And yet most British politicians, certainly most British PMs, would kill for ratings as good as that.
They may be idiots, possibly nasty idiots, but you have to admire to loyalty of Trump supporters.
Alternatively, he’s doing a good job, so he’s not suffering like almost all democratic leaders elsewhere
Got a hold on the borders, cracking down on crime, deporting riff raff, not starting wars and instead ending them. And the tariffs make sense, in game theory, from a selfish American perspective. He reckons most countries will back down - and they do
He’s a pretty good president, possibly a great one
The Mayor of San Francisco is currently 75% positive, 25% negative, so a +50% approval rating.
Cracker of a story here. Colin Beattie - SNP treasurer when Sturgeon and Murrell in charge - offered his Musselburgh branch £20k, but only ‘if he is selected as candidate in the fullness of time'. He was selected.
Seems like an awful lot just to remain selected as an MSP. But then I believe the SNP don't take peerages, so they cannot buy one of those like regular politicians/donors?
The odd thing is there is a whole raft of MSPs in their 30s and 40s chucking it this time, then you get Mr Beattie still wanting to plug away til he's mid 70s. The back story of Branchform will keep this story rumbling on
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
As an aside, we'll get an early read on how voters feel about Trump in just under a month, with the Virginia Gubneratorial election. Governor Youngkin has been a pretty moderate Republican, and has typically run with good approval ratings.
On the other hand, Virginia is now slightly on the Blue side of Purple.
So: Youngkin holds on, that's good for the Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Democrats take it back: that suggests that the pendulum swinging again.
The 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election will be held on November 4, 2025, to elect the governor of Virginia. The incumbent Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, is ineligible to run for re-election, as the Constitution of Virginia prohibits its governors from serving consecutive terms. The in-person early voting period runs from September 19 to November 1, 2025.
Happy news! The BBC are showing the 112min version of "Alien", which was the theatrical release, not the 116min version which the BFI were showing some days ago. The theatrical release doesn't contain the cocooned Dallas scene which I hate.
(PS Good article @MoonRabbit . I enjoyed it but was surprised it came from a Conservative. People are always surprising. )
It was easy to write. It’s defending an act that not only is working well, but is a Conservative creation in the Conservative Party’s guardians of the environment as well as businesses best friend image. Cameron strengthened the original bill, both with opposition amendments when LOTO and as PM, May renewed it from 80% to 100% (net zero).
It was easy to write as my dad clearly a One Nation Conservative Party Member, and we have been discussing it together all week and I completely agree with him - axing it is mindless vandalism.
It was very difficult to write despite knowing what I wanted to say, but use English Grammer correctly to write it. I didn’t bother to go into English Gramma lessons, I knocked off those to watch horse racing with gran. It was hours of chopping and changing it. I’m pleased it kick started strong “on topic” discussion with interesting new learning points coming from all different angles on the subject.
I see Haaland has done his bit to support the World Cup boycott of Israel by scoring a hat trick against them.
Israel contributed two own goals.
Classic Jewish guilt.
The absolute best Jewish joke (because whatever you think of them they have a mean line in humour) is the one they use in “Coming to America”.
I was in a restaurant and the waiter brought me my soup. I called him back and said, Waiter there’s something wrong with my soup. The waiter said, “it’s chicken broth like you ordered sir” and I said no, it’s wrong. The waiter said, “sir your soup is perfectly fine and what you ordered” I said no, you are wrong. So the waiter said “ok sir, pass me a spoon” and I said “ah-ha”.
This person needs the joke explained, I'm afraid.
Isn't proper Jewish chicken soup thick as can be? Proper 'stick to the ribs' stuff as I remember. And delicious.
Now I want proper chicken soup.
I thought it was because the waiter had not provided a spoon.
The 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election will be held on November 4, 2025, to elect the governor of Virginia. The incumbent Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, is ineligible to run for re-election, as the Constitution of Virginia prohibits its governors from serving consecutive terms. The in-person early voting period runs from September 19 to November 1, 2025.
This is also a good Trump popularity tracker from the Economist:
Now compare him with Starmer or Macron
Sure: but a lot of that is simple polarization.
