I gather that Liz Truss will long be remembered in Pub Quiz circles as the first prime minister to have the same first name as the monarch she "served" for a few centuries.
George Grenville (1763-1765) & King George III.
George Canning (1827) & King George IV.
Lord Melbourne (William Lamb) (1834 and 1835) & King William IV.
Liz Truss (2022) & Queen Elizabeth II.
I gather that Liz Truss will long be remembered in Pub Quiz circles as the first prime minister to have the same first name as the monarch she "served" for a few centuries.
In the last 72 years, she is one of only 2 PMs who have served 2 monarchs.
I was chatting to a life long Labour supporter and local activist, who would normally be out chapping doors to drum up votes. He's really pissed off that in the local constituencies the Labour candidates are all brought in from elsewhere, even when the local members had already selected candidates who live in the constituency. It's unlikely to make much difference this election when there's going to be a big swing to whoever is wearing the red rosette regardless of how much campaigning there is. But, the loss of seasoned campaigners will hit Labour hard in future elections.
It's unlikely to make much difference this election when there's going to be a big swing to whoever is wearing the red rosette regardless of how much campaigning there is. But, the loss of seasoned campaigners will hit Labour hard in future elections.
This along with the location of most Labour voters, is why I believe that disgruntled left Labour voters should vote for other parties of the left rather than the Lib Dems (contra the blog linked in the other place).
Anyone hear the junior minister on Radio 4 this morning thrown to the lions and charged with defending this decision about 15 minutes before Sunak admitted that it was indefensible?
I almost felt sorry for him and got the impression Nick Robinson ended the interview just to put him out of his misery.
Anyone hear the junior minister on Radio 4 this morning thrown to the lions and charged with defending this decision about 15 minutes before Sunak admitted that it was indefensible?
I almost felt sorry for him and got the impression Nick Robinson ended the interview just to put him out of his misery.
Are you referring to Wishi-Washi's unaccountable absence from some of the D-Day commemoration events?
It's being said in many places that this was yet another own goal for Wishi-Washi...Labour's evil beer-swilling leader, by contrast, Did The Right Thing.
It's unlikely to make much difference this election when there's going to be a big swing to whoever is wearing the red rosette regardless of how much campaigning there is. But, the loss of seasoned campaigners will hit Labour hard in future elections.
This along with the location of most Labour voters, is why I believe that disgruntled left Labour voters should vote for other parties of the left rather than the Lib Dems (contra the blog linked in the other place).
It's unlikely to make much difference this election when there's going to be a big swing to whoever is wearing the red rosette regardless of how much campaigning there is. But, the loss of seasoned campaigners will hit Labour hard in future elections.
This along with the location of most Labour voters, is why I believe that disgruntled left Labour voters should vote for other parties of the left rather than the Lib Dems (contra the blog linked in the other place).
There are a variety of small socialist parties, who disgruntled left wing Labour activists could migrate too. If they gain enough new members and supporters they could potentially form the core of a new left-wing party if Labour continues on it's rightward track, but it would be several election cycles before we would start to see such a party make any significant impact. The Workers Party is probably too much of a poison chalice for many, if any, Labour activists to defect too.
But, the Greens are an obvious choice for many. An established party with left of centre politics, large enough to be making impact on elections already (especially at local level) and growing.
There are, as @Alan Cresswell says, several other (very) small socialist parties, as anyone can easily find out by using a search engine such as Go Ogle...
It's not a waste to advertise that your vote is available in return for decent policies. "Wasted" votes for UKIP were the domino that set off the chain of events leading to Brexit. Labour will continue to tack right and make the country worse unless there is an electoral threat to them.
Link is to political broadcast from three years ago, recently
reused with ending for current GE. I could put in iPlayer link for a that but it wouldn't be accessible to all.
Sorry, laptop in for repair and I can't see how to do links properly on phone
Why should I waste my vote voting tactically when I disagree with what Lab are doing. If they are going to get the predicted landslide, my voting for them makes little difference. I will vote with my conscience and principles.
Why should I waste my vote voting tactically when I disagree with what Lab are doing. If they are going to get the predicted landslide, my voting for them makes little difference. I will vote with my conscience and principles.
Exactly. I won’t be doing it, but in a bizarre through the looking glass re-run of 2017, there’s *almost* a case for tactically voting Tory to keep down the size of the Labour majority. On the basis that the Tories are not going to win, but no party should be handed the majority it looks like Labour will get.
