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

[bspahh]

Meanwhile the use of fists, boots, weapons etc to physically and blatantly hurt others (often completely innocent people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) seems all too often classed as "too difficult" to investigate and prosecute.

Are you referring to Boris Johnson passing on the address of a journalist to Darius Guppy, so that they can be beaten up?

 

[Shrop]

While that may be you view i am not sure you quite understand the issue.

I'd continue this, but I'm at risk of going off topic.

 

[brad465]

The Daily Mail was the paper to initially report on the 91,000 civil service job cuts, and just reading its comments there does seem to be a surprising level of opposition to the move from them. The top comment was about how 8 civil servants could be employed for the amount of expenses claimed by the MP who made the headlines this week for his 30p a day meal comment (the comment didn't have the amount, but it was reported to be £220,000), and there were also comments about getting rid of the House of Lords first or how 91,000 would end up on benefits that didn't look supportive of this plan.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Daily Mail was the paper to initially report on the 91,000 civil service job cuts, and just reading its comments there does seem to be a surprising level of opposition to the move from them. The top comment was about how 8 civil servants could be employed for the amount of expenses claimed by the MP who made the headlines this week for his 30p a day meal comment (the comment didn't have the amount, but it was reported to be £220,000), and there were also comments about getting rid of the House of Lords first or how 91,000 would end up on benefits that didn't look supportive of this plan.

Lee Anderson did indeed claim just under £220 K in expenses for the year 2020-21. But since the bulk of that is staffing costs - paying the salaries of his office staff, and the claims will certainly have been vetted as legitimate expenses, it makes no sense to link that amount with his comments about food banks.

On the civil service cuts. There does seem to be a lot of anecdotal evidence being reported of long delays accessing Government services, and of people turning up at public-facing Government offices to find no-one there to help them. Perhaps predictably, the left are doing a knee-jerk reaction of blaming not-enough-staff while the right are doing a knee-jerk reaction of blaming inefficiencies and a growing culture of work-from-home that is leading to people not doing their jobs properly. In reality, it's probably impossible to know from the outside what is causing the problem. Having said that, civil service staff numbers have very sharply risen over the last 5-6 years without much indication that services have improved as a result - as I understand it, the proposed 91K job cuts does no more than restore numbers to what they were in 2016. That seems to me to suggest that poor efficiency/working practices is a more plausible explanation than lack of staff. And the civil service union aren't exactly doing themselves any favours by proposing that staff should have the right to work not only from home but from abroad as standard.

At the same time, I'm not sure that just setting arbitrary targets to cut staff is going to be very useful if you don't tie that in with looking at how to work more efficiently and trying to figure out how many staff you need to actually do everything.

 

[Shrop]

Are you referring to Boris Johnson passing on the address of a journalist to Darius Guppy, so that they can be beaten up?

No, I didn't know anything about that story. I was referring to trouble in many towns and cities where (for example) loud gangs of people exhibit very threatening behaviour. This happened to a female friend recently in her fifties who was physically assaulted (albeit not severely), but the police told her it was just normal boisterous bank holiday behaviour, and she should live with it, as its too much trouble to deal with the antisocial behaviour. That's just one small example, there are many more, and yet the legal service is pre-occupied by those with money spending time on what most people wouldn't dream of taking to court.

 

[bspahh]

No, I didn't know anything about that story. I was referring to trouble in many towns and cities where (for example) loud gangs of people exhibit very threatening behaviour. This happened to a female friend recently in her fifties who was physically assaulted (albeit not severely), but the police told her it was just normal boisterous bank holiday behaviour, and she should live with it, as its too much trouble to deal with the antisocial behaviour. That's just one small example, there are many more, and yet the legal service is pre-occupied by those with money spending time on what most people wouldn't dream of taking to court.

