Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[takno]

So you want a PM that is bad but not terrible? Talk about low expectations!

No, I want a good PM, and I think Starmer will be that. This isn't a beauty contest though - the only other candidate is a clattering idiot who makes us all poorer every day.

To reiterate, I  need an adequate PM who won't wake up every day and do stupid things that weaken the economy and are bad for the country. Sunak is not capable of meeting this low bar. If somebody comes in and only meets this low bar, without doing anything memorable or actively good at all, then they are still the right decision against Sunak.

 

[Gloster]

More than anything we need a government that tries to govern in the interests of the great majority of the people of this country. Labour might still have some problems with Momentum, but it is has pretty well reduced it to a group that only manages to cause a few local problems and no longer has an effect on the party nationally. For the last dozen or more years Conservative policies have been designed to appease a small group of extremist party members (in order to prevent more splits in the party) with no consideration for what effect the policies have on the rest of the country. The result has been the country as we see it now, when we lift our head out of our hands, while the extremists just imitate Oliver Twist and ask for more.

 

[Bantamzen]

The fundamental point is that Starmer doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to be better than the current lot, who are profoundly and astonishingly terrible.

And that is a very depressing thought, because like others I don't see him being much better than the current lot. Its also depressing because I've been seeing how local Labour councils in my area perform, and if the central politicians are as appallingly bad as them, things won't actually get much better, if at all.

No, I want a good PM, and I think Starmer will be that. This isn't a beauty contest though - the only other candidate is a clattering idiot who makes us all poorer every day.

To reiterate, I  need an adequate PM who won't wake up every day and do stupid things that weaken the economy and are bad for the country. Sunak is not capable of meeting this low bar. If somebody comes in and only meets this low bar, without doing anything memorable or actively good at all, then they are still the right decision against Sunak.

Its probably worth reminding ourselves at this point that we are not the US. We don't vote for who will be PM, or indeed which party will be in charge. We should be, or at least ought to be voting for the most suitable candidate for our areas. If a Labour candidate rocked up to your doorstep and promised a 100% Council Tax increase, would you still vote for them just to get rid of the Tory government? Well OK, that's an extreme example, but frankly the reason that politics is so messed up is because its become a cult of personality, and people vote for the party whose leader is the most shiny (previously we voted for the party we were expected to by our families / communities which wasn't much better). All it leads to is lowering standards of candidates in the constituencies, because they become little more than cheerleaders for they that should be obeyed in their respective parties.

 

[najaB]

Its also depressing because I've been seeing how local Labour councils in my area perform, and if the central politicians are as appallingly bad as them, things won't actually get much better, if at all.

A big problem with the performance of local councils (of all stripes) is the fact that they're being starved of funding at the same time that they're being given more and more obligations.

 

[Bantamzen]

A big problem with the performance of local councils (of all stripes) is the fact that they're being starved of funding at the same time that they're being given more and more obligations.

Oh I don't disagree, and frankly this is unlikely to change under Labour unless they find the money tree to shake. But honestly local councils general performances and policy paths leave a lot to be desired. Extreme case in point, Doncaster Council and their honestly madcap plans to re-start operations at Doncaster Sheffield Airport, despite pretty much everyone in the know telling them its a no-hoper and a massive money pit. Like I say this is one extreme example, but having lived in a largely Labour dominated area, they really haven't shined at any level. If this performance is reflected nationally, I honestly don't hold much hope for improvement from them if / when they take power.

 

[ainsworth74]

A big problem with the performance of local councils (of all stripes) is the fact that they're being starved of funding at the same time that they're being given more and more obligations.

Oh I don't disagree, and frankly this is unlikely to change under Labour unless they find the money tree to shake. But honestly local councils general performances and policy paths leave a lot to be desired. Extreme case in point, Doncaster Council and their honestly madcap plans to re-start operations at Doncaster Sheffield Airport, despite pretty much everyone in the know telling them its a no-hoper and a massive money pit. Like I say this is one extreme example, but having lived in a largely Labour dominated area, they really haven't shined at any level. If this performance is reflected nationally, I honestly don't hold much hope for improvement from them if / when they take power.

