How is the Tory government doing?

Whitesince63 wrote:
Not surprisingly Troy, I disagree totally. I believe Lord Frost resigned precisely because he didn’t get the backing he needed from Boris, especially when some Civil Service cretin indicated that we may not push to remove the ECJ after all. I agree we had high expectations but they were certainly not unreasonable. Whether it’s due to the pandemic, or BoJo’s incompetence is debatable but certainly the potential benefits of Brexit have nowhere near been delivered. Sadly, I doubt under Johnson that they will and as a party member I will be pushing for his removal at the first opportunity. Leopards don’t change spots and why anybody expects Boris to change his ways is beyond me? Some people may be able to sit down and have a reset but I don’t believe Boris is one of them.

Has it ever occurred to you that "the potential benefits of Brexit haven't been delivered" because there are none?

The media are putting a range of spins on the Institute for Government's (which is a highly respected non-political organisation) report on the 2019 Tory Manifesto that was released today.

In essence the IfG has itemised the pledges made (e.g. leaving the EU was itemised into seven separate pledges although they are obviously interlinked) and then scored them against actual progress - or lack thereof - from "Completed" to "Abandoned" so if you want to see actual evidence of how the Government has performed against what it promised have a look at this.

They have achieved 55% of their promises but TBH it's all the low hanging fruit e.g. "maintain the Trident programme" and "Don't change the Hunting Laws" - which they achieved by doing nothing. Many of the other items "achieved" are "study a report" or "set up a new body" but where are the actual outcomes?

The big stuff is the problem.

Trade: they promised to replace 80% of the trade deals we had in the EU with new deals. (LOL)

Public Spending: They pledged that the national debt would be lower at the end of their tenure - currently it's 10% above the level they inherited. Bringing it back to around 85% of GDP will take generations.

Public Health: pledges to build 40 new hospitals, 50k new nurses, reducing health inequality, 6k more GPs, 6K more primary care professionals e.g. pharmacists, improve staff morale, 50 million more GP appointments p.a. reduced operation waiting times, improve A & E performance, increased cancer survival rates, extend life expectancy, make the NHS the best place in the world to give birth, clamp down on "health tourism", guarantee that no-one needing care has to sell their home to get it - every single one of these pledges is either "at risk" or "abandoned".

Defence: Raise the defence budget by 0.5% per annum - abandoned

Taxation: they promised there would be no rise in NI - then they raised it.

Energy: No rise in the energy cap - then they raised it so expect some hefty bills next year

Pensions: they promised to keep the triple lock - and then suspended it

Crime: They promised anyone charged with knife crime would appear in court within days not weeks (not happening) number of foreign nationals in our prisons would be reduced (it's increased) create 10k more prison places - just 206 so far.

Infrastructure: Build the Northern Powerhouse rail link (abandoned) roll out full fibre and gigabit capable broadband to every home and business in the UK by 2025 - also abandoned

The big promises in Education, Housing, R &D and environment are all "at risk" i.e. no progress.

I totally accept that times are hard, but the general conclusion is that the government "over-promised" in order to get elected and will not deliver on the main and most impactful promises.

As the IfG themselves concluded:

This report updates the IfG’s manifesto analysis from April 2021. Since then 19 more commitments have been completed, and work has now started on 23 promises which had yet to start in April. However, the number of pledges at risk has nearly doubled from 17 to 30, while work is yet to begin on a further 24.
The report also illustrates that more thought needs to be given to how manifesto pledges interact with each other. In 2019, the Conservatives promised to fix big problems facing the country – like reforming social care, improving digital and physical infrastructure, and delivering ‘world class’ public services – while also pledging not to raise the three main taxes or borrow to fund day-to-day spending. Their manifesto baked in contradictions which would have emerged regardless of the impact of coronavirus.

Make your own mind up....

wanderlust wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that "the potential benefits of Brexit haven't been delivered" because there are none?

That’s just a silly remark Lusty and you don’t really believe it I’m sure.

wanderlust wrote:The media are putting a range of spins on the Institute for Government's (which is a highly respected non-political organisation) report on the 2019 Tory Manifesto that was released today.

In essence the IfG has itemised the pledges made (e.g. leaving the EU was itemised into seven separate pledges although they are obviously interlinked) and then scored them against actual progress - or lack thereof - from "Completed" to "Abandoned" so if you want to see actual evidence of how the Government has performed against what it promised have a look at this.