Its worth following https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret and https://twitter.com/Joanna__Hardy

The Secret Barrister has written extensively on the underfunding of the criminal legal system. https://thesecretbarrister.com/ has more

There are lawyers who earn a lot, but those are not barristers working on defending criminal cases, where they are expected to prepare for cases in advance, only to find that the case gets postponed at the last minute, due to lack of resources. If you can't make the new trial because it clashes with another one, then you get paid nothing for the time that you have spent preparing for the case.

 

[SteveP29]

With the problems in the Passport Office, DVLA, DWP, (for instance) this will doubtless be popular, particularly with the right wing press. Half the time the problem is too few staff, the rest of the time is lumping more and more work on them. I reckon you are dead right on consultants and outsourcing.

90,000 more staff (the population of a decent sized town) in the last six years and that's still not enough ?

Have you tried calling HMRC, DWP et al to speak to somebody there?
Last time I had reason to call HMRC, I was on hold an hour before I gave up, DWP, 45 minutes.

How can more people employed to do these jobs be a bad thing?
It gets people off benefits or into higher paid jobs than they'd previously been in, and that in turn gives them more disposable income which will stimulate the economy whilst lowering the welfare bill.
I know that's looking at it in very simplistic terms, but why does the first response to inefficiencies in government departments ALWAYS result in a suggestion to lessen the workforce, to the point where waiting times are lengthened at every stage of the process?

(Edited to remove typos/ spelling mistakes)

 

[MattRat]

The Daily Mail was the paper to initially report on the 91,000 civil service job cuts, and just reading its comments there does seem to be a surprising level of opposition to the move from them. The top comment was about how 8 civil servants could be employed for the amount of expenses claimed by the MP who made the headlines this week for his 30p a day meal comment (the comment didn't have the amount, but it was reported to be £220,000), and there were also comments about getting rid of the House of Lords first or how 91,000 would end up on benefits that didn't look supportive of this plan.

Why stop at the Lord's? What not all of parliament? Let the monarch take over. At least the monarchy followed the lockdown rules.

Maybe that's the only way the Tory tyranny will end?

 

[Gloster]

I know that's looking at it in very simplistic terms, but why does the first response to inefficiencies in government departments ALWAYS result in a suggestion to lessen the workforce, to the point where waiting times are lengthened at every stage of the process?

Because it plays well with the tabloid press and Conservative backbenchers; to an extent some of the latter are only pandering to the more extreme members of their constituency party, who could get them deselected.

 

[Typhoon]

Have you tried calling HMRC, DWP et al to speak to somebody there?
Last time I had reason to call HMRC, I was on hold an hour before I gave up, DWP, 45 minutes.

How can more people employed to do these jobs be a bad thing?
It gets people off benefits or into higher paid jobs than they'd previously been in, and that in turn gives them more disposable income which will stimulate the economy whilst lowering the welfare bill.
I know that's looking at it in very simplistic terms, but why does the first response to inefficiencies in government departments ALWAYS result in a suggestion to lessen the workforce, to the point where waiting times are lengthened at every stage of the process?

Just over a year ago, I was asked to provide evidence and documents by DWP. I sent it by 'signed for' next day delivery so I know when it was delivered. No response to requests for indication of progress. Today, I have had a reply. They want further information. Contacts are by phone or mail, somehow I don't think the former will do my blood pressure any good. I doubt I am alone. They must know what the response rate is like. If there are civil servants sitting around doing nothing, shift them to resolving the backlog first. And don't bring consultants in to sort it out, they will just create work for themselves.

Still, at least the Secretary of State is having the time of her life (warning: some readers may find the contents offensive - to their ears)

(Longer versions are available.)

 

[brad465]

Having said that, civil service staff numbers have very sharply risen over the last 5-6 years without much indication that services have improved as a result - as I understand it, the proposed 91K job cuts does no more than restore numbers to what they were in 2016. That seems to me to suggest that poor efficiency/working practices is a more plausible explanation than lack of staff. And the civil service union aren't exactly doing themselves any favours by proposing that staff should have the right to work not only from home but from abroad as standard.

