingham, Dewsbury, Leicester and Blackburn the Independent Alliance won seats in 2024 plus maybe in Bradford and Slough and Luton and Newham and Tower Hamlets
question.
GPEW 170k members. 100k of them new to the party. Are there really that many Corbynites?
And tbh, I’d say we have loads of small c conservatives looking for a home too. Water company and rail nationalisation, looking after the environment. Party of small sustainable business. Keeping the NHS. It’s their kind of thing.
Meetings are getting quite interesting.
It's certainly the party for misogynists and those who don't respect the law.
I believe the Sharar Ali result and costs will have caused the party head office some pause for thought.
I don’t think we are at the end of the story yet, maybe we are all in a process that will tease out a new consensus?
I’m defo hoping (and I’m not alone) that there’s a more thoughtful and inclusive approach from both sides evolving.
I know that the author Hanif Kureishi attended the 1988 Tory conference and wrote an interesting article about it but I couldn't remember where it was published, so was hoping to find out where I could read it again.
In the process of looking for information on that specifically, google AI incidentally gave me this:
"There is no evidence that the writer Hanif Kureishi attended or spoke at the 1988 Conservative (Tory) Party Conference. Kureishi was a prominent cultural critic of Thatcherism during this period, and his general lack of interest in mainstream political policy makes his attendance highly unlikely. "
In addition to being factually incorrect, the final sentence doesn't really make sense, because if he was a prominent critic of Thatcherism, he would probably be quite likely to be interested in mainstream political policy, not have a general lack of interest in it.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
I would argue the professionalisation of the army after (and to some extent because of) Wellington is the reason why.
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
It isn't unusual in other countries to have presidents from a military background, but it really isn't here. While I think much of our military is reactionary and politically dubious they do have the self-knowledge to know that and like the Royals steer clear of party politics.
Do you actually know anyone in the military? I have had loads of friends who went into the army, I have become friends with many men who are senior in the army and I would not describe a single one as reactionary and politically dubious. They are intelligent men who think about tiny details to the largest considerations on a daily basis. They care greatly about the men under their command and their families. They are in no way a political hive mind.
What you wrote is the equivalent of someone suggesting that all doctors are lefties who are cosseted from the real world and have no understanding of business or, perhaps, the military.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
I would argue the professionalisation of the army after (and to some extent because of) Wellington is the reason why.
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
It isn't unusual in other countries to have presidents from a military background, but it really isn't here. While I think much of our military is reactionary and politically dubious they do have the self-knowledge to know that and like the Royals steer clear of party politics.
Do you actually know anyone in the military? I have had loads of friends who went into the army, I have become friends with many men who are senior in the army and I would not describe a single one as reactionary and politically dubious. They are intelligent men who think about tiny details to the largest considerations on a daily basis. They care greatly about the men under their command and their families. They are in no way a political hive mind.
What you wrote is the equivalent of someone suggesting that all doctors are lefties who are cosseted from the real world and have no understanding of business or, perhaps, the military.
Now, now
Some doctors go all Laffer curve when the government pays so much into their pensions that they get into tax problems.
I guess it’s right wing, left wing…. {insert Cabaret tribute act here}
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
Briefly an officer, but long enough to serve in three war zones, and later a fourth when, after the Gallipoli disaster, Churchill resigned from the government and served in the trenches in France for six months.
FPT #hyufd said: On average though Surrey is not only posher than Essex but probably the poshest county in England, although the Cotswolds belt of Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire and Berkshire and Bucks are not far behind, all also areas the LDs now have lots of MPs.
@HYUFD I agree with what you have just said there wholeheartedly. Don't disagree with a single word of it. Unfortunately this was not the point you were making in the first place when I pointed out that places like Guildford, Woking and Camberley were not full of posh people. The towns are not particularly posh. The countryside around is a lot posher.
Just by complete chance I was just sent the following link. As you will see I could have written it with Sheerwater and places in Guildford getting particularly reference for their deprivation. Remember I mentioned Sheerwater and you claimed it not to be deprived because of house prices?
I think Bucks is probably posher overall than Surrey.
"We should have him as prime minister because he was in the military" is a classic trope of the dissaffected bankbencher. See also "We should have him as prime minister because he was a successful businessman."
Have we had a PM who was a career military man since the Duke of Wellington? (and he wasn't up to much in his second career).
We have had a number that did wartime service: Callaghan, Heath, MacMillian etc, and Churchill was briefly an officer in the late 19th century before moving into journalism and politics, but no true career military man.
I would argue the professionalisation of the army after (and to some extent because of) Wellington is the reason why.
He ended up with an army career, but largely because it was the sort of thing one did in his social position. He also ended up being brilliant, but that’s a separate point.
Once you could no longer buy commissions, a lot of his sort became other things instead, including professional politicians.
It isn't unusual in other countries to have presidents from a military background, but it really isn't here. While I think much of our military is reactionary and politically dubious they do have the self-knowledge to know that and like the Royals steer clear of party politics.
Do you actually know anyone in the military? I have had loads of friends who went into the army, I have become friends with many men who are senior in the army and I would not describe a single one as reactionary and politically dubious. They are intelligent men who think about tiny details to the largest considerations on a daily basis. They care greatly about the men under their command and their families. They are in no way a political hive mind.
What you wrote is the equivalent of someone suggesting that all doctors are lefties who are cosseted from the real world and have no understanding of business or, perhaps, the military.
Comments
Even UNRWA's biggest remaining benefactors getting tired now.
Trump voters
Crime against humanity
The paucity of top talent now is an indicator of how awful MP recruitment was ten to fifteen years ago and how terrible retention has been since.
That the 2024 intake seems to have some impressive figures in it bodes well for British politics in the late 2030s... we just have to somehow survive until then.
The higher house prices are because they are in Surrey, but they are still seriously deprived. When I lived in Surrey Heath over 15 years ago it was not uncommon for cars to be a blaze in the Old Dean.
I don’t think we are at the end of the story yet, maybe we are all in a process that will tease out a new consensus?
I’m defo hoping (and I’m not alone) that there’s a more thoughtful and inclusive approach from both sides evolving.
I know that the author Hanif Kureishi attended the 1988 Tory conference and wrote an interesting article about it but I couldn't remember where it was published, so was hoping to find out where I could read it again.
In the process of looking for information on that specifically, google AI incidentally gave me this:
"There is no evidence that the writer Hanif Kureishi attended or spoke at the 1988 Conservative (Tory) Party Conference. Kureishi was a prominent cultural critic of Thatcherism during this period, and his general lack of interest in mainstream political policy makes his attendance highly unlikely. "
In addition to being factually incorrect, the final sentence doesn't really make sense, because if he was a prominent critic of Thatcherism, he would probably be quite likely to be interested in mainstream political policy, not have a general lack of interest in it.
What you wrote is the equivalent of someone suggesting that all doctors are lefties who are cosseted from the real world and have no understanding of business or, perhaps, the military.
Some doctors go all Laffer curve when the government pays so much into their pensions that they get into tax problems.
I guess it’s right wing, left wing…. {insert Cabaret tribute act here}
NEW THREAD