Money is a big problem but the other issue is that we don't take local government seriously. It's considered, when it is considered at all, a joke by most people and the only thing they care about (and appear to think their local council does) is deal with potholes and the bins. Westminster clearly holds deep suspicion of the local councils and is happy to chuck responsibility with no real power (or money) at them whilst journalists of all stripes treat local elections as a referendum on the Westminster parties themselves ("ooh the Tories had a bad night in the local elections, what does this mean for the General Election").

Meanwhile we also pay councillors, who technically are in charge, poorly considering for the level of theoretical responsibility. Whilst it varies for my local council the basic allowance is just a smidge of £10,000 per year. The leader of the council gets a smidge over £32,000 per year. Which means that a) it's only the cranks who are likely to go for the role of being a councillor, b) only the independently wealthy (either themselves or via their partner) who don't need a full time job, or c) retirees who don't need a full time job. Which rather leads to quite a self-selecting group of people who may not actually be very good at being responsible for organisations that have such important responsibilities.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we just whack Councillor allowance up to £80k and bish bash bosh jobs a good 'un. More that we need to have a serious discussion about what we expect local authorities to do and then how we organise local authorities to deliver what we want them to do. The current way of doing things seems to be the worst of all worlds with councils having to deliver ever more services, for ever smaller budgets, whilst doing very little to attract capable people to important oversight/leadership roles and generally being thought of, when they are, as an add-on to the drama of Westminster and/or a joke.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Next up in the "Westminster bubble" series:

George Freeman's actual quote is here: (https://georgefreemanmp.substack.com/p/why-we-need-a-cross-party-consensus - it's a throwaway remark buried in a blog about science policy).

I was so exhausted, bust and depressed that I was starting to lose the irrepressible spirit of optimism, endeavour, teamwork & progress which are the fundamentals of human achievement.

And because my mortgage rises this month from £800pcm to £2000, which I simply couldn’t afford to pay on a Ministerial salary. That’s political economy 2.0. We’re in danger of making politics something only Hedge Funder Donors, young spin doctors and failed trade unionists can afford to do - (More on that later too).

Government is a cruel mistress.

Modern Politics is a savage playground.

Definitely not a good look: If his ministerial salary is indeed the quoted £118 300 a year, then the Government's tax estimator says he'd be getting about £78 400 a year after tax, which works out at about £6 500 a month. If he can't afford to pay £2000K/month of that on his mortgage, that suggests he must have an unusually extravagant lifestyle (assuming there are no special circumstances we don't know about).

And of course there's the fact that the vast majority of the population get vastly less than £118K/year to live on, yet many of the rest of us also have to pay rent/mortgage/whatever.

 

[SteveM70]

If he can't afford to pay £2000K/month of that on his mortgage, that suggests he must have an unusually extravagant lifestyle (assuming there are no special circumstances we don't know about)

I believe there is a very expensive divorce to pay for too

 

[3141]

We have to remember that with the state of the economy Starmer will not have some sort of magic wand that will fix everything, so on that point alone he might not be seen as a great PM.
Starmers' big advantages are that he probably won't simply pander to sections of his party to shut them up and unlike Sunak it's not just his age that makes him an adult!

Absolutely. There is a tendency these days (and probably in the past, too) to imagine that there is some almost magical solution that will take us instantly to the "sunlit uplands", as Boris put it. Brexit was the biggest recent example. Now, some people seem to think that rejoining the EU would do it. Tax cuts are another example, often advocated with no mention of their consequences on public services. A UKIP candidate I heard in the 2016 election advocated a land tax as the answer, though he couldn't explain much about it. The Rwanda proposals will solve the illegal immigration issues. "Make America Great Again!" The reality is that we all have to work for a living (sounds really old-fashioned, doesn't it?), and we are all subject to the effects of other world events (so much for "take back control").

 

[Thirteen]

I think Starmer will resolve a lot of the public disputes in his first few months.

 

[Busaholic]

I believe there is a very expensive divorce to pay for too

Why should the public pay for that?!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think Starmer will resolve a lot of the public disputes in his first few months.

