Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real loser in all of this is the Tory reputation for compe

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real loser in all of this is the Tory reputation for competence

It has long been argued by myself and others that the key characteristic that voters look to when whey make their choice is their desire for competent government. We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    First?

    May of the Living Dead?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Good morning, everyone*.

    That's rather witty, Dr. Foxinsox.

    *Well, not me. A persistent cough helped encourage me to a Napoleonic sleep pattern, getting up at half past two to try and get it to calm down.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038
    edited October 9

    Good morning, everyone*.

    That's rather witty, Dr. Foxinsox.

    *Well, not me. A persistent cough helped encourage me to a Napoleonic sleep pattern, getting up at half past two to try and get it to calm down.

    Prostate cancer treatmnent has rather the same effect on me!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    King Cole, well, now I just feel like a whiner.

    I do hope you make a full recovery.
  • This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.
  • This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    But the poor little dear got the arse and scuttled off to Fleet Street. If only he'd shown some intelligence and stayed on the back benches, he'd be in pole position now and you wouldn't be having all these wet dreams.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    I am not sure about the timing of this. In the election the Tory vote went up quite substantially, back into the 40s for the first time since 1992. This was presumably despite the fiasco with the dementia tax and one of the most chaotic and useless campaigns on record (outside Scotland).

    What we have had since is weak and chaotic government. It is noteworthy the last time the Tories lost their reputation for competence was in the post black Wednesday period where we had weak and chaotic government as Major fought his bastards.

    It therefore seems to me that what damages the reputation for competence is minority or weak government rather than any particular policy changes. An extended period of such government 92-97 led to a total thrashing. At the moment it is hard to see anything other than a repeat post 2022.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,822

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    I'm not so sure. A lot of the Tory lead was because Labour under Ed Miliband failed to fire back re the damage Osborne was doing, the missed targets, rising taxes and mounting debt. Corbyn's party might not have been so obliging.
    https://www.facebook.com/thepeopleforjeremycorbyn/videos/1866330060299662/
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    I sometimes worry if May should have doubled down on social care.

    But, I think the problem was not preparing the ground in advance.
  • I agree with OGH that the brave attempt to grasp the long term care 'nettle' out of the blue was one the nation needs.... who knows when someone will go near doing so again.

    Labour 97 portrayed a Govt in waiting level of competence.... very hard to say that they are there yet in 2017!
  • I sometimes worry if May should have doubled down on social care.

    But, I think the problem was not preparing the ground in advance.

    Exactly - having had reviews and commissions for decades kicking the 'can' down the road, to expect it to fly without getting Andrew Dilnot etc to fall in behind it was naive / arrogance. Still it was a damn good idea in principle which is more the pity!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Mr. Scrapheap, indeed. But what will the public do, faced with a weak government and an Opposition that's not up to it?

    Do wonder who'll replace May.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,992
    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    edited October 9
    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673
    Bernard Jenkins: what an utter, utter moron.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    It certainly is hard for Theresa May to establish a reputation for competence.

    The plotting over leadership looks like a displacement activity to me, like the urge to rearrange the kitchen cupboards when an essay is due.

    The junking of the Tory manifesto in favour of most of Ed Milibands shows the complete lack of direction and authority, while the passengers try to wrest control of the wheel from Mrs May.

  • This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    I'm not so sure. A lot of the Tory lead was because Labour under Ed Miliband failed to fire back re the damage Osborne was doing, the missed targets, rising taxes and mounting debt. Corbyn's party might not have been so obliging.
    https://www.facebook.com/thepeopleforjeremycorbyn/videos/1866330060299662/
    It always amuses me the number of PBers that would rather give anyone else but Osborne credit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    I'm not so sure. A lot of the Tory lead was because Labour under Ed Miliband failed to fire back re the damage Osborne was doing, the missed targets, rising taxes and mounting debt. Corbyn's party might not have been so obliging.
    https://www.facebook.com/thepeopleforjeremycorbyn/videos/1866330060299662/
    It always amuses me the number of PBers that would rather give anyone else but Osborne credit.
    I was trying to get my head around the idea of a Corbyn led Labour Party attacking Osborne for spending to much and not cutting the deficit fast enough. Couldn't quite make it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    It took years in opposition to do that though.

    Has any party recovered its competence while in government rather than opposition?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,992
    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    Thirteen years after the ERM exit.
  • This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    But the poor little dear got the arse and scuttled off to Fleet Street. If only he'd shown some intelligence and stayed on the back benches, he'd be in pole position now and you wouldn't be having all these wet dreams.
    In which universe is Derry Street on Fleet Street?

    I've said Osborne's political career is long over, you Brexit it, you fix it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    It took years in opposition to do that though.

    Has any party recovered its competence while in government rather than opposition?
    Only by something big and new in terms of policy, but again, how can that happen when you're already in government.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    It took years in opposition to do that though.

    Has any party recovered its competence while in government rather than opposition?
    Not while in minority government. In majority government the Tories got away very lightly with their changes on monetary policy etc as target after target followed the Heisenberg Principle and Brown largely got away with selling our gold reserves on the cheap. I think it is the general perception of grip that is important and this government doesn't have any.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,093
    Pong said:

    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.

