Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

Yes, but which council is next after Birmingham?

(Graphic from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...run-birmingham-city-council-michael-gove-says shows the total debt as a multiple of core spending power for councils, with Thurrock - already issued a section 114 notice - at >10 times followed by Warrington - which hasn't (yet) issued such a notice at >9 times.)
And how much of the cause for this is from central Conservative government and its policies since 2010? Or are the councils in trouble the ones who didn't think things through and ended up in a mess? Certainly the government would like everyone to think this. The truth somewhere in the middle I tend to think.

 

[Busaholic]

From the BBC:

Emergency measures to help run Birmingham City Council during its financial crisis have been announced by the government.

Michael Gove told the Commons that senior leadership figures in Birmingham had "harmed the city".

"Poor leadership, weak governance, woeful mismanagement of employee relations and ineffective service delivery have harmed the city," Mr Gove told Parliament.

Hang on a minute, is this not the Pot Calling the Kettle Black….?

Government sending in officials to run Birmingham City Council

Michael Gove accuses the city council of "woeful mismanagement" amid its financial crisis.

www.bbc.co.uk

Funny that. Mayor Andy Street, a Conservative, is putting Birmingham's woes almost exclusively down to the Equal Pay settlement judicially ordered in which the political composition of the council played no part, though the Tories had more councillors than Labour at times over the last decade and a half and ran the City Council in coalition with the Lib Dems for a period. Gove is spouting party political rubbish, the cowed BBC won't dare to fact check and GB News/Talk TV will stoke it for all they're worth in the knowledge that they have virtually free rein to continue propagating their right wing nonsense.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And how much of the cause for this is from central Conservative government and its policies since 2010? Or at the councils in trouble the ones who didn't think things through and ended up in a mess? Certainly the government would like everyone to think this. The truth somewhere in the middle I tend to think.

I think you would be correct that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Certainly the cuts in funding combined with ever increasing demands councils' statutory duties is not helping.

At a first guess, it seems reasonable to assume that Government policies may be responsible for the mass of councils to the left of the graph in your post - since those appear to represent large numbers of councils that have been equally affected and it's not very plausible that they have all been terribly badly managed. But it's also reasonable to guess that something has gone particularly wrong with the outliers to the right of the graph - say, everything to the right of Birmingham, so I'd inclined to ask whether those councils have made exceptionally bad decisions. It would take individual knowledge of each council's circumstances to say more though.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, but which council is next after Birmingham?
View attachment 143148
(Graphic from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...run-birmingham-city-council-michael-gove-says shows the total debt as a multiple of core spending power for councils, with Thurrock - already issued a section 114 notice - at >10 times followed by Warrington - which hasn't (yet) issued such a notice at >9 times.)
And how much of the cause for this is from central Conservative government and its policies since 2010? Or at the councils in trouble the ones who didn't think things through and ended up in a mess? Certainly the government would like everyone to think this. The truth somewhere in the middle I tend to think.

There was some policies, and bit of divestiture of using funds for investments to provide an ongoing return. However it seems some broke basic rule of spreading risk, and as old phrase says, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Got caught out when there was major downturn in a sector they had put far too much money into. Not sure if it was greed or stupidity

 

[Purple Train]

There was some policies, and bit of divestiture of using funds for investments to provide an ongoing return. However it seems some broke basic rule of spreading risk, and as old phrase says, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Got caught out when there was major downturn in a sector they had put far too much money into. Not sure if it was greed or stupidity

Sounds fairly similar to Slough, then.

 

[nw1]

From the BBC:

Emergency measures to help run Birmingham City Council during its financial crisis have been announced by the government.

Michael Gove told the Commons that senior leadership figures in Birmingham had "harmed the city".

"Poor leadership, weak governance, woeful mismanagement of employee relations and ineffective service delivery have harmed the city," Mr Gove told Parliament.

Hang on a minute, is this not the Pot Calling the Kettle Black….?

Government sending in officials to run Birmingham City Council

Michael Gove accuses the city council of "woeful mismanagement" amid its financial crisis.

www.bbc.co.uk

I've always found Michael Gove a particularly sanctimonious figure. In my opinion, I suspect he is saying this for party political reasons (doubtless to put out the message that electing Labour will cause the same thing to happen to the country as a whole).

I'd also tend to agree the truth is in the middle, but if it is in the middle, the Government have really got no right to moralise about it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I've always found Michael Gove a particularly sanctimonious figure. In my opinion, I suspect he is saying this for party political reasons (doubtless to put out the message that electing Labour will cause the same thing to happen to the country as a whole).

I'd also tend to agree the truth is in the middle, but if it is in the middle, the Government have really got no right to moralise about it.

Gove is a weasel

 

[Gloster]

Gove is a weasel

Take that back, sir! Us weasels most strongly object to being compared to a Gove.

 

[jfollows]

Gove is one of the few clever people in the cabinet, most of them are only interested in advancing their careers and doing what they're told. Gove tends to do what he believes in, even if that's at variance with career enhancement. I don't mean to say that I agree with him, and he's probably the most dangerous person in government at the moment for anyone who doesn't.

Rishi is in a complete mess today. I assumed that his speech today had simply been leaked in advance like they always are, but apparently this time it wasn't done deliberately, it was a real leak. So now he seems to have a number of problems, including

• splitting the party MPs, remember Owen Patterson, a bit like that - the MPs who went along with the party line because they were told to, not because they believed it, and now find that it's been unravelled
• other MPs who believe in what had been "promised" before will be very unhappy
• appealing to people who would mainly vote Conservative anyway
• giving the appearance of a U-turn because he's not capable of implementing what he'd previously said
• ensuring that more people realise that a government "commitment" is simply hot air, just like for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, these people "announce" things for short-term gain and rescind them at leisure

Nothing surprising in any of that, I should add, it's just good to see all the badness happening at once.

 

[Wynd]

Gove is not to be trusted. Anyone who deingrates their own people and history, to appeal to supposed betters, should be kept at arms lenghth.

Rishi has incensed a large part of the manufacturing induistry today, becasuse fundamentally, he is weak and clueless. And compromised.

 

[jfollows]

It's also possible there could be legal challenges to any government plan changes related to climate change: if people took their original statements as true ones and to be believed in then businesses will have made investments since then to ensure their compliance with the promised regulations which, if now changed, may make the expenditure on compliance unnecessary or inappropriate.
It certainly seems that the Conservatives are very much no longer the "party of business" although I'd argue that this stopped being the case in 2016 following the referendum and the business-unfriendly way in which the party acted to enable our leaving the EU.

 

[Yew]

It certainly seems that the Conservatives are very much no longer the "party of business" .

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Party's primary aim is to put as much of our money into their donors pockets as possible; and if that means torpedoing the long-term prosperity of our nation, then so be it.

 

[SynthD]

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Party's primary aim is to put as much of our money into their donors pockets as possible; and if that means torpedoing the long-term prosperity of our nation, then so be it.

The only addition to that is pensioner voters. Those people can push back and say no to changes like today, which are leading towards funding continuing the triple lock.

 

[yorksrob]

With regard to the policy changes on climate change, I've yet to see why the incremental costs associated with climate change policy are such a terrible thing for the economy, whilst simultaneously adding hundreds of pounds to peoples monthly housing costs is apparently a wonderful thing for the economy.

It's not surprising that so many of the Establishment became established in the 1960's as one would have to be on mind bending drugs to make sense of it all

 

[Wynd]

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Party's primary aim is to put as much of our money into their donors pockets as possible; and if that means torpedoing the long-term prosperity of our nation, then so be it.

Bingo.

 

[takno]

With regard to the policy changes on climate change, I've yet to see why the incremental costs associated with climate change policy are such a terrible thing for the economy, whilst simultaneously adding hundreds of pounds to peoples monthly housing costs is apparently a wonderful thing for the economy.

It's not surprising that so many of the Establishment became established in the 1960's as one would have to be on mind bending drugs to make sense of it all

It's not at all clear that any incremental costs are being avoided. Businesses (apart from some of the more extremist boiler manufacturers) have been preparing for the old deadlines for several years, and the money is already spent. Ultimately if they are still selling you a petrol car in 2030 it's going to be the expensive-because-non-standard option, just like electric cars were 5 years ago. As to gas boilers in place of heat pumps, and the nonsense of grid hydrogen - any investment in that dead end by households, companies or government is just pure waste and stupid decisions which everybody will be quite furious about by 2030.

Given that Sunak is such a forgettable, idea-free and pointless PM, it's truly impressive how hard he's working at cementing a place in history. Weird how some people just want to be there, whether as a good guy or villain.

 

[ainsworth74]

With regard to the policy changes on climate change, I've yet to see why the incremental costs associated with climate change policy are such a terrible thing for the economy, whilst simultaneously adding hundreds of pounds to peoples monthly housing costs is apparently a wonderful thing for the economy.

Yes the rowing back on requiring landlords to raise their property to having at least a C rated EPC seems especially incoherent. What is one of the main pinch points caused by the cost of living crisis? The raise in energy prices. What is one of the main drivers of increased energy usage by households? Heating their home. What is a way of reducing the amount of energy required? Insulating properties properly and improving their energy performance.

