So this Rutnam guy is not part of the Oxbridge intellectual SAS elite?





Tbf to the Civil Service, the Cameron Conservative Government didn’t ask/allow them to do any prep and the May Conservative Government couldn’t pass its Brexit legislation. Once the Johnson whatever-it-is Government agreed to the version of the deal with a customs border in the Irish Sea and won a sizeable majority, it has all moved pretty swiftly.

Because of the complexity of Brexit and the fact that the incoming Ministers did not have a plan for Brexit, they campaigned for the general vague idea of Brexit and then thought they'd work it out after.

I guess if Corbyn had got in, he'd have said to the civil service "deliver free broadband for everyone, its the will of the people" and then when the civil service started explaining the complexity of it, and Ministers started to shy away from the unfortunate trade offs they hadn't considered, things would have got delayed, we'd be 3 years down the line and still no free broadband, and the hard left would be saying it was because of the obstructive civil service.

With Brexit, a lot of the problem in the years 2016-19 was that Ministers had been sold various myths during the referendum about the UK holding "all the cards" and a lot of them came in thinking basically we could leave the EU but negotiate away all the inconveniences that would involve because of our super strong position. Hence Theresa May's government was trying to simultaneously issue strict red lines on freedom of movement, regulatory alignment and jurisdiction of the European courts and also talk about "comprehensive, ambitious, deep" relationship and all these various terms.

The EU were very matter-of-fact, as they always are in trade deals with other countries: if you want those red lines, this is the most we give you, we're willing to offer you more, just ditch those red lines.

May's government thought they could push the EU in to giving away more but they couldn't. Of course part of this got blamed on a conspiracy of Olly Robbins being in league with the EU.

So then Boris came in and he's basically realised the situation which is why he is being much more realistic about what is available. When he wanted to solve the "Irish backstop" issue, he defaulted to the original EU idea of a border between NI and mainland GB. Back in the original talks, the EU had pushed for that and May had pushed against it saying no UK PM could accept a trade border inside British territory, so she compromised by bringing the entire UK inside a large degree of regulatory and customs alignment. Boris didn't want that, the EU said ok so its back to the border down the Irish sea, and unlike May, Boris was willing to compromise.

But Boris has also realised that the UK isn't going to negotiate special favours. He might sideline Olly Robbins but the hard truth is, the UK has no experienced trade negotiators! We haven't done trade negotiations for years. The main negotiation strategy tried in the Theresa May era was "divide and rule" to try and talk to individual member states bilaterally and play them off against the Commission, but the member states didn't go along with that, they knew that the EU's hand is stronger when they act as a block.

So all this talk now about "Australia style partnership", which is basically no deal, is Boris and his government realising that there will be no special favours and the UK will just have to deal with the fall out.

The unavoidable truth of that, is that it is going to introduce a lot of extra costs and conveniences that consumers and businesses will not like. They will no doubt try a strategy of blame on the civil service/BBC/EU/immigrants/wokeness but they are the ones in charge who will face hard questions from people saying, since Boris's government got in I'm facing a higher grocery bill - why? And businesses saying, I operate on tight margins, I can't afford these extra costs.

With Corbyn and the hard left of Labour subsiding, a Starmer-led Opposition will be more credible and they will start to see elements of the old Blair coalition ebbing back to them, as well as the youth vote, so Boris' seemingly impregnable position now will go in to decline.

A Conservative commentator suggested it was because of her past discretions that she was considered suitable for the job. They are working to a plan with regards the civil service and she is more than happy to follow directions. They know that if it gets to close to Johnson or Cummings then she can be replaced quite easily because of her somewhat checkered history.

It's an interesting exercise in hypocrisy, when one compares and contrasts the reaction of the MSM and right wing commentators to allegations of bullying against John Bercow, to those against Priti Patel; on the one hand, John Bercow is an evil, remainy bully - on the other, the civil service are snowflakes who can't tolerate being 'managed.'

Either way up, Priti Patel is as vacant as a vandalised loo - and is being used as a patsy to get shot of a senior civil servant who seems to be a barrier to the Cummings plan of acting outside the law to get your agenda pushed through; she is entirely expendable.