Even at his totally incoherent dementia driven lows, Biden still had 40% of Americans approving of his performance.
Trump will go down as one of the greats. It is only this “polarisation” which prevents feeble lefties from realising this
You are out of your mind. Within a. Few weeks Trump et.al are done for. It's going to be a lot of fun watching you deal with the death of neo Fascism...
I'm not sure how much weight I would put on the likely Democratic win in Virginia's gubernatorial election:
With the exception of 2013, Virginia has elected a governor of the opposite party of the sitting president of the United States in every election since 1977.
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
Conservative Party thinkers and policy wonks have their head too far up the arse of non British US Alt Right echo chamber, is sad truth.
Whether in English Grammers echo chambers have an arse each doesn’t matter, I still am right.
This is also a good Trump popularity tracker from the Economist:
Now compare him with Starmer or Macron
Sure: but a lot of that is simple polarization.
Even at his totally incoherent dementia driven lows, Biden still had 40% of Americans approving of his performance.
Trump will go down as one of the greats. It is only this “polarisation” which prevents feeble lefties from realising this
Oh well, I must be wrong. What with incisive analysis like that.
They are bringing me “devilled eggs mimosa, gold Pearl trout roe, citrus and garden herbs”. As I gaze out over the mendocino hills necking the vintage bubbles
Count yourself lucky. Some of us work seven days a week. NOSE TO THE GRINDSTONE
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
There's no strong direction of travel: most people support Trump's desire to get rid of illegal immigrants, and to halt the flow over the border.
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
This is also a good Trump popularity tracker from the Economist:
Now compare him with Starmer or Macron
Sure: but a lot of that is simple polarization.
Even at his totally incoherent dementia driven lows, Biden still had 40% of Americans approving of his performance.
Trump will go down as one of the greats. It is only this “polarisation” which prevents feeble lefties from realising this
You are out of your mind. Within a. Few weeks Trump et.al are done for. It's going to be a lot of fun watching you deal with the death of neo Fascism...
You still haven’t explained why I should be arrested at the UK border for enjoying free California cured duck salami and $300 Napa Cab Sauv?
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
There's no strong direction of travel: most people support Trump's desire to get rid of illegal immigrants, and to halt the flow over the border.
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
“There's no strong direction of travel”
Over 10% positive to all but minus 5% negative in less than 6 months, as it sinks in decent hard working families making US economy great again brutalised to meet quotas in policy that initially sold as kick out the bad guys. We are going to have to agree to disagree on what your poll is saying.
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
There's no strong direction of travel: most people support Trump's desire to get rid of illegal immigrants, and to halt the flow over the border.
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
There's no strong direction of travel: most people support Trump's desire to get rid of illegal immigrants, and to halt the flow over the border.
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
I'm not sure it will be mild.
We'll see at the midterms next year. The redistricting in TX by the Republicans was very brave. If they lose ground with Hispanics, it could well end up costing htem seats.
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
There is strong direction of travel though in that green line?
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
There's no strong direction of travel: most people support Trump's desire to get rid of illegal immigrants, and to halt the flow over the border.
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
I'm not sure it will be mild.
We'll see at the midterms next year. The redistricting in TX by the Republicans was very brave. If they lose ground with Hispanics, it could well end up costing htem seats.
Ahem. What did I say about Norway's Solveig Løvseth not being able to deal with the heat?
She won. That means she's competed in three Ironman races, and has won all three, including the World Championship. And she's only 26 years old. Kat Matthews was a close second, and Laura Philip a distant third. The two early leaders, Lucy Charles-Barclay and Taylor Knibb, got hit by the heat late on the run. MAtthews set the course record on the run, despite the heat.
Knibb collapsed just four kilometres from the line, with a two-minute lead over Løvseth .
I shall now shut up about triathlon for a while...
It's a good part 1 of an article. It defines the problem well; the sort of steady improvement that defined the postwar years and made government relatively easy has slowed or stopped in most of the western world.
