"I am sure that there are many people (not me) who yearn for another Margaret Thatcher"
I am one of those, in my opinion she was (easily) the best PM in my lifetime, & had that rare quality in a politician of not being afraid to say & do unpopular things.
I'm not going to debate that view though, as people's views on matters such as this (including mine in this instance) are generally entrenched. It's just my personal opinion.
Likewise, no intention of discussing the merits of the person who singlehandedly sold off our assets, and ruined this country to this day. We all have our own opinions
One measure of success for a PM would logically be winning a 5-year term to become PM, and actually surviving that term of office, and then winning the next election. Which Margaret Thatcher did in 1979/1983. The last Conservative PM to do so. 40 years, 9 Conservative leaders and 6 Tory PMs later.
1. Major. Became PM without a vote in 1990. Won the 1992 election. Lost 1997 election. Replaced.
2/3/4. Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard. Never won an election.
5. Cameron. Appointed as PM by the Lib Dems in 2010. Won 2015 election, and promptly replaced
6. May. PM without a Mandate. Got Mandate in 2017 election. Replaced without a vote 2019
7. Johnson. PM without a Mandate. Won 2019 election. Forced out of office by his own Party
8. Truss. PM without a Mandate. Removed without a Mandate
9. Sunak. Appointed without a Mandate from the electorate.
40 years (or 36 years, depending on how you count it) since an elected Tory PM successfully stood for re-election. 26 years since a Tory PM (Major) was removed by the electorate. Last 4 removed by the Conservative Party.
The thicko that is Liz Truss just doesn't grasp the essential truths.
It would not have been impossible to take the gamble that is reducing taxes in order to stimulate growth and thus attempt to actually increase Revenue.
The thing is, the idea is certainly not new. Long propounded by Keynes, and indeed embraced at various times by the Labour Party.
What you do have to do is have a measured, targeted plan. For example, exactly where to cut taxes in order to stimulate growth. It is an economic argument that has gone on for about 60 years.
What you most definitely do not do is dress it all up as though you have spotted something relating to economics that all leading economists have supposedly "missed", and call it "Trussonomics".
Cos it not only makes you look like a colossal eejit, it frightens the life out of people.
On the assumption the top 1 is Churchill, he was a brilliant liar. Memorably said "A lie gets halfway round the World before the truth has a chance to get its pants on", and actually invented the phrase "terminological inexactitude" in 1906.
Johnson often told the truth. Although, like most journalists, he never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Sunak? He knows the difference fine well. He just uses silence to avoid uncomfortable truths.
I'm not at all sure there's a story here, I think The Guardian have overdone it somewhat.
Most of the sums quoted seem quite reasonable to me, all things considered, though I note Ms Truss was as usual a law unto herself when it comes to burning taxpayer's money.
Two examples here, one for each "side" so we have a bit of balance.
"The Foreign Office spending £7,218 on a reception for Liz Truss, when she was foreign secretary"
Ms Truss being Ms Truss. Bang wrong.
"The Department of Health spending £59,155 on items of stationery in March 2021, compared to £1,470 in the whole of the rest of the year combined"
I believe they are looking at that upside down. Stationery Cabinets are a strange thing, the more you replenish them, the quicker they empty. (Folks steal Post It notes, pens & the like). When I was running businesses I found the best tactic was to ONLY replenish them annually, & make sure the Staff knew that where they had gone, that's it for the year. So perhaps this was good practice, not bad.
And it's also worth noting that I'd bet the shop that when a FoI requests is made & some underling is tasked with finding out what has been spent on stuff like this, the figures are inaccurate, & need to be taken with a pinch of salt. We can almost guarantee they are inaccurate.
Two examples here, one for each "side" so we have a bit of balance.
"The Foreign Office spending £7,218 on a reception for Liz Truss, when she was foreign secretary"
Ms Truss being Ms Truss. Bang wrong.
"The Department of Health spending £59,155 on items of stationery in March 2021, compared to £1,470 in the whole of the rest of the year combined"
I believe they are looking at that upside down. Stationery Cabinets are a strange thing, the more you replenish them, the quicker they empty. (Folks steal Post It notes, pens & the like). When I was running businesses I found the best tactic was to ONLY replenish them annually, & make sure the Staff knew that where they had gone, that's it for the year. So perhaps this was good practice, not bad.
And it's also worth noting that I'd bet the shop that when a FoI requests is made & some underling is tasked with finding out what has been spent on stuff like this, the figures are inaccurate, & need to be taken with a pinch of salt. We can almost guarantee they are inaccurate.
Agree with all of that.
Also worth pointing out that, due to the fact that most people were working from home in 2021, unlikely to be in the office to pinch the stationary. Hence no need for further orders.
FOI requests are a good idea in theory. But a total PITA in practice. I recall advising 1 medical client, where a Professional Hypochondriac and his Ambulance-Chasing Lawyer were forever making them.
I waited for the next ridiculously onerous request, which would have taken hundreds (if not thousands) of man-hours to comply with. If I remember rightly, wanted full details about the guy's 100+ requests/demands for an ambulance in the last year. I refused, citing that the cost was disproportionate.
Cue faux outrage, demanding proof. I gleefully replied, showing the cost was the same as 4 heart-lung transplants
Fury at Whitehall staff's £145million splurge: Civil servants disguised luxury goods like bottles of fizz as 'computer equipment' and gourmet meals as 'bookkeeping'
Whitehall civil servants disguised sparkling wine purchases and five-star hotel catering as 'bookkeeping services' and 'administration', as part of £145million of government debit card spending.