    The STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters appeared in parts of London well before the Manifesto launch on May 18th
  • This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,599

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    But the poor little dear got the arse and scuttled off to Fleet Street. If only he'd shown some intelligence and stayed on the back benches, he'd be in pole position now and you wouldn't be having all these wet dreams.
    In which universe is Derry Street on Fleet Street?

    I've said Osborne's political career is long over, you Brexit it, you fix it.
    Well the UK had a current account deficit of £115bn in 2016.

    Do you expect Osborne to fix that ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112

    I agree with OGH that the brave attempt to grasp the long term care 'nettle' out of the blue was one the nation needs.... who knows when someone will go near doing so again.

    Labour 97 portrayed a Govt in waiting level of competence.... very hard to say that they are there yet in 2017!

    The difference here is how incompetent the government is just 3 months after a general election.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 132
    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    Thirteen years after the ERM exit.
    That is because the Labour government that followed was led by economically competent people, who accepted you needed an economy that supported business growth to redistribute the benefits. Any Labour government that follows the current one will be a far left one that thinks any interventionist policy is the right one, be it robot taxes, rent caps or nationalisation. When this is done at an already fragile time for the UK economy with Brexit, we will be hit extremely hard. Both the economically moderate wing of the Conservatives and the whole Labour Party will be discredited. The Thatcherite/Osbornite wing of the Tories will come back for 10-15 years.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085
    edited October 9
    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,328
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    It took years in opposition to do that though.

    Has any party recovered its competence while in government rather than opposition?
    Not while in minority government. In majority government the Tories got away very lightly with their changes on monetary policy etc as target after target followed the Heisenberg Principle and Brown largely got away with selling our gold reserves on the cheap. I think it is the general perception of grip that is important and this government doesn't have any.
    The Goodhart Principle, I think?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    The Brexit that Cameron left - by walking off the field of battle when he said he would go once more unto the breach, dear friends - and one which he had specifcally allowed no contingency planning for - yes, that was a hospital pass.

    I really liked Cameron, and I thought his 2015 Conference speech was his finest, setting out a vision for the Party and the country that I would have been very proud to get behind. But in the end, I'm not sure which charge rankles about him the most - his incompetence or his cowardice.

    But you carry on, being the great cheerleader for this appaling period of recent history, whilst absolving yourself of all responsibility for the current predicament that democracy has handed to Government.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,599

    Pong said:

    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.

    The STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters appeared in parts of London well before the Manifesto launch on May 18th
    So around the time of the local elections, when May was looking strong and stable.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445
    edited October 9
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy

    We need a DeverythingwhichisnotexEU, headed by a co-PM; it's the only way.
  • rkrkrk said:

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    It took years in opposition to do that though.

    Has any party recovered its competence while in government rather than opposition?
    Not while in minority government. In majority government the Tories got away very lightly with their changes on monetary policy etc as target after target followed the Heisenberg Principle and Brown largely got away with selling our gold reserves on the cheap. I think it is the general perception of grip that is important and this government doesn't have any.
    Brown selling gold at its lowest price was a lot more excusable than osbourne selling of the shares in the salvaged banks at deliberately low prices.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 57,198
    edited October 9
    A comment from The Express website, it explains why German car manufacturers won't be insisting Angela Merkel and The EU give us a good deal.

    image
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 112

    Pong said:

    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.

    The STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters appeared in parts of London well before the Manifesto launch on May 18th
    So around the time of the local elections, when May was looking strong and stable.
    To Tories may be.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,328
    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,591
    FPT: @geoffw @Sunil Re Brexiter/Brexitter

    You should have stuck to your guns Geoff - I see the Guardian has Brexiters with one 't' in its main headline this morning and if you don't trust the Grauniad for your spellings, the OED notes: "Just as Brexit itself had developed from Grexit, other words began to appear: Brexiteer, Brexiter, Brexit as a verb."

    Geoff 1 - Sunil 0

    :lol:
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 57,198
    edited October 9
    On topic, I also have to disagree with Mike, the problem with the dementia tax proposals was that it overturned 40 years of Tory orthodoxy on your home.

    If you're going to do something like that, you need to do gently and with a lot of preparation, not overnight.

    Mrs May and her team forgot the lesson of the 2007 Tory conference.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    I agree with OGH that the brave attempt to grasp the long term care 'nettle' out of the blue was one the nation needs.... who knows when someone will go near doing so again.

    Not for a long time. It needed work, but it had more substance to that idea than most, and was a brave policy indeed given the strength of that vote.

    Pie in the sky promises and vagueness the only way to go.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    eristdoof said:

    Pong said:

    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.

    The STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters appeared in parts of London well before the Manifesto launch on May 18th
    So around the time of the local elections, when May was looking strong and stable.
    To Tories may be.
    The results were strong, suggesting the country thought so too, because more people were voting tory. There were legitimate reasons to think people were buying it.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Mr Eagles,

    "I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit,"

    Basically, you're saying they didn't because it was too hard.

    Tosh!

    There should have been a position paper at least. The line to take on of Article 50, basic positioning, potential allies, main enemies. All that admin stuff - they love that sort of thing.