What's happening now is much much harder to manage. Even if it's not really a loss, it sure feels that way, and we're not used to it, and aren't yet ready to vote for it.
Hence the siren calls of populism, whether that's Polanski or Farage or Trump or Sultana. One weird trick to make everything right, and the only people who will suffer deserve it really. Which would be great, except it never blooming works.
So what might work? Wish I knew, because it would save western democracy. The nearest I have to a conclusion is that we have a duty to each other and to the future, that taxes are how those of us who are successful repay our debt to the society and the fates who made us that way, and that is best expressed politically as a mix of liberal conservatism and mild social democracy. It's not perfect (if it were, we wouldn't be having this problem) but everything else is objectively worse.
That's the hard bit, the part two that's missing. Deep down, most of us know what needs to be done. How to get people to vote for it... that's another matter.
It's a good part 1 of an article. It defines the problem well; the sort of steady improvement that defined the postwar years and made government relatively easy has slowed or stopped in most of the western world.
What's happening now is much much harder to manage. Even if it's not really a loss, it sure feels that way, and we're not used to it, and aren't yet ready to vote for it.
Hence the siren calls of populism, whether that's Polanski or Farage or Trump or Sultana. One weird trick to make everything right, and the only people who will suffer deserve it really. Which would be great, except it never blooming works.
So what might work? Wish I knew, because it would save western democracy. The nearest I have to a conclusion is that we have a duty to each other and to the future, that taxes are how those of us who are successful repay our debt to the society and the fates who made us that way, and that is best expressed politically as a mix of liberal conservatism and mild social democracy. It's not perfect (if it were, we wouldn't be having this problem) but everything else is objectively worse.
That's the hard bit, the part two that's missing. Deep down, most of us know what needs to be done. How to get people to vote for it... that's another matter.
And essentially the young who justifiably look on us oldies and question if we can have it why can't they ?
Another interesting article in the Observer this morning, which I partly agree with.
It argues that liberalism is becoming caricatured and reduced ro its worst points by rightwing populists, but also that it hasn't helped itself by moving further away from universal rather than sectional and neoliberal ideas.
It's a good part 1 of an article. It defines the problem well; the sort of steady improvement that defined the postwar years and made government relatively easy has slowed or stopped in most of the western world.
What's happening now is much much harder to manage. Even if it's not really a loss, it sure feels that way, and we're not used to it, and aren't yet ready to vote for it.
Hence the siren calls of populism, whether that's Polanski or Farage or Trump or Sultana. One weird trick to make everything right, and the only people who will suffer deserve it really. Which would be great, except it never blooming works.
So what might work? Wish I knew, because it would save western democracy. The nearest I have to a conclusion is that we have a duty to each other and to the future, that taxes are how those of us who are successful repay our debt to the society and the fates who made us that way, and that is best expressed politically as a mix of liberal conservatism and mild social democracy. It's not perfect (if it were, we wouldn't be having this problem) but everything else is objectively worse.
That's the hard bit, the part two that's missing. Deep down, most of us know what needs to be done. How to get people to vote for it... that's another matter.
And essentially the young who justifiably look on us oldies and question if we can have it why can't they ?
The short answer is that oldies can't really have all these goodies... Or rather, they can- but only by burning the national furniture. As we are seeing.
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
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.
Qualifying it with "things like" renders "that means" meaningless.
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
No surprise there, impossible to understand why so many British people hate Jews yet as you say they totally ignore much worse in Africa where they slaughter people constantly and have been doing so for many many years.
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.
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.
But “things like” means not equal to. Sacking civil servants will mean things that are similar to fewer police, but are not actually fewer police… well, at least, that’s one pedantic interpretation.
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
No, just protests against those Sudanese who are fleeing the violence of both the Sudanese military and the paramilitaries
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
Which side in Sudan are British political parties ‘friends of’, and which of them is being supplied with arms and intelligence by HMG?
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.
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.
That's a kind reframing of last week's announcements. So let's run with it.
Being leader of the opposition is known to be an awful job. That's doubly true when your role doesn't seem to include PM-in-waiting. Triply so if your party risks not being the main opposition next time.
