How is the Tory Shadow Government Doing?

Sluffy wrote:

Not you obviously....





Cleverly, who was the sanest of them all and who in any other normal party should have won, refuses to be associated with either of them...

That says it all really.

Cleverly rules out frontbench role under new Tory leader

Shadow home secretary James Cleverly has said he will not accept a frontbench role from the next leader of the Conservative Party, after they are unveiled on Saturday.

The winning candidate - Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick - is likely to carry out an immediate reshuffle of the Tory frontbench team.

But Cleverly has told the Financial Times (FT), external he will return to the backbenches rather than serve in either candidate's shadow cabinet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20dv560j2o

I think you’ve answered the point perfectly in your post Sluffy. If Badenoch’s intention is to renew the party, just stuffing the shadow cabinet with all the failures from the past wouldn’t seem to be the best route. You’re right the pool is smaller but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some bright hopefuls who could be promoted. 

Both Cleverley and Hunt have made it clear they want to step back and it will be interesting to see which of the other leadership hopefuls want a post in the new cabinet and even then it depends on what they’re offered. I can’t see Jenrick or Patel being given the Home or Foreign Office considering their previous actions nor Chancellor so they may prefer to abstain? 

It’ll be interesting to see who she picks though I suppose Tugendhat for defence minister might be appropriate and I’ve always thought Mel Stride seemed a genuine and reliable guy but I’m sure there will be some surprises when we hear who’s in and who’s out on Tuesday? She’s certainly got a big job on her hands because she’s got to identify and deal with the enemies within before turning on Labour.

Whitesince63 wrote:

karlypants wrote:

What are you being obnoxious for?

What’s obnoxious about thanking Sluffy for his guidance? ‍�

???

You wasn't though.


Anyway, you pleased with Badenoch then, seems she can't bring herself to admit Truss budget was a mistake but would repeal the new tax on private schools!

Told you she was bonkers

(or rather her politics is all for making it easier for the rich to get richer at the expense of the rest of us).

karlypants wrote:



This above...

I think you need to chill out Karly if you consider a bit of sarcasm obnoxious. I’d call obnoxious comments made by the likes of Dawn Butler this morning?

Whitesince63 wrote:I think you’ve answered the point perfectly in your post Sluffy. If Badenoch’s intention is to renew the party, just stuffing the shadow cabinet with all the failures from the past wouldn’t seem to be the best route. You’re right the pool is smaller but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some bright hopefuls who could be promoted. 

Both Cleverley and Hunt have made it clear they want to step back and it will be interesting to see which of the other leadership hopefuls want a post in the new cabinet and even then it depends on what they’re offered. I can’t see Jenrick or Patel being given the Home or Foreign Office considering their previous actions nor Chancellor so they may prefer to abstain? 

It’ll be interesting to see who she picks though I suppose Tugendhat for defence minister might be appropriate and I’ve always thought Mel Stride seemed a genuine and reliable guy but I’m sure there will be some surprises when we hear who’s in and who’s out on Tuesday? She’s certainly got a big job on her hands because she’s got to identify and deal with the enemies within before turning on Labour.

???

I'm not sure I have answered my own question perfectly - the point I was making is that she will give jobs to those that think like her which includes Jenrick and Patel and those with power and influence within the party like Gavin Williamson - so there will be a continuation of key personnel from May's time and on through Boris, Truss, Rishi and now on to Badenoch.

Yes there will be some names we've never heard from before added to her cabinet and no doubt a few personal scores settled by snubbing some who expected to be offered a position.

Cleverley obvious has no time for her (or Jenrick) and it might be the same for Tugendhat (although if he wants the top job in the future he needs to get a cabinet post (even a shadow one!) sooner than later.

Andrew (plebgate) Mitchell is currently the shadow Foreign Secretary - but with Cleverley and Hunt going she needs two big guns at least to fill the three top jobs in her cabinet.

Sluffy wrote:

???

You wasn't though.