    Cameron ran away, the only position he took was exposing the yellow stripe down his back.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530
    Elliot said:

    Jonathan said:

    DavidL said:

    Jonathan said:

    Problem with losing your reputation for competence is that it takes years to recover.

    Significant changes in personnel can achieve it. Eg Cameron and Osborne combined with Howard after the IDS period.
    Thirteen years after the ERM exit.
    That is because the Labour government that followed was led by economically competent people, who accepted you needed an economy that supported business growth to redistribute the benefits. Any Labour government that follows the current one will be a far left one that thinks any interventionist policy is the right one, be it robot taxes, rent caps or nationalisation. When this is done at an already fragile time for the UK economy with Brexit, we will be hit extremely hard. Both the economically moderate wing of the Conservatives and the whole Labour Party will be discredited. The Thatcherite/Osbornite wing of the Tories will come back for 10-15 years.
    I think that might be something which has to happen though.
  • kle4 said:

    I agree with OGH that the brave attempt to grasp the long term care 'nettle' out of the blue was one the nation needs.... who knows when someone will go near doing so again.

    Not for a long time. It needed work, but it had more substance to that idea than most, and was a brave policy indeed given the strength of that vote.

    Pie in the sky promises and vagueness the only way to go.
    I can't remember where I read it, but when they came up with the dementia tax proposals, the Tory private polling showed them on course for a majority of around 140, I wonder if that also played a factor.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.

    The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Eagles,

    "I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit,"

    Basically, you're saying they didn't because it was too hard.

    Tosh!

    There should have been a position paper at least. The line to take on of Article 50, basic positioning, potential allies, main enemies. All that admin stuff - they love that sort of thing.

    Cameron ran away, the only position he took was exposing the yellow stripe down his back.

    They did do that.

    Plus I remember Leavers assuring us Brexit would be easy.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,085

    On topic, I also have to disagree with Mike, the problem with the dementia tax proposals was that it overturned 40 years of Tory orthodoxy on your home.

    If you're going to do something like that, you need to do gently and with a lot of preparation, not overnight.

    Mrs May and her team forgot the lesson of the 2007 Tory conference.

    What do you mean 40 years of Tory orthodoxy? In 1993, Woking Borough Council - a Tory run council - demanded that my dad sell my grandmother's home, give them the money and put her in one of their care homes. What Mrs May was proposing was actually an improvement on that situation.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,591

    rkrkrk said:

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
    I am sure the civil service could have wargamed it but given that, 16 months after the vote, their political masters cannot agree amongst themselves what Brexit should look like any planning would have been a waste of effort.

    The real fault was not that the civil service didn't contingency plan but that the Government did not set out clearly what the Leave option meant. That was a shocking failure on the part of Cameron and his cabinet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    tlg86 said:

    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.

    It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 57,198
    edited October 9
    Well this is a kick in the teeth for all those who were told closing courts in the provinces were essential to save money, turns out the savings are being used for this.

    A major court complex specialising in cybercrime and fraud cases is to be built in the City of London to promote the UK’s financial and legal services post-Brexit.

    The scheme – likely to costs tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds – is being backed by the City of London Corporation, HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS), the Ministry of Justice and senior judges.

    The courthouse to be built near Fleet Street will have space for 18 courtrooms. Its primary focus will be on fraud, economic crime and cybercrime, though it will also hear criminal and civil cases currently listed at the City of the London magistrates and county courts.

    The investment is intended to bolster the City’s reputation after the UK leaves the EU. It will further concentrate legal expertise in a small area of London around the Royal Courts of Justice, the Old Bailey, the Rolls Building – where most commercial cases are heard – and Inns of Court......

    ....The project could trigger resentment among court users outside the capital where a succession of HMCTS closure programmes aimed at making significant savings has led to hundreds of historic magistrates, county and crown courts being shut.

    Last year, the MoJ announced the closure of 86 crown, county, family and magistrates’ courts across England and Wales. In 2011, a previous economy drive led to 140 courts shutting their doors.

    The Rolls Building, which opened on the edge of the City in 2011, cost £300m and contains 31 courtrooms. The cost of the new complex is to be revealed early next year when a feasibility scheme is published.

    The government is determined to protect London’s status as a leading international legal and financial centre after Brexit. About 44,000 jobs in the Square Mile, more than 9% of the City’s workforce, are in legal services.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/09/new-court-complex-planned-bolster-city-london-after-brexit
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445
    TOPPING said:

    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.

    The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
    Reminding people of it would not in itself have done the damage if they went on to say ”so we are going to have a Royal Commission and a cross party initiative and kick the issue into touch for years”.
  • tlg86 said:

    On topic, I also have to disagree with Mike, the problem with the dementia tax proposals was that it overturned 40 years of Tory orthodoxy on your home.

    If you're going to do something like that, you need to do gently and with a lot of preparation, not overnight.

    Mrs May and her team forgot the lesson of the 2007 Tory conference.

    What do you mean 40 years of Tory orthodoxy? In 1993, Woking Borough Council - a Tory run council - demanded that my dad sell my grandmother's home, give them the money and put her in one of their care homes. What Mrs May was proposing was actually an improvement on that situation.
    The Tory orthodoxy of the last 40 years was you should be able to leave your house to your children with as little tax payable on it as possible.

    (I support the principles behind it, just that it was so poorly presented, and the u turn didn't help)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    rkrkrk said:

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
    I am sure the civil service could have wargamed it but given that, 16 months after the vote, their political masters cannot agree amongst themselves what Brexit should look like any planning would have been a waste of effort.

    The real fault was not that the civil service didn't contingency plan but that the Government did not set out clearly what the Leave option meant. That was a shocking failure on the part of Cameron and his cabinet.
    They told us what it meant. There were entire campaigns telling us too. And of course there were and are many possibilities.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,591
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.

    The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
    Reminding people of it would not in itself have done the damage if they went on to say ”so we are going to have a Royal Commission and a cross party initiative and kick the issue into touch for years”.
    I think Mike has got this right. Bowing to pressure on the social care proposals within a few days gave the lie to 'Strong and Stable'.

    PS I hate the term dementia tax. Paying for your own care is not a tax - precisely the opposite - the alternative depends upon tax.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,103
    We know what the Conservatives are against Corbyn , but hard to decipher what they are for.They espouse policies such a Milliband light , but use the rhetoric of untrammelled free markets.Set with the freedom and control to trade anywhere successfully with or without deals because we are Great Britain.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    rkrkrk said:

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    The hospital pass that May inherited* was down to the ineptitude of Cameron and Osborne. Imagine if they had insisted the Civil Service had done some planning for a Brexit result? Or if Cameron had kept his word and not resigned, but rather, implemented the Brexit his insane posturing both before and after the "renegotiation" had ensured?

    (*not that I am exactly excusing Theresa May, standing on the touchline at Twickenham shouting to the scrum "Me! Me!! Pass it to me...." when perhaps netball was her game....)
    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
    I am sure the civil service could have wargamed it but given that, 16 months after the vote, their political masters cannot agree amongst themselves what Brexit should look like any planning would have been a waste of effort.

    The real fault was not that the civil service didn't contingency plan but that the Government did not set out clearly what the Leave option meant. That was a shocking failure on the part of Cameron and his cabinet.
    They couldn't do. If they had tried to define what 'leave' meant (something the leave campaigns failed to do themselves), then the leave fanatics would have just pitifully cried foul. It would have put the story firmly onto leave's ground.

    Leave needed to create as big a consensus as possible to get Brexit through. They did this, but the inherent contradictions are hurting the negotiations, and hence the country. It's therefore hilarious to see leavers thrashing about trying to blame Cameron for their own mess.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    kle4 said:

    I agree with OGH that the brave attempt to grasp the long term care 'nettle' out of the blue was one the nation needs.... who knows when someone will go near doing so again.

    Not for a long time. It needed work, but it had more substance to that idea than most, and was a brave policy indeed given the strength of that vote.

    Pie in the sky promises and vagueness the only way to go.
    I can't remember where I read it, but when they came up with the dementia tax proposals, the Tory private polling showed them on course for a majority of around 140, I wonder if that also played a factor.
    I am sure it did - they felt thy had a chance to actually bring up an issue no one else had such a comparatively detailed idea for , even though it would be unpopular, since they would have enough mPS to take the decision.
  • What really did for Mrs May was chickening out of the debates, it just gave rise to this whole narrative that she wasn't very good and that she was frit.

    For someone projecting herself as the Iron Lady Mark II, she must have known Mrs Thatcher wouldn't have dodged the debate.

    Ironically the terrorist attacks didn't help her against Corbyn, as it brought to the fore the cut in the number of police.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539


    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.

    You should do planning for both sides of a referendum outcome.

    I quite accept that Vote Leave were promising very different things - but you can do basic preparation for all of them - and indeed setting out where they are contradictory is one of the first things that should be made clear!

    This was done in 1975 but Cameron decided he didn't want it;

    "162.In 1975, Whitehall prepared for a possible UK exit from the ‘Common Market’ with a “fairly intensive” programme of Cabinet Office led contingency planning.220 The contingency planning focused on the length of time required for withdrawal to be negotiated, the financial consequences of leaving and issues such as subsidy payments to farmers, tariffs and future trading arrangements with Europe.221

    163.However, unlike in 1975, the Government’s official position during the 2016 EU referendum was that there would be no contingency planning, the only exception being planning within the Treasury to anticipate the likely impact of a Leave vote on the UK’s financial stability.222"

    Particularly since at the time Cameron was promising to stay as PM.

    A friend at the Treasury told me months after the vote they were still finding new pieces of legislation and associated problems to fix. All of that should have started well before - particularly given how time pressed the negotiation is.

    Hammond's excuse was that they were worried the contingency planning would leak- that this would be seen as partisan during the referendum and/or would somehow find its way into the hands of the EU.

    That's a completely ridiculous reason in my view.

    https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/lack-whitehall-brexit-planning-not-oversight-says-foreign-secretary-philip-hammond

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubadm/496/49608.htm
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,599
    eristdoof said:

    Pong said:

    "My initial reaction to the proposal was that it showed a government that was willing to make highly unpopular decisions on what is one of the biggest issues of the day which other governments of all shades had been avoiding for decades. I thought it was an election winner because of the messages it sent out about competence and willingness to take tough decision. which would be unpopular with core Tory voters. Then the policy was watered down and TMay has suffered ever since. "

    Yes.

