New Tory Leader

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

15 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

The return on Paul Moy's favourite economist.

 

Yup - SKS can sit back all August and watch the sparks fly as Sunak (and the FT it seems) pulls apart Liz's fantasies.

It's the SKS 'dream ticket. 

 

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

37 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Of course, I must admit I am devastated by your block. How on earth will I cope without your scintillating political insight.

You don't appear to understand how ignore lists work.

Besides, I've had a change of heart. It must be lonely being a socialist in this part of the world, I'll take pity on you instead and try and understand why you feel the need to become aggressive and lash out.

Have you ever considered moving to a sh*thole like Barnsley, or Merthyr Tydfil, to be around more of your type?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I rate her. Gets tongue tied, I'm not going to hold somebody's speech impediment against them.

Shrink the state (bloated under Sunak and Johnson) to free up capacity at a time of private sector labour shortages which are fuelling inflation. Sound plan.

Except Brexit is freeing up nobody and the very real shortages in the NHS, Police, Essential and Armed Services mean we need a bigger state, certainly for the time being. What area of the economy will shrink to facilitate tax cuts? All she says is it will increase investment.

Borrowing is now so high that we are paying £19.4BN in interest alone.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,193]

3 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

... I am choosing the person who will become our next Prime Minister, whether you or I like them or not. That carries a degree of responsibility. 

 

Do you think this is a responsibility that you deserve, or are able to discharge effectively?

This isn't personal, but it's a poor reflection on our democracy when 30+ million voters will have a PM elected by you and 160,000 others. 

We've been in this position now 3 times in the last 6 years with Conservative leaders. And it cuts both ways (Brown, Callaghan)

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

30 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Do you think this is a responsibility that you deserve, or are able to discharge effectively?

This isn't personal, but it's a poor reflection on our democracy when 30+ million voters will have a PM elected by you and 160,000 others. 

We've been in this position now 3 times in the last 6 years with Conservative leaders. And it cuts both ways (Brown, Callaghan)

When you vote in a General Election you are choosing a candidate on your ballot paper, usually affiliated with a party. You are not voting for the Prime Minister.

I think it would be unacceptable for Sunak/Truss to hang on until December 2024 for a GE, they should seek their own mandate much sooner (Spring 2023 probably most suitable).

I don't see what other option there is really, beyond the current system, perhaps an act of parliament which says a new PM should hold a GE within 6 months or 9 months, just to ensure that none of them are majorly taking the p*ss?

[Surfer 1,547]

It must have been her rip roaring success as a new trade deal negotiator that clinched it eh? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

What area of the economy will shrink to facilitate tax cuts? 

She made it very clear that she opposed the NI increases because she felt that the increase in the health and social care budget could have been covered by general taxation. She voted against the NI increase at the time, and has stated that she would reverse it.

Interestingly, Labour supporters people attack the idea of scrapping this NI increase when Liz Truss suggests it, but I didn't hear any objection when Kier Starmer objected to the increase at the time it was announced! 

I suspect that she would start with the 91000 civil service job cuts that Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson were already set to embark on, and that would take the size of the public sector back to pre-covid levels. 

People seem to be forgetting that my choice is: Rishi Sunak, or Liz Truss. Both are advocating shrinking the size of the state. Those aren't the two people I would like on my ballot paper, but those are the options.

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Do you think this is a responsibility that you deserve, or are able to discharge effectively?

This isn't personal, but it's a poor reflection on our democracy when 30+ million voters will have a PM elected by you and 160,000 others. 

We've been in this position now 3 times in the last 6 years with Conservative leaders. And it cuts both ways (Brown, Callaghan)

So another reason to be unhappy about this is that over 50% of Tory members live in London, but only about 1/6th of the UK population lives in London, so that's a huge advantage to any London based candidate. That doesn't apply on this occasion (Yorkshire + Norfolk) but its still problematic.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

She made it very clear that she opposed the NI increases because she felt that the increase in the health and social care budget could have been covered by general taxation. She voted against the NI increase at the time, and has stated that she would reverse it.

Interestingly, Labour supporters people attack the idea of scrapping this NI increase when Liz Truss suggests it, but I didn't hear any objection when Kier Starmer objected to the increase at the time it was announced! 

I suspect that she would start with the 91000 civil service job cuts that Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson were already set to embark on, and that would take the size of the public sector back to pre-covid levels. 

People seem to be forgetting that my choice is: Rishi Sunak, or Liz Truss. Both are advocating shrinking the size of the state. Those aren't the two people I would like on my ballot paper, but those are the options.

 

And what civil service departments will be able to sustain staff cuts?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And what civil service departments will be able to sustain staff cuts?

I think the department ripest for a cull is HMRC which employs 64000 currently, a headcount which was expanded to process furlough payments, with many kept on to assist with furlough fraud investigations (of which there are at least 30000 ongoing).

In an ideal world we'd be pursuing as many alleged fraudsters as possible, but have to question whether this is actually of any net  financial benefit at all, and with it unlikely that there will ever be a furlough scheme again.... continuing these investigations doesn't even act as a deterrent. I want to know how much we are spending per £1000 recouped, the government is usually sh*t at things like this, just sack it off.