From the point of view of a first draft of the 2029 King's Speech, the stuff we heard last week was awful and would be a disaster. As a means to spike Farage's guns a bit and maybe get back into the game, I'm not sure they could have done better.
My reading is that we saw something similar with Labour between 2020 and 2024. A flip from "saying easy things because it doesn't matter what we say" to "oh heck, we're going to win, better make it realistic".
I suppose the question is- how far do top politicians process that aspect of their profession? Realism requires an acknowledgement that most politicians aren't in it to win it. But you have to believe that you are going to win... or the game struggles to be worth playing.
IN A LATE NIGHT POST, TRUMP DOES NOT REMEMBER WHO WAS PRESIDENT ON JAN 6, 2021 (HE WAS), WEIRDLY SHOUTS “DO SOMETHING” (LIKELY AT CLOUDS). HIS MENTAL ISSUES ARE VERY BAD!
Another interesting article in the Observer this morning, which I partly agree with.
It argues that liberalism is becoming caricatured and reduced ro its worst points by rightwing populists, but also that it hasn't helped itself by moving further away from universal rather than sectional and neoliberal ideas.
Liberalism isn't helping itself by not effectively making the case for competent government and that decisions and actions have consequences. It's desperate that we live in a political world where they are the last ones who can make this case. But that's where we are.
If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found.
FFS. As if Kemi needs any advice from a hack. Do these people read what they write?
Rawnsley, like Andrew Marr, is good when writing about the Left, but when writing about the Right, it's best take the opposite of what he says, because he simply doesn't understand them or their policies. Sometimes he's right, in a stopped clock kind of way, but an over-civilised Guardinista just can't grasp the visceral appeal of patriotism/nationalism/xenophobia or the ultimate dead end that is lefty economics.
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". ”
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.
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.
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
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
Which side in Sudan are British political parties ‘friends of’, and which of them is being supplied with arms and intelligence by HMG?
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.
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.
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.
Hannibal should have marched on Rome afterwards, despite the risk.
When the enemy is annihilated and panicking that's when you press your advantage.
He didn't have the siege engineers of Alexander or Caesar. The army would've been stuck in one place, Rome would've resisted and the stunning victory would've been followed by an immediate defeat for Hannibal.
The only way he could've won would've been Roman capitulation. But Hannibal had the immense misfortune to fight the Romans when their patriotism was at its pathological height.
Edited extra bit: not to mention, Rome was massive. Hannibal's army was large but not, by sheer numbers, invincible. Big enough to make feeding it difficult during a prolonged siege, though.
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.
Ok I can’t stand Prince Andrew but I would make this point. Virginia Giuffre has been excused her behaviour in recruiting other young girls for Epstein on the basis that she was abused and so was messed up and this behaviour can’t be used to criticise her - she was a victim.
According to the latest book on PA he lost his virginity at 11. If that is true, and the book seems to check out everywhere else, then he was also abused and yet doesn’t get excused for his behaviour as a victim.
Now a boy losing their virginity at 11 is abuse as much as for an under age girl and if it can be used as a reasoning and excuse for a woman to behave badly as she was a victim of abuse should this also be applied to a man?
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.
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.
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.
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.
King George VI was a spare heir. So was his father, King George V.
Harry had to suffer the death of his mother at a very young age, and then was forced to put on a bit of a public show. He was more or less ok until he met Megan who validated his sense of victimhood.
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.
Ok I can’t stand Prince Andrew but I would make this point. Virginia Giuffre has been excused her behaviour in recruiting other young girls for Epstein on the basis that she was abused and so was messed up and this behaviour can’t be used to criticise her - she was a victim.
According to the latest book on PA he lost his virginity at 11. If that is true, and the book seems to check out everywhere else, then he was also abused and yet doesn’t get excused for his behaviour as a victim.
Now a boy losing their virginity at 11 is abuse as much as for an under age girl and if it can be used as a reasoning and excuse for a woman to behave badly as she was a victim of abuse should this also be applied to a man?
11 is extremely early for a boy to lose their virginity - I'd doubt they'd have even started puberty then.
