Good piece.

Always good to see the Cameron green wash shown up for all it’s bullshit. Once a brown shirt always a brown shirt.

Sally
This sort of thing is not what brown shirts did. What you are dealing with here is the blue tie, brown underpants brigade.

We’ve heard almost nothing about the fury that the service cuts has caused on the ground, or about the real social problems that a paucity of public services might cause as the recession worsens.

What do you put in the pot then ? Oh forget it …
Public Sector workers have just taken across the board pay rises whern the private sector which is facing pay cuts , tighter work conditions and redundancy . Over the last ten years the Public Sector has out peformed the private sector by pay rises of 35% to 28 %. 800,000 more people are employed to do …nothing much . Most are on final salary pensions Brown stole from the private sector . These are paid for with money the private sector is yet to earn to feed the endless gaping beaks of the parasite class . Pension Liabilties are over a trillion (arguably 0
80% of the country work in non unionised Companies and 70% in SME s
If these people think their skills are undervalued let them try and fidn a job. Thats what the people paying for them have to do . If you think there is an iota of sympathy for the Public sector you have not been watching the show .

News! Where have you been? Been sitting here for ages waiting for you to roll back the rock…

Surely everybody has outperformed the private sector… even my dog has. Why is it that you think public sector workers aren’t worthy of any sort of pay compensation (usually people doing crappy jobs at the front end like housing officers) but the likes of Fred the Shred ARE worth pay rises and a nice old pension?

You could, of course, argue, that Fred achieved more that your average public servant. He certainly achieved a few things in his time – for instance, he reduced the economy and the banking system to rubble. But you continue to see the likes of Fred so romantically, and some housing officer somewhere as so much trash…

Regarding sympathy for the public sector – I don’t think I’m arguing in favour of such a thing and wonder why you blather on on that one when I post these things. I’d agree with you when you say that there are plenty of people getting paid far too much for delivering bugger all in the public sector – usually at the senior management level in my experience.

What I’m arguing for is continued service at the service-provision end of things, and for the people who need to use public services.

I say this as a capitalist much like yourself. I would have thought, News, that providing public services is a kind of insurance for persons like yourself who have stuff.

What happens, for example, when there’s no longer enough housing for lower income people and they start to pour onto the street to protest and help themselves to your house and your belongings? What happens when there are no social workers left, and young people with problems are simply abandoned as bad lots, and left to survive themselves? I’ll tell you what happens, News – bad things happen. Desperate people who can’t make ends meet come round to your place and start kicking the windows in. Stop banging on about fat arsed public sector workers for a minute and tell us how you’re going to right society. Looking to the private sector for philanthropy or even any kind of coherence don’t seem to be the answer.

And another thing – can you tell us here if you’ve ever used a public service – gone to the GP, or a hospital, or had your trash collected? I remember reading on your blog once you saying that your business or line of work wasn’t going so well – that the recession hadn’t been kind. Can you be totally sure that you’ll never need state support of any kind?

Last time I was Fulham, the Council had hung banners boasting about how they’d reduced Council Tax. It reminded me of the old Soviet Union plastering cities with ludicrous propaganda.

Indeed, Henry.

Last time I was at Canary Wharf station, Citigroup had banners draped all over proclaiming its excellence. Guess it’s been a cheap year for banners.

Kate, out of interest, where would you start cutting spending in Fulham & Chelsea, now that we are in the midst of the credit crunch?

Harry Phibbs’ pay for a start!

Lilliput,

I’d probably start with the council’s planned regeneration of council offices:

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News_and_Media/Press_office/Press_releases/97305_King_Street_regeneration_Breathing_life_into_Hammersmith.asp

and then look at senior management. If memory serves (will look online for the report in a minute – can only post one link at a time in these comments), the number of senior managers in the public sector had increased significantly in the last five years or so – much has been written recently about the public sector’s embracing of the private sector’s big-pay-bonus-payments ethos, and I’m of the opinion that that ethos is not appropriate in the public sector.

The argument I’m making is in favour of service level staff – housing officers, social workers, education staff, caretakers, careworkers – the people on the ground whose presence makes a difference to communities, and the people for whom taxpayers might be prepared to pay.