Beyond that, continued automation is already expected to shrink the civil service workforce, just as it is doing in major private sector corporations like banks and insurance companies. 

The DWP employs 96000 people, up from 86000, a lot of that expansion due to the UC rollout, but that's been fully rolled out now, unemployment at record lows. I suspect this department could have a haircut too. 

We shouldn't be touching the MoD at the moment of course, but the above are the two departments with the most 'bloat', although sounds like the passport office could do with a few transferees to clear the current backlog.

[TheGunnShow 6,016]

Would have thought we could use more police, firemen, border control guards...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Would have thought we could use more police, firemen, border control guards...

So of those, only border officers are civil servants.

My understanding is that it is civil servant jobs that Rishi and Boris were proposing to cut, and this is what I consider Liz Truss to be advocating when she calls for a "small state".

Police officers and Firemen are public servants, but are not civil servants, and neither are members of the armed forces or NHS employees. I don't believe anybody is advocating any cuts to those jobs.

Prison Officers are civil servants though (well, most of them, not the ones who work for G4S or Serco) and they could always do with greater numbers.

This will help you to distinguish:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/civil-service-staff-numbers

Edited July 21, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

Gosh, unlike the Labour Party where you apparently had to pay £3 to vote in an unelectable party leader the Tory party will do it to themselves for free.

That's a cost saving!

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Gosh, unlike the Labour Party where you apparently had to pay £3 to vote in an unelectable party leader the Tory party will do it to themselves for free.

That's a cost saving!

They all said that Boris Johnson was an unelectable charlatan.

He's definitely a charlatan, but he did get elected.

[Herman 9,829]

5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They all said that Boris Johnson was an unelectable charlatan.

He's definitely a charlatan, but he did get elected.

Nobody said Bozo was unelectable. Everyone knew he was gold dust and when he joined the leave campaign we knew winning the referendum got so much harder. 

[Herman 9,829]

Cutting civil service jobs is a small sticking plaster on the gaping wound that is the country's economy. It's going to do **** all to help matters and probably make things worse. Cameron cut civil service jobs to the bone and helped pave the way to the chronic mess we are in now.

The massive elephant in the room is brexit. Until you guys confront the mess that that has become, inevitably, tax cuts/job cuts are going to solve nothing. You still haven't come to terms with the fact that changing your trading arrangements so drastically is having an adverse effect on the economy. Until you admit that to yourselves then you are just emptying the sinking boat with a thimble.

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

6 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I

The DWP employs 96000 people, up from 86000, a lot of that expansion due to the UC rollout, but that's been fully rolled out now, unemployment at record lows. I suspect this department could have a haircut too. 

 

Universal Credit will not be fully rolled out until the end of 2024, these targets are usually missed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/managed-move-of-claimants-to-universal-credit-set-to-restart

As no one can give a date when the IT systems will be able to integrate I would imagine the manual work will still be required.

Future low unemployment isn't guaranteed.

 

  

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Cutting civil service jobs is a small sticking plaster on the gaping wound that is the country's economy. It's going to do **** all to help matters and probably make things worse. Cameron cut civil service jobs to the bone and helped pave the way to the chronic mess we are in now.

The massive elephant in the room is brexit. Until you guys confront the mess that that has become, inevitably, tax cuts/job cuts are going to solve nothing. You still haven't come to terms with the fact that changing your trading arrangements so drastically is having an adverse effect on the economy. Until you admit that to yourselves then you are just emptying the sinking boat with a thimble.

What will change regarding Brexit under Labour? 

[PurpleCanary 5,585]

8 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

What will change regarding Brexit under Labour? 

Initially a sensible deal to solve the minor problems that exist with the Northern Ireland protocol, as opposed to breaking international law by tearing the agreement up and precipitating a trade war with the EU. It needs to be borne in mind that a majority of people and pretty much the entire business community in NI like the protocol, and appreciate how it is helping their economy, and only want to see it adjusted a bit.

After that then there may be some changes at the margins, such as making it easier for musicians to perform on the continent, but the really significant steps towards getting back into a sensible economic relationship with the EU will take much longer, and will depend on UK election results beyond that of the next one.

Edited July 22, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Mr Apples 1,333]

Cutting the Civil Service is just yet more dog whistle, culture wars nonsense...an easy target to enrage the easily enraged. 🤔🤣

If the Civil Service is bloated, ineffective and ripe for reform so is the ridiculous Government it tries to support.

Apples

[Yellow Fever 3,838]

34 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Initially a sensible deal to solve the minor problems that exist with the Northern Ireland protocol, as opposed to breaking international law by tearing the agreement up and precipitating a trade war with the EU. It needs to be borne in mind that a majority of people and pretty much the entire business community in NI like the protocol, and appreciate how it is helping their economy, and only want to see it adjusted a bit.

After that then there may be some changes at the margins, such as making it easier for musicians to perform on the continent, but the really significant steps towards getting back into a sensible economic relationship with the EU will take much longer, and will depend on UK election results beyond that of the next one.

Exactly Purple.