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.
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.
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.
The two highlighted statements do not confirm what you claim they confirm. You still haven't proven that I am the lying sack of shit you have just suggested I am. You are making an inference that if you apply the English language to what I have written is simply not there.
There should be some jeopardy here. If I am lying as you suggest you have every right to flag and request my removal from the board. I don't believe I have inferred what you say I have inferred when you requote my posts, to my mind without justifying your accusation, but I suspect you feel if you repeat often enough, you get the win. A win I offered you yesterday without reservation and before you called me a liar. Lying on this board is unacceptable, and liars should be removed forthwith. Call for the permanent ban. I can live with that. Your accusation is extremely serious.
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
Which side in Sudan are British political parties ‘friends of’, and which of them is being supplied with arms and intelligence by HMG?
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.
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.
If there’s any salvation for the Conservatives, this is where hope is to be found.
FFS. As if Kemi needs any advice from a hack. Do these people read what they write?
A good strategy for the Tories might be to warn that massive spending cuts are needed to ward off a financial meltdown and then hope there is one.
Depends on whether it is a big bang meltdown (turmoil on the bond markets?) or a slow motion problem which is basically what we are starting to see now in that the gradual but inexorable rise of the cost of borrowing continues to weigh down on Labour all the way through the Parliament.
If there’s a genuine debt crisis than Reeves and Labour will be forced to do a lot of stuff they really doesn’t want to, urgently, by economic necessity. Depending on the stage of the cycle, further pain being promised by the Tories at the GE wouldn’t necessarily be all that appealing (though i think all opposition parties would get a boost just because Labour would have been in power - similar to Brown and the GFC). In that scenario i could see the economic populism of Reform becoming ever more attractive.
But if we’re instead locked into the same doom loop of tax rises every year until the next GE, I could very much see the Tories making quite a lot of hay in promising a new way forward.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Read between the lines. Rawnsley's piece is as self-serving as the usual Starmerite tripe we get served from certain people here. The Tory's problem is unfailingly diagnosed as not enough centrism - the line used to be 'you will be unelectable with right wing policies', but now that a right wing policy-touting party is topping the polls, it has been swifty and shamelessly switched to 'don't be Reform-lite'. Rawnsley just doesn't want Labour to be the only party on the centrist Titanic as it disappears beneath the icy waters. Well, tough tits - he'll just have to make do with the Lib Dems for company.
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.
Shows how stupid they are - the point of charging higher rates of Stamp duty to second home owners is to discourage them from buying every property up..
Given Farage's stupid statement on new builds last week I wonder if he's grasped the mistake in that historic policy (somehow I doubt it, joined up thinking isn't a strong point nowadays).
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.
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.
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]
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).
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
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]
May help the Tories in Scotland and Wales then with some wealthier voters who were considering Plaid to remove Labour or SNP but don't want to vote for Farage either
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..
Comments
“The wheat! The wheat!”
RIP 😢❤️
That's deeply, deeply sinister.
That is deeply sinister, and totally fucked up
Basically Americans like* what Trump has done on immigration. But they're very unhappy about the fact that inflation of everyday products -largely thanks to tariffs- have gotten more expensive. The job market is also not looking too great right now, and non farm payroll numbers have been very disappointing, which is probably behind his generally weak economy numbers.
* Or at least, don't really dislike
On the other hand, Virginia is now slightly on the Blue side of Purple.
So: Youngkin holds on, that's good for the Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Democrats take it back: that suggests that the pendulum swinging again.
So far I recommend the Goldeneye Ten Degrees Pinot Noir, 2022, tho the Gowan Creek 2014 has much to recommend it, in a rather importunate way
Even at his totally incoherent dementia driven lows, Biden still had 40% of Americans approving of his performance.
The Republican candidate, Winsome Earle-Sears, is a typical Republican: she's an immigrant from Jamaica, and a former Marine.
It was easy to write as my dad clearly a One Nation Conservative Party Member, and we have been discussing it together all week and I completely agree with him - axing it is mindless vandalism.