    The policy pissed off the grey vote, but the U-turn fired up the not-grey vote more.

    Net negative for the tories.

    It was a half-arsed manifesto, combined with a hesitant, half-arsed campaign.

    I think it was shortly after the u-turn that the DIY "STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters started popping up.

    The STRONG AND STABLE, MY ARSE" posters appeared in parts of London well before the Manifesto launch on May 18th
    So around the time of the local elections, when May was looking strong and stable.
    To Tories may be.
    Take a look at the local election results, they were very good for the Conservatives.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819

    It's therefore hilarious to see leavers thrashing about trying to blame Cameron for their own mess.

    It's a constant factor of Brexit that the Brexiteers cry "it's not our fault"

    They blame the people who warned them, and voted against them.

    They are hapless victims...

    SAD!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.

    The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
    Reminding people of it would not in itself have done the damage if they went on to say ”so we are going to have a Royal Commission and a cross party initiative and kick the issue into touch for years”.
    I think Mike has got this right. Bowing to pressure on the social care proposals within a few days gave the lie to 'Strong and Stable'.

    PS I hate the term dementia tax. Paying for your own care is not a tax - precisely the opposite - the alternative depends upon tax.
    It was a very successful negative labelling by opponents. Far better even than bedroom tax, or even death tax, since the idea is it hits you while alive.
  • That is a puntastic cartoon.

    I'm going to nick those for the inevitable day when Mrs May is toppled.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539


    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    On Sindy specifically - my department was told not to plan for a Yes vote, which was a major source of uncertainty for Scottish colleagues. Other departments may have had other instructions though.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038

    King Cole, well, now I just feel like a whiner.

    I do hope you make a full recovery.

    Coming back after breakfast....... I have every confidence in my (former) colleagues in the NHS!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,599
    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.

    It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
    What we really want is a government which will 'take it from them and give it to me'.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Old ground, but the dementia tax was inexplicably stupid. It was highly emotive, it affected the elderly (who vote rather a lot), there was no groundwork done for it, and the only reason it made the manifesto was because May's two lieutenants had far too much sway.

    The groundwork point is the most important. Surprising people is fine if you're giving them sweeties. If you're diving headfirst into an emotive policy area full of financial implications you have to prepare the ground, otherwise it's as risky as pursuing a Carthaginian towards a lake.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,011
    Mr rkrkrk,

    Thank you for the information.

    I've always suspected the real reason was that preparing for Leave would give it extra credence and could undermine Operation Fear.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    rkrkrk said:

    You should do planning for both sides of a referendum outcome.

    If the civil service had planned to leave the single market, the Brexiteers would have said it was nonsense

    There was no Leave scenario the civil service could realistically plan for, and the Brexiteers know it, they just need a scapegoat for their fuckup.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    CD13 said:

    Mr Eagles,

    "I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit,"

    Basically, you're saying they didn't because it was too hard.

    Tosh!

    There should have been a position paper at least. The line to take on of Article 50, basic positioning, potential allies, main enemies. All that admin stuff - they love that sort of thing.

    Cameron ran away, the only position he took was exposing the yellow stripe down his back.

    They did do that.

    Plus I remember Leavers assuring us Brexit would be easy.
    Citiation required.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,591
    edited October 9

    rkrkrk said:

    This is what happens when the Tories obsess about the EU, they take their eye off other things.

    Of course it also doesn’t help being led by a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    The Tory lead on the economy was more robust when George Osborne CH was at No 11, he’d have destroyed Labour on the economy.

    So you're saying Brexit is a hospital pass, interesting.

    I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit, and that is down entirely to Vote Leave.
    Sorry - what is the reason why the civil service couldn't do planning?
    My understanding is that Cameron forbade planning - as with Scottish referendum...
    There was planning for a Yes vote in the Indyref.

    The reason for limited planning for Brexit was that there was no Vote Leave manifesto/white paper (unlike during the Indyref)

    Plus Vote Leave were promising so many contradictory things, as well as unrealistic things, the civil service couldn't realistically wargame for it.
    I am sure the civil service could have wargamed it but given that, 16 months after the vote, their political masters cannot agree amongst themselves what Brexit should look like any planning would have been a waste of effort.

    The real fault was not that the civil service didn't contingency plan but that the Government did not set out clearly what the Leave option meant. That was a shocking failure on the part of Cameron and his cabinet.
    They couldn't do. If they had tried to define what 'leave' meant (something the leave campaigns failed to do themselves), then the leave fanatics would have just pitifully cried foul. It would have put the story firmly onto leave's ground.

    Leave needed to create as big a consensus as possible to get Brexit through. They did this, but the inherent contradictions are hurting the negotiations, and hence the country. It's therefore hilarious to see leavers thrashing about trying to blame Cameron for their own mess.
    Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.

    I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.

    But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,673

    FPT: @geoffw @Sunil Re Brexiter/Brexitter

    You should have stuck to your guns Geoff - I see the Guardian has Brexiters with one 't' in its main headline this morning and if you don't trust the Grauniad for your spellings, the OED notes: "Just as Brexit itself had developed from Grexit, other words began to appear: Brexiteer, Brexiter, Brexit as a verb."

    Geoff 1 - Sunil 0

    :lol:

    It's Brexiter one t. It has the right leaden, cloddish, lack of imagination quality to it.

    Exhibit A: Bernard Jenkins.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    edited October 9

    Old ground, but the dementia tax was inexplicably stupid. It was highly emotive, it affected the elderly (who vote rather a lot), there was no groundwork done for it, and the only reason it made the manifesto was because May's two lieutenants had far too much sway.

    The groundwork point is the most important. Surprising people is fine if you're giving them sweeties. If you're diving headfirst into an emotive policy area full of financial implications you have to prepare the ground, otherwise it's as risky as pursuing a Carthaginian towards a lake.

    If you think you are going to win big it made percent sense, since it meant they would have the mandate for all sorts of tough decisions, decisions which usually are hard to pass. It still needed more preparation, but it made sense and was a better idea than vague aspiration.

    Nice Trasimine reference, or however it is spelled.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 700
    I thought that the Treasury had planned for a Brexit vote. Remember the punishment budget?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Mr. CD13, Project Fear did more harm than good to its own side. The overblown claims (end of Western Civilisation, Cameron just about rowing back from World War Three) undermined more credible warnings of the downsides.

    But both campaigns were atrocious. It was rather sad.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819

    Citiation required.

    Read today's papers. Brexiteers are whining that the chancellor is making Brexit "difficult"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,591

    On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.

    I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.

    But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.

    By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101

    CD13 said:

    Mr Eagles,

    "I've explained many times why the civil service couldn't do proper planning for Brexit,"

    Basically, you're saying they didn't because it was too hard.

    Tosh!

    There should have been a position paper at least. The line to take on of Article 50, basic positioning, potential allies, main enemies. All that admin stuff - they love that sort of thing.

    Cameron ran away, the only position he took was exposing the yellow stripe down his back.

    They did do that.

    Plus I remember Leavers assuring us Brexit would be easy.
    Citiation required.
    Some said it, therefore people ignore leavers who did not.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,357
    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.

    It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
    I think you can get away with one unpopular policy - even a very unpopular one that is clearly going wrong, like Iraq - if the feeling is that you're otherwise on top of things. Floating voters take an overall view. The Tory problem is that they seem to have no particular ideas on what they want to do (in which they resemble Labour in 2010), except for some sort of Brexit, and they can't even agree on what sort of Brexit they want. I wouldn't say that people feel scared of the Government or that they hate Mrs May, but a common current view is that they're a waste of space at a difficult time when we actually need a competent government.

    They aren't very convinced by Labour either at the moment. But the level of apparent unity and firmness of purpose will give a competence edge which is usually a Tory asset.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038

    tlg86 said:

    On topic, I also have to disagree with Mike, the problem with the dementia tax proposals was that it overturned 40 years of Tory orthodoxy on your home.

    If you're going to do something like that, you need to do gently and with a lot of preparation, not overnight.

    Mrs May and her team forgot the lesson of the 2007 Tory conference.

    What do you mean 40 years of Tory orthodoxy? In 1993, Woking Borough Council - a Tory run council - demanded that my dad sell my grandmother's home, give them the money and put her in one of their care homes. What Mrs May was proposing was actually an improvement on that situation.
    The Tory orthodoxy of the last 40 years was you should be able to leave your house to your children with as little tax payable on it as possible.

    (I support the principles behind it, just that it was so poorly presented, and the u turn didn't help)
    As one of those who is, possibly, within quite a short while of being personally affected, and who saw what happened to his in-laws I am very much in favour of the end-of-life care situation being regularised. The Dilnot Report should be revisited as soon as possible, and sensible proposals, preferably not too contentious, put forward.

    The problem, as I saw it, with the manifesto was that it was just that. And, apparently ill-thought through.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    edited October 9

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.

    It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
    I think you can get away with one unpopular policy - even a very unpopular one that is clearly going wrong, like Iraq - if the feeling is that you're otherwise on top of things. Floating voters take an overall view. The Tory problem is that they seem to have no particular ideas on what they want to do (in which they resemble Labour in 2010), except for some sort of Brexit, and they can't even agree on what sort of Brexit they want. I wouldn't say that people feel scared of the Government or that they hate Mrs May, but a common current view is that they're a waste of space at a difficult time when we actually need a competent government.

    They aren't very convinced by Labour either at the moment. But the level of apparent unity and firmness of purpose will give a competence edge which is usually a Tory asset.
    Fair comment. You can get away with a lot if people feel things are generally ok. And fair play for acknowledging that the woes of the tories does not mean the country us, necessarily, clamouring for Corbyn government.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377

    Well this is a kick in the teeth for all those who were told closing courts in the provinces were essential to save money, turns out the savings are being used for this.

    A major court complex specialising in cybercrime and fraud cases is to be built in the City of London to promote the UK’s financial and legal services post-Brexit.

    The scheme – likely to costs tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds – is being backed by the City of London Corporation, HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS), the Ministry of Justice and senior judges.

    The courthouse to be built near Fleet Street will have space for 18 courtrooms. Its primary focus will be on fraud, economic crime and cybercrime, though it will also hear criminal and civil cases currently listed at the City of the London magistrates and county courts.