Like I say, it will take a braver voter than me but even so, sauce for the goose and all that.
I won’t be voting Tory, but I genuinely believe it’s where we are.
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians.
I accept, especially on here, that it’s a niche viewpoint. But I don’t see much of a difference between the two main parties really. One abuses the nation, the other in my adult life abuses foreigners abroad.
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians
The past few years has shown that any British PM that isn't in favour of military intervention will be pilloried in the media. The Tories voted for Iraq, against investigating Blair in the wake of Chilcot and Milliband was painted at weak for voting against intervention in Syria.
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians
The past few years has shown that any British PM that isn't in favour of military intervention will be penalised for it in the media. The Tories voted for Iraq, against investigating Blair in the wake of Chilcot and Milliband was painted at weak for voting against intervention in Syria.
I’m not a Tory voter though… at the same time I do believe that the Tory party in 2002/3 was lied to by the government in exactly the same way the population was…
I also think voting against Syria was a mistake where you can draw a straight line to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians
The past few years has shown that any British PM that isn't in favour of military intervention will be penalised for it in the media. The Tories voted for Iraq, against investigating Blair in the wake of Chilcot and Milliband was painted at weak for voting against intervention in Syria.
I’m not a Tory voter though…
Right, I was just saying that in practice both parties are war parties.
I do believe that the Tory party in 2002/3 was lied to by the government in exactly the same way the population was…
Reading the reactions at the time I don't think they needed much convincing and the lies were mainly for public consumption (they certainly don't seem to bear any of the proponents much animus).
I can see where you're coming from, Betjemaniac, but I can't help thinking that the bigger kicking we give the lying Tory shysters, the better. They need to know that their evil "policies" aren't acceptable, and the only way to tell them is at the ballot box.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians
The past few years has shown that any British PM that isn't in favour of military intervention will be penalised for it in the media. The Tories voted for Iraq, against investigating Blair in the wake of Chilcot and Milliband was painted at weak for voting against intervention in Syria.
I’m not a Tory voter though…
Right, I was just saying that in practice both parties are war parties.
I do believe that the Tory party in 2002/3 was lied to by the government in exactly the same way the population was…
Reading the reactions at the time I don't think they needed much convincing and the lies were mainly for public consumption (they certainly don't seem to bear any of the proponents much animus).
I’d certainly go as far as ‘didn’t need much persuading’ but I do think the party at the time might have taken more persuading without the dossier…
We have postal votes and I assume that the candidates are told who have postal votes. But they do not contact me or send be any leaflets untill after I have voted.
Either way, the nice Labour lady who lives about 10 minutes walk away will romp home as usual
The electoral roll, including who has postal votes, isn't updated and provided to agents until after the period for applying for a postal vote closes. That's after the first postal ballots are sent out. The alternative is to update the information given to agents several times during the election period. So, most campaigning is done using an electoral register that only has the names of voters and whether they had a postal ballot for the previous election.
Also, as it takes time to prepare election materials these are not always available for the start of a campaign period if an election is called at short notice. Democracy works far better with fixed election dates known years in advance, as parties and voters can prepare. (By-elections are a bit different because parties can swing behind a small number of campaigns in a way not possible for hundreds of campaigns).
Finally, if it's just leaflet delivery then information on who is in a particular address is almost certainly not known. The electoral register is personal data and shouldn't be shared beyond those who need it. Most leaflets are delivered by volunteers, or paid delivery, and it's not appropriate for them to be given that data (it may even be illegal). Plus it's faster to deliver to everyone on a street than constantly be checking what addresses to skip.
That being said, most parties are revising campaign timetables to account for the increasing proportion of postal votes which requires materials to be produced and delivered earlier in the campaign.
The electoral roll, including who has postal votes, isn't updated and provided to agents until after the period for applying for a postal vote closes. That's after the first postal ballots are sent out. The alternative is to update the information given to agents several times during the election period. So, most campaigning is done using an electoral register that only has the names of voters and whether they had a postal ballot for the previous election.
Also, as it takes time to prepare election materials these are not always available for the start of a campaign period if an election is called at short notice. Democracy works far better with fixed election dates known years in advance, as parties and voters can prepare. (By-elections are a bit different because parties can swing behind a small number of campaigns in a way not possible for hundreds of campaigns).