It was very difficult to write despite knowing what I wanted to say, but use English Grammer correctly to write it. I didn’t bother to go into English Gramma lessons, I knocked off those to watch horse racing with gran. It was hours of chopping and changing it. I’m pleased it kick started strong “on topic” discussion with interesting new learning points coming from all different angles on the subject.
The Republican candidate, Winsome Earle-Sears, is a typical Republican: she's an immigrant from Jamaica, and a former Marine.
Oh, I didn't realise Youngkin couldn't stand
That makes it a lot less interesting an election.
Likely Dem pickup, limited readthrough.
When you see decent law abiding families working hard and contributing to the economy being brutally mashed up to meet quota numbers, it’s going to feel a completely different policy than the promise to deport hardened criminal gang members slipped in undocumented you were promised the main point was. It’s not a popular Trump policy to ship across the Atlantic into UK.
Conservative Party thinkers and policy wonks have their head too far up the arse of non British US Alt Right echo chamber, is sad truth.
Whether in English Grammers echo chambers have an arse each doesn’t matter, I still am right.
Pearl trout roe, citrus and garden herbs”. As I gaze out over the mendocino hills necking the vintage bubbles
Count yourself lucky. Some of us work seven days a week. NOSE TO THE GRINDSTONE
On the other hand, they're generally not in favour of law abiding citizens being stopped by masked ICE agents and then imprisoned without trial until their immigration status is confirmed. I think that will have a mild, but real, negative impact on how Trump is perceived by Hispanic voters.
Over 10% positive to all but minus 5% negative in less than 6 months, as it sinks in decent hard working families making US economy great again brutalised to meet quotas in policy that initially sold as kick out the bad guys. We are going to have to agree to disagree on what your poll is saying.
He's losing an increasing amount of firmer supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson.
"2001: The Big A.I. Debate | Knowledge Talks: The Turing Test | Retro Tech | BBC Archive"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8JYz-98tA
She won. That means she's competed in three Ironman races, and has won all three, including the World Championship. And she's only 26 years old. Kat Matthews was a close second, and Laura Philip a distant third. The two early leaders, Lucy Charles-Barclay and Taylor Knibb, got hit by the heat late on the run. MAtthews set the course record on the run, despite the heat.
Knibb collapsed just four kilometres from the line, with a two-minute lead over Løvseth .
I shall now shut up about triathlon for a while...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_and_a_day_rule
This is a very good and profound article by the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/12/france-crisis-political-faith-belief-democratic-world-vanishing?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
What's happening now is much much harder to manage. Even if it's not really a loss, it sure feels that way, and we're not used to it, and aren't yet ready to vote for it.
Hence the siren calls of populism, whether that's Polanski or Farage or Trump or Sultana. One weird trick to make everything right, and the only people who will suffer deserve it really. Which would be great, except it never blooming works.
So what might work? Wish I knew, because it would save western democracy. The nearest I have to a conclusion is that we have a duty to each other and to the future, that taxes are how those of us who are successful repay our debt to the society and the fates who made us that way, and that is best expressed politically as a mix of liberal conservatism and mild social democracy. It's not perfect (if it were, we wouldn't be having this problem) but everything else is objectively worse.
That's the hard bit, the part two that's missing. Deep down, most of us know what needs to be done. How to get people to vote for it... that's another matter.
Another interesting article in the Observer this morning, which I partly agree with.
It argues that liberalism is becoming caricatured and reduced ro its worst points by rightwing populists, but also that it hasn't helped itself by moving further away from universal rather than sectional and neoliberal ideas.
https://observer.co.uk/news/columnists/article/liberalism-has-betrayed-the-working-class-but-illiberalism-will-do-much-worse
"At least 53 people, including 14 children and 15 women, have been killed in an attack on a displacement shelter in a besieged city in North Darfur.
The Sudan Doctors' Network said Sudanese paramilitaries were behind the shelling attack, which also wounded another 21 people, including five more children."
No Jews involved, so no protests against this war on the streets of British cities.
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.
FFS. As if Kemi needs any advice from a hack. Do these people read what they write?