My understanding is the increase in civil service staff numbers since 2016 was down to the extra work needing to process Brexit stuff. If this is the case, then I suspect one of the main reasons services elsewhere haven't improved since 2016 is because most, if not all, extra staff that have come in since 2016 have not been allocated to those services. I'm not sure what they've been doing since we officially left the EU, besides processing trade negotiation related work, and/or maybe being allocated to covid-related workloads. I would add I agree that working from abroad should not be something any union or workplace should be adopting, and certainly not in the public sector (working from abroad is also a step too far as it could encourage more business operations to move to cheaper countries).

 

[D6130]

Have you tried calling HMRC, DWP et al to speak to somebody there?
Last time I had reason to call HMRC, I was on hold an hour before I gave up, DWP, 45 minutes.

My wife had cause to 'phone the DWP (from Italy) this afternoon with a pension query....and the entire call - including connection, listening to and selecting from the menu, waiting to be answered, giving the operator her personal details, making the enquiry and receiving the answer - took a fraction less than fourteen minutes. Either things have improved recently....or, more likely, she just struck lucky.

 

[nw1]

On the discussion about Boris Johnson's name... Is this really what politics has now descended to? Trying to figure out he most insulting term you can use to refer to a particular human being whose politics you happen to dislike? Or is this what people's idea of grown up, mature, politics is?

"Boris" has little respect for anyone else, why should we have any respect for him?

 

[ainsworth74]

My wife had cause to 'phone the DWP (from Italy) this afternoon with a pension query....and the entire call - including connection, listening to and selecting from the menu, waiting to be answered, giving the operator her personal details, making the enquiry and receiving the answer - took a fraction less than fourteen minutes. Either things have improved recently....or, more likely, she just struck lucky.

It varies wildly on which bit of the DWP you want. Pension Service is usually pretty swift, Universal Credit side is often dreadful.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

"Boris" has little respect for anyone else, why should we have any respect for him?

1. Because two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Because, unless you happen to know Boris personally very well - which I strongly doubt - you have no way to tell whether your statement '"Boris" has little respect for anyone else' is true or or not. All you have to go on is lots of media reports. That you disagree with many of his policies doesn't mean he has "little respect for anyone else". That he has some apparent history of lying (and I think he probably has lied on some occasions) also does not necessarily mean he has "little respect of anyone else." (Although to be clear, I don't defend lying, and I tend to think worse of him because of it).
3. Because, even if, hypothetically, it turned out that Boris actually does have "little respect for anyone else", then by saying 'why should we have any respect for him', you're basically lowering yourself to the same standards.

 

[birchesgreen]

I like to refer to him as The Johnson.

 

[brad465]

I like many used to call him Boris, but have in the last year accustomed to calling him Johnson. What I'd say is we're supposed to be a free country, so whatever one wants to call him they're entitled to, as long as they're careful where they say it in relation to workplace and/or TV rules in the case of more lewd examples.

 

[Shrop]

Have you tried calling HMRC, DWP et al to speak to somebody there?
Last time I had reason to call HMRC, I was on hold an hour before I gave up, DWP, 45 minutes.

How can more people employed to do these jobs be a bad thing?
It gets people off benefits or into higher paid jobs than they'd previously been in, and that in turn gives them more disposable income which will stimulate the economy whilst lowering the welfare bill.
I know that's looking at it in very simplistic terms, but why does the first response to inefficiencies in government departments ALWAYS result in a suggestion to lessen the workforce, to the point where waiting times are lengthened at every stage of the process?

Can I just make a simple suggestion? If the country is going to employ 90,000 more staff, wouldn't they be of greater value in the Health Service? Isn't saving people from dying in ambulances, or at home waiting for them, somewhat more valuable than saving people waiting quite so long on the phone with HMRC or DWP enquiries?