They have achieved 55% of their promises but TBH it's all the low hanging fruit e.g. "maintain the Trident programme" and "Don't change the Hunting Laws" - which they achieved by doing nothing. Many of the other items "achieved" are "study a report" or "set up a new body" but where are the actual outcomes?

The big stuff is the problem.

Trade: they promised to replace 80% of the trade deals we had in the EU with new deals. (LOL)

Public Spending: They pledged that the national debt would be lower at the end of their tenure - currently it's 10% above the level they inherited. Bringing it back to around 85% of GDP will take generations.

Public Health: pledges to build 40 new hospitals, 50k new nurses, reducing health inequality, 6k more GPs, 6K more primary care professionals e.g. pharmacists, improve staff morale, 50 million more GP appointments p.a. reduced operation waiting times, improve A & E performance, increased cancer survival rates, extend life expectancy, make the NHS the best place in the world to give birth, clamp down on "health tourism", guarantee that no-one needing care has to sell their home to get it - every single one of these pledges is either "at risk" or "abandoned".

Defence: Raise the defence budget by 0.5% per annum - abandoned

Taxation: they promised there would be no rise in NI - then they raised it.

Energy: No rise in the energy cap - then they raised it so expect some hefty bills next year

Pensions: they promised to keep the triple lock - and then suspended it

Crime: They promised anyone charged with knife crime would appear in court within days not weeks (not happening) number of foreign nationals in our prisons would be reduced (it's increased) create 10k more prison places - just 206 so far.

Infrastructure: Build the Northern Powerhouse rail link (abandoned) roll out full fibre and gigabit capable broadband to every home and business in the UK by 2025 - also abandoned

The big promises in Education, Housing, R &D and environment are all "at risk" i.e. no progress.

I totally accept that times are hard, but the general conclusion is that the government "over-promised" in order to get elected and will not deliver on the main and most impactful promises.

As the IfG themselves concluded:

This report updates the IfG’s manifesto analysis from April 2021. Since then 19 more commitments have been completed, and work has now started on 23 promises which had yet to start in April. However, the number of pledges at risk has nearly doubled from 17 to 30, while work is yet to begin on a further 24.
The report also illustrates that more thought needs to be given to how manifesto pledges interact with each other. In 2019, the Conservatives promised to fix big problems facing the country – like reforming social care, improving digital and physical infrastructure, and delivering ‘world class’ public services – while also pledging not to raise the three main taxes or borrow to fund day-to-day spending. Their manifesto baked in contradictions which would have emerged regardless of the impact of coronavirus.

Make your own mind up....

They also failed to predict a Covid Pandemic or the fact they’d need to pay furlough to millions of workers, or contribute towards producing vaccines to counter it, or the many other continuing costs associated. You really do have a complete blind side when it comes to matters you don’t agree with lusty and it does you no credit.

Whitesince63 wrote:

They also failed to predict a Covid Pandemic or the fact they’d need to pay furlough to millions of workers, or contribute towards producing vaccines to counter it, or the many other continuing costs associated. You really do have a complete blind side when it comes to matters you don’t agree with lusty and it does you no credit.

White - the conclusion of the IfG was that the promises would have been undeliverable even if there had been no pandemic. Their conclusion not mine.

I just happen to agree with it.


As regards "benefits of Brexit" I genuinely believe there are none - maybe I do have a blind spot? - so perhaps you'd be kind enough to list them for me?

wanderlust wrote:As regards "benefits of Brexit" I genuinely believe there are none - maybe I do have a blind spot? - so perhaps you'd be kind enough to list them for me?

Well your first blind spot is that you are in complete denial that you actually voted FOR Brexit in the referendum!!!



https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23004-will-panic-buying-make-a-comeback#430153

Boris seems to be a sitting duck these days!

Posted at 17:32
Two hours of deliberations - but little in the way of answers

The PM had been urged to give clarity. The nation was waiting to hear if there would be more restrictions coming - and if so, what and when?

Boris Johnson and his cabinet had spent more than two hours deliberating. But what Johnson told us didn’t answer those questions.

On how serious things are, he said there were still “uncertainties” and “we should keep the data under review”.

On what possible action might come, he said: “We are looking at all kinds of things."

Could it still happen before Christmas? “We will rule nothing out,” he replied.

So this was a decision by the PM not to do more right now, despite the fact he said cases were “surging".

Was that because of doubts around the cabinet table? Or because the PM - as he pointed out - believes people are already adapting their behaviour and he wants more time to see if that’s enough to control the spread of Omicron?

