Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

I don't think I was suggesting it was unique to GenX and older millennials, but a lot of enthusiasm and activism for left wing causes in that group particularly was wasted on naive and self-defeating support for Corbyn and some very unhealthy outdated attitudes to Europe. Younger age groups are either just now getting into the politically-active or interested stage of their lives and remain to be judged, or are still in the naive Socialist Worker phase of their late teens and early twenties.

Ah ok - thanks for clarifying that.

He may well do, but a lot of those who get their news and information from Twitter don’t. One gullible fool who believes the simplistic claim is one potential extra voter.

I doubt many Birmingham seats will flip Tory (as large cities tend not to), though perhaps there will be more Tory holds than expected in the more conservative parts of the West Midlands outside Birmingham city itself. What concerns me more is if Birmingham City Council sees Tory gains next year (possibly contra to the general trends) the Tories will jump on that and get a psychological boost, which may mean a better performance than expected in the next election, assuming it does not take place at the same time as the council elections.

I would still be amazed if they are the largest party - though I can see the West Midlands trending more Tory than other parts of the country as, for whatever reason, it seems to be the part of the country which has shifted most disproportionately to the right in the past 10 years or so.

 

[jon0844]

Legislation to ban posession of nitrous oxide - bad idea. Something else in the "populist" vein - the reality is that it will drive use underground and not have any impact on its use, and the police will not be pursuing the criminality other than as an adjunct to something they're doing already.
And isn't the Conservative party meant to be about individual liberty anyway, there are many significantly more harmful drugs which are not illegal but they're picking on this one because it's used by young people (non-voters or voters for other parties) and might appeal to old people (who think anyone under the age of 18 is a trouble-maker).

I haven't seen the little (or big) canisters or broken/discarded balloons for ages now - like most of this year. I assume vaping has taken over, as people are puffing away on them almost at the same pace as standard breathing! Plenty of discarded disposable vapes, which is absolutely something the Government should care about.

 

[ainsworth74]

No they sacrificed that on the altar of using covid as a excuse to destroy basic freedoms

That might have caused the mask (sorry ) to slip but in my opinion the Tory party has been about individual liberty for very select groups of people but rigid control for the majority.

Plenty of discarded disposable vapes, which is absolutely something the Government should care about.

But that might suggest an interest in governing rather than the appearance of governing? I was listening to a podcast recently, might have been the Campbell/Stewart one, but it was noted that in recent years in particular the Government appears to have become far more about the appearance of the thing. A press release will be issued saying "We will do x about y problem to deliver on the people's priorities". They get all the positive media from their friends in the press but then "x" (whatever it might be) never happens, there is hardly any attempt to deliver it, and it is eventually quietly shelved whilst whatever problem it was intended to fix persists.

There are obviously exceptions to the above. The Government clearly is trying to do something about small boats and immigration. Though even here how many bills have we had now about migration over the past few years? Does anyone feel that these various bills are getting to grip with the problem? Makes for good headlines in the friendly papers though...

 

[jon0844]

They have spent years saying they'll do things they never do, and I include any plans to go after banks because Nigel Farage had a strop.

For now, they'll be in full-on cash grab mode to get another opportunity to make huge profits issuing dodgy contracts to friends and family to rebuild schools. The public will demand quick action, so no time for proper tendering or due diligence. This is PPE all over again!

Let's face it, the way the Tories are destroying the country means there's surely NO WAY ON EARTH they want to remain in power*. Their actions are of someone ripping out all the furniture from a property they're about to be evicted from.

If by some miracle they won, what would they do then?

* Okay, some of the more moderate/sensible party members might - but they've done precious little to stand up to the recent additions to the party that have made it lurch so far to the right and get them where they are now.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That might have caused the mask (sorry ) to slip but in my opinion the Tory party has been about individual liberty for very select groups of people but rigid control for the majority.