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.
Being leader of the opposition is known to be an awful job. That's doubly true when your role doesn't seem to include PM-in-waiting. Triply so if your party risks not being the main opposition next time.
From the point of view of a first draft of the 2029 King's Speech, the stuff we heard last week was awful and would be a disaster. As a means to spike Farage's guns a bit and maybe get back into the game, I'm not sure they could have done better.
My reading is that we saw something similar with Labour between 2020 and 2024. A flip from "saying easy things because it doesn't matter what we say" to "oh heck, we're going to win, better make it realistic".
I suppose the question is- how far do top politicians process that aspect of their profession? Realism requires an acknowledgement that most politicians aren't in it to win it. But you have to believe that you are going to win... or the game struggles to be worth playing.
IN A LATE NIGHT POST, TRUMP DOES NOT REMEMBER WHO WAS PRESIDENT ON JAN 6, 2021 (HE WAS), WEIRDLY SHOUTS “DO SOMETHING” (LIKELY AT CLOUDS). HIS MENTAL ISSUES ARE VERY BAD!
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1977253387927478642
Rather good 55 minute video on Cannae: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgk2FxQG0Nw
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.
He wasn't abused as a child and Charles, Anne and Edward all turned out more or less ok.
When the enemy is annihilated and panicking that's when you press your advantage.
He was squatting in a house Charles wanted him out of, he just seems an unpleasant and entitled individual.
While Jenrick was more focused on presenting himself as Farage's heir as leader of the nationalist right
The active friends or players are a heterogenous bunch, most of whom we have little influence with.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/conflict-sudan-map-regional-and-international-actors
...Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Algeria, Libya, the UAE, Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Russia, China, Chad, and South Sudan..
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.
(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.
The only way he could've won would've been Roman capitulation. But Hannibal had the immense misfortune to fight the Romans when their patriotism was at its pathological height.
Edited extra bit: not to mention, Rome was massive. Hannibal's army was large but not, by sheer numbers, invincible. Big enough to make feeding it difficult during a prolonged siege, though.
According to the latest book on PA he lost his virginity at 11. If that is true, and the book seems to check out everywhere else, then he was also abused and yet doesn’t get excused for his behaviour as a victim.
Now a boy losing their virginity at 11 is abuse as much as for an under age girl and if it can be used as a reasoning and excuse for a woman to behave badly as she was a victim of abuse should this also be applied to a man?
Families are strange, none stranger than the Windsors.
Yeah, the monarchy’s popular, brings in some money, but so are Coldplay and Paddington Bear. Time to grow up a bit.
Harry had to suffer the death of his mother at a very young age, and then was forced to put on a bit of a public show. He was more or less ok until he met Megan who validated his sense of victimhood.
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.
Might be why he was her favourite...?
There should be some jeopardy here. If I am lying as you suggest you have every right to flag and request my removal from the board. I don't believe I have inferred what you say I have inferred when you requote my posts, to my mind without justifying your accusation, but I suspect you feel if you repeat often enough, you get the win. A win I offered you yesterday without reservation and before you called me a liar. Lying on this board is unacceptable, and liars should be removed forthwith. Call for the permanent ban. I can live with that. Your accusation is extremely serious.
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.
If there’s a genuine debt crisis than Reeves and Labour will be forced to do a lot of stuff they really doesn’t want to, urgently, by economic necessity. Depending on the stage of the cycle, further pain being promised by the Tories at the GE wouldn’t necessarily be all that appealing (though i think all opposition parties would get a boost just because Labour would have been in power - similar to Brown and the GFC). In that scenario i could see the economic populism of Reform becoming ever more attractive.
But if we’re instead locked into the same doom loop of tax rises every year until the next GE, I could very much see the Tories making quite a lot of hay in promising a new way forward.
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqll1edxgw4o
Given Farage's stupid statement on new builds last week I wonder if he's grasped the mistake in that historic policy (somehow I doubt it, joined up thinking isn't a strong point nowadays).
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.
Now removing stamp duty but a higher and simply property tax and I wouldn't have a problem with the policy..