Tories the future (part1)
Discussion
It's gone a bit quiet in here so this might be worth a read - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...
"The Farnish review, which the Treasury has received but not yet published, instead recommends cutting its full-time staff from 130 to around 50, according to the draft copy reviewed by The Telegraph. It also recommends that its £81.1m budget should fall to between £50m and £65m.
The MAS division that provides information on mortgages, savings and other matters, should bear the brunt of the cuts, rather than the arm that helps consumers deal with debts, the report says.
It adds that many services offered by the former are already offered by personal finance media and charities."
What ever happened to Dave's promise of the 'bonfire of quangos'?
"The Farnish review, which the Treasury has received but not yet published, instead recommends cutting its full-time staff from 130 to around 50, according to the draft copy reviewed by The Telegraph. It also recommends that its £81.1m budget should fall to between £50m and £65m.
The MAS division that provides information on mortgages, savings and other matters, should bear the brunt of the cuts, rather than the arm that helps consumers deal with debts, the report says.
It adds that many services offered by the former are already offered by personal finance media and charities."
What ever happened to Dave's promise of the 'bonfire of quangos'?
jogon said:
It's gone a bit quiet in here so this might be worth a read - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...
"The Farnish review, which the Treasury has received but not yet published, instead recommends cutting its full-time staff from 130 to around 50, according to the draft copy reviewed by The Telegraph. It also recommends that its £81.1m budget should fall to between £50m and £65m.
The MAS division that provides information on mortgages, savings and other matters, should bear the brunt of the cuts, rather than the arm that helps consumers deal with debts, the report says.
It adds that many services offered by the former are already offered by personal finance media and charities."
What ever happened to Dave's promise of the 'bonfire of quangos'?
Its typical CMD = all talk and bull in spades, bring on Wallace's annoying rather than disappointing politics"The Farnish review, which the Treasury has received but not yet published, instead recommends cutting its full-time staff from 130 to around 50, according to the draft copy reviewed by The Telegraph. It also recommends that its £81.1m budget should fall to between £50m and £65m.
The MAS division that provides information on mortgages, savings and other matters, should bear the brunt of the cuts, rather than the arm that helps consumers deal with debts, the report says.
It adds that many services offered by the former are already offered by personal finance media and charities."
What ever happened to Dave's promise of the 'bonfire of quangos'?
jogon said:
What ever happened to Dave's promise of the 'bonfire of quangos'?
"Since the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was formed in May 2010, over 80 Quangos have been cut.A recent document from the coalition government suggests that another 177 public bodies could also face abolition"
Progress is slower than one might hope, for many reasons. But progress is being made.
Google is your friend
ETA: Looks like my figures above are already out of date. The figure may be significantly higher
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Sunday 14th December 22:35
Dave's promise of cutting red tape looks like another one left in tatters - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...
"David Cameron understands these points and the latest official estimate is that regulation has been cut by £1.5 billion a year. In fact, British businesses are more regulated now than they have ever been. Rather than cutting red tape, new analysis shows that the Coalition Government has increased it by at least £3.1 billion. This is a conservative estimate. The real burden is certainly larger but it is impossible to tell because the Government’s presentation of its figures is opaque. For the first two and a half years, for example, it simply ignored the cost of European regulations altogether. These figures are now published but they do are not included in the “official” total."
"David Cameron understands these points and the latest official estimate is that regulation has been cut by £1.5 billion a year. In fact, British businesses are more regulated now than they have ever been. Rather than cutting red tape, new analysis shows that the Coalition Government has increased it by at least £3.1 billion. This is a conservative estimate. The real burden is certainly larger but it is impossible to tell because the Government’s presentation of its figures is opaque. For the first two and a half years, for example, it simply ignored the cost of European regulations altogether. These figures are now published but they do are not included in the “official” total."
JustAnotherLogin said:
"Since the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was formed in May 2010, over 80 Quangos have been cut.
A recent document from the coalition government suggests that another 177 public bodies could also face abolition"
Progress is slower than one might hope, for many reasons. But progress is being made.
Google is your friend
ETA: Looks like my figures above are already out of date. The figure may be significantly higher
yes,i know, it is the mirror .http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-breaks-his-pledge-for-a-bonfire-887453A recent document from the coalition government suggests that another 177 public bodies could also face abolition"
Progress is slower than one might hope, for many reasons. But progress is being made.