I don't think that's the case. From what I've seen, most people in the Tory party do very firmly and very genuinely believe in individual liberty for everyone. The problem is that different people have very different ideas of what 'liberty' (or equivalently, 'freedom') means:

• For some people, liberty means, the freedom to drive your car anywhere you want. For other people, it means, the freedom to breathe clean air or to walk/cycle without worrying about heavy traffic.
• For some people, liberty means being able to travel/live anywhere in Europe without worrying about paperwork. For others, it means, the freedom to live in a stable community and easily rent/buy a house where you grew up without discovering that's next to impossible because loads of outsiders have bought up every property.
• For some people, liberty means, being able to block roads and stop others going about their day-to-day lives in the name of freedom of protest. For other people, liberty means - umm - being able to go about your day-to-day lives without having protesters stopping you.
• For some people, liberty means, not having security cameras etc. videoing you whenever you're out. For others, liberty means being able to go out without getting mugged because those security cameras deterred the muggers.

There are so many ways to interpret 'freedom', especially when one person's freedom to do X stops another person doing Y. That's why in particular the LibDems and the Tories can look at the same issue from opposite sides and both completely genuinely believe that they are the ones defending freedom while the other party seeks to destroy freedom.

 

[edwin_m]

For others, it means, the freedom to live in a stable community and easily rent/buy a house where you grew up without discovering that's next to impossible because loads of outsiders have bought up every property.

Didn't realise the Tories were that hard on second home owners.

 

[jfollows]

There are so many ways to interpret 'freedom', especially when one person's freedom to do X stops another person doing Y. That's why in particular the LibDems and the Tories can look at the same issue from opposite sides and both completely genuinely believe that they are the ones defending freedom while the other party seeks to destroy freedom.

You are right.
However, I will add to that my view, the John Stuart Mill one:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

I completely accept that this is idealistic and unrealistic in full application. But it definitely accords with my view on nitrous oxide, and why I do not support its proposed illegality, and which I don't believe the Conservative party should either.

 

[nw1]

Didn't realise the Tories were that hard on second home owners.

Indeed, that's the hypocrisy.

From what I can make out on Tory policy: you're free to move into "someone else's" community and push the house prices up, as long as you're not a foreigner. And it wouldn't surprise me if wealthy southeasterners 'colonising' (ironic sense to underline the point, not trying to be critical or offensive) the Cotswolds, the southwest, Wales, and so on have done more to push the house prices up than foreigners moving into said areas.

(For avoidance of doubt - I don't support restrictions on movement in either case, neither southeasterners moving to other parts of the country nor EU citizens moving to the UK. Just highlighting the inconsistency).

 

[Cross City]

I don't think that's the case. From what I've seen, most people in the Tory party do very firmly and very genuinely believe in individual liberty for everyone. The problem is that different people have very different ideas of what 'liberty' (or equivalently, 'freedom') means:

• For some people, liberty means, the freedom to drive your car anywhere you want. For other people, it means, the freedom to breathe clean air or to walk/cycle without worrying about heavy traffic.
• For some people, liberty means being able to travel/live anywhere in Europe without worrying about paperwork. For others, it means, the freedom to live in a stable community and easily rent/buy a house where you grew up without discovering that's next to impossible because loads of outsiders have bought up every property.
• For some people, liberty means, being able to block roads and stop others going about their day-to-day lives in the name of freedom of protest. For other people, liberty means - umm - being able to go about your day-to-day lives without having protesters stopping you.
• For some people, liberty means, not having security cameras etc. videoing you whenever you're out. For others, liberty means being able to go out without getting mugged because those security cameras deterred the muggers.

There are so many ways to interpret 'freedom', especially when one person's freedom to do X stops another person doing Y. That's why in particular the LibDems and the Tories can look at the same issue from opposite sides and both completely genuinely believe that they are the ones defending freedom while the other party seeks to destroy freedom.

None of that is personal liberty.

Personal liberty in a conservative (small c) right wing sense is small government. The government not deciding who can/cannot go where, not putting restrictions on protesting, etc. Ie, being able to choose what you do and do not do without government intervention.

The fewer laws, restrictions, etc the better. The exact opposite of what the Conservative party have become in the last 13 years.

 

[nw1]

None of that is personal liberty.

Personal liberty in a conservative (small c) right wing sense is small government. The government not deciding who can/cannot go where, not putting restrictions on protesting, etc. Ie, being able to choose what you do and do not do without government intervention.

The fewer laws, restrictions, etc the better. The exact opposite of what the Conservative party have become in the last 13 years.

I would agree with that, "personal liberty" fundamentally means the freedom to live your life as you see fit, as long as you do not do anything generally regarded as universally 'bad' (murder, rape, theft, fraud, violence, arson, etc).