Anyway, you pleased with Badenoch then, seems she can't bring herself to admit Truss budget was a mistake but would repeal the new tax on private schools!

Told you she was bonkers

(or rather her politics is all for making it easier for the rich to get richer at the expense of the rest of us).

Of course not Sluffy, I was being sarky rather than rude and insulting as you are replying to me.

I think everybody accepts Truss made mistakes with her budget, even Liz but it was done without taking time to think unlike Reeves who’s had years to think and still managed to cock it up. The negative effects won’t only be felt this winter with pensioners, care homes and hospices with ludicrous NI increase but for years when she realises that the savings she anticipated would come don’t and she’s back to the borrowing to pour down her own black holes like public services, the NHS and the trade unions. Things can only get worse and we have to suffer this for another four years so I wouldn’t sound so smug about Kemi’s plans if I were you.

Sluffy wrote:

???

I'm not sure I have answered my own question perfectly - the point I was making is that she will give jobs to those that think like her which includes Jenrick and Patel and those with power and influence within the party like Gavin Williamson - so there will be a continuation of key personnel from May's time and on through Boris, Truss, Rishi and now on to Badenoch.

Yes there will be some names we've never heard from before added to her cabinet and no doubt a few personal scores settled by snubbing some who expected to be offered a position.

Cleverley obvious has no time for her (or Jenrick) and it might be the same for Tugendhat (although if he wants the top job in the future he needs to get a cabinet post (even a shadow one!) sooner than later.

Andrew (plebgate) Mitchell is currently the shadow Foreign Secretary - but with Cleverley and Hunt going she needs two big guns at least to fill the three top jobs in her cabinet.

Thank you Sluffy for at least being able to reply sensibly to a discussion without the usual insults. I’m not sure I agree with you on who Kemi will choose but I suspect there won’t be the “big beasts” you expect. I reckon she’ll go for new names because they’ve got over 4 years in opposition, plenty of time to bring through new blood. We’ll see on Tuesday.

Whitesince63 wrote:Thank you Sluffy for at least being able to reply sensibly to a discussion without the usual insults. I’m not sure I agree with you on who Kemi will choose but I suspect there won’t be the “big beasts” you expect. I reckon she’ll go for new names because they’ve got over 4 years in opposition, plenty of time to bring through new blood. We’ll see on Tuesday.

Bad news for you I'm afraid 63, the government sits for five years - not four.

I don't take the internet seriously, so name calling and stuff really doesn't bother me until it really becomes personal - the only two people I've ever banned for good (excluding spammers) are one bloke who tried to hack into my personal life and Bob who accused me of being a stalker (and I believed he actually meant it too!) - I thought it was best we part waves from each other if he had those sorts of notions in his head.

I pretty sure Jenrick will be at the top table and I'd be surprised if Patel isn't back in somewhere - and lets be honest, there's so few Tory MP's now that they probably are now considered big beasts - Priti certainly was not so long ago.

And in respect of Reeves she did have a budget plan but as she says herself that went out of the window when she realised the mess left behind by the Conservatives AFTER the election.

I believe this to be a true and honest statement by her -

Reeves denied that raising employer NI had been considered by Labour before they came to power.

"No, this was not something that was on the agenda before the election," she said.

Asked if she had been wrong to say during the election that there would not be any extra taxes if Labour won, she replied: "What I was wrong about was the mess that the previous government had left for us," citing the £22bn black hole that Labour say the Tory party left them with.

Earlier on Sunday, in an interview with Sky News, Reeves had said "I was wrong on June 11, I didn't know everything" when she said during the election that higher taxes would not be needed.

The chancellor told the BBC the previous Conservative government cut NI contributions made by workers without the money to do so, but she had not reversed the move because it would be a "direct breach" of Labour's manifesto.

With the Budget raising taxes on things such as inherited land, private school fees and second homes, it was put to the chancellor that it had targeted people in certain social classes.

However, Reeves said it "wasn't an ideological Budget", and that money had to be raised to bolster public finances and ensure that services such as state schools and the NHS are "properly funded".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6l708vve7o

Also this makes no sense???

Whitesince63 wrote:The negative effects won’t only be felt this winter with pensioners, care homes and hospices with ludicrous NI increase but for years when she realises that the savings she anticipated would come don’t and she’s back to the borrowing to pour down her own black holes like public services, the NHS and the trade unions. Things can only get worse and we have to suffer this for another four years so I wouldn’t sound so smug about Kemi’s plans if I were you.

Trade Unions fund the Labour Party NOT the other way around?

As for the NI increase see my post above.

As for borrowing to pay for public services and the NHS, you do realise that is exactly what the Tory government was doing too?

What do you suggest as an alternative to funding the public services and the NHS - selling them off to private companies - because that is exactly what the right wing wants - to get their claws into them and to screw them for all they can get out of them - see Thames Water for instance!

Why is Thames Water in so much trouble?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66051555


Oh, and I nearly forgot...

Whitesince63 wrote: She’s certainly got a big job on her hands because she’s got to identify and deal with the enemies within before turning on Labour.

...made me laugh - what Trump says one day the right wing propaganda picks up on and uses it here!!!

How about instead of borrowing a government actually made savings. We all know that the NHS is hugely inefficient, even more so with all the increased number of administrators which increased massively under Covid but has never been reduced. The ridiculous and unnecessary EDI jobs created at huge salaries. The massive overspends by the defence department and the burgeoning civil service, many of whom sit at home “working.” You surely can’t be arguing that there aren’t huge inefficiencies in these organisations yet what are Labour doing? Creating even more public employees with their smash the gangs teams, mental health “experts” in every school. It’s pure madness and instead of increasing the size of the state we should be reducing it and if that means outsourcing to private companies who can do it better and cheaper then let’s do that. Add in the ridiculous amount of money being wasted on net zero projects and there are literally billions to save. Just borrowing more as Reeves inevitably will is only going to make things worse but if you think that’s ok then remember that you and all of us and our children will be paying for it for many years.

???

You do realise that ALL the growth you claim in public sector jobs over the last FOURTEEN YEARS occurred under a CONSERVATIVE government?

Why didn't they do anything about it if it all was so wasteful and unnecessary?

I didn't see ANYTHING about it in Liz Truss Mini Budget that crashed the economy (because it DIDN'T show how it was going to be funded) - wouldn't that have been the perfect time to make these cuts???

Be honest, all these unneeded jobs, all the administrators that suddenly joined the NHS during Covid, the so called massive overspending in the Defence Department, these ridiculous and unneeded EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) jobs, etc, etc - have you looked into the claims to see if they are true or not - you have simply once again just believed the shit you read and and it to be true -haven't you?

Lets now look at one or two of them shall we?

Ministry of Defence seeks £3.2bn as costs overrun in Yemen and Ukraine

Grant Shapps tells MPs his department’s spending exceeded its allocation in last year’s budget in light of unstable global situation.

Ministry of Defence seeks £3.2bn as costs overrun in Yemen and Ukraine

Grant Shapps tells MPs his department’s spending exceeded its allocation in last year’s budget in light of unstable global situation

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor
Thu 29 Feb 2024 19.48 GMT

The Ministry of Defence has said it had to seek an emergency cash payment of £3.2bn because operational costs overran after military operations in Yemen and the Red Sea – alongside Britain’s continued support of Ukraine.

Grant Shapps told MPs the MoD’s “cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided” in last year’s budget and that extra money would be required in an end-of-year supplementary estimate.

“Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £2.45bn and £750m of capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence,” Shapps said. The £3.2bn would be taken from backup funds until the emergency payment was received.

Whitehall officials said the cash advance was required because of the increased operational spending, reflecting the increasingly uncertain international picture, and that it was a routine request unrelated to any overspending.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/29/ministry-of-defence-costs-overrun-yemen-ukraine-grant-shapps


Your own Conservative government states that IT WAS NOT AN OVERSPEND, just the result of INCREASED OPERATIONAL SPENDING.