Google is your friend
ETA: Looks like my figures above are already out of date. The figure may be significantly higher
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Sunday 14th December 22:35
David Cameron breaks his pledge for a "bonfire of quangos"
Jun 17, 2012 00:00 By Mirror.co.uk
More than 150 new public bodies have been created since the last election
Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to reduce quangos
David Cameron has created more than 150 new public bodies despite pledging to hold a “bonfire of the quangos”.
Labour said the Government’s controversial NHS shake-up alone would lead to more than 140 groups.
It added that while David Cameron had promised to save taxpayers £2.6billion by 2015 by axing 262 of them, the NHS Commissioning Board by itself would have more than 3,000 employees.
The party blasted the Government for creating a “monster quango” while cutting frontline NHS staff.
Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Trickett said: “This Government promised a bonfire of the quangos, but it turned out to be a damp squib.
“They have refused to continue the previous Labour government’s policy of publishing annual lists of quangos, making it unclear just how many quangos they have abolished and disgusing the total number currently in existence.
“Despite this disguise, it’s clear for all to see that they are creating quangos at record speed.”
As the dust settles from the Scottish Independence vote whereby Dave promised them the kitchen sink at the last hour to save his skin he managed to hold his weasly head high by a declaring a victory and English Votes for English Laws.
Well it looks like Dave has backtracked AGAIN it will now only be a veto. How any of you deluded fools can continue to trust this damp squib of a man is beyond me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...
Well it looks like Dave has backtracked AGAIN it will now only be a veto. How any of you deluded fools can continue to trust this damp squib of a man is beyond me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...
Amused at the comments after CMD allegedly waved the leaked Labour strategy to deal with Ukip at PMQs today.
One comment went.
Labour has a 38 page carefully researched strategy. Cons have Dave shouting "Fat Arse" at a Ukip defector.
Then another.
Don't believe the Cons don't have a strategy. They do.
Reply Yes they do, trouble is it trebled the kipper vote.
Note none of those comments were from 'kippers.
One comment went.
Labour has a 38 page carefully researched strategy. Cons have Dave shouting "Fat Arse" at a Ukip defector.
Then another.
Don't believe the Cons don't have a strategy. They do.
Reply Yes they do, trouble is it trebled the kipper vote.
Note none of those comments were from 'kippers.
"Francois Hollande will block Mr Cameron’s request for a change to the EU treaty to include a new settlement for Britain in Europe, The Telegraph has learnt.
Mr Hollande will tell the Prime Minister that he is opposed to amending the EU’s treaty on the grounds that change is not needed and might trigger a referendum in France.
...
It comes as a Foreign Office report published yesterday suggested that the EU is only playing "lip service" to the role of national parliaments and is increasing its grip on everyday life in Britain, and Foreign Office report has found.
The final Balance of Competences review suggests that the EU is guilty of "mission creep" and is imposing an unnecessary burden on British businesses."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f...
Mr Hollande will tell the Prime Minister that he is opposed to amending the EU’s treaty on the grounds that change is not needed and might trigger a referendum in France.
...
It comes as a Foreign Office report published yesterday suggested that the EU is only playing "lip service" to the role of national parliaments and is increasing its grip on everyday life in Britain, and Foreign Office report has found.
The final Balance of Competences review suggests that the EU is guilty of "mission creep" and is imposing an unnecessary burden on British businesses."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/f...
May=Cameron feud claims another victim
One of her special advisers claims that he has been peremptorily removed from the candidates list because he refused to break the SpAds code of conduct during the Rochester by election. His side of the story
One of her special advisers claims that he has been peremptorily removed from the candidates list because he refused to break the SpAds code of conduct during the Rochester by election. His side of the story
Letter said:
In short, I understand that at the meeting of the sift committee on 4 December, when my application was due to be discussed, a representative from Conservative Central Office told those present that I had withdrawn from the selection process. I want to make clear that that was untrue.
In the interests of transparency, I should tell you that this week, on 10 December, I was informed that I have been suspended from the Candidates List. This, I was told, is because I did not participate in telephone canvassing during the Rochester by-election campaign. This decision cannot be valid because, as Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, I am bound by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, which is unambiguous when it says: “if [special advisers] wish to take part in a … by-election campaign, or to help in a party headquarters or research unit during such a campaign, they must first resign their appointment.”
In the interests of transparency, I should tell you that this week, on 10 December, I was informed that I have been suspended from the Candidates List. This, I was told, is because I did not participate in telephone canvassing during the Rochester by-election campaign. This decision cannot be valid because, as Theresa May’s Chief of Staff, I am bound by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, which is unambiguous when it says: “if [special advisers] wish to take part in a … by-election campaign, or to help in a party headquarters or research unit during such a campaign, they must first resign their appointment.”