So what do we do to address the cost of living crisis? Row back on changes that would require landlords to ensure there housing stock is more energy efficient and therefore mean that tenants didn't need to spend as much money on heating their homes. Who is most likely to live in properties which have the lowest energy performance? The poorest households in society who are also the least likely to be able to afford the increased energy prices...

I'm sure that many Tory MPs personally being landlords or having friends, family or donors who are landlords had very little to do with this of course.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Yes the rowing back on requiring landlords to raise their property to having at least a C rated EPC seems especially incoherent. What is one of the main pinch points caused by the cost of living crisis? The raise in energy prices. What is one of the main drivers of increased energy usage by households? Heating their home. What is a way of reducing the amount of energy required? Insulating properties properly and improving their energy performance.

So what do we do to address the cost of living crisis? Row back on changes that would require landlords to ensure there housing stock is more energy efficient and therefore mean that tenants didn't need to spend as much money on heating their homes. Who is most likely to live in properties which have the lowest energy performance? The poorest households in society who are also the least likely to be able to afford the increased energy prices...

I'm sure that many Tory MPs personally being landlords or having friends, family or donors who are landlords had very little to do with this of course.

of course not! 20% of them according to the latest declarations

 

[jfollows]

Governments need to make decisions for the long term and stick to them.
This government isn't, HS2 and NPR are constantly unravelling, and yesterday's U-turn just amplifies the issue.
From https://www.theguardian.com/busines...s-looking-incapable-of-honouring-a-commitment:

One can understand why Rishi Sunak sees political opportunity in watering down a few climate policies. Previous soundbites about “the economic opportunity of the 21st century” may be correct in the round, but voters have also noticed that heat pumps are expensive and that the path to net zero by 2050 involves costs as well as opportunities. A strategy that claims, in effect, that net zero can be delivered more gently is not absurd for a party that is miles behind in the polls.

The problem, though, is the one highlighted by the furious reaction from some carmakers, in particular, to Sunak’s flip-flop. Any realistic route to net zero involves winning, and keeping, the broad confidence of businesses that will be overhauling the infrastructure. At one level, hitting the 2050 target requires an enormous public-private effort to rewire the entire economy. The whole point of setting interim targets is to make it more likely that you hit the main end goal. Presented with a legally binding commitment, the government risks looks incapable of delivering a plan that it can stick to.

There are often unpopular decisions, for example the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C which I thought Theresa May was wrong to approve after she paused the process. However I now think it was the right thing to do because I incorrectly thought at the time we didn't need the power generation source. So often it's necessary to make unpopular decisions and stick to them.
This government now is unravelling long-term plans and previous "promises" in the forlorn pursuit of short-term gain at the next election. It's doomed anyway, and I just wish they'd get on with doing the job properly until they run out of time, and then seek re-election on that basis. As it stands, their flipping and flopping will annoy absolutely everyone by the time of the next election.

I also didn't agree with the plans that Rishi has scrapped, but I don't think that's the point. I think the market should determine the decline of the internal combustion engine, because technology is going to lead to its replacement inevitably, so setting a date is wrong. But there needs to be a plan and, having come up with one, I'd have lived with it. Some stupid Sky "senior" correspondent yesterday said something about "the day you have to switch to electric cars has changed" which is nonsense, I'm going to buy a petrol car next year and I'll be driving it well beyond 2030 I hope, it's just the sale of new cars which is supposed to be banned at some point. Presumably Mr. Sky buys a new car every year.

 

[edwin_m]

I just wish they'd get on with doing the job properly until they run out of time, and then seek re-election on that basis. As it stands, their flipping and flopping will annoy absolutely everyone by the time of the next election.

Or just get out of the way and let the other lot have a go - they could hardly be worse!

That might even be better for the Tories in the long run, as I suspect the longer they cling to power the more seats they will end up losing and the more work they will have to do to get back. But this government doesn't appear to be thinking about the long run in any way.

 

[jon0844]

Governments need to make decisions for the long term and stick to them.
This government isn't, HS2 and NPR are constantly unravelling, and yesterday's U-turn just amplifies the issue

But they created a graphic on social media saying they were long-term plans! If they say that, it must be true and not actually a totally obvious short-term view from a party knowing it is on the way out.

 

[nw1]

Or just get out of the way and let the other lot have a go - they could hardly be worse!

That might even be better for the Tories in the long run, as I suspect the longer they cling to power the more seats they will end up losing and the more work they will have to do to get back. But this government doesn't appear to be thinking about the long run in any way.

I would agree.

The old phrase "for heaven's sake, go!" would apply here. While I suspect the next election will be in around 12 months, it would be better for everyone, including themselves, if they call one for May.

They have absolutely nothing to gain by dragging it out. It's not as if they are implementing exciting plans which will be cut short if there's an election sooner than next October.

All they seem to be doing is implementing cuts and waging culture wars.

 

[jfollows]

One of:
On April 20 1653, Cromwell addressed parliament:

It is not fit that you should sit here any longer. You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing lately … In the name of God go.“

May 7 1940, Leo Amery on Neville Chamberlain:

Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go

David Davis 19 January 2022 told Prime Minister Boris Johnson to resign.

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not at all clear that any incremental costs are being avoided. Businesses (apart from some of the more extremist boiler manufacturers) have been preparing for the old deadlines for several years, and the money is already spent. Ultimately if they are still selling you a petrol car in 2030 it's going to be the expensive-because-non-standard option, just like electric cars were 5 years ago. As to gas boilers in place of heat pumps, and the nonsense of grid hydrogen - any investment in that dead end by households, companies or government is just pure waste and stupid decisions which everybody will be quite furious about by 2030.

Given that Sunak is such a forgettable, idea-free and pointless PM, it's truly impressive how hard he's working at cementing a place in history. Weird how some people just want to be there, whether as a good guy or villain.

It does seem to me that the sooner they bite the bullet, the better national industry can gear up.

Yes the rowing back on requiring landlords to raise their property to having at least a C rated EPC seems especially incoherent. What is one of the main pinch points caused by the cost of living crisis? The raise in energy prices. What is one of the main drivers of increased energy usage by households? Heating their home. What is a way of reducing the amount of energy required? Insulating properties properly and improving their energy performance.

So what do we do to address the cost of living crisis? Row back on changes that would require landlords to ensure there housing stock is more energy efficient and therefore mean that tenants didn't need to spend as much money on heating their homes. Who is most likely to live in properties which have the lowest energy performance? The poorest households in society who are also the least likely to be able to afford the increased energy prices...

I'm sure that many Tory MPs personally being landlords or having friends, family or donors who are landlords had very little to do with this of course.

I was thinking in terms of the effect of interest rate hikes on mortgages and rents, however this is a good point as well.

 

[The Ham]

I got an email from Mr Sunak:

Two days ago, I wrote to you about some of the long-term decisions we’re making.

Scrapping costly energy efficiency requirements.

No new taxes to discourage flying or eating meat.

No new rules on how many passengers you have to take in your car.

Supporting new oil and gas in the North Sea.

And reaching Net Zero while protecting families and businesses.

These decisions aren’t just about the next year but about the next decade. They are long-term solutions for long-term challenges.

But unless we win the next election, our decisions will be undone by Labour. It’s that simple.

I'm confused:

Where's the proposals for new/more flying or meat taxes?

What law about the number of people you have to have in your car?

I thought oil and gas took millions of years to make, how are we getting new oil and gas in the North Sea!!!

What was Net Zero going to do to cause harm to people (even if it was financial, that could be managed by other means - for example offering more insulation, grants for EV's, allowing more renewables where their costs for energy are lower than coal/gas, etc.).

Oh, there it is they want money from me to take on Labour, so Labour can't undo all those things which weren't even due to happen anyway.

 

[jon0844]

Did he mention the seven bins we're no longer getting?

 

[yorksrob]

I got an email from Mr Sunak:



I'm confused:

Where's the proposals for new/more flying or meat taxes?

What law about the number of people you have to have in your car?

I thought oil and gas took millions of years to make, how are we getting new oil and gas in the North Sea!!!

What was Net Zero going to do to cause harm to people (even if it was financial, that could be managed by other means - for example offering more insulation, grants for EV's, allowing more renewables where their costs for energy are lower than coal/gas, etc.).

Oh, there it is they want money from me to take on Labour, so Labour can't undo all those things which weren't even due to happen anyway.

And, predictably, nothing about getting the bloody trains running.

 

[The Ham]

And, predictably, nothing about getting the bloody trains running.

Aren't trains only used by poor people (or rich people) anyway by those not like us.

 

[yorksrob]

Aren't trains only used by poor people (or rich people) anyway by those not like us.

Supposedly though, Trains are traditionally used by middle class aspirational types.

So poor people and those who aspire to be richer !

 

[The Ham]

Supposedly though, Trains are traditionally used by middle class aspirational types.

So poor people and those who aspire to be richer !

Indeed, although I suspect that is lost on a lot of people.