Just watched ‘the BBC’s ‘Question Time – Leaders Special’ and my initial thoughts are these
Jeremy Corbinned looked as if someone a size too big had lent him that suit back-stage, like a boy wearing a new school uniform that his Mum says has a couple of years in it And he didn’t answer all the questions asked of him, rather, he did that politicians trick of answering the question he wished he’d been asked
Jo Swindle. It was nice to see her being called out on things the Lib Dems had helped the Tories push through when they were in coalition with them. Nice to see her voice go up an octave when she was challenged on reconciling being a democrat with revoking Article 50 and ignoring the wishes of 17.4 million people. Her response was basically, ‘We’ve been honest with what we believe….we’ve been honest and we don’t care what you think. I mean, we have to pretend like we do, but we don’t really
Boris’s Johnson walked onto the stage to the sound of boo’s. And it didn’t get much better from there. He looked so uncomfortable, so ill at ease, that he made Gordon Brown seem like a showman.
But the leader who impressed was Nicola Sturgone. She had command of the issues, tackled what could’ve been difficult questions head-on and left one with the abiding impression that if she was not out and out enjoying it, she was less terrified by it than the others.
It’ll be interesting to see what the press and social media make of it.
Just a quick one, as I’ve only got up, thanks to leaks in my bedroom last night, including one that woke me up by dripping onto my face! Exactly!
Anyway, Priti Patel made headlines yesterday with her claim that,
Tory government not to blame for poverty in UK
And she’s so right, in a cold factually correct way. How could they? They’re only policies after all. In much the same cold and factually correct way, guns don’t kill people either.
In both cases it’s how they are used that does the damage. And by who, on whom.
I must confess to feeling a sense of political déjà vu as I read the Labour manifesto yesterday. I mean it was all going so well. There’s all these fine and noble promises to do this, solve that, how under the Conservatives the other has happened but that Labour would do the very opposite, and from this that many and wonderful benefits would transform our nation. And all this for the measly price of one – ONE! – vote per person.
But I digress. There’s a lot in the Labour manifesto to like, and whilst on some plans their ambition could be argued to stretch credulity, as least it comes from a good place. And then I came to this,
Labour will radically reform early years provision, with a two-term vision to make high-quality early years education available for every child. We will also extend paid maternity leave to 12 months.
Which seemed to me to be worryingly similar to proposals in the Liberal Democrats manifesto. It had to be me, surely! Ah, that joke never gets old! But no. It was them, not me, because they added,
Within five years, all 2, 3 and 4-yearolds will be entitled to 30 hours of free preschool education per week and access to additional hours at affordable,subsidised rates staggered with incomes. Labour will also work to extend childcare provision for 1-year-olds.
How exactly is this a good thing? In what way is state sponsored parenthood in any way compatible with some of their other lofty ideals? Here’s one,
Tackling the destruction of our planet is a question of justice – for the communities at home and abroad who are most affected by it and for our children who will bear the consequences if we don’t.
That would be the other consequences then, the one’s not to do with the planet not being able to sustain the amount of people alive right now, never mind adding to the problem. We need to be rewarding people for not having children, make it an act of altruistic on behalf of the planet, a civic duty, much more effective than adopting a vegan diet. Now there’s a thought! If people want a child that bad, let them do good instead and adopt. Because by providing free childcare, a parent who would otherwise have stayed at home and looked after the child, will now be free to re-join to world of work. And with the wage they’ll earn, the extra income will mean extra expenditure. Oh good, more consumption.
And don’t be thinking Labour’s unjoined up thinking had stopped there. Oh no,
We will recruit nearly 150,000 additional early years staff, including Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators, and introduce a national pay scale, driving up pay for the overwhelmingly female workforce.
So, let me get this straight. Their plan is to offer more childcare, that will increase the size of the labour market by freeing up parents to work. And to make this a reality, the plan is to create 150,000 new jobs. Am I missing something here? Aren’t these jobs going to be paid for out taxation? And where does tax revenue come from? In part, from us buying things. You can see the fundamental flaw here, can’t you?
This is our last chance to tackle the climate emergency.
the brilliantly leaping gazelle 