    The investment is intended to bolster the City’s reputation after the UK leaves the EU. It will further concentrate legal expertise in a small area of London around the Royal Courts of Justice, the Old Bailey, the Rolls Building – where most commercial cases are heard – and Inns of Court......

    ....The project could trigger resentment among court users outside the capital where a succession of HMCTS closure programmes aimed at making significant savings has led to hundreds of historic magistrates, county and crown courts being shut.

    Last year, the MoJ announced the closure of 86 crown, county, family and magistrates’ courts across England and Wales. In 2011, a previous economy drive led to 140 courts shutting their doors.

    The Rolls Building, which opened on the edge of the City in 2011, cost £300m and contains 31 courtrooms. The cost of the new complex is to be revealed early next year when a feasibility scheme is published.

    The government is determined to protect London’s status as a leading international legal and financial centre after Brexit. About 44,000 jobs in the Square Mile, more than 9% of the City’s workforce, are in legal services.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/09/new-court-complex-planned-bolster-city-london-after-brexit

    ????

    You don't need fancy buildings to hear fraud cases in.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,365
    Mr. kle4, Trasimene*.

    Complacency, even when you seem to have a large advantage, is always bloody silly. At best it doesn't help, at worst it turns a seemingly certain victory to defeat (more like Cannae than Trasimene).
  • NormNorm Posts: 756
    I don't disagree with Mike's analysis although I suspect the niggling doubts began when the over-rated "Spreadsheet Phil" cocked up on Class 4 National Insurance contributions for the self employed in his Spring budget only to have to reverse the changes shortly afterwards.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445

    Well this is a kick in the teeth for all those who were told closing courts in the provinces were essential to save money, turns out the savings are being used for this.

    A major court complex specialising in cybercrime and fraud cases is to be built in the City of London to promote the UK’s financial and legal services post-Brexit.

    The scheme – likely to costs tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds – is being backed by the City of London Corporation, HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS), the Ministry of Justice and senior judges.

    The courthouse to be built near Fleet Street will have space for 18 courtrooms. Its primary focus will be on fraud, economic crime and cybercrime, though it will also hear criminal and civil cases currently listed at the City of the London magistrates and county courts.

    The investment is intended to bolster the City’s reputation after the UK leaves the EU. It will further concentrate legal expertise in a small area of London around the Royal Courts of Justice, the Old Bailey, the Rolls Building – where most commercial cases are heard – and Inns of Court......

    ....The project could trigger resentment among court users outside the capital where a succession of HMCTS closure programmes aimed at making significant savings has led to hundreds of historic magistrates, county and crown courts being shut.

    Last year, the MoJ announced the closure of 86 crown, county, family and magistrates’ courts across England and Wales. In 2011, a previous economy drive led to 140 courts shutting their doors.

    The Rolls Building, which opened on the edge of the City in 2011, cost £300m and contains 31 courtrooms. The cost of the new complex is to be revealed early next year when a feasibility scheme is published.

    The government is determined to protect London’s status as a leading international legal and financial centre after Brexit. About 44,000 jobs in the Square Mile, more than 9% of the City’s workforce, are in legal services.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/09/new-court-complex-planned-bolster-city-london-after-brexit

    How does that bolster the city? Beefing up the Commercial Court and offering world-class civil dispute resolution might help bring foreign business in, but how great is the message that we have so many fraudsters here we need to prosecute 18 separate, major at a time? Perhaps it reflects a belief that the City will be mainly perpetrating Nigerian 419 scams to make money, after all the bankers go to Zurich.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,011
    Morning all,

    OGH may have thought Dementia Tax was a "winner", but some of us on PB spotted within minutes of its announcement that this would be a total disaster.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 26,101
    Norm said:

    I don't disagree with Mike's analysis although I suspect the niggling doubts began when the over-rated "Spreadsheet Phil" cocked up on Class 4 National Insurance contributions for the self employed in his Spring budget only to have to reverse the changes shortly afterwards.

    May was in charge. Either both missed it, or they knew and then they back pedalled, both of which she must have signed off on. If it was the latter, and if she u-turned, then it us on her since she surely knew about it beforehand.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274

    On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.

    I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.

    But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.

    By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
    It kindof was working.

    The global economic upswing we’re seeing would have given him a lot of fiscal headroom around about now.

    We’d be living in a very different present.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,005
    TOPPING said:

    Bernard Jenkins: what an utter, utter moron.

    And quite a grumpy one, on this morning's evidence. Just enough smarts to see the preshuss slipping from his grasp?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Well this is a kick in the teeth for all those who were told closing courts in the provinces were essential to save money, turns out the savings are being used for this.

    A major court complex specialising in cybercrime and fraud cases is to be built in the City of London to promote the UK’s financial and legal services post-Brexit.

    The scheme – likely to costs tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds – is being backed by the City of London Corporation, HM Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS), the Ministry of Justice and senior judges.

    The courthouse to be built near Fleet Street will have space for 18 courtrooms. Its primary focus will be on fraud, economic crime and cybercrime, though it will also hear criminal and civil cases currently listed at the City of the London magistrates and county courts.

    The investment is intended to bolster the City’s reputation after the UK leaves the EU. It will further concentrate legal expertise in a small area of London around the Royal Courts of Justice, the Old Bailey, the Rolls Building – where most commercial cases are heard – and Inns of Court......