Cameron's failed negotiations in Belfast last week might have been down to him leaving early to attend his wife's Ibiza 'rave' style Birthday party at Chequers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2880301/Ca...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2880301/Ca...
ft.com said:
Boris Johnson aims to win back voters as ‘One Nation Tory’
Boris Johnson is to launch himself back into national politics next year as a “One Nation Tory” capable of wooing back voters lost to Labour and Ukip, with a focus on tackling low pay, revitalising England’s cities and transforming infrastructure.
The London mayor, a contender for the Uxbridge parliamentary seat in the general election and for party leader if it loses power, wants the Tories to show they care much more about people at the bottom end of the income scale.
He is calling for the promotion of the “living wage” — a voluntary rate defined by the Greater London Authority and Loughborough University that is above the legal minimum — to be party policy.
“It should be front and centre of our programme,” Mr Johnson has told colleagues. “It’s what the Conservatives do well.”
He will also use his return to parliament to promote more ambitious plans for infrastructure renewal, including speeding up delivery by increasing the “measly and pathetic” compensation paid to people affected by big projects.
Mr Johnson would put himself at the forefront of a campaign to devolve more power to English cities — including the capital itself — through more fiscal devolution.
His proposals, which he has been discussing with friends, are intended to widen the appeal of the Tories to sections of the country that have turned away from them and will be seen as a leadership prospectus by some in the party.
But his expected return to parliament as MP for the safe Tory seat of Uxbridge has not led to increased tensions with David Cameron and George Osborne — on the contrary, there appears to have been a rapprochement.
Mr Osborne has been seen socialising with the London mayor, while Mr Cameron sees Mr Johnson as a valuable asset to the party as it seeks to cling on to power next year.
Mr Osborne, the chancellor, calculates that if the prime minister is ejected from Downing Street next year then any chance he might have of leading the Tory party will evaporate; most Conservative MPs believe that an ensuing leadership contest would pit Mr Johnson against Theresa May, home secretary.
However, Mr Osborne’s leadership hopes might still be intact if Mr Cameron wins next year’s election; under that scenario, many Tory MPs believe that the prime minister would stand down voluntarily in 2018 after his proposed EU referendum, with the leadership race wide open.
Mr Johnson is therefore seen as more of an asset than a threat by Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne in the near term. The London mayor, for his part, says that the chancellor has been “a good writer of cheques to London”, funding projects such as the Crossrail transport link, a “garden bridge” across the Thames and the new cultural quarter at the Olympic Park.
Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne would rather see Mr Johnson become Tory leader than Ms May, whose relations with Downing Street have become severely strained in recent months. She is seen in Number 10 as hard to work with and obstructive.
Mr Johnson has been mooted as a potential infrastructure minister in a future Tory government, giving him a broad canvas upon which to build on the “northern powerhouse” agenda of Mr Osborne by spreading opportunity more widely across the country.
The mayor has told friends that Britain needs to be “more like the French”, buying out protesting homeowners affected by big projects and then selling properties at a profit later after house prices rise thanks to the advent of better transport links.
On the living wage, Mr Johnson will argue that it should be voluntary as not all companies can afford to pay it, but that the Conservatives should champion it because it rewards staff, engenders loyalty and increases productivity.
As mayor, he has presided over a big increase in London employers adopting the living wage, with more than 500 companies paying the London rate of £8.80 an hour. It is £7.65 in the rest of Britain, compared with the legal minimum of £6.50 nationwide.
Despite his euroscepticism, Mr Johnson’s interest in helping those at the bottom of the income scale and promoting growth outside London are more in the vein of the One Nation Conservatism promoted by Lord Heseltine, a mentor and his predecessor in his last seat, Henley.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74339ea2-88f8-11e4-ad5b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Mernp0W7Boris Johnson is to launch himself back into national politics next year as a “One Nation Tory” capable of wooing back voters lost to Labour and Ukip, with a focus on tackling low pay, revitalising England’s cities and transforming infrastructure.
The London mayor, a contender for the Uxbridge parliamentary seat in the general election and for party leader if it loses power, wants the Tories to show they care much more about people at the bottom end of the income scale.
He is calling for the promotion of the “living wage” — a voluntary rate defined by the Greater London Authority and Loughborough University that is above the legal minimum — to be party policy.