Another important point to make is that councils are being squeezed – I remember reading that they are mostly in line for worse settlements from the government for the coming year, and the main reason for that was the payments the government made to bail out the banks. So – the private sector acts in a horribly irresponsible way, as bankers have, and the government – for which I have little sympathy – decides to bail them out. The upshot is less money for public services – public services that may very much be required by many more people as the recession deepens.

Will come back to this in a minute. My puppy has just gone batshit.

kate It would suit you if the world was full of impossibly over rewarded bankers . It is not, it is full of people paying mortgages getting by and working hard many facing insecurity , relocation pay cuts and tough budgets . If public spending was at 97 levels we would in theory pay no income tax at al , theoretically . Public spending has increased by 55% adjusted. That money does not come from the rich ( who pay little ) The institute of fiscal studies confirms that it is not possible that it ever will. (That tax loophole thing is just baloney to rally the troops ) so you are attacking good ordinary hard working people and their families .
The housing problem is largely the result of immigration and is under going rapid correction now. If you imagine the Public Sector professional wish to solve the problem of poverty you are sadly deluded . As poverty is defined by New Labour as under 60 % of the median its poverty with wide screen TV s anyway.
For the sake of a peaceful, society people have to have stake in it . Not a resentful hand out from it , violent crime has worsened not improved in ten years of hand outs .Its not an easy problem but opportunities have been wasted on failed socialist remedies …. Now we are broke so the chance has gone .
My wife and I between us could buy an insurance policy worth £500,000 for the tax that goes on the NHS over our lives . I can do without it , although I do support it . The state does little for me and I have solved my problems thankyou very much
Your violent fantasies might perhaps have been best enjoyed alone but should the world return to a new Dark Ages I intend to call myself Blood Axe Newmania and exchange my clerical duties for a life of fighting sex and glory . May have to re –skill a bit but it would be a vast improvment for me .For women it would be a challenging environment ….

‘…should the world return to a new Dark Ages I intend to call myself Blood Axe Newmania and exchange my clerical duties for a life of fighting sex and glory . May have to re –skill a bit but it would be a vast improvment for me…’

Now you’re talking, News – I always went for a bit of rough on a horse. Do you think the transformation would take long?

Question is, what do you do if the Tories win the next local council elections in H&F?

But on other of the points you raised, Blood Axe:

‘Public spending has increased by 55% adjusted.’

– agreed – public spending has increased under Labour. It just seems to have found its way into the pockets of Deloittes, etc. Fair play to them – they’re not in it to make friends, and I would have done the same thing myself – but let’s be honest about it. In a way, that’s the point I’ve made in the original post. Let’s be honest about the realities of council tax cuts. H&F has achieved its cuts by cutting services, and that part of the programme has gone down very badly with many members of the community. That point should be made when people are discussing the tax cuts. It’s called balance.

May I also make the point that I am no sympathiser of the Labour government.

You say: ‘That money does not come from the rich ( who pay little ) The institute of fiscal studies confirms that it is not possible that it ever will. (That tax loophole thing is just baloney to rally the troops ) so you are attacking good ordinary hard working people and their families .’

Don’t quite see where you get that last point. I’m trying to defend ordinary hard working people and their families – and the jobs some of them have in the public sector providing public services like housing and education to people who pay their taxes for those services. I don’t understand how you interpret a defence of those people as an attack on them. I also take issue with your claim that it’s not possible the rich will ever be taxed to the extent they perhaps should. Perhaps you’re right – but you make that statement as though it is a given and should be accepted. In one’s own originating nation, tax on middle and high income earners was increased to pay for healthcare, etc. The government that instigated that went on to win another two terms. The idea that tax increases must always fail electorally is not a given.

You say: ‘The housing problem is largely the result of immigration and is under going rapid correction now. If you imagine the Public Sector professional wish to solve the problem of poverty you are sadly deluded.’

Possibly, but you’re equally deluded if you think the private sector is going to solve the problems of poverty. Offer up another option. I would listen to it. Some would argue that the private sector and its excesses is directly responsible for the problems of poverty we’re starting to face as the recession hits. Its extravagance has put people out of jobs.

You also say@ My wife and I between us could buy an insurance policy worth £500,000 for the tax that goes on the NHS over our lives.’

Well – good for you. Bit of advice, though – don’t buy it with RBOS or Northern Rock, etc.