Pure libertarianism, for example (accepting that such pure libertarianism is unrealistic) would state that anyone from any country has the right to live in any other country. Anyone has the right to non-violently protest against any issue, even if that does cause disruption as a side effect. More controversially (and I am not saying I agree with this) in pure libertarianism, anyone would have the right to say whatever they like, even if it offends people.

 

[birchesgreen]

None of that is personal liberty.

Personal liberty in a conservative (small c) right wing sense is small government. The government not deciding who can/cannot go where, not putting restrictions on protesting, etc. Ie, being able to choose what you do and do not do without government intervention.

The fewer laws, restrictions, etc the better. The exact opposite of what the Conservative party have become in the last 13 years.

I wouldn't say they've "become" that way recently, they've always been like that as long as i can remember.

 

[Cross City]

I wouldn't say they've "become" that way recently, they've always been like that as long as i can remember.

I'm only in my mid 30s and so this is the only Tory government I remember and they've gotten a lot worse in that time, particularly since Brexit. At least Cameron was somewhat competent even if I didn't agree with a lot of their policy at the time.

 

[nw1]

I think in all these cases, there is clearly one POV which is the libertarian one. In all cases, one of the options - not necessarily the one I agree with - is clearly about personal liberty which to me involves minimising the power of the state to legislate against your chosen lifestyle - which may, or may not, be a bad thing depending on your opinion on that issue.

I don't think that's the case. From what I've seen, most people in the Tory party do very firmly and very genuinely believe in individual liberty for everyone. The problem is that different people have very different ideas of what 'liberty' (or equivalently, 'freedom') means:

• For some people, liberty means, the freedom to drive your car anywhere you want. For other people, it means, the freedom to breathe clean air or to walk/cycle without worrying about heavy traffic.

For me the former is the 'libertarian' POV though I actually subscribe to the latter in this case because I consider minimising pollution and improving pedestrian and cyclist safety an important enough reason to implement some degree of legislation.

• For some people, liberty means being able to travel/live anywhere in Europe without worrying about paperwork. For others, it means, the freedom to live in a stable community and easily rent/buy a house where you grew up without discovering that's next to impossible because loads of outsiders have bought up every property.

For me the former is the libertarian POV, and also the POV I subscribe to - the rationale for the restrictions is outweighed by the large loss of liberty that the restrictions cause.

• For some people, liberty means, being able to block roads and stop others going about their day-to-day lives in the name of freedom of protest. For other people, liberty means - umm - being able to go about your day-to-day lives without having protesters stopping you.

Worded in a bit of an anti-protest fashion! Again for me the former is the libertarian POV and what I subscribe to - the rationale for the restrictions is outweighed by the large loss of liberty that the restrictions cause.

• For some people, liberty means, not having security cameras etc. videoing you whenever you're out. For others, liberty means being able to go out without getting mugged because those security cameras deterred the muggers.

For me the former is clearly the libertarian POV once again. I am something on the fence with this one, security cameras are good for preventing violent crime but only if they are used solely for this purpose.

 

[Gloster]

I don't think that's the case. From what I've seen, most people in the Tory party do very firmly and very genuinely believe in individual liberty for everyone. The problem is that different people have very different ideas of what 'liberty' (or equivalently, 'freedom') means:

• For some people, liberty means, the freedom to drive your car anywhere you want. For other people, it means, the freedom to breathe clean air or to walk/cycle without worrying about heavy traffic.
• For some people, liberty means being able to travel/live anywhere in Europe without worrying about paperwork. For others, it means, the freedom to live in a stable community and easily rent/buy a house where you grew up without discovering that's next to impossible because loads of outsiders have bought up every property.
• For some people, liberty means, being able to block roads and stop others going about their day-to-day lives in the name of freedom of protest. For other people, liberty means - umm - being able to go about your day-to-day lives without having protesters stopping you.
• For some people, liberty means, not having security cameras etc. videoing you whenever you're out. For others, liberty means being able to go out without getting mugged because those security cameras deterred the muggers.

There are so many ways to interpret 'freedom', especially when one person's freedom to do X stops another person doing Y. That's why in particular the LibDems and the Tories can look at the same issue from opposite sides and both completely genuinely believe that they are the ones defending freedom while the other party seeks to destroy freedom.

All true, and you might be surprised about the extent that I agree, but my opinion is that people are increasingly demanding exactly their interpretation of freedom and personal liberty, with absolutely no allowances for what others want. To take your first example: too many want absolute freedom to drive their polluting gas-guzzlers where, when and how they want with absolute no restrictions to improve the environment of those who live where they want to drive. And of course there will be some who want the most draconian restrictions imposed in order to improve their environment, with no concern for any problems this may cause for drivers. There is no give-and-take and allowing a bit of tolerance for others wishes. (Anything to do with cars is going to be an extreme example: the freedom to drive has become so entrenched in society that it is seen as a basic right, and not just by the Right.)

It is my opinion that the Conservatives, and most other right-wing parties, have become increasingly intolerant of any other view. They have their opinion as to how things should be regulated and they will force what they want on the rest of us: it is not so much a case of ‘whether we like it or not‘, but a case of ‘they like it’ and that is justification enough. In a way we are moving back towards a semi-feudal system. And, yes, I accept that there are those on the left who have similarly dogmatic attitudes, but I feel that there are fewer who take it so far.

 

[Purple Train]

All true, and you might be surprised about the extent that I agree, but my opinion is that people are increasingly demanding exactly their interpretation of freedom and personal liberty, with absolutely no allowances for what others want. To take your first example: too many want absolute freedom to drive their polluting gas-guzzlers where, when and how they want with absolute no restrictions to improve the environment of those who live where they want to drive. And of course there will be some who want the most draconian restrictions imposed in order to improve their environment, with no concern for any problems this may cause for drivers. There is no give-and-take and allowing a bit of tolerance for others wishes. (Anything to do with cars is going to be an extreme example: the freedom to drive has become so entrenched in society that it is seen as a basic right, and not just by the Right.)

It is my opinion that the Conservatives, and most other right-wing parties, have become increasingly intolerant of any other view. They have their opinion as to how things should be regulated and they will force what they want on the rest of us: it is not so much a case of ‘whether we like it or not‘, but a case of ‘they like it’ and that is justification enough. In a way we are moving back towards a semi-feudal system. And, yes, I accept that there are those on the left who have similarly dogmatic attitudes, but I feel that there are fewer who take it so far.

Agreed.

 

[The Ham]

It appears that our ever competent government may have messed up:

New law may block aid being spent on asylum seekers in UK, says watchdog

The Home Office is warned it may be blocked from using the foreign aid budget to house some asylum seekers.

www.bbc.com

New law may block aid being spent on asylum seekers in UK, says watchdog​

Ministers could be blocked from spending billions of pounds of foreign aid on housing asylum seekers in the UK by the government's own new immigration law, an independent watchdog says.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact says the Illegal Migration Act means those arriving in small boats are no longer deemed to be asylum seekers.
Therefore they are no longer eligible for Overseas Development Assistance.
In 2022, the Home Office spent £2.4bn of the foreign aid budget.
The money largely went towards paying for hotels for asylum seekers.
Under international rules, governments can spend foreign aid in their own countries on humanitarian support for refugees and asylum seekers.
The Home Office, if it fully implements its Illegal Migration Act, may therefore have to find money for accommodation from other budgets, while the Foreign Office may have billions more to spend in developing countries.
Responding to the report, the Home Office said its assessment of the impact on overseas aid was ongoing.
"The Illegal Migration Act will mean that people who come to the UK illegally will not have a right to stay," a government spokesperson said.
"Instead they will be liable to be returned either to their home country or relocated to a safe third country, breaking the business model of people smugglers and stopping the unprecedented strain on our asylum system."

• £4bn UK foreign aid spent in Britain, experts say
• How many people cross the Channel in small boats?
• How is the UK stopping Channel crossings?

Chairwoman of the Commons International Development Committee and Labour MP, Sarah Champion, said the government had scored a "spectacular own goal".
"Spending billions of our greatly reduced foreign aid budget in the UK - the bulk of it on hotels for the tens of thousands of people awaiting an asylum decision in a horribly backlogged system - was always counter-productive.
"Spending in this manner was against the spirit of the ODA [Overseas Development Assistance] rules and now it seems with the Illegal Migration Act, the government has made its policy in breach of those same rules."
She said the aid budget should now be spent on "tackling the reasons people flee their homes, not deal with the consequences".
Dr Tamsyn Barton, the watchdog's chief commissioner, said: "Our analysis of the aid rules suggests that the Illegal Migration Act, if fully implemented, could close off the main source of funding the government is using to house asylum seekers."
She added that using the aid budget on hotel costs for asylum seekers rather than supporting people in their home countries was "inequitable as well as inefficient".