Perhaps, but it perpetuates the uncertainty. And, as the scientists have said, delay has consequences in itself, because cases continue to rise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59724766

After two years of hesitating, Boris today said "the government won't hesitate to introduce further Covid rules ahead of Christmas if necessary".

It's so reassuring to have a leader who is so decisive about the things he hasn't decided.

He presumably has all the stats at his fingertips so he must be waiting on the results from the focus group.

wanderlust wrote:After two years of hesitating, Boris today said "the government won't hesitate to introduce further Covid rules ahead of Christmas if necessary".

It's so reassuring to have a leader who is so decisive about the things he hasn't decided.

He presumably has all the stats at his fingertips so he must be waiting on the results from the focus group.

Don’t you ever get fed up of being so negative about everything all the time Lusty? Try being an optimist for a change and you might actually find you enjoy it. Even the Wanderers might look up in January, so it is possible to build from the bottom and you never know, Boris might even be able to do the same?

Whitesince63 wrote:

Don’t you ever get fed up of being so negative about everything all the time Lusty? Try being an optimist for a change and you might actually find you enjoy it. Even the Wanderers might look up in January, so it is possible to build from the bottom and you never know, Boris might even be able to do the same?

If this government - and Boris in particular - ever showed me anything to be optimistic about I'd be dancing in the streets my friend.

It's just difficult to be optimistic when we have a self-aggrandising idiotic fop taking a pack of incompetent sheep to a convention of wolves.

wanderlust wrote:
If this government - and Boris in particular - ever showed me anything to be optimistic about I'd be dancing in the streets my friend.

It's just difficult to be optimistic when we have a self-aggrandising idiotic fop taking a pack of incompetent sheep to a convention of wolves.

Ha, I can agree that it is difficult to be optimistic about anything at the moment Lusty with so many things to feel down about but sometimes it just makes you feel better to not let them bother you and look for the silver linings, even when they themselves might be difficult to find.

Christmas is nearly upon us and at least this year we can spend it with friends and family but best of all, footy might be postponed and Wanderers won’t lose!!

Here's a new one - cops bust.....themselves!

Energy prices set to rise 50% next year.

Can't blame Boris for this - it's global and the media will blame the Russians for stockpiling gas and oil (as they every right to) as part of their political game.

But in reality we'll be paying for Thatcher's profligacy because if we still had control over North Sea production we wouldn't be dependent on others - and Thatcher handed out drilling rights to the Yanks and the private sector in general like they were sweeties, and instead of investing the North Sea boom profits into our energy infrastructure spent the money on votes.

Energy Voice on Thatcher's failure to re invest the windfall

Heseltine on Thatcher#s wastefulness

How North Sea oil shaped Britain's economy - from which this telling quote is taken:

"Then there was the ill-fated British National Oil Corporation (BNOC). Created by Benn in 1975 explicitly as a means to exert public control over oil and gas development, and to enable direct state participation in the monetary proceeds, BNOC just about managed to ‘annoy the American oil majors and their British partners but singularly failed to break their grip’. It was ultimately privatised in 1982, ‘as part of the government’s aim of reducing the role of the state across the entire spectrum of the British economy’. Since then, the upstream component of the UK oil and gas industry – exploration and production – has been ‘fully privatised’."


We once owned those vast energy resources - now we have to pay through the nose to get them.

wanderlust wrote:Energy prices set to rise 50% next year.

Can't blame Boris for this - it's global and the media will blame the Russians for stockpiling gas and oil (as they every right to) as part of their political game.

But in reality we'll be paying for Thatcher's profligacy because if we still had control over North Sea production we wouldn't be dependent on others - and Thatcher handed out drilling rights to the Yanks and the private sector in general like they were sweeties, and instead of investing the North Sea boom profits into our energy infrastructure spent the money on votes.

Energy Voice on Thatcher's failure to re invest the windfall

Heseltine on Thatcher#s wastefulness

How North Sea oil shaped Britain's economy - from which this telling quote is taken:

"Then there was the ill-fated British National Oil Corporation (BNOC). Created by Benn in 1975 explicitly as a means to exert public control over oil and gas development, and to enable direct state participation in the monetary proceeds, BNOC just about managed to ‘annoy the American oil majors and their British partners but singularly failed to break their grip’. It was ultimately privatised in 1982, ‘as part of the government’s aim of reducing the role of the state across the entire spectrum of the British economy’. Since then, the upstream component of the UK oil and gas industry – exploration and production – has been ‘fully privatised’."


We once owned those vast energy resources - now we have to pay through the nose to get them.