Let me simplify that for you - your boss (the Conservative government) gives you an extra job that THEY had not budgeted for (wars in Israel, Yemen and Ukraine) and you say we can't do it within the budget you have, and they tell you go ahead and they will find it from the company contingency funds.

So there was NO OVERSPEND at all but in fact it was unplanned/emergency work that needed to be done and had to be funded from elsewhere. - they didn't spend more that what they had (an overspend) they were asked to do more and given additional funds to do it with.

Of course the Tory government could have said no, we aren't helping to save the world but to their credit - led by Boris - they were amongst the first (if not in fact the first?) to do so - one of the only two things that Boris deserves credit for (the roll out of the Covid jabs being the other).



The NHS workforce in numbers

The following is from the Nuffield Trust, which if you haven't heard of it before is an independent body that is a research and development centre for the improvement of health care.

The report which I am referring to was published in February 2024
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-nhs-workforce-in-numbers

The NHS in England directly employs 1.7 million people (equivalent to 1.5 million full-time staff), with employee costs accounting for around two-thirds of NHS providers’ expenditure. 1 The NHS is the country’s biggest employer and one of the largest employers globally by headcount. 2 According to the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, the projected demand for staff by 2036/37, will be in the region of 2.3-2.4 million 3 and, if this is met, an estimated 1-in-11 of all workers in England will work for the NHS, compared to 1-in-17 now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Trust

4. How do staff numbers vary by staff group and setting?

The number of NHS staff in England has increased substantially since 2015, with over a quarter of a million (29%) more working in hospital and community health services in July 2023 compared to eight years prior. However, the increase has varied considerably between staff group and setting. In particular, the increase in doctors (28%) in hospital and community services has far outstripped that of nurses (20%). The differences within general practice are even more stark, with the number of GPs in training and of wider clinical workforce (excluding doctors and nurses) more than doubling while the number of fully qualified GPs fell.




The data shows that nearly every element of the NHS workforce has grown since 2015 reflecting the demand on services - Admin support services have grown in accordance with need unless you want the doctors and nurses booking all the patient appointments and referrals themselves and not seeing to the patients?

There is no question that the NHS is under strain and it is fair to say that in an organisation of that size there will be a certain amount of inefficiency - no organisation works perfectly.

Again the growth in the NHS has occurred under the Tory government - if there is this mythical huge savings to be found in NHS administration, then why did the Conservatives not find then and and do something about them?


Civil Servants 'working' from home

There has been a sea change in working patterns since Covid and the widely availability in technology in order to work from home.

I don't think civil servants are different from anybody else who works from home so the issue is how they are managed.

The following is from the Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review (HBR)[3][4] is a general management magazine[5] [6] published by Harvard Business Publishing, a not-for-profit, independent corporation that is an affiliate of Harvard Business School.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Business_Review

It is dated 2020 just as working from home really started, so no doubt there is now better practise out there to find but it gives you a taste of how to keep staff working from home actually 'working'!

https://hbr.org/2020/03/a-guide-to-managing-your-newly-remote-workers



I could go on but I think I make my point once again in that you swallow the 'fear' propaganda (because you want it to be true) and make zero attempt to check out if it is true or not, or even fair comment.

Does in never occur to you that nearly all of the things you have highlighted have occurred under a Conservative government and none of the things you claim Labour will be doing has happened and may not do?

Also if you want to privatise the NHS and all the other public services then what makes you think things will be better - look at Cameron and Greensill

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578838

or the train services -

Another incompetent profiteering train operator is brought back under public control

THE government’s rail privatisation fiasco hit the buffers again today as yet another failed, profiteering operator was dumped and its operations taken under public control.

TransPennine Express (TPE) pocketed millions of pounds in taxpayer subsidies even as it cancelled one in six of its timetabled services leaving thousands of frustrated passengers stuck on platforms.

Almost a quarter of Britain’s rail services are now back under public control after failing miserably in the hands of privateers.