Fury at Whitehall staff's £145million splurge: Civil servants disguised luxury goods like bottles of fizz as 'computer equipment' and gourmet meals as 'bookkeeping'
Whitehall civil servants disguised sparkling wine purchases and five-star hotel catering as 'bookkeeping services' and 'administration', as part of £145million of government debit card spending.
As per usual, Mail has a headline which doesn't match the article.
The main abuses were carried out by Government Ministers in that report. But the Mail tries to twist it to blame Workers.
I've yet to see a Civil Servant get caught fiddling expenses relating to his moat. MPs in general, and this Government are world class at fiddling expenses.
Comments
@Essexphil
"I am sure that there are many people (not me) who yearn for another Margaret Thatcher"
I am one of those, in my opinion she was (easily) the best PM in my lifetime, & had that rare quality in a politician of not being afraid to say & do unpopular things.
I'm not going to debate that view though, as people's views on matters such as this (including mine in this instance) are generally entrenched. It's just my personal opinion.
One measure of success for a PM would logically be winning a 5-year term to become PM, and actually surviving that term of office, and then winning the next election. Which Margaret Thatcher did in 1979/1983. The last Conservative PM to do so. 40 years, 9 Conservative leaders and 6 Tory PMs later.
1. Major. Became PM without a vote in 1990. Won the 1992 election. Lost 1997 election. Replaced.
2/3/4. Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard. Never won an election.
5. Cameron. Appointed as PM by the Lib Dems in 2010. Won 2015 election, and promptly replaced
6. May. PM without a Mandate. Got Mandate in 2017 election. Replaced without a vote 2019
7. Johnson. PM without a Mandate. Won 2019 election. Forced out of office by his own Party
8. Truss. PM without a Mandate. Removed without a Mandate
9. Sunak. Appointed without a Mandate from the electorate.
40 years (or 36 years, depending on how you count it) since an elected Tory PM successfully stood for re-election.
26 years since a Tory PM (Major) was removed by the electorate. Last 4 removed by the Conservative Party.
It would not have been impossible to take the gamble that is reducing taxes in order to stimulate growth and thus attempt to actually increase Revenue.
The thing is, the idea is certainly not new. Long propounded by Keynes, and indeed embraced at various times by the Labour Party.
What you do have to do is have a measured, targeted plan. For example, exactly where to cut taxes in order to stimulate growth. It is an economic argument that has gone on for about 60 years.
What you most definitely do not do is dress it all up as though you have spotted something relating to economics that all leading economists have supposedly "missed", and call it "Trussonomics".
Cos it not only makes you look like a colossal eejit, it frightens the life out of people.
On the assumption the top 1 is Churchill, he was a brilliant liar. Memorably said "A lie gets halfway round the World before the truth has a chance to get its pants on", and actually invented the phrase "terminological inexactitude" in 1906.
Johnson often told the truth. Although, like most journalists, he never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Sunak? He knows the difference fine well. He just uses silence to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Probably thinks windmills work too
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lee-anderson-tory-deputy-chairman-205500677.html
^^^^^
I'm not at all sure there's a story here, I think The Guardian have overdone it somewhat.
Most of the sums quoted seem quite reasonable to me, all things considered, though I note Ms Truss was as usual a law unto herself when it comes to burning taxpayer's money.
Nothing to see here, it seems to me.
"The Foreign Office spending £7,218 on a reception for Liz Truss, when she was foreign secretary"
Ms Truss being Ms Truss. Bang wrong.
"The Department of Health spending £59,155 on items of stationery in March 2021, compared to £1,470 in the whole of the rest of the year combined"
I believe they are looking at that upside down. Stationery Cabinets are a strange thing, the more you replenish them, the quicker they empty. (Folks steal Post It notes, pens & the like). When I was running businesses I found the best tactic was to ONLY replenish them annually, & make sure the Staff knew that where they had gone, that's it for the year. So perhaps this was good practice, not bad.
And it's also worth noting that I'd bet the shop that when a FoI requests is made & some underling is tasked with finding out what has been spent on stuff like this, the figures are inaccurate, & need to be taken with a pinch of salt. We can almost guarantee they are inaccurate.
Also worth pointing out that, due to the fact that most people were working from home in 2021, unlikely to be in the office to pinch the stationary. Hence no need for further orders.
FOI requests are a good idea in theory. But a total PITA in practice. I recall advising 1 medical client, where a Professional Hypochondriac and his Ambulance-Chasing Lawyer were forever making them.
I waited for the next ridiculously onerous request, which would have taken hundreds (if not thousands) of man-hours to comply with. If I remember rightly, wanted full details about the guy's 100+ requests/demands for an ambulance in the last year. I refused, citing that the cost was disproportionate.
Cue faux outrage, demanding proof. I gleefully replied, showing the cost was the same as 4 heart-lung transplants
Whitehall civil servants disguised sparkling wine purchases and five-star hotel catering as 'bookkeeping services' and 'administration', as part of £145million of government debit card spending.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11743301/Civil-servants-disguised-luxury-goods-like-bottles-fizz-computer-equipment.html
And the you have the proof that FoI requests are worthless, as you can smudge the numbers so easily.
The main abuses were carried out by Government Ministers in that report. But the Mail tries to twist it to blame Workers.
I've yet to see a Civil Servant get caught fiddling expenses relating to his moat. MPs in general, and this Government are world class at fiddling expenses.
Although journalists run them close
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-deputy-chairman-to-be-sued-over-defamatory-bribery-claims-law-firm-says/ar-AA17rkyh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1c5d0ba0bf74433ebab8a2b36b215f3e