Finally, if it's just leaflet delivery then information on who is in a particular address is almost certainly not known. The electoral register is personal data and shouldn't be shared beyond those who need it. Most leaflets are delivered by volunteers, or paid delivery, and it's not appropriate for them to be given that data (it may even be illegal). Plus it's faster to deliver to everyone on a street than constantly be checking what addresses to skip.
That being said, most parties are revising campaign timetables to account for the increasing proportion of postal votes which requires materials to be produced and delivered earlier in the campaign.
The majority of voters in Britain seem to see the country as a 'Great Power' and want us to be so. This involves, among other things, having nuclear bombs and taking part (from time to time) in the invasion or bombing of sundry third-world countries. (Although never doing the like to anyone who might kick our butt.)
I would much rather that we presented ourselves as another Portugal or Netherlands. However, if I stood for PM with that as a main plank of policy I absolutely guarantee that I'd be smashed by the voters.
So events like Iraq are the consequence of the vainglory of most of the voters in this country. We are, in our own way, as militaristic as Prussia used to be. We're just not as front-and-centre with it.
The majority of voters in Britain seem to see the country as a 'Great Power' and want us to be so. This involves, among other things, having nuclear bombs and taking part (from time to time) in the invasion or bombing of sundry third-world countries. (Although never doing the like to anyone who might kick our butt.)
I would much rather that we presented ourselves as another Portugal or Netherlands. However, if I stood for PM with that as a main plank of policy I absolutely guarantee that I'd be smashed by the voters.
So events like Iraq are the consequence of the vainglory of most of the voters in this country. We are, in our own way, as militaristic as Prussia used to be. We're just not as front-and-centre with it.
I sort of agree with your point, but tbh I think it helps demonstrate another British vice - that of thinking Britain is particularly different from its neighbours.
The Dutch don’t have nuclear weapons, but when it comes to overseas invasions and bombings you’re obviously missing their military participation in the Korean War, Gulf War 1990/91, former Yugoslavia, Kosovo War 1999, Afghanistan pretty much the entire time Britain was there (from the start IIRC), Iraq War, Libya 2014 etc.
Britain is in fact far more like many of its peers than not.
Ireland and Portugal might be the exceptions, but definitely not the Dutch, French, Spanish, Danes, Italians…
The Dutch are about as militaristic as we (or in your view the Prussians) are - they’re just even less front and centre with it to the extent that you haven’t noticed them!
I once saw part of a Dutch Army tattoo demonstration (leger tattoo ontwerp) and was struck by the ahem *normal* haircuts/hairstyles of the uniformed lads and lasses. This was in the summer of 1976, so let the reader understand.
Maybe it's not unusual for smaller countries to be rather more aware, and yet more realistic, about their military and its capabilities. I'm thinking of the Baltic states (close to Russia), and Sweden, with the island of Gotland just across the way...
It behoves this country - no longer a global power - to do the same.
I once saw part of a Dutch Army tattoo demonstration (leger tattoo ontwerp) and was struck by the ahem *normal* haircuts/hairstyles of the uniformed lads and lasses. This was in the summer of 1976, so let the reader understand.
Maybe it's not unusual for smaller countries to be rather more aware, and yet more realistic, about their military and its capabilities. I'm thinking of the Baltic states (close to Russia), and Sweden, with the island of Gotland just across the way...
It behoves this country - no longer a global power - to do the same.
Holland isn't a bad comparator actually, if you believe in prioritising spend to actual national need.
They are optimised for taking part in wars of choice as part of NATO/US-led coalitions, and have the right kit to (just about) do expeditionary warfare in defence of their own remaining overseas territories (Caribbean). A lot of the latter they achieve by piggy backing their training off the UK.
Essentially, for as long as we've got overseas territories, our UK defence posture will (need to) look more like France or the Netherlands.
Probably more like France given we've got about the same number of globally distributed territories we're responsible for the defence of - but then France in some areas have got more capability than we have, because they still think of themselves as a global power to a greater extent than the UK does.
The Dutch are about as militaristic as we (or in your view the Prussians) are - they’re just even less front and centre with it to the extent that you haven’t noticed them!
Yes, but these things make a difference in terms of the sorts of things prioritised; the kinds of things that fill gaps in NATO deployments vs attempting to have wholly independent capabilities.