 

[edwin_m]

1. Because two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Because, unless you happen to know Boris personally very well - which I strongly doubt - you have no way to tell whether your statement '"Boris" has little respect for anyone else' is true or or not. All you have to go on is lots of media reports. That you disagree with many of his policies doesn't mean he has "little respect for anyone else". That he has some apparent history of lying (and I think he probably has lied on some occasions) also does not necessarily mean he has "little respect of anyone else." (Although to be clear, I don't defend lying, and I tend to think worse of him because of it).
3. Because, even if, hypothetically, it turned out that Boris actually does have "little respect for anyone else", then by saying 'why should we have any respect for him', you're basically lowering yourself to the same standards.

I'd say it's indisputable that he has lied on numerous occasions, which to my way of thinking is unacceptable unless for reasons such as national security. He's blatantly disregarding the basic norms we're entitled to expect from our leaders, so deserves no respect in my book.

 

[Yew]

Why stop at the Lord's? What not all of parliament? Let the monarch take over. At least the monarchy followed the lockdown rules.

Maybe that's the only way the Tory tyranny will end?

Because the lords are part of our democracy, but not elected by the people?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2022 ==

I know that's looking at it in very simplistic terms, but why does the first response to inefficiencies in government departments ALWAYS result in a suggestion to lessen the workforce, to the point where waiting times are lengthened at every stage of the process?

Because the tories want to cut taxes for their mates, and have thus invented a fetishisation of a small state that doesn't have the resources to do things like crack down on tax avoidance and evaison.

And of course, when people are behind, the effective thing to do is pour more work at them, there's no way that giving them time and budget to develop techniques to work more efficiently would be more effective in the long run.

 

[nw1]

The Daily Mail was the paper to initially report on the 91,000 civil service job cuts, and just reading its comments there does seem to be a surprising level of opposition to the move from them. The top comment was about how 8 civil servants could be employed for the amount of expenses claimed by the MP who made the headlines this week for his 30p a day meal comment (the comment didn't have the amount, but it was reported to be £220,000), and there were also comments about getting rid of the House of Lords first or how 91,000 would end up on benefits that didn't look supportive of this plan.

Had missed this one. Jeez, the Tories really are turning into the "nasty party" again. Never heard of this Lee Anderson non-entity until now, but more fool on the "Get Brexit Done" voters who preferred him over continuing with Labour who had held the seat continuously since 1955, except a short gap from 1977-79. Yes, even in the Thatcher years.

The sooner people realise that Brexit won't solve their problems, and the hypocrisy of people like Anderson who seem to want people to eat on 30p a day without giving up their own comfortable lifestyle, the better.

I hope the voters of Ashfield will remember the 30p a day comment, and the expenses, come the next election, realise the Cult of Brexit was a load of hot air designed to turn seats like theirs Tory, and give him the boot.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because the tories want to cut taxes for their mates, and have thus invented a fetishisation of a small state that doesn't have the resources to do things like crack down on tax avoidance and evaison.

May I ask the same question in that if the Labour Party were in power, would they too "cut taxes for their mates" to use your phraseology.


If nicknames are to be used, if "tories" is to be used for the Conservative Party, what is the nickname for the Labour Party?

 

[nw1]

If nicknames are to be used, if "tories" is to be used for the Conservative Party, what is the nickname for the Labour Party?

"Tories" is a long standing nickname for the Conservatives. There isn't an equivalent one for Labour.

 

[Yew]

May I ask the same question in that if the Labour Party were in power, would they too "cut taxes for their mates" to use your phraseology.


If nicknames are to be used, if "tories" is to be used for the Conservative Party, what is the nickname for the Labour Party?

There is a suitable base of evidence of the Conservative party reducing the rates of tax paid by the wealthiest in our society, and privatising public assets to the advantage of their party donors and MP's. How many former council houses do the family of Thatchers housing minister now own?

