When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Lost property]

On the subject of book deals, presumably Cameron was the reverse and paid a publisher to print his...

"Dave's Big Book of Achievements "

Chap 1. Myself and my best chum George came up with a wizzo plan to cause misery for those revolting little poor people. We called this, "the age of austerity" and it worked jolly well "

Chap 2. Showed by outstanding, if i say so myself, leadership by fearlessly capitulating to the E.R.G and Farage by having a referendum to leave the EU which I always knew would never happen..

Chaps 3-21 inc headed " Blank "

 

[Falcon1200]

Chap 1. Myself and my best chum George came up with a wizzo plan to cause misery for those revolting little poor people. We called this, "the age of austerity" and it worked jolly well "

Would the introduction not perhaps say 'We won the General Election but on checking the nation's till found a note from the previous administration saying 'Sorry, there's no money left', and had to deal with the resulting consequences' ?

 

[Yew]

Would the introduction not perhaps say 'We won the General Election but on checking the nation's till found a note from the previous administration saying 'Sorry, there's no money left', and had to deal with the resulting consequences' ?

Unfortunately, due to our lack of knowledge of nation-scale macroeconomics, we took this obvious joke at face value; leading to the a policy of austerity causing the slowest growth in the developed world.

 

[Typhoon]

On the subject of book deals, presumably Cameron was the reverse and paid a publisher to print his...

"Dave's Big Book of Achievements "

Chap 1. Myself and my best chum George came up with a wizzo plan to cause misery for those revolting little poor people. We called this, "the age of austerity" and it worked jolly well "

Chap 2. Showed by outstanding, if i say so myself, leadership by fearlessly capitulating to the E.R.G and Farage by having a referendum to leave the EU which I always knew would never happen..

Chaps 3-21 inc headed " Blank "

I thought chapter 3 was How I shafted Clegg and the LibDems?

He got 'up to' £800,000, It is currently available on ebay for just over £3 (signed copy £22), probably less in your local discount bookshop. He lacked the impact of Blair and Thatcher in the same way that Brown did. Johnson will be different - some people may buy it just so that they can point out the deviations from accepted reality. I wonder whether Cummings is going to come up with something in time for Christmas, that would be interesting!

Would the introduction not perhaps say 'We won the General Election but on checking the nation's till found a note from the previous administration saying 'Sorry, there's no money left', and had to deal with the resulting consequences' ?

If Sunak doesn't get the top job, he may be leaving something rather similar.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately, due to our lack of knowledge of nation-scale macroeconomics, we took this obvious joke at face value; leading to the a policy of austerity causing the slowest growth in the developed world.

Was it that same referred-to lack of knowledge of national-scale macroeconomics that was seen through immediatly by the economic-minded advisors in the incoming Government as a matter in need of attention. Remember it was the policies of the previous Government that decided the electorate that a change was needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2022 ==

I wonder whether Cummings is going to come up with something in time for Christmas, that would be interesting!

"Barnard Castle....My recollections" could be a title of that book.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"Dave's Big Book of Achievements "

Chap 1. Myself and my best chum George came up with a wizzo plan to cause misery for those revolting little poor people. We called this, "the age of austerity" and it worked jolly well "

Ah yes. Because smearing the other lot by falsely making out that they had some kind of horrible evil motive, and thereby presenting the people you disagree with as if they are horrible monsters, is just so funny isn't it! Hilarious. And repeatedly using these kinds of smears isn't remotely damaging to democracy or to a tolerant society where people respect different viewpoints, is it...

 

[Gloster]

"Barnard Castle....My recollections" could be a title of that book.

“I can see clearly now”.

 

[Typhoon]

"Barnard Castle....My recollections" could be a title of that book.

Sorry, with Cummings I suspect it will be a revenge best served cold. 'The Rise and Fall of Boris Johnson (and Carrie) - and my part in it' sounds more likely. (Dom: if you are reading this and use the title, a donation of a couple of tenners [or more] to an inner city foodbank will cover it. Whoever gets the job*, they are going to need it.)

* - and not just in the short term - most of this decade, I reckon.

“I can see clearly now”.

Now that made me laugh!

 

[Lost property]

Ah yes. Because smearing the other lot by falsely making out that they had some kind of horrible evil motive, and thereby presenting the people you disagree with as if they are horrible monsters, is just so funny isn't it! Hilarious. And repeatedly using these kinds of smears isn't remotely damaging to democracy or to a tolerant society where people respect different viewpoints, is it...

Well quite, I was convulsed with laughter when the austerity plan began to affect people I know, and one in particular, so you'll understand, or probably not as you seem to be supportive of their policies, when I say you understate their status by referring to them as "horrible monsters "....and I don't have one iota of respect for Cameron and the current Tory party (in brand name only)

 

[43096]

If Sunak doesn't get the top job, he may be leaving something rather similar.

He won’t as he’s not a minister.

 

[jfollows]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rishi-sunak-liz-truss-uk-politics-latest-live) reporting on Priti Patel, which only makes me happier that she's not standing in the leadership race.

Essentially she was supposed to be giving evidence (aka "being grilled") at the Home Affairs Select Committee today.

She couldn't be bothered to turn up - her excuse was because of "recent changes in government" and "wider unprecedented changes".

She got pretty well blasted by the committee chair (Dame Diane Johnson) who pointed out that Priti Patel didn't resign last week because she said it was important to stay in office.

Priti Patel said she'd turn up for the meeting in September.

Diane Johnson said she expected Priti Patel to turn up next week instead, rather than postpone to September.

I find Priti Patel to be full of her own self-importance, for which she was sacked by Theresa May, and unpleasant to work with, for which she was not sacked by Boris Johnson. But at least she's not going to be the next PM and I hope she's not given a job in the new government of any sort.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2022 ==

Number Ten is refusing to allow a Labour motion of no confidence in the government tomorrow.
Conventionally, they should allow this.
I don't think there's any chance of the government losing the vote, but they don't want the embarrassment of forcing their MPs to vote for Boris and his government, in which they clearly no longer have confidence, and Labour wants to see them squirm.
I predict, though, that Number Ten will climb down on this and as a result it will look worse for the government than if they'd just gone along with it in the first place. Same old story?

I was wrong, but it turns out that the Conservative party has tabled its own motion of no confidence in itself!

 

[Busaholic]

Visitors to Zahawi's website were being redirected to Morduant's earlier, apparently!!

Got to be Zawahi, Bedenoch and Hunt as the first three removed, unless 'spare' Sunak votes go to the latter at this stage to keep him in the contest.

 

[Yew]

Was it that same referred-to lack of knowledge of national-scale macroeconomics that was seen through immediatly by the economic-minded advisors in the incoming Government as a matter in need of attention. Remember it was the policies of the previous Government that decided the electorate that a change was needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2022 ==

Who were deceived by the preposterous idea that somehow national finances are the equivalent of a household budget.

Of course, the Tories were acting in good faith and certainly would never use it as an excuse to sell off national assets at below the market rate to their mates.

 

[Strathclyder]

I find Priti Patel to be full of her own self-importance, for which she was sacked by Theresa May, and unpleasant to work with, for which she was not sacked by Boris Johnson. But at least she's not going to be the next PM and I hope she's not given a job in the new government of any sort.

She shouldn't be allowed to run a popsicle stand, let alone a major part of government. Nothing but a bullying, despotic narcissist who has repeatedly shown her true colours, yet hasn't been booted out as she would've been in most other governments. Heck, given the other characters in Johnson's gallion of goons and ghouls (sorry, cabinet), those are actually key requirements for the job.

 

[JamesT]

Well quite, I was convulsed with laughter when the austerity plan began to affect people I know, and one in particular, so you'll understand, or probably not as you seem to be supportive of their policies, when I say you understate their status by referring to them as "horrible monsters "....and I don't have one iota of respect for Cameron and the current Tory party (in brand name only)

Though as all the mainstream parties were offering austerity in the 2010 election, they're presumably all monsters? (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/el...rats-pledge-10bn-a-year-of-spending-cuts.html )

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course, the Tories were acting in good faith and certainly would never use it as an excuse to sell off national assets at below the market rate to their mates.

The mention of Conservative Party "mates" makes me wonder who are the Labour Party "mates".

 

[Lost property]

Though as all the mainstream parties were offering austerity in the 2010 election, they're presumably all monsters? (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/el...rats-pledge-10bn-a-year-of-spending-cuts.html )

I take it your weren't affected by the DWP's over zealous implementation of the austerity policies then ?....or missed Teresa May's solemn assurance about the " age of austerity " being over....when it's far from over and has been exacerbated by this Gov't...ceasing the £20 pw on UC because it was "only temporary " for example ....now that, for me, is just pure malice.

 

[DarloRich]

me wonder who are the Labour Party "mates".

decent working people trying to live a good life? Certainly not millionaires, billionaires, Russians and little Ponsonby from the lower 5th.

She couldn't be bothered to turn up - her excuse was because of "recent changes in government" and "wider unprecedented changes".

whereas the truth is she didn't want to be roasted, again, at a time when she hopes to be a power broker.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Decent working people trying to live a good life? Certainly not millionaires, billionaires, Russians and little Ponsonby from the lower 5th.

So all Labour Party "mates" are fully qualified for sainthood, then. How on earth did Robert Maxwell get under their radar?

 

[DarloRich]

So all Labour Party "mates" are fully qualified for sainthood, then. How on earth did Robert Maxwell get under their radar?

Unsure - but his ultimate level of corruption clearly marked him out for a ministerial role in the Tory party

 

[DynamicSpirit]

this Gov't...ceasing the £20 pw on UC because it was "only temporary " for example ....now that, for me, is just pure malice.

Well the fact is, the £20 UC boost was always going to be temporary response to Covid - it was never either intended or advertised as being anything but temporary. There was no obligation on the Government to do the boost at all, but they chose to do so to help people out while Covid was stopping so many people from working. If you think it was malice for the Government to give a temporary boost and then end the boost when the temporary conditions for which they gave the boost no longer hold, then it seems to me you have a pretty strange definition of malice.

Imagine - say - we're friends and I agree to help you out in some way - perhaps let you borrow some tools, or let you use my parking space or something - for 6 months - with this time limit understood upfront. Is it malicious of me, when the end of the 6 months arrives, for me to say, 'I need my tools/parking space/whatever back now'?

(To be clear, I'm not trying to minimise that life can be pretty tough if you're relying on UC, or that doubtless that £20 boost was massively helpful to many people. I'm taking issue with your claim that allowing the boost to lapse - as was always intended - is somehow malicious).

 

[DarloRich]

Imagine - say - we're friends and I agree to help you out in some way - perhaps let you borrow some tools, or let you use my parking space or something - for 6 months. Then is it malicious of me, when the end of the 6 months arrives, for me to say, 'I need my tools/parking space/whatever back now'?

The standard Tory approach - you know that £20 pw boost you lazy, scrounging, fraudulent, workshy scum have enjoyed spending on mobile phones, booze, fags and flat screen TV's? - well we want it back to give to our rich chums.

The truth is for many people that £20 has been a godsend and has helped improve thier lives. I know when I was on benefits that an extra £20 would go a long way in buying better food ( and on some really hard weeks SOME food), heating my home, meaning I could have the lights on longer, drive to job interviews rather than try to get a warrant for public transport and, god forbid, mean I might think ( think mind you) about buying a pint of beer in a pub like a real man.

I do wish people, especially Tories, actually understood what life on benefits is really like. They are very quick to comment, especially on things they know nothing about and especially when thier favoured rag has told them what to think. Have you ever claimed benefits? It isn't like the picture the Mail presents!

A sensible, pragmatic Tory party would have found a way to ensure that a the £20 uplift became part of the benefits payment long term. In red wall areas in particular this would have reduced the backsliding to Labour that we are seeing.

 

[Yew]

The mention of Conservative Party "mates" makes me wonder who are the Labour Party "mates".

I don’t see how that is relevant to the topic?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The standard Tory approach - you know that £20 pw boost you lazy, scrounging, fraudulent, workshy scum have enjoyed spending on mobile phones, booze, fags and flat screen TV's? - well we want it back to give to our rich chums.

Women are usually those who buy the weekly food shop and whilst watching the number of bingo adverts (the Sun Bingo one in particular), women seem the main target where the money that could be spent on food is frittered away on bingo games.

Are the Conservatives the only people with chums whereas the Labour Party associates have to content themselves with sainthood?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2022 ==

I don’t see how that is relevant to the topic?

Just a simple question hoping for a simple answer.

 

[DarloRich]

Women are usually those who buy the weekly food shop and whilst watching the number of bingo adverts (the Sun Bingo one in particular), women seem the main target where the money that could be spent on food is frittered away on bingo games.

eh? what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

eh? what on earth are you talking about?

The deliberate targetting of women in bingo adverts.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well quite, I was convulsed with laughter when the austerity plan began to affect people I know, and one in particular, so you'll understand, or probably not as you seem to be supportive of their policies, when I say you understate their status by referring to them as "horrible monsters "....and I don't have one iota of respect for Cameron and the current Tory party (in brand name only)

I don't know the circumstances of the person you refer to, and I'm sorry to hear if that person was impacted badly by austerity. I might however understand more than you think - I also knew people who were affected by austerity. In fact I myself was affected, not so much by austerity but by other policies of the Cameron/Clegg administration. But the difference is - I don't presume malice: I understand that the Government has to make all sorts of compromises in order to run the country: It's simply impossible to make everyone's life trouble-free, and equally pretty much impossible for the Government to do anything significant without it adversely affecting someone. And that's particularly true if you're in a situation like that of 2010 where, as a whole, the UK had been living beyond its means and something needed to be done to fix it - which (again) is pretty much impossible without standards of living suffering. Regrettably, we're in much the same situation today, although because of different causes.

You seem to think it's malicious not to increase benefits - but the trouble is: One person's benefit increase is another person's tax increase in order to pay for the benefit and that in itself can cause hardship. So what's the Government supposed to do? For that reason, I don't presume people are monsters just because, in their honest attempts to balance all the competing interests involved in maintaining the economy/etc. their policies cause some people to lose out.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't presume people are monsters just because, in their honest attempts to balance all the competing interests involved in maintaining the economy/etc. their policies cause some people to lose out.

I don't presume they are evil or monsters. Stupid and ignorant yes, but not evil. I simply don't think senior Tories, especially the likes of Mogg or Johnson or Sunak or Zahawi have any idea what the real world is like. I doubt they have ever wondered where the next meal was coming from or how they were going to keep the lights on.

I think that makes it easy to make statements and decisions about benefits when they have never needed them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't presume they are evil or monsters. Stupid and ignorant yes, but not evil.

It is excellent postings such as this that give a more respected adult understanding of other political parties rather than the "year 9" puerile postings that show a need for adult understanding.

 

[nw1]

Of the points you list, only 9 is something that I would class as an out and out success. The rest are a mixed bag, at best. And wrt point #2, you have to balance that with the disastrous illegal policy of releasing people directly into care homes which is responsible for tens of thousands of extra deaths.

Regarding @DynamicSpirit's points:

It also depends on what you define by "success". If "success" is implementing the promises you made at election, then I suppose you could call Brexit a "success". If you don't believe Brexit is a good idea, especially the Johnson version, then it's quite the opposite.

But to my mind Brexit is only a "success" in the same way that reintroducing the death penalty, or banning abortion, or raising the gay age of consent back up to 21 again, would be a "success" if they were promised in a manifesto and later implemented.

Also a lot of the points relate to Covid which were essentially crisis fire-fighting rather than a validation of the policies of Johnson, and presumably another leader would have acted similarly.

Fair points about HS2 and green issues, but again, would another leader, be it May, Cameron, Starmer or Miliband, have not done the same?

I'd really like to see more recognition from the candidates that those of us with progressive politics exist. Sadly there are too many right-wingers: too many of the candidates (albeit not all of them) are either hardline economic conservatives, Brexiters, or both.