Richard – I think the H&F Tories will win.

Two reasons – one, nobody who used to vote Labour votes Labour anymore (or even votes) so the Tories will continue to win by that default. Second reason – Labour’s natural constituency will shift out of the borough as they can no longer afford to live in it. The people who are being made redundant from the council at the moment will ultimately have to move out – no jobs and no savings, and no public services for support. That’s how it works. Guess they head further out west, somewhere cheaper.

Nobody wants to see hard working frontline Council staff thrown out of work but the problem is the waste of resources by poor quality public sector management- often in response to central government initiatives.

My own Council has recently implemented a “strategic asset review” resulting in the cliosure of half our libraries and sports centres. Yet when I go on their website for an explanation I find that I am invited by their Equality Watch Team to contribute my views on their three Equality and Diversity Action Plans which are needed to achieve the Equality Standard for Local Government.

“The Equality Watch Scheme will be co-ordinated by the Council’s Corporate Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator, who will be supported by the Corporate Equality Watch Team and Departmental Equality Lead Officers. The Council will also work in partnership to actively promote involvement of external stakeholders, including voluntary and community sector projects and peers within other public sector organisations. An Equality Watch Review Group will be established made up of members from a variety of stakeholders.”

To what benefit?

Of course I am in favour of equality and against discrimination but there is already plenty of legislation to ensure this and it is a national issue. What irks many people is the waste of resources and effort expended by Councils in such areas. They also spend a lot of money on advertising to tell me I drink too much. (I already know this).

Frankly, I am happy if my bin gets emptied without my being arrested.

“I remember reading that they are mostly in line for worse settlements from the government for the coming year, and the main reason for that was the payments the government made to bail out the banks.”

Where the hell did you read that? It’s not in line with reality, that’s for sure.

Good luck with the campaign though. Anything which annoys that smug arse Phibbs has got my vote from the word go…

Here, john b:

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1251354

You’ll see from the first par the LGA links the static settlements and worsened three year settlements with the economic climate. I’ll have a look for other links. I remember hearing it on the radio – my partner and I looked at each other and said something like ‘Here we go – the bailing out of the banks is beginning to kick in.’

No, that link shows that the fall in central tax revenues because of falling GDP is having an impact.

The bank bail-out is entirely separate, and the government is specifically *not* letting it have a negative impact on council funding (it’s not accounted for out of current government spending).

You can say “the main reason for that was the banks ineptly f***ing up and trashing the economy” if you like, though.

Hey john b,

Will have a look around for some more stuff. I’m sure I’ve heard that some councils are getting worse settlements this coming year and that the squeeze on the public purse was a reason for that.

Out of interest – how is the bank bailout entirely separate…? I find it difficult to believe that those extraordinary bailout sums haven’t affected the government’s bank balance – I’m pretty sure we’ve all read that government funds have been depleted. Are you arguing that those bailouts will have no effect on public spending?

Here’s another one, john:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090204/debtext/90204-0013.htm

you’ll need to read down it. I think this is the discussion about the realities of the government’s three year settlement for councils that inspired the coverage I heard.

I’ve got another BBC link which I’ll put on a comment below (can only post one link at a time). That one has John Healey announcing a rise in grants for English councils (I don’t think the same happened for Scottish and Welsh ones), and the Tories and Lib Dems arguing that the settlements were thoroughly bad news for council taxpayers.

I think Robert Neill’s point was that the problem was the three year settlement was made at a time when the economic squeeze was on (here’s Hansard):

‘Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con):

‘Let us start where the Minister and I agree. He is right that the three-year settlement is welcome. It is welcome right across the piece—we on the Conservative Benches welcomed it, as did the Local Government Association—and it makes good sense. He is perfectly right that the settlement gives certainty. It is implicit in what he said, although the Local Government Association would appreciate confirmation, that excepting some cataclysmic circumstance, he anticipates that the net third year will remain unchanged. Confirmation of that point would give the LGA the certainty that it wishes for—and I see that the Minister nods.

‘The downside is that the LGA knows that the settlement is bad news. Indeed, in addition to welcoming the certainty of a three-year process, the LGA said that this three-year settlement was the worst settlement that local councils had had in decades. To that extent, the Minister was right when he said that the statement back in November does what it says on the tin, but it was not very good news for local councils and local council tax payers.

‘John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has taken me a little by surprise. Could he point out for us where the Local Government Association has said that this settlement is the worst settlement in decades? If it has, I must have missed it.

‘Robert Neill: Yes, I will happily send the Minister the detail from the appropriate statement. I might add that
4 Feb 2009 : Column 906
I made the same comment, which he did not challenge, back in November, so nothing has changed in that respect since then.

‘It is also significant—the Minister will recognise this—that although we are in the middle of the three-year period, a lot has changed since the beginning of that period. Indeed, a lot has changed since November, and it has changed for the worse. The economic climate in which councils have to operate and in which council tax payers have to live has deteriorated. There is no getting away from the fact that that deterioration is the consequence of this Government’s policies. The Minister is certainly consistent in his figures—I recognise that—so let me do him the compliment of being consistent in the judgment that my hon. Friends and I make about his statement. The settlement was a bad settlement for council tax payers in November—I think I used the phrase “a thoroughly bad settlement”—and it remains a thoroughly bad settlement for the rest of the three-year period.’

That’s from the Hansard page I’ve linked to above.

Clearly, there is debate between the parties on what constitutes a good settlement, and it was that debate that I heard. On the face of it, it seems the government was publicising its numbers, and the opposition the reality of those numbers in a sharply compromised economy.

I’d be interested in hearing interpretations from commentators on either side of the fence on the topic. Is the recession affecting settlements for providers of public services?

the jobs some of them have in the public sector providing public services like housing and education to people who pay their taxes for those services. I don’t understand how you interpret a defence of those people as an attack on them. I

Kate there can be no defence of a bloated state that rests on providng non jobs .It is not sustainable . Every cut is of course on “front line services” ( Has been since the Dawn of time …)well ok then let some of the greedy bastards hand their pensions in.The rest of us have.
I am not sure John B is entirely right , he seems to be implying athe state can take on banks wiith no loss whatsoever . It does effect the amount we can borrow because we have taken on risk.
he is obviously quite right that there is no direct relationship

News,

Would certainly agree with your statement about a bloated state – just think we need to be clear about the end that is affected by the bloat. I do not believe that housing officers and teaching assistants constitute ‘bloat,’ or that their jobs are non-jobs. I believe that some senior management jobs are non jobs.

I have my doubts about john b’s commentary as well – wasn’t entirely sure what he was getting at. Certainly, John Healey would claim that council settlements have improved this year: the argument that that means real returns for councils is a little more dubious in my view. Are increases uniform across councils? Were some councils right to complain that their settlements were worse than expected?

And secondly – would an increased settlement compensate for the realities of the economic environment? Are councils able to generate as much revenue for charged services if growing numbers of unemployed are simply unable to pay for them – will we see more vermin, for example, if people can’t pay for pest control? Are councils generating boom-time levels of interest on reserves at this time? Are they increasingly asset-poor as they sell real assets to generate income – no point saying that settlements are better than ever if the reality is that councils have had to sell half their buildings to meet the bills. Do increased settlements keep pace with inflation?

I’m not inclined to buy the Labour line on this. It is absolutely in the government’s interest to claim that things are as rosy as they ever were for councils, and that the banking bailout hasn’t affected its finances to an extent that its ability to pay for public service is compromised. I’m sure Labour supporters who read and contribute to this blog will have plenty to say on this, but I would have to say myself that if you believe that public services will not be impacted by the banking bailout, you’ll believe anything.

And we still need spare cash to keep killing Iraqis…

Hi Kate,

Bob Neill for the Tories is lying (surprise, surprise).

He said: “the LGA said that this three-year settlement was the worst settlement that local councils had had in decades”

The LGA actually said “last year’s three year spending settlement was the worst in a decade”. i.e. the worst under Labour, but better than under the Tories.

Obviously local councils are in a more difficult financial position than at any point during the past decade, and there is a case that the government should massively increase their grants to cover that, though I don’t think that would be a very effective use of tens of billions of pounds as many councils are run by the Tories and/or Lib Dems, who would just pocket the extra cash, cut services anyway and claim the credit politically for keeping council tax down.

The experience at local government level really does show that all this guff about how Labour and the Tories are just the same or as bad as each other is just nonsense. Compare Hammersmith and Fulham to Islington where Labour just introduced universal free school meals or Oxford where they are bringing in a Living Wage for all council employees (including contracted out staff).