Unless he throws money they don't have at the problem how will they resolve it or do you think the union barons will suddenly accept they have to play nicely now Labour are in charge

 

[SteveM70]

Why should the public pay for that?!

I’m not for a moment saying we should. I’m saying it’s a drain on his resources

 

[renegademaster]

"Improvements in immigration numbers" might, of course, for some of us mean more liberal immigration rules of course. Unlike the NHS, this is very much a polarising issue and we're not all anti-immigrationists, despite what many on (sorry to say) both sides of the House would have you believe.

So Labour should absolutely not try and take a hardline attitude on immigration. They should focus on other issues instead; if there is any movement on immigration, it should be reversing some of the hardline policies introduced under Braverman and Cleverly. If they adopt an immigration-hostile position, liberal voters - who will vote Labour this time because the Tories are so bad - might drift away from them next time, towards the Lib Dems or Greens for example who are both more inherently internationalist. Result: the non-Tory vote is split and - hey presto - the Tories get back in come 2028/29.

As seen in Canada , Labour will eventually have to make a choice either to restrict immigration or build tons of housing and loose all the home county nimbys. One is politcally easier

 

[najaB]

Unless he throws money they don't have at the problem how will they resolve it or do you think the union barons will suddenly accept they have to play nicely now Labour are in charge

Thing is, a lot of the labour unrest hasn't been just about pay.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Thing is, a lot of the labour unrest hasn't been just about pay.

Fair point inside the railway industry but its about pay in the NHS

 

[brad465]

I don't know how much the Government has had a say in this decision, but it will not help them:

Water bills to rise above inflation in April

Water companies in England and Wales expect an increase of 6%, with an 8.8% rise in Scotland.

www.bbc.co.uk

Water companies are forecasting an above-inflation rise in average household bills in April, drawing criticism from campaigners.
The average annual water and sewerage bill is expected to rise by 6% in England and Wales, up £27 to £473, says suppliers' trade body Water UK.
In Scotland, water and waste charges will go up by 8.8%, a rise of £36.
Water firms have been facing intense scrutiny after the dumping of sewage into rivers.
"Next year will see record levels of investment from water companies to secure the security of our water supply in the future and significantly reduce the amount of sewage in rivers and seas," said David Henderson, chief executive of Water UK.
He said companies in England and Wales would invest more than £14.4bn in the next financial year, the highest annual investment on record.

Bills can vary​

The average expected bill is calculated by companies, and will be above the latest inflation rate of 4%, which charts general price rises. Actual individual bills can differ significantly owing to regional variations and usage levels for those on a meter.
In England and Wales, Wessex Water and Anglian Water are at the top end of the scale, with average bills set to increase to £548 and £529 respectively, while Northumbrian customers will see the lowest average bills of £422.
A host of companies were told by regulator Ofwat last year that they would have to limit rises owing to missing key targets on leakages, supply and reducing pollution.
The watchdog has also told suppliers that they must offer help to those who were struggling with bills.
"We are very aware, for those who are already struggling, this will be a real worry. As such, water companies must do all they can to protect those who are most in need of a helping hand," said chief executive David Black.

More than a million households in England and Wales get cheaper bills through companies' social tariff schemes, saving them an average of £151 last year. Around half of households in Scotland receive financial support with water charges.
Five water companies use some of their own profits to help fund social tariffs, with consumer groups are calling for others to join them.

 

[jon0844]

There have been warnings of a large hike in water bills for years. Perhaps if the companies hadn't been getting into more debt while paying dividends, and getting away with murder through reduced regulation, it could have been avoided.

And we're going to see a nice hike in our council tax bill (and part of that being an increase in the policing bill) but due to a limit on the increase, the councils will likely still need to find ways to make large cuts in services.

I can't see 2024 being a great year, although I can see interest rates being cut no matter what to try and give the people something to vote Tory again.

 

[Typhoon]

I don't know how much the Government has had a say in this decision, but it will not help them:

Water bills to rise above inflation in April

Water companies in England and Wales expect an increase of 6%, with an 8.8% rise in Scotland.

www.bbc.co.uk

Warning: Don't read while eating a meal.