At the moment the Tory strategy on the EU seems to be summed up by the phrase -

"Cutting off their noses to spite their face."

 

I suppose that could be Pinocchio's nose ala Johnson and his Brexity lies.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

15 hours ago, horsefly said:

Clearly you're on of those workshy shi*ts that Truss was referring to in her book. 

You are literally voting for the candidate who the majority of the ERG are supporting.

The ERG are effectively voting for her as the less unattractive option for them out of what's left. Most of them were behind Baddenoch. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,597]

22 hours ago, horsefly said:

You could simply read the readily available information. I have provided  a link that is well researched and genuinely balanced and critical of all sides, and relies on actual factual evidence in the case. To pretend that this is merely a matter of partisan opinion is not credible. Your claim that Labour killed Kelly is simply not borne out by any of the evidence.

Here is another extract from that link reporting on what the Radio 4 Today producer subsequently had to say about Gilligan's report:

"Gilligan had not been able to get confirmation from any other sources about the veracity of the claim.^[79] The producer of Today, Kevin Marsh, writes that Gilligan went off his pre-prepared script. With news based on an anonymous single source, the reports "have to be reported word perfectly" to be precise about the meaning;^[80] according to Marsh, "Gilligan had lost control of that precision".^[81] Downing Street had not been forewarned of the story, or been contacted to ask for a statement.^[79][82] At 7:32 am the government press office issued a statement to refute the story in the statement: "Not one word of the dossier was not entirely the work of the intelligence agencies".^[83] Gilligan then broadcast a report for the BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast programme in which he repeated the claim that the government had inserted the 45-minute claim into the dossier.^[84] Kelly did not recognise himself from Gilligan's description of a "senior official in charge of drawing up the document";^[85] Kelly had taken no part in drafting the document and had only been asked for comments on the contents."

Gilligan hadn't been able to get confirmation from other sources of the claim... well that rules out publishing claims from any whistleblower on anything unless they happen to be able to provide documentary proof of their claims, which is pretty dicey stuff for whistleblowers, especially when there's a record of whistleblowers being so summarily hung out to dry by government, as was the case with David Kelly. 

The way the Blair government dealt with the Gilligan and Kelly wouldn't have been out of place for the Trump administration: attack and discredit the source to deflect from dealing with the claims; this whole argument protecting Blair and Labour is an attack on all whistleblowers. 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

15 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You don't appear to understand how ignore lists work.

Besides, I've had a change of heart. It must be lonely being a socialist in this part of the world, I'll take pity on you instead and try and understand why you feel the need to become aggressive and lash out.

Have you ever considered moving to a sh*thole like Barnsley, or Merthyr Tydfil, to be around more of your type?

Hahaha! You couldn't make it up. The man who makes a massive fuss about blocking me doesn't understand the point of his own block. Not too bright!

As for aggression and lashing out. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts (I know reading isn't your thing, but perhaps you might find reading your own posts would stop you saying foolish things like this). It was you that started throwing abuse with accusations of misogyny, claims of point scoring, and throwing around lies about me supporting Sunak. I merely followed the tone that you set, so I suggest you attend to your own failings before you throw around false accusations.. If you can't handle someone responding in kind I suggest you don't start off with abuse, lies, and aggression in the first place. Perhaps you are better off sticking to irritating people on the football threads.

[sonyc 5,541]

Tax has been a big (biggest issue?) debating point for the Tory leadership candidates. I thought this exchange (link below...only 1 minute) is of interest because it places the whole point of a properly thought out progressive taxation system in central view.

I applaud it because as Mick Lyons states, it's as if the whole idea of taxation is abhorrent! It isn't. It ought to be about how this country sorts out its long term inequality problems, it's infrastructure issues. Tax is about providing opportunities for people, for skills acquisition, for brilliant public services e.g. child care, social care.

Why are there not more discussions on TV that explore the linkages? Why always a ridiculous race to the bottom? Why is there such a poor understanding of the benefits?

 

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Have you ever considered moving to a sh*thole like Barnsley, or Merthyr Tydfil, to be around more of your type?

Says the man whimpering about aggression and abuse, and who is so blind to his own behaviour that he said this in the sentence immediately prior to the above quote:

"I'll take pity on you instead and try and understand why you feel the need to become aggressive and lash out."

 

[horsefly 4,318]

16 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Have you ever considered moving to a sh*thole like Barnsley, or Merthyr Tydfil, to be around more of your type?

Says the man whimpering about aggression and abuse, and who is so blind to his own behaviour that he said this in the sentence immediately prior to the above quote:

"I'll take pity on you instead and try and understand why you feel the need to become aggressive and lash out."

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The ERG are effectively voting for her as the less unattractive option for them out of what's left. Most of them were behind Baddenoch. 

Indeed! So as I said, the ERG are supporting Truss.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

11 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Tax has been a big (biggest issue?) debating point for the Tory leadership candidates. I thought this exchange (link below...only 1 minute) is of interest because it places the whole point of a properly thought out progressive taxation system in central view.

 

 

But the NI increase isn't progressive taxation, its regressive taxation, and Liz Truss opposed it and has pledged to scrap it.