And you can absolutely guarantee that if the Tories win the next election, the funding settlement for local government will be much worse than at any time under New Labour.

Newmania,

Of course, you make a case about the public sector pension commitment which requires more consideration. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the reduction of the Civil Service retirement age to 60, whilst achieving its short term goal of reducing headcount, generated a very sizable additional, long-term, pension liability.

Unfortunately, that decision, made by the Thatcher administration in the late eighties, is one that is going to haunt us all until all of those eligible to retire at 60 pass through the system.

To complicate matters, the pension entitlement has been factored into pay rates for some time, and used as an argument to keep pay rises low. One might initiate a meaningful discussion about staffing levels in the public sector and, as a civil servant myself, I would be obliged to acknowledge that, with proper management and some strategic grip one could reduce headcount without impacting on critical front line services.

However, until there is a genuine debate on what we as a society want Government to do and what we are willing to pay for it, public services and the staff who deliver them will be used as a political football in the contest between political parties.

Ultimately, the question of who provides services – public sector or private contractor – is less important than ensuring that there is proper accountability to those paying for them, i.e. the citizen, through their council tax, service charges and income tax.

4. Kate our technical industries have done well until the banks failed. There needs to be an audit of jobs in local government. Each council should release information on number of people employed in each grade, job description, salaries, pensions, hours worked, flexi time arrangements , perks , amount paid to consultants, per department, amount paid to contract workers per department . My concern is the number of jobs above £25K-£30K defined as ” Corporate Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator” or such similar. The problem is council finances are so opaque it is almost impossible to tell whether they provide value for money which was part of the problem of the failed banks . The business man who runs Apax Partners Private Equity pointed out to select committee of the Commonsthat the accounts for the banks which failed recently were so complicated it was impossible to asses their financial state. When it comes to housing stock unless one is a chartered surveyor or chartered member of the institute of building it is impossible to decide as to whether a council is managing it’s housing stock in a sensible and cost effective manner.

15. Pagar shows some of the non jobs and the costs of putting them in offices. Councils will have to reduce holidays to a maximum of 25 days, end index linked pensions and ensure the working week is at least 37.5 hours. For every person employed in an office , the total cost to the tax payer is their salary plus 50%.

My cynical view is that when cuts come it will be to front line services in order to create public fury rather than to the unimportant equality co-ordinator type jobs and the over paid senior posts.

Hi Don,

You say:

‘The LGA actually said “last year’s three year spending settlement was the worst in a decade”. i.e. the worst under Labour, but better than under the Tories.’

That’s why I made that reference early in the thread to councils being squeezed – I distinctly remember complaints about settlements at the time. You hear them every year, of course. I don’t know that Bob Neill was lying particularly in that case – certainly not when making reference to the LGA’s commentary.

Is the fact that settlements are as bad as they have been under Labour anything to cling to, really? Hasn’t council tax increased at the same time? And what do the settlements cover these days – Healey may claim a good comparative settlement this time round, but does that funding cover, say, Labour initiatives like ALMOs? Does a 4.4% increase keep pace with real inflation? Do councils need to use the spare to cover lost interest in this financial climate? Are four star councils granted inspection holidays – and thus in a better position because they’re not compelled to find the cash for extra resourcing to pass assessments?

And sure – granting Tory or Lib Dem councils better settlements wouldn’t exactly be a Labour prerogative – you say, probably rightly, because a proportion of those settlements would find their way into the wrong pockets. Wouldn’t it also be the case, though, that there’d be political sense for Labour in better settlements for Labour councils and worse ones for Tory ones? Wouldn’t it be better to be straight about that?

I take issue – as I always do! – with your remarks about the Tories being worse than Labour, especially at local government level. You are right – but not quite. It has nothing to do with the Tories, and everything to do with a perception that Labour has been worse than it should have been, as the Labour party, at local and national level. Labour lost in Hammersmith because it was seen locally as a privatising party and its natural constituency couldn’t stomach that. At a national level, Labour was seen as Blair’s party, and the local council was punished for that. It’s an issue of Labour’s failure as a Labour party – not of a point by point comparison with the Tories. Labour will never win another election if its only rallying cry is ‘vote for us – we’ve killed people, and buggered the economy, but we’re still worth looking at because we’re not quite as psychotic as the alternative.’