It might make more of a difference in some areas than others, depending on performance. Where I am (East Kent) we have regular reports of sewage releases, and a broken supply pipe I reported on 1st September (others may have reported it earlier) was finally fixed on 18th November, having been erroneously been reported fixed earlier (when all they had done was make blue marks on the ground, did they think we wouldn't notice the flow of water).

At least directors are not taking bonuses here. If the following story from March is repeated, people will be up in arms

Seven of the UK’s nine water companies gave bonuses to their executives linked to environmental targets last year, despite significant amounts of sewage being dumped into UK waterways.

Note the source https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...-banked-bonuses-despite-record-sewage-dumping

I seem to remember a TV report on this (Panorama?)

 

[Lost property]

Money is a big problem but the other issue is that we don't take local government seriously. It's considered, when it is considered at all, a joke by most people and the only thing they care about (and appear to think their local council does) is deal with potholes and the bins. Westminster clearly holds deep suspicion of the local councils and is happy to chuck responsibility with no real power (or money) at them whilst journalists of all stripes treat local elections as a referendum on the Westminster parties themselves ("ooh the Tories had a bad night in the local elections, what does this mean for the General Election").

Meanwhile we also pay councillors, who technically are in charge, poorly considering for the level of theoretical responsibility. Whilst it varies for my local council the basic allowance is just a smidge of £10,000 per year. The leader of the council gets a smidge over £32,000 per year. Which means that a) it's only the cranks who are likely to go for the role of being a councillor, b) only the independently wealthy (either themselves or via their partner) who don't need a full time job, or c) retirees who don't need a full time job. Which rather leads to quite a self-selecting group of people who may not actually be very good at being responsible for organisations that have such important responsibilities.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we just whack Councillor allowance up to £80k and bish bash bosh jobs a good 'un. More that we need to have a serious discussion about what we expect local authorities to do and then how we organise local authorities to deliver what we want them to do. The current way of doing things seems to be the worst of all worlds with councils having to deliver ever more services, for ever smaller budgets, whilst doing very little to attract capable people to important oversight/leadership roles and generally being thought of, when they are, as an add-on to the drama of Westminster and/or a joke.

I will agree entirely, that, the deliberate policy of underfunding local authorities by this Gov't has resulted in the decimation of services we see / experience today.

However, when it comes to LGO's / councillors, I hold the former in open contempt. Anybody who works as a paper shuffler admin is usually, weak, inadequate and ineffectual by nature, plus " Mon-Fri 8.30 -4.30, 4 on a Friday, 40mins for lunch and a pension, can't be sacked and a job for life " . I'm not exactly well disposed to adminers at the best of times, the good ones tend to stand out by virtue of being so.

My own direct encounter with the admin world of my local council ended badly.....for them. They don't like people who prove them wrong. The arrogance of their communication, not even a "Dear " as a basic honorific !, and the variety of tenses used said it all. Another, even more direct encounter with a refuse collector again ended badly.

Many councillors seem to love themselves and the kudos of being such. Again, the memorable few stand out by doing what they have been elected to do. One in particular always featured in a local rag and would hold court as it were in the entrance to a local supermarket. Knowing full well who he was, he was suitably upset when, as he was stood outside a local polling station, I asked if he was the caretaker. On a railway note, he was adamant, because he'd walked it and NR had made favourable noises, probably just to shut him up, that, the line from Stafford to Wellington could be reinstated and...electrified, and all for a mere £220m ! bargain ! This may prove a shade problematic when it comes to NR's depot at Stafford however.


Readers of Private Eye will be familiar with Rotten Boroughs and how many seem to "leave " one job, with a very decent pay off, only to take up employment elsewhere soon after. Local Gov't can almost make the Tory party look like paragons. Hope the link works.

Lawyers raise alarm at struggle to tackle UK local government corruption

Exclusive: staff and councillors at 36 local authorities accused of financial crime in past decade with dozens arrested and convicted

www.theguardian.com

 

[jfollows]

However, when it comes to LGO's / councillors, I hold the former in open contempt. Anybody who works as a paper shuffler admin is usually, weak, inadequate and ineffectual by nature, plus " Mon-Fri 8.30 -4.30, 4 on a Friday, 40mins for lunch and a pension, can't be sacked and a job for life " . I'm not exactly well disposed to adminers at the best of times, the good ones tend to stand out by virtue of being so.

Many, many years ago I used to visit some customers at Gwent council. The people we talked to were nice people, but they always took an hour for lunch at a set time, to which we became accustomed. "We get paid less than you and we're entitled to our lunch break" they explained. They also gave us the "gossip" on what was happening down the road at Newport council - we had bid for a contract to supply networking equipment to Newport but lost to a cheaper bid, and it was good to hear that it was all turning into a bit of a disaster.
But, yes, if I ever need to ask for something from my local council I usually have to ask about four times before it gets done, and they once sent me a "final bill" for council tax out of incompetence when a neighbour moved out, and after complaining I got a very grudging apology.

 

[Lost property]

Many, many years ago I used to visit some customers at Gwent council. The people we talked to were nice people, but they always took an hour for lunch at a set time, to which we became accustomed. "We get paid less than you and we're entitled to our lunch break" they explained. They also gave us the "gossip" on what was happening down the road at Newport council - we had bid for a contract to supply networking equipment to Newport but lost to a cheaper bid, and it was good to hear that it was all turning into a bit of a disaster.
But, yes, if I ever need to ask for something from my local council I usually have to ask about four time before it gets done, and they once sent me a "final bill" for council tax out of incompetence when a neighbour moved out, and after complaining I got a very grudging apology.

I never got an apology, or acknowledgment possibly because a bank statement proved their own incompetence had resulted in a payment being made when it was not required. According to them, I was responsible. Dates and figures proved otherwise.

I'm still waiting for the collection of a wheelie bin which I don't need.....I've been waiting for over a year. Prompts just ignored.

 

[jfollows]

I never got an apology, or acknowledgment possibly because a bank statement proved their own incompetence had resulted in a payment being made when it was not required. According to them, I was responsible. Dates and figures proved otherwise.

I'm still waiting for the collection of a wheelie bin which I don't need.....I've been waiting for over a year. Prompts just ignored.

It took me three or four attempts to get a green wheelie bin when I moved in - ironically it's now no longer used and I will turn it into a water butt I think, they won't collect it for sure.
They also had a food waste scheme for which a "caddy" was to be delivered and it took multiple attempts along with unfulfilled promises to get this too, in the end the library actually sorted it out.
And as for planning, they're useless, they grant planning permission with specific rules which the builders ignore - "oh but it rained so we had to run late" - and then do nothing to enforce when I've complained to them.
It took a year to get some double yellow lines painted on a section of road which people discovered they could park on for free. In this case, though, the Conservatives couldn't be bothered to start the process and the Labour/Independent administration had to start from scratch when they won a few months later.
I'm sure there's nothing uncommon in any of these stories.

 

[nw1]

I don't know how much the Government has had a say in this decision, but it will not help them:

Water bills to rise above inflation in April

Water companies in England and Wales expect an increase of 6%, with an 8.8% rise in Scotland.

www.bbc.co.uk

Probably not much, but I doubt they care. After all the Conservative Party is (based on my observations since the 80s) mostly about looking after the interests of these large privatised corporations and their shareholders.

As for this, well as a customer I will say that Southern Water provide an absolutely disgraceful service. When it turned from cold to mild in December 2022 (like that has never happened before!) we lost water for 2 days - in the run up to Christmas - because they had failed to do the maintenance properly and their system could not cope with rapid changes from cold to mild. In Northern Europe where such things have been part of the climate since who knows when.

Then - worse - it happened again two months later - and under completely benign climatic conditions. No excessive rain, no drought, and no sudden change from cold to warm or back again.

The British water industry is the very definition of the term "the unacceptable face of capitalism". In my view, they exploit a captive market who has no alternative, and offer a disgraceful service because they know there is no competition that customers can sign up with instead.

 

[DC1989]

Whoever wins the next election will have many battles on their hands. The country really is in a perilous state. From the armed forces to NHS, there's probably not much that doesn't require huge improvements.