 

[D6130]

"Tories" is a long standing nickname for the Conservatives.

Yes....they are nicknamed - not inappropriately in my opinion - after a group of ruthless bandits based on Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal, in the late 17th/early 18th centuries.

 

[nw1]

Yes....they are nicknamed - not inappropriately in my opinion - after a group of ruthless bandits based on Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal, in the late 17th/early 18th centuries.

How appropriate indeed!

<joke>Maybe Johnson and Lee Anderson could be banished to Tory Island after they both go? </joke>

 

[baz962]

May I ask the same question in that if the Labour Party were in power, would they too "cut taxes for their mates" to use your phraseology.


If nicknames are to be used, if "tories" is to be used for the Conservative Party, what is the nickname for the Labour Party?

Blair had a long enough tenure to close the loopholes. And what short memories people have. Tony and Cherie buying flats in Bristol brokered by Australian conman Peter Forster and other properties that they rushed through to save money just before the stamp duty rise and then denying ( lying ) about some of it.

 

[MattRat]

If nicknames are to be used, if "tories" is to be used for the Conservative Party, what is the nickname for the Labour Party?

The Commies? At least that's how most people who dislike them view them, and it's worked quite well in stopping more Labour votes.

 

[nw1]

1. Because two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Because, unless you happen to know Boris personally very well - which I strongly doubt - you have no way to tell whether your statement '"Boris" has little respect for anyone else' is true or or not. All you have to go on is lots of media reports. That you disagree with many of his policies doesn't mean he has "little respect for anyone else". That he has some apparent history of lying (and I think he probably has lied on some occasions) also does not necessarily mean he has "little respect of anyone else." (Although to be clear, I don't defend lying, and I tend to think worse of him because of it).
3. Because, even if, hypothetically, it turned out that Boris actually does have "little respect for anyone else", then by saying 'why should we have any respect for him', you're basically lowering yourself to the same standards.

Maybe: perhaps "anyone else" was a bit of an exaggeration, but I think he has little respect for us, the voters, as he appears to believe he can perform wrong-doing without being answerable to it. That to me is a lack of respect towards us, the voters.

Also I would not equate anything said by anyone here with the wrongdoings done by Johnson, so I don't think any of the anti-Johnson posts here can be accused of "lowering ourselves to the same standards".

 

[Typhoon]

"Tories" is a long standing nickname for the Conservatives. There isn't an equivalent one for Labour.

The term 'Tory' dates back to Stuart England while the term 'Conservative' was only introduced during the time of Sir Robert Peel, when he issued the Tamworth Manifesto (1835), to reform the Tory party, when it pledged to undertake modest reform (repeal of the corn laws for instance). At the time their opposition were the Whigs, also originally a derogatory term like Tory. But these titles were worn with pride (in the way that some ethnic minorities use certain terms today). However, the Whigs split, sometime around 1860, I believe over Ireland (at least in part), the largest group became the Liberals.

There is a discussion at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30899534

The political term "Tory" dates back to the "Exclusion Crisis" which took place between 1679 and 1681 during the reign of Charles II.

Two political factions had emerged in Parliament: those who wanted to exclude Charles' brother James, the Duke of York, from succeeding the king because he was a Roman Catholic (the Whigs) and those who supported his rights to the throne (the Tories). The Tory campaign prevailed and James became the Stuart king James II.

Both terms were originally pejorative:- Whig came from an old word for yokel or "country bumpkin"; Tory is derived from the Irish Gaelic word tóraidhe, meaning outlaw.

"Simplistically you could say Tories were Cavaliers and Whigs were Roundheads," explains Dr David Seawright from Leeds University, a Conservative Party expert.

The term "Conservative" first started to be used widely in the 1830s under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel. He re-interpreted the key elements of the old Tory tradition, effectively modernising the party under the banner of support for social reform and free trade.

(There is a lot more.) I even remembered much of that, I just hope my History teachers (if still alive) are proud of me.