Charlie,

I certainly take your points, and made a similar one myself earlier in this thread when I referred to an excess of management posts in local government.

I’d take greater issue with your suggestion (I think this is what you’re suggesting) that public sector conditions ought to be pulled in line with those of the private sector. I’d argue the opposite – that in the interest of maintenance of rights for workers, private sector conditions ought to be brought in line with the public sector’s (a romantic view, I know, but there we are. I haven’t worked in the public sector for a while now).

I think your suggestion about each council releasing job details for employees is an interesting one. I’d say good luck with that. As union reps, we found getting access to jds and proposed pay packages, etc, for senior managers quite difficult. Unions were not involved in jd development after a certain scale, although we asked repeatedly. Pity, that – we were dying to know what some of those senior people were on.

I agree absolutely with your remarks about the complexities of council finance. Value for money is extremely difficult to ascertain. The efficiencies agenda was supposed to address some of those issues – particularly around procurement – but it remained extremely complex. I think value for money has come to mean ‘cheapest at tender’ in the privatisation era, rather than best value per se. ‘Cost effective’ is a matter of interpretation as well. You could argue that a council that sold its housing stock off to billionnaire developers had engaged in a cost effective exercise.

You’ll note that we’ve had a bitsy dialogue already on this thread regarding the realities of council government settlements, and indeed it is difficult – particularly if you’re not prepared to unthinkingly buy a party line on settlements. An apparently generous financial settlement may in fact be nothing of the kind this economic environment. Council revenue is generated via a myriad of routes – each of which may be affected in this climate. You can’t even be sure that you’re looking at what you think you’re looking at when you’re trying to assess council balance sheets. When I was a union rep, for instance, much discussion was had with council management about figures that appeared off balance sheet – I understand that this was one of the prime motivators for getting private sector partners to take out the loans for big projects the council was proposing. Other readers may have more to contribute on this. You are right to say that council finance (and banking finance) is opaque, even to experts.

What I would say is that I think it is important that the baby isn’t chucked out with the bathwater at this time. It’s all very well to accuse councils of wasting money, employing people who aren’t required and rewarding employees in excess of achievement. Fine. There’s some truth in that. It would be extremely short sighted, though, to write the public sector in its entirety off by association. When it comes down to it, I believe in paying tax so that everybody can go to school, get medical treatment, be housed, get care in retirement, and have their streets kept up to standard, etc. If I have to pay tax, that’s what I pay it for.

Will come back to this.

“It does effect the amount we can borrow because we have taken on risk.”

In theory, but not in practice. The constraint on the UK government’s borrowing at the moment is absolutely and unequivocally *not* the capital markets’ willingness to lend to them at low rates.

27. Kate . I agree with much of what you say. What concerns me is the additional cost of people taking more than 25 days paid, holiday per year , index linked pensions , 36 hour weeks, more than the national average sick days per year, away days by staff and non -front line staff such as equality advisers. I would rather see the council employ more people teachers . repairing homes, cleaning streets and looking after parks. There is an exceptionally good article by H McRae in the Independent 040309 p 15 on government expenditure. The Hongkong Government spends 15% of the GDP- infant mortality is ranked in the top 3 to 4 lowest and performance by it’s 16 yrs old in education is ranked in the top 3 or 4 highest by the OECD . “Honk Kong is not perfect but it is possible to achieve high welfare outcomes without high public spending”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-the-sudden-destruction-of-wealth-1636860.html

Cheers for the link Charlie, will have a look.

LBHF were the ones who let the side down on Snowday by having too few gritters and running out of grit before any other borough. This meant that although other (Tory) councils like Ealing and Hounslow were doing their job and clearing the main roads, the buses still couldn’t run on places like the Uxbridge Road and King Street because LBHF hadn’t matched them. I appreciate there’s no point having a gold-plated capability for once-in-20-year events, but in a co-operative environment where everyone has to pull their weight, it looks like they failed the test.

It’s not that they’re Tory, it’s that they’re a particularly nasty brand of Tory for whom cutting taxes is all that matters. They also have a large and efficient PR/spin operation, which is not usually a sign of a good administration.