I recently saw a meme in “another place” that said something along the lines of:
Thatcher’s government was cruel and heartless
Major’s government was embroiled in sleaze
Cameron’s government was a bunch of posh boys who had no idea how real people live and made no effort to find out
May’s government was a flailing, incompetent mob.
The current government is all of these.
Just those things? (Where's the Devil emoji when you need it?)
I think one of the few things that can be said for the present government is that it is not led by Johnson or Truss. It is admittedly a low bar to clear: a slug could step over it as can Sunak.
I think one of the few things that can be said for the present government is that it is not led by Johnson or Truss. It is admittedly a low bar to clear: a slug could step over it as can Sunak.
There's a certain perception of competence and strength when compared to his predecessors. He's much more in the mould of Cameron - who screwed up not standing up to the loony fringe of the Conservative party.
Cameron was responsible for austerity, which is why the UK economy has been so much less resilient than comparable nations.
well, the political consensus was responsible - Cameron just won the election.
IIRC under Labour's 2010 manifesto plans Darling promised 'two parliaments of pain' - I think we'd have got austerity whoever won. Obviously it's undeniable we got it under Cameron, but there's more to that sordid little story 2010 onwards than 'Tories bad' IMO, the medicine would have been pretty much as bad under the alternative.
Who was it that said of the two main parties that the Tories problem is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and Labour's problem is they know the value of everything and the price of nothing?
Who was it that said of the two main parties that the Tories problem is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and Labour's problem is they know the value of everything and the price of nothing?
Some centrist completely ignorant of history and economics?
Who was it that said of the two main parties that the Tories problem is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and Labour's problem is they know the value of everything and the price of nothing?
Some centrist completely ignorant of history and economics?
Possibly, it's another variant of no heart vs no brain anyway
The difference as I understand it was that Darling was proposing to wait until the economy was recovering to impose the cuts while Osborne dived right in.
The difference as I understand it was that Darling was proposing to wait until the economy was recovering to impose the cuts while Osborne dived right in.
that's fair, although by 2013 Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor was saying Labour would continue Osborne's plans were they to win the next election (funnily enough cf today's Private Eye, which has just come through the letterbox!)
I believe it is a scientific fact that slugs can teleport through obstacles to the location of new seedlings; Conservative ministers have to use private jets.
I believe it is a scientific fact that slugs can teleport through obstacles to the location of new seedlings; Conservative ministers have to use private jets.
Buggers can teleport through our front door, I swear.
I believe it is a scientific fact that slugs can teleport through obstacles to the location of new seedlings; Conservative ministers have to use private jets.
Buggers can teleport through our front door, I swear.
Ah, so you found Gove slithering down the hall?
Slugs don't need to teleport; one particularly cheeky specimen emerged from the kitchen sink overflow while I was washing up.
Lawful? That is, except when it comes to gathering during a pandemic, tolerating sexual predators, aiding in the murder of refugees, inciting hatred of and violence towards minorities ...
It seems to me that the maxim that there shall be groups that the law protects but not binds and groups that the law binds but not protects is very much lawful evil.
And so many people seem to be so keen to get rid of the House of Lords.
Why? However philosophically anomalous, in my lifetime, it's done a far better job of protecting the public from bad government than the elected house.
And so many people seem to be so keen to get rid of the House of Lords.
Why? However philosophically anomalous, in my lifetime, it's done a far better job of protecting the public from bad government than the elected house.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
The problem is to make it democratically accountable while keeping it independent of whatever government is in the primary chamber.
Election by proportional representation might be a start.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
The problem is to make it democratically accountable while keeping it independent of whatever government is in the primary chamber.
Election by proportional representation might be a start.
Also offsetting elections so they don't represent the same "snapshot" in time of public opinion.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
although their enthusiasm for doing so tends to wax and wane with how the question is posed - IME the quickest way to support for a unicameral legislature is to say 'we've identified the need to replace the House of Lords with an additional layer of democratically accountable salaried politicians, how would you like that to work?'
Speaking of buses, the Bus Back Better scheme has lavished and is lavishing megabucks on DRT (Demand Responsive Transport) schemes which are hardly used because they are unreliable and complicated to access. That money could have been far better used on upgrading or introducing "regular" bus services - but that was expressly forbidden.
Is a DRT scheme something like a Dial-A-Ride thingy? They were all the rage some years ago IIRC.
I agree that improvements to existing bus services would be preferable. Our Village now has only one bus an hour into Town, a previous hourly service which ran through to Next Town having been withdrawn recently.
The latter was notoriously unreliable, owing to the difficulties in negotiating a series of over-parked villages with narrow streets - not something the bus company had much control over, of course, though it was the poor drivers who faced the wrath and racism of people waiting (it had to be heard to be believed sometimes - quite shocking).
Up until 1930, there were trams from Our Village into Town every 15 minutes or so, and the replacement buses continued to provide a frequent service...
Speaking of buses, the Bus Back Better scheme has lavished and is lavishing megabucks on DRT (Demand Responsive Transport) schemes which are hardly used because they are unreliable and complicated to access.
I'm not sure that's true everywhere. FWIW as a deep rural-dweller myself, I think they're absolutely revolutionary. DRT is giving back bus services to places that haven't had them since the 1960s. It's definitely the future outside urban areas IMO - the access complications will (have to) be overcome.
My understanding is that DRT schemes which run a basic scheduled service from which buses can make limited deviations work well; but ones which pick up anywhere in an area don't. They tend to be very Smartphone-based and the booking algorithms often seem to be complex and defective. In deeply rural areas, wouldn't it be simpler for Councils just to issue free or subsidised taxi vouchers?
Comments
Good grief. What more do you want?
Some people are never satisfied...
Sunak is competent. Neither of these were.
In his case, that is not a positive.
well, the political consensus was responsible - Cameron just won the election.
IIRC under Labour's 2010 manifesto plans Darling promised 'two parliaments of pain' - I think we'd have got austerity whoever won. Obviously it's undeniable we got it under Cameron, but there's more to that sordid little story 2010 onwards than 'Tories bad' IMO, the medicine would have been pretty much as bad under the alternative.
Who was it that said of the two main parties that the Tories problem is they know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and Labour's problem is they know the value of everything and the price of nothing?
Some centrist completely ignorant of history and economics?
Possibly, it's another variant of no heart vs no brain anyway
Methinks that was the point
Ah but they do have a foot, so maybe they could hop.
that's fair, although by 2013 Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor was saying Labour would continue Osborne's plans were they to win the next election (funnily enough cf today's Private Eye, which has just come through the letterbox!)
Not the ones in our garden ...
A Slug as PM would be much less of a burden on the taxpayer.
Buggers can teleport through our front door, I swear.
<thinks: this makes me sound like the sort of woman who'd have been rounded up a few centuries ago for having familiars>
The last PM but one wasn't. 😈
Ah, so you found Gove slithering down the hall?
Slugs don't need to teleport; one particularly cheeky specimen emerged from the kitchen sink overflow while I was washing up.
Why? However philosophically anomalous, in my lifetime, it's done a far better job of protecting the public from bad government than the elected house.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
Election by proportional representation might be a start.
Also offsetting elections so they don't represent the same "snapshot" in time of public opinion.
although their enthusiasm for doing so tends to wax and wane with how the question is posed - IME the quickest way to support for a unicameral legislature is to say 'we've identified the need to replace the House of Lords with an additional layer of democratically accountable salaried politicians, how would you like that to work?'
If they really don’t need it, perhaps they could use it to resolve a few ongoing pay disputes …
I agree that improvements to existing bus services would be preferable. Our Village now has only one bus an hour into Town, a previous hourly service which ran through to Next Town having been withdrawn recently.
The latter was notoriously unreliable, owing to the difficulties in negotiating a series of over-parked villages with narrow streets - not something the bus company had much control over, of course, though it was the poor drivers who faced the wrath and racism of people waiting (it had to be heard to be believed sometimes - quite shocking).
Up until 1930, there were trams from Our Village into Town every 15 minutes or so, and the replacement buses continued to provide a frequent service...
Yes. And they're not my slugs, thankyewverymuch. I disclaim all ownership and responsibility for them.
I'm not sure that's true everywhere. FWIW as a deep rural-dweller myself, I think they're absolutely revolutionary. DRT is giving back bus services to places that haven't had them since the 1960s. It's definitely the future outside urban areas IMO - the access complications will (have to) be overcome.