Not to mention the spectacle that could have been taken from a "Yes, Minister" sketch that runs every few years where potential leaders are asked if they'd be willing to end civilisation.
France in some areas have got more capability than we have, because they still think of themselves as a global power to a greater extent than the UK does.
I think the difference is that the French are less deluded about the ability to do this kind of thing on the cheap (and direct their industrial policy accordingly).
The I paper this morning has some interesting speculation that Labour is going to have to cut unprotected departments to fund its priorities.
Which shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anyone half awake (regardless of who wins), but I suspect nevertheless will do if/when it happens. Local government apparently in the firing line.
Cuts aren’t an anti-Labour point (at this rate I think you’d get good money on a new round of slightly-differently-badged ‘austerity’) but I do wish it was a more open part of the national conversation.
Whatever else happens, we’re not about to go from Tory squeeze to Labour money taps, but I’m concerned that a lot of the public (not on here) might be thinking that’s what they’re voting for.
I think a lot of the public have bought the lie that "reform of public services" can make things better without costing more, so expect things to improve in some ill-defined way because Labour appear to have their act together in a way the tories do not. They're still going to be disappointed when everything continues to fall apart, but I don't think they're expecting more money spent per se.
The BBC Scotland debate the other night had Anas Sarwar repeatedly say "no austerity" but never really answered the repeatedly asked questions about how Labour will balance the books without either raising tax revenue or following through with something near the level of cuts already outlined by the current government. And, given that Labour are seemingly agreeing with the list of protected departments those cuts will fall in the same places. Apparently, £18b in cuts by Conservatives is austerity but £18b in cuts by Labour is not austerity. On this the difference between the two parties seems microscopic, and to claim that that difference is sufficient to say the cuts wouldn't be an exercise in further austerity rang very hollow.
The BBC Scotland debate the other night had Anas Sarwar repeatedly say "no austerity" but never really answered the repeatedly asked questions about how Labour will balance the books without either raising tax revenue or following through with something near the level of cuts already outlined by the current government.
There's always option 3- change the fiscal rules..
Apparently, £18b in cuts by Conservatives is austerity but £18b in cuts by Labour is not austerity. On this the difference between the two parties seems microscopic, and to claim that that difference is sufficient to say the cuts wouldn't be an exercise in further austerity rang very hollow.
Yes, and this comes down to the incoming front bench not having ideas beyond being convinced that they can manage things better and fix things by sheer force of will.
I don't think things are necessarily gloom and doom; spending money intelligently and *predictably* can go a long way, repair infrastructure and you start to attract more business investment *and* create a source of economic demand.
The problem is that the Labour Right has generally been bereft ideas of this kind (even Blairism was originally a product of the soft-Left).
I think a lot of the public have bought the lie that "reform of public services" can make things better without costing more, so expect things to improve in some ill-defined way because Labour appear to have their act together in a way the tories do not. They're still going to be disappointed when everything continues to fall apart, but I don't think they're expecting more money spent per se.
Well, that lie goes back to Thatcher and astonishingly many intelligent people still believe in this witch doctor nonsense.
The bottom line is that most public services require large numbers of humans to operate. A good example is a school. The children need teachers, each of whom is a human being who requires a salary and ultimately a pension. You cannot replace them with robots.
You can, of course, put 40 children before a teacher instead of 25, but that only really works if schools are run in the old semi-military style that no sane person wants. The chances are that standards will drop, probably substantially. And since the whole object of schools (should be) to produce educated, well-rounded citizens, such a programme is self-defeating.
The only 'savings' you can make are in administration. And I would bet a substantial amount that if the accounts were properly adjusted everyone would see that the policy of fragmenting education services into 'academies' and 'free schools' while eclipsing the LEAs with their economies of scale, has vastly increased overall costs. Some of the academy chain 'executives' get paid far more for running five or six schools than any of the old Directors of Education received for running a whole county. And that's just the start of it. The good Lord alone knows what Ofsted costs, with its fancy London office and vast number of operatives.
I think even the thickest of tory planks have recognised that you need to have teachers (though they don't necessarily agree that they need to be qualified or well paid), and most of the cuts in the last 15 years have been to teaching assistants, because wee Jonny not being taught maths is more immediately noticeable than wee Jenny next to him not getting the support she needs to access the maths lesson.