TransPennine, which is owned by First Group and operates coast to coast in northern England, joins London North Eastern Railway, Northern, and Southeastern services under public control.

ScotRail and Transport for Wales are run by the Scottish and Welsh governments.

(I most point out this article is from the Morning Star - It went straight for the throat of course - but the facts it state are true and it was th first article that popped up on my Google search!)

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/another-incompetent-profiteering-train-operator-is-brought-back-under-public-control


‘Free money!’ Avanti West Coast bosses caught joking about UK government handouts

Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.

One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top.

The meeting was attended and partially addressed by Avanti’s directors, including its managing director, Andy Mellors, but it is understood he did not present the “free money” slides.

It concluded that, even with only partial compliance: “And here’s the fantastic thing! – if we achieve those figures, they pay us some more money – which is ours to keep – in the form of a performance-based fee!! Sound too good to be true?! Well on this occasion it isn’t – it’s the absolute truth!”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/free-money-avanti-west-coast-bosses-caught-joking-about-uk-government-handouts


or Thames Water were £2 billion was taken out of it by the owners that cannot now be recovered!

How Macquarie bank left Thames Water with extra £2bn debt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516


The world is moving towards a place where you might be ok if you are young fit and healthy but you are fucked if you are not.

As I keep saying - be careful what you wish for...

Trouble at the mill already it seems...

The BBC has also been told that Badenoch's leadership rival Robert Jenrick has been offered several roles in the shadow cabinet but is yet to accept one.

A Conservative source has said: "Kemi just doesn’t like Rob. She thinks his whole schtick about her and whether she has any policies has done her lasting damage with the Right and with Reform voters."

"This is only likely to further unravel," the source added.

There has been what was described as a "back and forth" over a number of positions which, publicly at least, remain vacant, including shadow secretary jobs in the health, work and pensions, justice and housing departments.

Sources close to Badenoch do not dispute that conversations are ongoing with Jenrick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9n304z0x7o

Priti Patel back as shadow foreign secretary as I expected but no sign of Braverman (I wonder how she would fit in - if at all?)  I assume she's biding her time until the next election?

Stride is shadow chancellor - I was wondering who would go there - didn't expect him there though - I assume finance and the economy isn't such a big thing for the next few years for the Conservatives - and there will be a few re-shuffles between now and then and they appoint a Truss mini budget theorist again?

I suspect Jenrick wanted shadow home secretary but Badenoch clearly doesn't want him so high profile in her her cabinet and rather he has a shitty job that he can cock-up and lose credibility doing perhaps?

It's always quite fun politics - if you know what the rules are - and I've told you all them enough plenty times on here!

BBC saying Jenrick is going to be shadow justice secretary - if so a smart move he's wangled there, as he can be high profile on the Tory party's favourite topic - law and order - hammering Labour on it, without the need to offer any alternatives being this far out to the next elections.

Wonder who is going to be shadow Home Secretary - the big three jobs are usually sorted out first - Braverman is the last big beast remaining but I'm not sure if she's in the game or sitting it out like Cleverly?

Something as definitely not gone to plan here.

Sluffy, on your earlier diatribe on my saving money comments, where did I say I was pleased with the Tory’s during their long period in office? We haven’t had a “Conservative” government since Maggie stepped down so you won’t find me giving them any plaudits or excuses for the money they’ve wasted and allowed public services to decline. Hopefully the next Tory government will act on these measures although who knows what will be left at the time of the next election following this bunch of shysters.

As for Kemi’s choices, I did say I didn’t expect your “big beasts” to receive the top jobs and so it seems with only Pritti getting the Foreign Office, a job I think she’ll do well. I’m pleased to see Mel Stride as Chancellor where I believe he’ll do well. No chance of Suella getting a job and I suspect the Home Office appointment may be a big surprise. I think so far she’s appointed well and by tomorrow should have a decent looking shadow cabinet then onwards to expose Labour for the imposters to a government that they are

It wasn't a diatribe, I was merely giving proof that nearly everything you claimed had no truth to it.