Making further cuts to the aid budget isn't going to go down very well, given the current reduced percentage rate only every supposed to be temporary.

Trying to find £2.5bn from police budgets also isn't going to go down well.

Make more cuts to local council budgets and the list of councils like Birmingham and Woking who are in trouble will only get longer (and probably quite quickly).

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think I was suggesting it was unique to GenX and older millennials, but a lot of enthusiasm and activism for left wing causes in that group particularly was wasted on naive and self-defeating support for Corbyn and some very unhealthy outdated attitudes to Europe. Younger age groups are either just now getting into the politically-active or interested stage of their lives and remain to be judged, or are still in the naive Socialist Worker phase of their late teens and early twenties.

It doesn't help that the EU itself has become over embroiled in right wing market orthodoxy.

 

[takno]

It doesn't help that the EU itself has become over embroiled in right wing market orthodoxy.

It's not ideal, and I think it's disturbing how few people recognised Merkel and Tusk as an absolute cancer which acted against the future of Europe and against effective democracy in their own countries. Perhaps we can settle on saying that the 2010s were an unacknowledged grim period across politics.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not ideal, and I think it's disturbing how few people recognised Merkel and Tusk as an absolute cancer which acted against the future of Europe and against effective democracy in their own countries. Perhaps we can settle on saying that the 2010s were an unacknowledged grim period across politics.

They certainly didn't help matters. The 2020's aren't shaping up to be much better at the moment.

 

[nw1]

It doesn't help that the EU itself has become over embroiled in right wing market orthodoxy.

True, but so has the UK since 1979, and to a greater extent. And in voting for Brexit, people were voting for something more right-wing than the EU.

Better arguably the soft-right EU than the harder-right Tory Government which no longer has to abide by EU laws, some of which were, by UK standards, really quite left-of-centre.

This is why I think "Lexiters" were extraordinarily naive. The UK will never become a Marxist utopia, which some of them seemed to think it would outside of the EU. It was only ever going to become a more right-wing nation than it was, with Tory ideology able to dominate the country unbridled by EU moderating influence.

 

[Peterthegreat]

True, but so has the UK since 1979, and to a greater extend. And in voting for Brexit, people were voting for something more right-wing than the EU.

Better arguably the soft-right EU than the harder-right Tory Government which no longer has to abide by EU laws, some of which were, by UK standards, really quite left-of-centre.

This is why I think "Lexiters" were extraordinarily naive. The UK will never become a Marxist utopia, which some of them seemed to think it would outside of the EU. It was only ever going to become a more right-wing nation than it was, with Tory ideology able to dominate the country unbridled by EU moderating influence.

Totally agree, especially with your last point. I really can't fathom how "Lexiteers" thought a Brexit driven by the likes of Farage, Rees-Mogg et al would help them achieve their goals (whatever they were).

 

[Falcon1200]

unbridled by EU moderating influence.

That's an interesting point, because it seems to me that the EU has its share of right wing, if not even fascistic, parties, doing well in countries such as Italy, France, Holland, Hungary, and even, despite its history, Germany; Not really a moderating influence?

 

[nw1]

They certainly didn't help matters. The 2020's aren't shaping up to be much better at the moment.

I think it's plain that the 2020s are considerably worse than the 2010s, and, perhaps, any other decade after the 1940s, with the caveat that I wasn't alive in the 50s and 60s, too young to remember the politics, world events, and significant domestic events of the 70s, and still in childhood or teenage years in the 80s.

What have we had so far? In approximate chronological order: Brexit (bad for some of us, at least); Covid; lockdown; a severe economic downturn; rising prices; the Russian invasion of Ukraine; the NHS falling apart (and to add to that, the railways falling apart too); and in the UK, an incompetent government obsessed with culture wars and little else.