Comments
George Grenville (1763-1765) & King George III.
George Canning (1827) & King George IV.
Lord Melbourne (William Lamb) (1834 and 1835) & King William IV.
Liz Truss (2022) & Queen Elizabeth II.
If "a few" means "less than two", then sure.
In the last 72 years, she is one of only 2 PMs who have served 2 monarchs.
For 5 minutes...
Tl;dr: Starmer pissing away membership fees pursuing political vendettas but finally gives up after 4 years.
This sort of shit ought to damage him more than it does, but I doubt interviewers will even ask about it.
This along with the location of most Labour voters, is why I believe that disgruntled left Labour voters should vote for other parties of the left rather than the Lib Dems (contra the blog linked in the other place).
I almost felt sorry for him and got the impression Nick Robinson ended the interview just to put him out of his misery.
Are you referring to Wishi-Washi's unaccountable absence from some of the D-Day commemoration events?
It's being said in many places that this was yet another own goal for Wishi-Washi...Labour's evil beer-swilling leader, by contrast, Did The Right Thing.
Which parties would those be? The Greens?
Who else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain
Yes, at least in England.
But, the Greens are an obvious choice for many. An established party with left of centre politics, large enough to be making impact on elections already (especially at local level) and growing.
There are, as @Alan Cresswell says, several other (very) small socialist parties, as anyone can easily find out by using a search engine such as Go Ogle...
It's not a waste to advertise that your vote is available in return for decent policies. "Wasted" votes for UKIP were the domino that set off the chain of events leading to Brexit. Labour will continue to tack right and make the country worse unless there is an electoral threat to them.
I'm not going to waste my vote.
Link is to political broadcast from three years ago, recently
reused with ending for current GE. I could put in iPlayer link for a that but it wouldn't be accessible to all.
Sorry, laptop in for repair and I can't see how to do links properly on phone
Exactly. I won’t be doing it, but in a bizarre through the looking glass re-run of 2017, there’s *almost* a case for tactically voting Tory to keep down the size of the Labour majority. On the basis that the Tories are not going to win, but no party should be handed the majority it looks like Labour will get.
Like I say, it will take a braver voter than me but even so, sauce for the goose and all that.
I won’t be voting Tory, but I genuinely believe it’s where we are.
Indeed, but I’m of an age to have been a young serviceman in 2002. My experience of Labour is being sent to war and having multiple friends killed or seriously injured. To say nothing of a few hundred thousand civilians.
I accept, especially on here, that it’s a niche viewpoint. But I don’t see much of a difference between the two main parties really. One abuses the nation, the other in my adult life abuses foreigners abroad.
Some choice.
The past few years has shown that any British PM that isn't in favour of military intervention will be pilloried in the media. The Tories voted for Iraq, against investigating Blair in the wake of Chilcot and Milliband was painted at weak for voting against intervention in Syria.
I’m not a Tory voter though… at the same time I do believe that the Tory party in 2002/3 was lied to by the government in exactly the same way the population was…
I also think voting against Syria was a mistake where you can draw a straight line to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Epochal silliness.
Chilcot, agree.
Right, I was just saying that in practice both parties are war parties.
Reading the reactions at the time I don't think they needed much convincing and the lies were mainly for public consumption (they certainly don't seem to bear any of the proponents much animus).
I’d certainly go as far as ‘didn’t need much persuading’ but I do think the party at the time might have taken more persuading without the dossier…
Either way, the nice Labour lady who lives about 10 minutes walk away will romp home as usual
Also, as it takes time to prepare election materials these are not always available for the start of a campaign period if an election is called at short notice. Democracy works far better with fixed election dates known years in advance, as parties and voters can prepare. (By-elections are a bit different because parties can swing behind a small number of campaigns in a way not possible for hundreds of campaigns).
Finally, if it's just leaflet delivery then information on who is in a particular address is almost certainly not known. The electoral register is personal data and shouldn't be shared beyond those who need it. Most leaflets are delivered by volunteers, or paid delivery, and it's not appropriate for them to be given that data (it may even be illegal). Plus it's faster to deliver to everyone on a street than constantly be checking what addresses to skip.
That being said, most parties are revising campaign timetables to account for the increasing proportion of postal votes which requires materials to be produced and delivered earlier in the campaign.
Thanks.