Yet you still want to believe it to be that way and still close your eyes and ears to the facts.

As for your statement that there has been no 'Conservative' government since Thatcher, then you clearly don't understand how politics work.

It isn't what colours you wear, it's about positioning yourself to get the most votes to win power / stay in power thereafter.

Maybe in 5 years time the country will be ready for the more extreme right wing 'Conservatism' you believe in - but at the moment that is Remain territory - and you claimed previously that you would never vote for them.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'my' big beasts, none of them are - I don't have any?

You were talking about a break from the past and I predicted that I couldn't see that happening totally and that the likes of Patel (and Jenrick) would be in line for one of the three big offices of state - Patel clearly being a 'big beast' of long standing and first elected under Cameron and served in office from Theresa May onwards

Patel is in the Truss, Kwarteng. Rabb gang - dating back to at least 2010.

Along with fellow Conservative MPs Kwasi Kwarteng, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Liz Truss, Patel was considered one of the "Class of 2010" who represented the party's "new Right".[32] Together, they co-authored Britannia Unchained, a book published in 2012

So a clean break from the past government of 14 years (which you don't believe to have been Tory enough for your liking) is clearly impossible as such. Patel appointment signals a direct continuation of it, on fact - Truss, Rabb, Patel being the first generation in the 2010's, Badenoch, Braverman, being the second generation in the late 2010's/early 2020's and the third generation their disciples elected this year (if any?).

(Notably the other 4 of the gang of 5, have all left politics - Kwarteng, Rabb, and Skidmore voluntarily and Truss kicked out by her own constituents at the last election).

As for the shadow Home Secretary post it has got to be someone already high-ranking in the Tory Party who has already served in a senior level ministerial post - the post carries seniority within the Conservatives pecking order of importance.

If Braverman isn't in the game then possibly Victoria Atkins although she also has been around a long while.

Who knows but there was definitely a plan this morning of who goes in which job and clearly something went out the window somewhere!

Are you still standing by all this?

Whitesince63 wrote:I think you’ve answered the point perfectly in your post Sluffy. If Badenoch’s intention is to renew the party, just stuffing the shadow cabinet with all the failures from the past wouldn’t seem to be the best route. You’re right the pool is smaller but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some bright hopefuls who could be promoted. 

Both Cleverley and Hunt have made it clear they want to step back and it will be interesting to see which of the other leadership hopefuls want a post in the new cabinet and even then it depends on what they’re offered. I can’t see Jenrick or Patel being given the Home or Foreign Office considering their previous actions nor Chancellor so they may prefer to abstain? 

It’ll be interesting to see who she picks though I suppose Tugendhat for defence minister might be appropriate and I’ve always thought Mel Stride seemed a genuine and reliable guy but I’m sure there will be some surprises when we hear who’s in and who’s out on Tuesday? She’s certainly got a big job on her hands because she’s got to identify and deal with the enemies within before turning on Labour.

Dame Priti is a long-standing and pretty well-known senior Conservative who has served in government at the highest level as home secretary.

But she is also someone who found herself prematurely out of government back in 2017 after it emerged, extraordinarily, that she had run a freelance foreign policy operation while on holiday in Israel.

One senior Conservative got in touch with me to claim that Badenoch, in appointing Patel, had "destroyed within 48 hours any chance she had of having a respectable foreign policy”.

Ouch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy1vg400k5o


Badenoch’s shadow cabinet leans heavily on those who supported her leadership campaign.

Of the line-up, 15 backed her, five did not declare for either of the final two, and just three backed Jenrick, including Jenrick himself.

Some Conservatives are already noting that it is strikingly similar to a line-up Sunak could have selected.

Nine of the new shadow cabinet have been at the real cabinet table - perhaps unsurprising for a party which has just been ejected from government but nevertheless a sign that Badenoch has not opted for a radically fresh team.

One senior Conservative told the BBC: "For a party that just had a right vs right leadership contest the almost total absence of the right will not help."

They warned that right-wing Conservative MPs, who mostly backed Jenrick’s campaign, are now more likely to agitate against Badenoch’s leadership.

Tom Tugendhat, who came fourth, is not listed as a member of Badenoch's top team.

The Liberal Democrats branded the appointments a "cabinet of contradictions" and "a recipe for yet more Conservative chaos".

The party's Cabinet Office spokeswoman Sarah Olney said: "How can they claim to be able to hold this new government to account when they have just as many disagreements with each other?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgv7pj4vd2o

Ah well I did try but some people just can’t help being completely beyond saving! ‍

Whitesince63 wrote:Ah well I did try but some people just can’t help being completely beyond saving! ‍

Not everyone has their head up their arse unlike yourself mate.

Whitesince63 wrote:Ah well I did try but some people just can’t help being completely beyond saving! ‍

If you mean me, then I've only told you what I believed was likely to happen (based on seeing these things first hand through my career in the public sector) and because I know the two rules of politics.

I'm not claiming I was spot on, I don't follow politics that avidly, but I knew enough that there could not be a clean break from the past simply because certain politicians have built up their own power bases over the years - and don't give up their power easily (see the second rule of politics!).

Look at the Labour Party after Corbyn for instance.

Corbyn was unelectable and so to were his Corbynite followers, so Starmer could not rid himself of them completely when first elected Labour leader hence why people like Long-Bailey (Corbyn's intended heir) was appointed to his first shadow cabinet.

Later on he tried very hard to rid himself of Rayner but could not when she faced him down...

Starmer faces backlash over sacking of Angela Rayner after election losses
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/09/starmer-faces-backlash-over-sacking-of-angela-rayner-after-election-losses

It is all a game if only you could grasp that.

Ok a game that effects all our lives but nevertheless it has players, and rules, and an end goal.

Badenoch if you will has a 3 year pass to build up her profile and bring the Conservatives together - her biggest problem is how to deal with the far right in her party that is moving towards Reform and how to differentiate herself and the party from them.

If she can't then the right wing will end up joining Reform (or visa-versa) and she will end up with a ungovernable party to control.

She would be wise too, to reign in her confrontational manner if she really wants to unite the party and her treatment of Jenrick yesterday would not have helped her in uniting the party at all.

How bitter and stupid of her was that?

Not a good start was it?

Treasury 'may have broken law' ahead of March Budget

The Treasury "may have broken the law" by failing to disclose a £9.5bn overspend in the run up to the previous government's Budget, a select committee chair has said.

Meg Hillier, chair of the Treasury committee, made the comment after hearing evidence from the boss of the UK's official spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), on Tuesday.

Richard Hughes, chair of the OBR, told the committee of MPs that "under the law" the overspend "should have been disclosed" to the forecaster.

The 9.5bn overspend formed the basis of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claim in the run-up to her first Budget last week that the Conservatives left Labour with a £22bn "hole" in the public finances.

Last week the OBR said the last government "did not provide" them with all available information at former chancellor Jeremy Hunt's last budget in March, prompting a further political row over the true state of the public finances Labour inherited in July.

Asked by the committee how a £9.5bn shortfall could have happened, the OBR's Mr Hughes said "the system very clearly broke down", but insisted "that kind of failure will not happen again" because of processes put in place since.

The OBR works closely with the Treasury. Its role is to assess the government's tax and spending plans and produce reports on whether the chancellors' plans are sound. Its judgements and forecasts are closely watched by financial markets to determine if the UK's economic plans are credible.

Pushed on whether the Treasury broke the law over not disclosing an overspend, Mr Hughes said there may "have been a misunderstanding of how the law ought to be interpreted"

"There is no doubt in our minds that had that information been provided we would have had a materially different judgement," he added.

He said it "was a question for the Treasury to ask: why was information available within the Treasury and not provided to us?"

Full article here -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9xjw4rw10o

ZZzzzzz 🥱