UK Government Performance 2019-2024

[Mr Jack]

Isnt he a self confessed coke addict?

No idea, but that hardly disqualifies vs. Boris and Cameron.

 

[NickK]

Isnt he a self confessed coke addict?

I thought that was Gove given all the splitting image and other satirist gybes?

(edit: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-taking-cocaine-on-several-social-occasions )

 

[Tony Edwards]

No idea, but that hardly disqualifies vs. Boris and Cameron.

 

[RampantMark]

Sunak is the worst option, by far. The guy behind the scenes constantly trashing any attempts at helping people or introducing coronavirus measures is him (see eat out to help out). If you thought Johnson was detached from the "ordinary folk" wait until the richest guy in the building takes charge.

Truss may change her colours based on which way the wind blows but I would reckon that she wouldn't pursue an ultra extreme "trickle down" economic program, that will only inevitably lead to inequalities (in developed countries) only seen in the US.

No such thing as "trickle down", like all the right-wing voters strongly believe in.

Right wing politics is all about "trickle UP" Economics. (The George Pullman story in macro.)

 

[RampantMark]

Seems odd - companies take clients out for meals. Although there are explicit rules on gifts and typically that extends to the scope and cost of meals.

Yep, COMPANIES do take CLIENTS out for meals.

But GOVERNMENT are not a COMPANY and PUBLIC money should not be used for Party-Politic means, such as kicking back Public Funds to Party donors. That's morally reprehensible, but something that Tory faithful willingly turn a blind eye to.

 

[RampantMark]

Most places its based on value, usually has to be declared - chocolates or wine would be fine.

Nope. In Public Employment, not even wine or chocolates are acceptable. Nothing is. I'm Armed Forces and as such a Public Employee - and the regulations are very clear. No gifts.

 

[Ali195]

He's legally obliged to not prevent that vote. The house are responsible for legislation not the speaker.

He could have denied the emergency debate, for which Boris wasn't even present, for reasons given. Have the debate then vote, follow normal practices, not one for emergencies. Why the sudden need for an emergency debate? What exactly justified it that required a "rapid response from Government", "national importance, or of dramatic regional or local importance," etc etc.

 

[Ali195]

Nope. In Public Employment, not even wine or chocolates are acceptable. Nothing is. I'm Armed Forces and as such a Public Employee - and the regulations are very clear. No gifts.

Yep, I have to sit through hours of joyful training each year about bribery, gifts, you name it. Full of examples to test you and I work in private financial services. I can only magine how it must be for Gov employees, let alone a minister....

 

[RampantMark]

Return to Austerity. He really believes in balancing the books and stuff. Too late now but he would never fund anything like HS2.

Too bad that people swallowed that entire deliberate lie of "balancing the books" and comparing a Countries Economy to a Household Budget. Yeah, the words are something that the less well educated can "understand" (without understanding that it isn't true) and can therefore get behind (even though the whole notion is baseless and fundamentally incorrect).
A household doesn't have control of the Economic Levers that a Country Economy possess. A Household Budget must work within the confines of the Country Economy, but the constraints do not hold true for a Country Economy. Monetary supply, Interest Rates, Bonds and many other levers are used to control an entire Economy, which a household budget has no control over. There's a cracking article on Forbes website that explains all this, but the jess well educated will always gravitate to the lowest possible level and the "balance the books" lie. And the Tory Party will always keep pushing the line to keep the less well educated "in line", even though they *know* they are deliberately pushing a lie. And the public largely swallow that lie. Which is a shame.

 

[NickK]

Yep, COMPANIES do take CLIENTS out for meals.

But GOVERNMENT are not a COMPANY and PUBLIC money should not be used for Party-Politic means, such as kicking back Public Funds to Party donors. That's morally reprehensible, but something that Tory faithful willingly turn a blind eye to.

Look at it like this - as a sales person for UK Inc to <insert country> Inc that is taking them out for a meal. If you're thinking you and the economy are not part of UK Inc then you're very mistaken.

Yes there are regulations about people of influence either giving or taking gifts - that's why everything is on record and there are restrictions in place to prevent us from attempting to sway a local dictator with a bribe such as making it easy for their daughter to attend Eton etc. I am all for upholding the ethical, regulatory and legal on this.

As I've posted before so I suggest you read all the posts. The post on here about Truss was the first I've heard of it - no details present. Only after that post do the details appear from behind the paywall and my follow up post indicate that I agree it's illegal in principle (and unethical misconduct). A police investigation is still required legally to prosecute but the MPs can interpret evidence as part of a parliamentary investigation then action with regard to the role of MP. However from legal perspective - it's easier to wait for the police to investigate then action as a way of preventing counter legal action by Truss (civil vs civil contract related, vs, criminal).

Political behaviour in bending the law should not be tolerated. Politicians will simply keep going until the law indicates that it's not hear say and it's broken the law. Should the party be fined (at a level in relation to their funding levels over the period in office) for the action of the member - I think so. It would prevent ingrained long term abuse with stiff fines for 'all powerful' parties. However the senior police answer to the politicians as elected representatives of the public...

The issue is, rather, that the politicians in power with a majority are no longer work to be representative of the public nor feel bound to answer to the public. That is the flaw in our electoral system - we breed crazed (thatcher) or buffoon (Boris) dictators that diverge from the populous without an election result to make a policy 180 switch (the regular conservative-labour seesaw).

 

[NickK]

Yep, I have to sit through hours of joyful training each year about bribery, gifts, you name it. Full of examples to test you and I work in private financial services. I can only magine how it must be for Gov employees, let alone a minister....

Hehe I used to work in a large bank. Quarterly training and quizzes where it's regulated and also part of their active risk management.

 

[tlrBeta]

Yep, I have to sit through hours of joyful training each year about bribery, gifts, you name it. Full of examples to test you and I work in private financial services. I can only magine how it must be for Gov employees, let alone a minister....

Really does vary in FS I find - "proportionate " being the key wording on most things. Excluding any other rules e.g. during tender etc etc.

That said, I've never received a gift and doubt I shall (I work in FS).

Hehe I used to work in a large bank. Quarterly training and quizzes where it's regulated and also part of their active risk management.

Yes we still get these - I'm sure its on my to do list before end of March.

 

[SKILL]

Too bad that people swallowed that entire deliberate lie of "balancing the books" and comparing a Countries Economy to a Household Budget. Yeah, the words are something that the less well educated can "understand" (without understanding that it isn't true) and can therefore get behind (even though the whole notion is baseless and fundamentally incorrect).
A household doesn't have control of the Economic Levers that a Country Economy possess. A Household Budget must work within the confines of the Country Economy, but the constraints do not hold true for a Country Economy. Monetary supply, Interest Rates, Bonds and many other levers are used to control an entire Economy, which a household budget has no control over. There's a cracking article on Forbes website that explains all this, but the jess well educated will always gravitate to the lowest possible level and the "balance the books" lie. And the Tory Party will always keep pushing the line to keep the less well educated "in line", even though they *know* they are deliberately pushing a lie. And the public largely swallow that lie. Which is a shame.

Well, kinda... Yes and no

Yes comparing a countries economy to a household is foolish, like you say it ignores the vastly increased control the country has over it's finances.

However your post implies that countries can just do whatever the hell they want financially, which is not the case.

 

[Murphy]

And the Tory Party will always keep pushing the line to keep the less well educated "in line", even though they *know* they are deliberately pushing a lie. And the public largely swallow that lie. Which is a shame.

Based on what I've heard some politicians say I'm not sure it's deliberate, I'd hazarded a guess that most politicians really believe a sovereign currency issuing nations finances are the same as household finances.

However your post implies that countries can just do whatever the hell they want financially, which is not the case.

Well they can, whether doing whatever is sensible or not is another question though. I mean spending money (creating money) like there's no tomorrow is pretty dangerous, you wouldn't want to create a situation like Venezuela experienced or any of those other countries that have experienced hyperinflation.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Well they can, whether doing whatever is sensible or not is another question though. I mean spending money (creating money) like there's no tomorrow is pretty dangerous, you wouldn't want to create a situation like Venezuela experienced or any of those other countries that have experienced hyperinflation.

Tbf Venezuela suffered from the same problem as Saudi Arabia. Most of their income comes from oil which saw a big price drop. The Saudis sold part of Aramco

Aramco's 2019 initial public offering -- in which it sold about 2% of its stock on the Riyadh bourse -- raised almost $30 billion.

They are in talks to sell another 1%

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ake-to-global-energy-firm-121042900043_1.html

Venezuela did not cut back on their spending programs which caused their problems.

 

[Murphy]

Not knowing how Saudi Arabia dealt with what what was essentially a downturn in economic activity but I'm guessing they didn't try to spend their way out of it.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Tbf Venezuela suffered from the same problem as Saudi Arabia. Most of their income comes from oil which saw a big price drop. The Saudis sold part of Aramco


They are in talks to sell another 1%

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ake-to-global-energy-firm-121042900043_1.html

Venezuela did not cut back on their spending programs which caused their problems.

They also faced massive sanctions from the US who would have been a major buyer of their oil.

 

[SKILL]

Based on what I've heard some politicians say I'm not sure it's deliberate, I'd hazarded a guess that most politicians really believe a sovereign currency issuing nations finances are the same as household finances.

Well they can, whether doing whatever is sensible or not is another question though. I mean spending money (creating money) like there's no tomorrow is pretty dangerous, you wouldn't want to create a situation like Venezuela experienced or any of those other countries that have experienced hyperinflation.

You're right, I should've added a bit about "without destroying the entire country"

 

[Tony Edwards]

In his TV clip this morning Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, talked about the need for the government to “invest” in the NHS and in social care. (See 1.11pm.) The wording sounded unremarkable, but earlier in the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, told MPs that he was very wary of this sort of language. He was responding to a question about local government spending, and Warrington council in particular, but it is hard to listen to his words without thinking he had someone else in mind too.


"I have a great quibble about using this word ‘investment’ for government expenditure, because actually government is spending taxpayers’ money. It shouldn’t be talking about investing; it should recognise that it is using other people’s money and therefore has a great fiduciary duty to spend it wisely".

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between JRM and our very own Dolph.

 

[cheesyboy]

They also faced massive sanctions from the US who would have been a major buyer of their oil.

Quite.

The US has vested interest in ensuring socialism doesn't get given a chance, and has a long history of intervening in South American countries.

Will be interesting to see if they make any moves with Chile. Maybe there will be enough opposition with the memories of the last guy they installed there (Pinochet) against the democratically elected government.