I would much rather that we presented ourselves as another Portugal or Netherlands. However, if I stood for PM with that as a main plank of policy I absolutely guarantee that I'd be smashed by the voters.
So events like Iraq are the consequence of the vainglory of most of the voters in this country. We are, in our own way, as militaristic as Prussia used to be. We're just not as front-and-centre with it.
I sort of agree with your point, but tbh I think it helps demonstrate another British vice - that of thinking Britain is particularly different from its neighbours.
The Dutch don’t have nuclear weapons, but when it comes to overseas invasions and bombings you’re obviously missing their military participation in the Korean War, Gulf War 1990/91, former Yugoslavia, Kosovo War 1999, Afghanistan pretty much the entire time Britain was there (from the start IIRC), Iraq War, Libya 2014 etc.
Britain is in fact far more like many of its peers than not.
Ireland and Portugal might be the exceptions, but definitely not the Dutch, French, Spanish, Danes, Italians…
The Dutch are about as militaristic as we (or in your view the Prussians) are - they’re just even less front and centre with it to the extent that you haven’t noticed them!
Maybe it's not unusual for smaller countries to be rather more aware, and yet more realistic, about their military and its capabilities. I'm thinking of the Baltic states (close to Russia), and Sweden, with the island of Gotland just across the way...
It behoves this country - no longer a global power - to do the same.
Holland isn't a bad comparator actually, if you believe in prioritising spend to actual national need.
They are optimised for taking part in wars of choice as part of NATO/US-led coalitions, and have the right kit to (just about) do expeditionary warfare in defence of their own remaining overseas territories (Caribbean). A lot of the latter they achieve by piggy backing their training off the UK.
Essentially, for as long as we've got overseas territories, our UK defence posture will (need to) look more like France or the Netherlands.
Probably more like France given we've got about the same number of globally distributed territories we're responsible for the defence of - but then France in some areas have got more capability than we have, because they still think of themselves as a global power to a greater extent than the UK does.
Yes, but these things make a difference in terms of the sorts of things prioritised; the kinds of things that fill gaps in NATO deployments vs attempting to have wholly independent capabilities.
Not to mention the spectacle that could have been taken from a "Yes, Minister" sketch that runs every few years where potential leaders are asked if they'd be willing to end civilisation.
I think the difference is that the French are less deluded about the ability to do this kind of thing on the cheap (and direct their industrial policy accordingly).
Yes. Vote early, vote often and vote for the dead (it's hard for the dead to hold the pencil so they need you to vote for them).
Which shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anyone half awake (regardless of who wins), but I suspect nevertheless will do if/when it happens. Local government apparently in the firing line.
Let joy be unconfined.
Whatever else happens, we’re not about to go from Tory squeeze to Labour money taps, but I’m concerned that a lot of the public (not on here) might be thinking that’s what they’re voting for.
There's always option 3- change the fiscal rules..
Yes, and this comes down to the incoming front bench not having ideas beyond being convinced that they can manage things better and fix things by sheer force of will.
I don't think things are necessarily gloom and doom; spending money intelligently and *predictably* can go a long way, repair infrastructure and you start to attract more business investment *and* create a source of economic demand.
The problem is that the Labour Right has generally been bereft ideas of this kind (even Blairism was originally a product of the soft-Left).
In fact not shocked at all
Well, that lie goes back to Thatcher and astonishingly many intelligent people still believe in this witch doctor nonsense.
The bottom line is that most public services require large numbers of humans to operate. A good example is a school. The children need teachers, each of whom is a human being who requires a salary and ultimately a pension. You cannot replace them with robots.
You can, of course, put 40 children before a teacher instead of 25, but that only really works if schools are run in the old semi-military style that no sane person wants. The chances are that standards will drop, probably substantially. And since the whole object of schools (should be) to produce educated, well-rounded citizens, such a programme is self-defeating.
The only 'savings' you can make are in administration. And I would bet a substantial amount that if the accounts were properly adjusted everyone would see that the policy of fragmenting education services into 'academies' and 'free schools' while eclipsing the LEAs with their economies of scale, has vastly increased overall costs. Some of the academy chain 'executives' get paid far more for running five or six schools than any of the old Directors of Education received for running a whole county. And that's just the start of it. The good Lord alone knows what Ofsted costs, with its fancy London office and vast number of operatives.