“It should be front and centre of our programme,” Mr Johnson has told colleagues. “It’s what the Conservatives do well.”
He will also use his return to parliament to promote more ambitious plans for infrastructure renewal, including speeding up delivery by increasing the “measly and pathetic” compensation paid to people affected by big projects.
Mr Johnson would put himself at the forefront of a campaign to devolve more power to English cities — including the capital itself — through more fiscal devolution.
His proposals, which he has been discussing with friends, are intended to widen the appeal of the Tories to sections of the country that have turned away from them and will be seen as a leadership prospectus by some in the party.
But his expected return to parliament as MP for the safe Tory seat of Uxbridge has not led to increased tensions with David Cameron and George Osborne — on the contrary, there appears to have been a rapprochement.
Mr Osborne has been seen socialising with the London mayor, while Mr Cameron sees Mr Johnson as a valuable asset to the party as it seeks to cling on to power next year.
Mr Osborne, the chancellor, calculates that if the prime minister is ejected from Downing Street next year then any chance he might have of leading the Tory party will evaporate; most Conservative MPs believe that an ensuing leadership contest would pit Mr Johnson against Theresa May, home secretary.
However, Mr Osborne’s leadership hopes might still be intact if Mr Cameron wins next year’s election; under that scenario, many Tory MPs believe that the prime minister would stand down voluntarily in 2018 after his proposed EU referendum, with the leadership race wide open.
Mr Johnson is therefore seen as more of an asset than a threat by Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne in the near term. The London mayor, for his part, says that the chancellor has been “a good writer of cheques to London”, funding projects such as the Crossrail transport link, a “garden bridge” across the Thames and the new cultural quarter at the Olympic Park.
Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne would rather see Mr Johnson become Tory leader than Ms May, whose relations with Downing Street have become severely strained in recent months. She is seen in Number 10 as hard to work with and obstructive.
Mr Johnson has been mooted as a potential infrastructure minister in a future Tory government, giving him a broad canvas upon which to build on the “northern powerhouse” agenda of Mr Osborne by spreading opportunity more widely across the country.
The mayor has told friends that Britain needs to be “more like the French”, buying out protesting homeowners affected by big projects and then selling properties at a profit later after house prices rise thanks to the advent of better transport links.
On the living wage, Mr Johnson will argue that it should be voluntary as not all companies can afford to pay it, but that the Conservatives should champion it because it rewards staff, engenders loyalty and increases productivity.
As mayor, he has presided over a big increase in London employers adopting the living wage, with more than 500 companies paying the London rate of £8.80 an hour. It is £7.65 in the rest of Britain, compared with the legal minimum of £6.50 nationwide.
Despite his euroscepticism, Mr Johnson’s interest in helping those at the bottom of the income scale and promoting growth outside London are more in the vein of the One Nation Conservatism promoted by Lord Heseltine, a mentor and his predecessor in his last seat, Henley.
toppstuff said:
I am personally getting very tired of this constant trope which IMO is largely the creation of the media.
Someone like Ed Milliband, who has lived a very unusual life as a gilded academic inside educational institutions his whole life while being from a middle class marxist background, is just as out of touch as Cameron - maybe even more so.
The greatest con the Labour party has managed over the past two decades is to get people to believe that they represent the "ordinary voter", when in reality they are just as disconnected and privileged as the Tories. From the private banks and secret billionaires that form the circle of friends for people like Mandelson and Blair, to the House of Lords with Prescott, to over-priviliged academic policy wonks like the Millibands : they have not a clue about the lives of the average Brit.
+1Someone like Ed Milliband, who has lived a very unusual life as a gilded academic inside educational institutions his whole life while being from a middle class marxist background, is just as out of touch as Cameron - maybe even more so.
The greatest con the Labour party has managed over the past two decades is to get people to believe that they represent the "ordinary voter", when in reality they are just as disconnected and privileged as the Tories. From the private banks and secret billionaires that form the circle of friends for people like Mandelson and Blair, to the House of Lords with Prescott, to over-priviliged academic policy wonks like the Millibands : they have not a clue about the lives of the average Brit.
Time to emigrate, but to where?
None of them have had ordinary lives (including Farage).
But then. I look at the internet and I say millions of people who think they can do better than football managers, company directors and just about any other high profile job. I have read comments on forums before from people convinced that they know my job better than me. Thing is, they are making that judgement from a 10 minute perusal of the facts, based on no specialist training and with no experience.