Example - on Radio 5 Live this morning, Nicky Campbell to Liz Truss (because they won't go on Radio 4): "Priti Patel is coming in for some criticism for bullying - how much of this is driven by racism and misogyny?" I despair.

That's true but it also goes the other way too.

How many people liked Bercow and turned a blind eye to the accusations of bullying, but have now jumped straight on on Priti Patel.

Johnson has to deliver Brexit - either with or without a deal - otherwise he and the Tories are finished. Yes there will be some consequences but they could be positive e.g. French wine - prices will have to fall - the tariffs in the US have seen to that. Business is a pretty flexible beast and they will soon adapt to the new reality - the idea that the country will come to a complete halt is bonkers.

There will gains and losses - tariffs that currently exist with the EU will go so some products will reduce in price - perhaps there will be drive to use more of our own home grown products?

You can't have a leave that is basically remain - so freedom of movement has to go so does the ECJ etc. The EU want to keep the UK locked in to their decision-making it simply will not work.

I agree under Starmer Labour will look more credible and Boris needs to up his game.

Yes that will be a huge comfort to the people struggling on UC, the millions of kids living in poverty, the disabled people who have had their benefits systematically stripped away and the elderly people who can't get the care they are entitled to from their skint LA.

At least the French wine will be cheaper...

"Johnson has to deliver brexit" - or distance himself from it.
Has anybody else noticed that theyre now saying "we're delivering what the people voted for" rather than "we're delivering the deal that we sold to the public"?

UC is not intended to replace work. If someone is struggling on UC then they are not spending the £80 a week sensibly.

Really ??
Council tax, energy bills, food, clothing and potentially something towards rent etc, etc.
I absolutely agree with helping everyone who can, into employment.

However, the strategy of this government is to starve people either into work or, into the nearest food bank.

I dont doubt that there are some who can effectively "play the system" but, £80 a week is not exactly throwing cash at anyone, especially if they have kids and also if they are a single parent.

If an individual qualifies they can get help with Council Tax, a housing addition to UC, people who don't know how UC works often feel they do.

If an individual qualifies they can get help with Council Tax, a housing addition to UC, people who don't know how UC works often feel they do.

Indeed, they can get help "towards" those expenses but, the remainder still comes out of the £80 a week that you mention, hence the increasing need for food banks and lets not even get into the delays in getting payments to people who generally have nothing and are expected to survive on fresh air for a few weeks or, as one Tory candidate suggested, get a "payday loan".

We all know if they have kids they wont be getting £80 a week. UC should be short term help not an alternative to work. What would you say is a fair amount - minimum wage will be £8.75 an hour so how close to that do you set basic UC?

What would you do - borrow billions - increase UC so its the same as the minimum wage, cancel Brexit? Kids are living in poverty - there are plenty of people who live on low wages but provide very adequately for their kids - to say they are in poverty because the earn below 60% of the mean is giving a distorted view and is very disrespectful to those families that manage very happily - 60% in the north east isn't the same as 60% in London!!

Well that is indeed the $million question.
However, I was responding to the comment "If someone is struggling on UC then they are not spending the £80 a week sensibly".

It's an extremely complex issue and the lack of social housing heavily distorts the amount that some people / families can claim.
There are people claiming housing benefit who will be claiming more than many people earn ,which shouldn't be possible and is primarily due to the lack of local authority housing stock - sold under the Thatcher regime to buy votes for a second term in office, which neither the Tories or Labour have ever replaced.

I know people who are in work albeit zero hour contracts who still live on the street because they cannot get any accommodation. The one thing I really do detest are those who try to pit one part of society against another. If you want to persecute one section I would suggest you go after the tax avoiders be it companies or individuals.

There is no need at all for anyone to live on the street, the support is there, but the individuals do not want to give up spice, booze and comply to the rules.

Some people are intentionally homeless.

Why do you think the number of people choosing to live on the street has has increased over the last decade - what has made it more attractive?

Who told you that morw people are on the street because it's "attractive"?

If nobody has to be there but more are, then the implication has to be that more are choosing it and there has to be some underlying reason for that.

There are many reasons, underlying, obvious, personal, private... but this thread isn't about that.

Societal, economic?

It looks like she has opened the floodgates and if true appears not to be able to learn her lessons.