If Starmer can make progress on reducing NHS waiting lists, reducing immigration, building a house or two, and getting some very modest GDP growth, he should get a second term.

 

[nw1]

Whoever wins the next election will have many battles on their hands. The country really is in a perilous state. From the armed forces to NHS, there's probably not much that doesn't require huge improvements.

If Starmer can make progress on reducing NHS waiting lists, reducing immigration, building a house or two, and getting some very modest GDP growth, he should get a second term.

Not reducing immigration, please. Many of us are absolutely opposed to restricting people's options in life. It seems to be increasingly part of 2020s political dogma that reducing immigration is a good thing. In my view, and many others, it is absolutely not.

Remember restricting immigration here will mean that we'll have even less opportunity to emigrate than we do now. Other countries will retaliate and it'll end up doubtless being nigh-on impossible.

And long term if Western countries increasingly erect Trumpian walls and inequality between the First and Third World increases, it'll likely destabilise the world and increase the chances of a devastating world war. Long term, we need to get used to more immigration unless we want to risk potentially dire consequences.

 

[brad465]

Whoever wins the next election will have many battles on their hands. The country really is in a perilous state. From the armed forces to NHS, there's probably not much that doesn't require huge improvements.

If Starmer can make progress on reducing NHS waiting lists, reducing immigration, building a house or two, and getting some very modest GDP growth, he should get a second term.

What's actually quite good about the country being in such a perilous state for someone coming into try and make improvements, is they have much more potential to improve things in a relative sense. This reminds me of a teacher being concerned going to a school with poor Ofsted ratings, being told by another teacher that that's a good way to progress your career, as the potential to improve things is higher so you can show the improvements more easily if you manage to make them. Showcasing improvements is much harder when the country/an institution is already close to perfection.

 

[D6130]

Not reducing immigration, please. Many of us are absolutely opposed to restricting people's options in life. It seems to be increasingly part of 2020s political dogma that reducing immigration is a good thing. In my view, and many others, it is absolutely not.

Remember restricting immigration here will mean that we'll have even less opportunity to emigrate than we do now. Other countries will retaliate and it'll end up doubtless being nigh-on impossible.

And long term if Western countries increasingly erect Trumpian walls and inequality between the First and Third World increases, it'll likely destabilise the world and increase the chances of a devastating world war. Long term, we need to get used to more immigration unless we want to risk potentially dire consequences.

Absolutely this!

 

[jfollows]

Labour needs to have a compelling reason to vote for it, just not being the Conservative party will get it into power at the next election but it's not enough. Adopting Conservative policies and being frightened of being different isn't the right thing to do, I don't think, and watering down its policies in case too many people get frightened off is bad. I'll still vote Labour in the next election because I'm actually voting against the Conservatives, but that won't sustain my vote to the following election.

 

[nw1]

Labour needs to have a compelling reason to vote for it, just not being the Conservative party will get it into power at the next election but it's not enough. Adopting Conservative policies and being frightened of being different isn't the right thing to do, I don't think, and watering down its policies in case too many people get frightened off is bad. I'll still vote Labour in the next election because I'm actually voting against the Conservatives, but that won't sustain my vote to the following election.

Long term that is indeed the case.

This time I think people will vote for them in droves simply because they are fed up with the Tories. However, Labour perceive the biggest threat to winning is being too liberal or left-wing (e.g. too pro-industrial action or pro-immigration) and consequently are currently adopting something of a Tory-lite approach. Sadly I think it's too politically risky to be anything other than Tory-lite for the election campaign, but next time they will need to change.

If we go into 2029, Labour remain Tory-lite, and the Tories move a little towards the centre, I suspect progressives could switch from Labour to a more liberal and/or left-wing alternative, a repeat of 2010 will occur and the Tories could get back in again. I think that a split anti-Tory vote (caused by Labour disillusionment) was an important factor in the Tories returning to power in 2010, rather than widespread love for Cameron.

The next 5 years need to be basically about cleaning up the Tory mess.

However, Labour need to offer a clear progressive alternative in 2029 and recognise that we're not all union-bashing, anti-woke anti-immigrationists. We need a more progressive and hopeful vision of the future, something different from the dismal 2020s.