I know in my case that they are talking complete and utter crap. So, would we prefer the people who run the country to have the brains, education and experience to do so. Or would we prefer John Smith from the Clapham Omnibus who wouldn't know post neo-classical endogenous growth theory from a wart on their nose; or know that public choice theory doesn't relate to whether one enters the male or female door of a convenience.
Attractive as it sounds to have an ordinary joe in those roles, they aren't as simple and intuitively obvious as people on the outside believe. Any more than John Smith could pick and train a team as well as Fergie or Mourinho can.
But then. I look at the internet and I say millions of people who think they can do better than football managers, company directors and just about any other high profile job. I have read comments on forums before from people convinced that they know my job better than me. Thing is, they are making that judgement from a 10 minute perusal of the facts, based on no specialist training and with no experience.
I know in my case that they are talking complete and utter crap. So, would we prefer the people who run the country to have the brains, education and experience to do so. Or would we prefer John Smith from the Clapham Omnibus who wouldn't know post neo-classical endogenous growth theory from a wart on their nose; or know that public choice theory doesn't relate to whether one enters the male or female door of a convenience.
Attractive as it sounds to have an ordinary joe in those roles, they aren't as simple and intuitively obvious as people on the outside believe. Any more than John Smith could pick and train a team as well as Fergie or Mourinho can.
JustAnotherLogin said:
None of them have had ordinary lives (including Farage).
But then. I look at the internet and I say millions of people who think they can do better than football managers, company directors and just about any other high profile job. I have read comments on forums before from people convinced that they know my job better than me. Thing is, they are making that judgement from a 10 minute perusal of the facts, based on no specialist training and with no experience.
I know in my case that they are talking complete and utter crap. So, would we prefer the people who run the country to have the brains, education and experience to do so. Or would we prefer John Smith from the Clapham Omnibus who wouldn't know post neo-classical endogenous growth theory from a wart on their nose; or know that public choice theory doesn't relate to whether one enters the male or female door of a convenience.
Attractive as it sounds to have an ordinary joe in those roles, they aren't as simple and intuitively obvious as people on the outside believe. Any more than John Smith could pick and train a team as well as Fergie or Mourinho can.
i hardly think people are advocating ordinary joe runs the country,but fercrissakes surely to god we can do better than the shower of self seving shyte we have had the last two decades.But then. I look at the internet and I say millions of people who think they can do better than football managers, company directors and just about any other high profile job. I have read comments on forums before from people convinced that they know my job better than me. Thing is, they are making that judgement from a 10 minute perusal of the facts, based on no specialist training and with no experience.
I know in my case that they are talking complete and utter crap. So, would we prefer the people who run the country to have the brains, education and experience to do so. Or would we prefer John Smith from the Clapham Omnibus who wouldn't know post neo-classical endogenous growth theory from a wart on their nose; or know that public choice theory doesn't relate to whether one enters the male or female door of a convenience.
Attractive as it sounds to have an ordinary joe in those roles, they aren't as simple and intuitively obvious as people on the outside believe. Any more than John Smith could pick and train a team as well as Fergie or Mourinho can.
ks and wise economists admit it.JustAnotherLogin said:
Any more than John Smith...
Funny you mention 'John Smith'.I often wonder had he not died opening the door to the Blair/Brown/Mandelson cabal at that specific time, what would have happened.
My view is that he'd have stayed far more 'left' and Labour wouldn't have come into power for at least another term of parliament. Whether John Major would have been able to sort out his and the parties issues is another debate, but Blair wouldn't have been in a position to drip honey in the Nation's ear - not then, at least.
Asterix said:
Funny you mention 'John Smith'.
I often wonder had he not died opening the door to the Blair/Brown/Mandelson cabal at that specific time, what would have happened.
My view is that he'd have stayed far more 'left' and Labour wouldn't have come into power for at least another term of parliament. Whether John Major would have been able to sort out his and the parties issues is another debate, but Blair wouldn't have been in a position to drip honey in the Nation's ear - not then, at least.
Labour would have won in 1997 but less conclusively, and been a one- or two-term government.I often wonder had he not died opening the door to the Blair/Brown/Mandelson cabal at that specific time, what would have happened.
My view is that he'd have stayed far more 'left' and Labour wouldn't have come into power for at least another term of parliament. Whether John Major would have been able to sort out his and the parties issues is another debate, but Blair wouldn't have been in a position to drip honey in the Nation's ear - not then, at least.
IMO
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff