Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't this more of an administrative f*ck up than a political one?

After all, Whitehall gets its budget irrespective of who's in power so isn't this a stinging indictment of senior management in the civil service rather than anyone else?

The real lol aspect, of course, is that the Tories have put the squeeze on IT contractors so much through IR35 regulations that they're going to struggle to take on the very people (the only people) who can unravel this mess for them.

Isn't the security of medical / nhs computer systems part of Jeremy Hunts remit as health secretary? Therefore it is political. It's happened on his watch. It's more than likely happened because the Tories were trying to save a few quid.

Of course the first reaction is to blame the politicians in charge of the affected government department but is it necessarily their fault that the heads of IT in a particular department are useless? Don't forget, the civil service is (supposedly) Independent'of government and makes appointments like this without reference to the minister - politicians don't normally even appoint the Permanent Secretary. The tradition is that the politicians are there to take all the credit but also to take the rap if things f*ck up. Hunt may be a grade A w@nker but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have even been aware of the imminent obsolescence of computer operating systems.

Keep on believing that, if you wish.

The facts are that the only weapon Labour has in this weapon is resorting to sectarian populism and then using pie-in-the-sky policies to try and discredit the Tories.

For example, it is very easy to say 'energy companies should be nationalised because of the prices they charge customers'. The reality is that a renationalised energy sector would create a monopoly and there would not be investment on the scale of what is happening now or planned for the future, for example Bradwell B or upgrades to the distribution grid. A renationalised energy sector would be a legal nightmare to create and with the civil service bound up for the next five years with Brexit, it is hard to see how Labour could get just one small part of their manifesto completed, not to mention the other items that would also suck bureaucrats and money.

Also, these plans aren't costed. Nothing I have seen gives a costing and it appears that Labour has used reversing future lowering of capital gains tax to many for several projects, meaning that hey have already committed a sum for their manifesto policies about five times over. The planned riaiskng of corporation tax will only encourage companies to find 'tax efficient' ways to hide profits offshore, and despite all the tough talk of 'no swertheart deals' with corporations he corporations and heir tax advisers are a heck of a lot smarter than a bunch of Momentum droogs and will easily find loopholes in the system and then exploit other loopholes when and if government cottons on to the first loopholes.

The Labour manifesto is to me a transparent work of populism, written in he same vein as UKIP's manifesto of banning the burqa and introducing medical checks for FGM. Corbyn and McDonnell know they won't win, they are losing ground in Wales having lost Scotland, and have penned this regressive tome in order to give hemselves long enough in charge of Labour to enact their legacy, amending Labours manifesto so that left leaning candidates are in power for perpetuity.

And before some smart arse asks, I do disagree with their policies. Nationalisation was a disaster in this country and nothing suggests to me that Labour could make it a success his time around, inward investment would cease completely, corporations would simply leave Britain and Labour would hand power disproportionately to unions, ensuring that we would become a strike bound country.

This I totally with you on as it was a mess and cost the government loads of money and you only have to look back at British Leyland what a fiasco that was.

1. The allegro. If you make s*** cars it doesn't help.
2. Yes some unions did sometimes go over the top. What's to say it would happen now. Many unions praise the German relationship between unions and management. Productivity and efficiency are good there. We should aim for this rather than allowing workers rights to be further abolished.