A decade without a single good thing going for it, IMO. And I don't think it's just usual mid-life cynicism on my part - it seems to objectively be a particularly unpleasant decade. It seems likely the entire first half will be negative, so the second half will need to be extraordinarily positive to prevent this decade perhaps being the worst since the 1940s (though obviously nothing like as bad as that decade, of course).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2023 ==

That's an interesting point, because it seems to me that the EU has its share of right wing, if not even fascistic, parties, doing well in countries such as Italy, France, Holland, Hungary, and even, despite its history, Germany; Not really a moderating influence?

But the EU itself (as in the organisation and the parliament) is not dominated by such parties. They are very much fringe groups.

And it's quite telling that even Meloni and the like are not interested in leaving the EU!

 

[JamesT]

Totally agree, especially with your last point. I really can't fathom how "Lexiteers" thought a Brexit driven by the likes of Farage, Rees-Mogg et al would help them achieve their goals (whatever they were).

Conservative governments don’t last forever, so they were awaiting their chance the next time Labour gets in.
Lexit is quite happy with a hard Brexit. Their objections are to the free market side of the EU. For example free movement allowing workers to be undercut. Free trade preventing tariffs to protect native industries. Rules around competition that make it harder to nationalise industries.
It very much can be argued these things are possible within the EU, but the Lexit position was that leaving was necessary.

 

[nw1]

Make more cuts to local council budgets and the list of councils like Birmingham and Woking who are in trouble will only get longer (and probably quite quickly).

So how can Hands use Birmingham council to say Labour can't govern when the Tory government are responsible for the budget cuts?

The Minister of (mis)Information, indeed.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Conservative governments don’t last forever, so they were awaiting their chance the next time Labour gets in.
Lexit is quite happy with a hard Brexit. Their objections are to the free market side of the EU. For example free movement allowing workers to be undercut. Free trade preventing tariffs to protect native industries. Rules around competition that make it harder to nationalise industries.
It very much can be argued these things are possible within the EU, but the Lexit position was that leaving was necessary.

Conservative governments don't last forever - however with a perceived left-wing labour party as a replacement they will last for longer. Even if a leftish labour party were to govern they wouldn't last forever either - probably replaced by an even more right-wing Tory party.

 

[Gloster]

The BBC has just reported that Pincher has ‘made arrangements to resign and leave the commons’. No details as yet or any idea when he will actually go, but presumably he won’t do a Dorries.

 

[jfollows]

The BBC has just reported that Pincher has ‘made arrangements to resign and leave the commons’. No details as yet or any idea when he will actually go, but presumably he won’t do a Dorries.

Yes, he appealed against his Commons suspension for 8 weeks and lost, so the recall process would be invoked and probably have forced a by-election anyway, so he decided to short-circuit the process and leave now. At least it saves a lot of pointless paperwork, time and processes.
The Guardian hypothesises the by-election might get scheduled for 19 October alongside mid-Bedfordshire which is already scheduled for that date.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...asmus-conservatives-labour-uk-politics-latest

In his statement Pincher says:

I have said already that I will not stand at the next general election.
However, following the independent expert panel’s decision I wanted to talk to my office team and family.
I do not want my constituents to be put to further uncertainty, and so in consequence I have made arrangements to resign and leave the Commons.
Tamworth is a wonderful place and it has been an honour to represent its people.
I shall make no further comment at this time.

 

[yorksrob]

True, but so has the UK since 1979, and to a greater extent. And in voting for Brexit, people were voting for something more right-wing than the EU.

Better arguably the soft-right EU than the harder-right Tory Government which no longer has to abide by EU laws, some of which were, by UK standards, really quite left-of-centre.

This is why I think "Lexiters" were extraordinarily naive. The UK will never become a Marxist utopia, which some of them seemed to think it would outside of the EU. It was only ever going to become a more right-wing nation than it was, with Tory ideology able to dominate the country unbridled by EU moderating influence.

Indeed. This was the ultimate reality.

It's worth noting the innovative fare deals for public transport, compared to what our "free sovereign" state seems to be able to achieve (or not as the case may be).

 

[Gloster]

Grant Shapps said on LBC that the country’s aircraft carriers are ‘the largest carriers that the RAF has ever had’. Ummm…aircraft carriers are ships and the Royal Navy operates at sea. Still, our submarines fly higher than ever before.