Like you Lusty, I’d have loved our NS Oil and Gas fields to have remained state owned as well as all our Utility providers but the government needed cash at that time and also a need to reduce the size of the state and allow private equity to fund the money required to invest.To be fair, successive governments have done well through taxes so taking a single point in time to make a judgement isn’t really logical.

Whitesince63 wrote:

Like you Lusty, I’d have loved our NS Oil and Gas fields to have remained state owned as well as all our Utility providers but the government needed cash at that time and also a need to reduce the size of the state and allow private equity to fund the money required to invest.To be fair, successive governments have done well through taxes so taking a single point in time to make a judgement isn’t really logical.

There were a few nationalised industries that weren't performing well - British Rail and British Steel for instance - but the private sector has hardly covered itself in glory has it? - so maybe we'd have been better off keeping them in-house and sorting them out ourselves - hindsight is a wonderful thing of course

I think the issue for me was that instead of investing the North Sea oil boom money to make the necessary improvements, investments and thereby secure our long term future, Thatcher squandered it (according to Heseltine who I agree with for once) on tax breaks and war.

And rather than "allow private equity to fund the money required to invest" what actually happened was that we sold off our national assets to organisations whose primary concern was their shareholders rather than the good of our country. We had the money to do it ourselves without them but Thatcher spent it on votes and popularity instead.

Some leadership speculation from the Mirror:

A Tory leadership contest is triggered when at least 15% of Conservative MPs send a letter of no-confidence to the 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady.
But only Sir Graham knows when the threshold is met, which is currently 54 MPs.
Mr Johnson will be under pressure over the next few months to shore up his authority as eyes turn to the next general election, with some speculation in Westminster that it could come as early as 2023.

(Liz Truss)
The first female Tory foreign secretary has become popular with the party faithful and is emerging as a contender in any future leadership battle.
A recent survey by Tory bible ConservativeHome put her on 23% to be the next party leader, with Rishi Sunak on 20%.
And a separate ConHome poll on the Cabinet gave her a +73.5 satisfaction rating, compared to Mr Sunak's +48.7. Mr Johnson languished on -33.8.

However a separate survey by Opinium said Ms Truss would lead the Tories to a 16-point defeat against Labour, while for Mr Sunak it narrowed to a three-point lead for Keir Starmer's party.

Outsiders- also thought to be putting their hat in the ring include Jeremy Hunt, Sajid Javid, Michael Gove, Pritti Patel, Raab and Hancock - but are given little chance.

Looks like the dilemma is that they don't like Boris but need him to do well in the polls.

Unless the roof caves in completely on Boris, which I don’t anticipate, there is no chance of a leadership election before the next election Lusty, unless of course Boris himself wishes to stand down. Either way I wouldn’t put money on any of those you’ve named as being next leader. My own preference would be Penny Mordaunt and I think she has the backing of a lot of Tory MP’s on the QT. She’s always impressed me but has kept out of the limelight, has a certain authority about her and the way she destroyed Angela Raynor in the HoC recently hasn’t gone unnoticed. Of course much could change before then but I wouldn’t count on Labour gaining much with Starmer in charge, I think in an election campaign both he and the weakness of those around them would be quickly identified. Labour still haven’t anywhere near repaired themselves from the Corbyn era and I doubt will with the party still widely split.

Whitesince63 wrote:Unless the roof caves in completely on Boris, which I don’t anticipate, there is no chance of a leadership election before the next election Lusty, unless of course Boris himself wishes to stand down.

I tend to agree - and Labour hasn't really gained any ground - it's more a case of Boris losing ground and the spoils being spread around.

Mordaunt divides public opinion especially after her "cock" speech, the PIP scandal, the reality TV embarrassment etc etc - but she is a gung-ho Brexiteer and has as much political ambition as the daft lad himself by all accounts.
Not sure how's she's playing to the voters though.
That said, Boris may well choose to stand down when the poo hits the fan.

wanderlust wrote:
I tend to agree - and Labour hasn't really gained any ground - it's more a case of Boris losing ground and the spoils being spread around.

Mordaunt divides public opinion especially after her "cock" speech, the PIP scandal, the reality TV embarrassment etc etc - but she is a gung-ho Brexiteer and has as much political ambition as the daft lad himself by all accounts.
Not sure how's she's playing to the voters though.
That said, Boris may well choose to stand down when the poo hits the fan.

I see Mordaunt as something of a Maggie option, not one of the front runners and not known by the public but someone who could come through and impress when needed. Of course I may be miles out and she may not even run at all but frankly I don’t think there will be a leadership election anyway so it’s probably irrelevant?