    ....The project could trigger resentment among court users outside the capital where a succession of HMCTS closure programmes aimed at making significant savings has led to hundreds of historic magistrates, county and crown courts being shut.

    Last year, the MoJ announced the closure of 86 crown, county, family and magistrates’ courts across England and Wales. In 2011, a previous economy drive led to 140 courts shutting their doors.

    The Rolls Building, which opened on the edge of the City in 2011, cost £300m and contains 31 courtrooms. The cost of the new complex is to be revealed early next year when a feasibility scheme is published.

    The government is determined to protect London’s status as a leading international legal and financial centre after Brexit. About 44,000 jobs in the Square Mile, more than 9% of the City’s workforce, are in legal services.


    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/09/new-court-complex-planned-bolster-city-london-after-brexit

    How does that bolster the city? Beefing up the Commercial Court and offering world-class civil dispute resolution might help bring foreign business in, but how great is the message that we have so many fraudsters here we need to prosecute 18 separate, major at a time? Perhaps it reflects a belief that the City will be mainly perpetrating Nigerian 419 scams to make money, after all the bankers go to Zurich.
    You obviously don’t read Private Eye!
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.

    Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.

    Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002

    I thought that the Treasury had planned for a Brexit vote. Remember the punishment budget?

    They had, to an extent.
    The latest OBR revision of its last seven years of productivity figures have wiped a lot of the leeway out at a stroke:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/05/hammonds-budget-cupboard-almost-bare-treasury-document-reveals/
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,011
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    We might not like what a party is proposing but most of all we want politicians who are ready to take unpopular decisions which are right for the country.

    Are you having a laugh?

    EDIT: Having read the rest of the piece I think Mike's wrong. The u-turn (if you can call it that) wasn't great, but that wasn't what the opposition focussed on. It was the policy itself that did the damage.

    It's certainly not true we want politicians to take right butv unpopular decisions. By definition they are unpopular, unwanted. What is the case is we say we want someone who does what is right not just popular. But we don't reward it. And of course they in turn know they cannot do any thing, right or wrong, unless they are popular enough, so have to do silly stuff to remain popular.
    I think you can get away with one unpopular policy - even a very unpopular one that is clearly going wrong, like Iraq - if the feeling is that you're otherwise on top of things. Floating voters take an overall view. The Tory problem is that they seem to have no particular ideas on what they want to do (in which they resemble Labour in 2010), except for some sort of Brexit, and they can't even agree on what sort of Brexit they want. I wouldn't say that people feel scared of the Government or that they hate Mrs May, but a common current view is that they're a waste of space at a difficult time when we actually need a competent government.

    They aren't very convinced by Labour either at the moment. But the level of apparent unity and firmness of purpose will give a competence edge which is usually a Tory asset.
    Fair comment. You can get away with a lot if people feel things are generally ok. And fair play for acknowledging that the woes of the tories does not mean the country us, necessarily, clamouring for Corbyn government.
    May's problem was she attempted something extremely unpopular in the middle of an election campaign with absolutely no warning, preparation of the ground etc etc.

    There's no way New Labour would have taken this risk.

    In the end all she has achieved is ensuring nothing is done on social care in this parliament.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.

    " ... but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant."

    How could he? How could he, a half-hearted Eurosceptic, be expected to reconcile the drastic split in leavers' views that even this leavecentric government cannot close?

    Just wargame what you're saying for a moment. Say Cameron has tried that: the first thing Farage et al would have said is : "he's kicking it into the long grass." The conversations from fanatical leavers on here after the GE in 2015 about the timing of the referendum were hilarious.

    *Any* agreement that Cameron had managed to get - in the unlikely event he got any - would have been immediately disowned by uninvolved leavers, or by Labour, amidst claims of trying to 'rig' the result. After all, there was a referendum to win.

    No, any mess coming out of Brexit will be firmly nailed to leavers' doors, not Cameron's. But I hope there is no mess. :)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,328
    TOPPING said:

    On topic, no, the dementia tax proposal was so toxic that I don't think anything could have saved that issue. I don't think the U-turn made much difference - it was too fiddly to cut through. What did more damage was Theresa May hiding from the debates and the public. That didn't look strong.

    But Mike's main point is right. The Tories are delivering little successfully at the moment which combined with too much internal conflict is harming how they're seen by the public.

    The dementia tax wasn't toxic. Reminding people of an iniquitous, unsustainable, and essentially non party political issue was the toxic bit.
    I canvassed hundreds of people during the election. I have plenty of first-hand feedback and that policy was toxic. One problem was that it simply wasn't well-explained, as should always have been obvious: you can't explain complex detail in the middle of an election campaign when your opponents will look to take any opportunity to discredit your plans and your reputation. It should have been obvious that a single, possibly distorted, criticism could kill support for it if effectively made (the Tories want to take you house), and as such should never have been in the manifesto.

    What should have been there was a commitment to come up with a policy within a year, after consultation, and the general principles that would guide that policy. Then, it could have been rolled out as before. Once it'd been in operation for 3-4 years at the next election, the potential to scare voters would have been much reduced.
This discussion has been closed.