She delivered it better in my head before I saw that .
Wait for him to sit down. Pause. Look concerned. Then say it.
He's on the back foot now for sure though .
It was a pretty good performance, and she gives the sense that she's far better at skewering Johnson than Starmer.
But she's still a little too reliant on set scripts. When Johnson was blustering about being in the EU not allowing a VAT cut and Raynor supporting Remain, if she'd been a 'top tier' political performer (with a grasp of the full picture) she would have said that she's operating in the here and now, not fighting a battle of 5 years ago and that Labour wants to utilise the current position to benefit 'ordinary working families' (tm) where possible. Then also pointed out a) that up until his tactical switch to being a Leaver to help make him the darling of the Tory Party, he'd been a big supporter of being the EU both in his newspaper articles and when London Mayor; and b) that it was a decision made by the Tory government to leave the European Internal Energy Market, which we could have stayed a member of outside the EU, and which has allowed our European neighbours to pool energy supplies to keep the rises lower than the UK has suffered.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/06/14/brexit-eu-internal-single-energy-market-interconnector/Incidentally, the non idealogical reason for privatisation would be to run companies more efficiently. (In built assumption that state run 'companies' are inefficient). Are there good examples where things are run efficiently by the state. I suppose part of the issue is defining efficient. In the private sector, profit is the driver. If we nationalised power, then we'd want cheap energy for consumers, both domestic and commercial.
'Increased efficiency' within privatised companies is a horrible misnomer.
In a private company, you have the added costs of paying inflated salary 'packages' to executives & directors, and then losing from the business the dividends paid to shareholders.
To counter that, what's generally involved is cutting staff numbers. Those workers remaining have bigger workloads and worsened work lives. Where the inadequate TUPE can be circumvented, privatised companies will also cut the T&C's and even pay levels of workers; where they don't/can't do this immediately for existing staff, privatised companies will amend the T&C's and pay levels of new starters, so the process is eventually the same but over a longer period.
The above applies to outsourced services, too.
If we look at PPI/PPP in hospitals, before any privatisation the ancillary functions like cleaning, security, maintenance, basic admin, etc were undertaken by NHS employees in secure jobs with decent pay, decent T&Cs, the NHS pension, etc. You look at those jobs now that they've been outsourced/privatised and they're done by demotivated people, often on a temp/agency basis, on minimum wage, poor T&Cs, basic pension provision (usually with no employer contributions).
MEanwhile, the executives/directors of the companies providing the outsourced/privatised functions get 6- and 7-figure salary packages rammed full of perks and bonuses.
It's the ordinary workers who pay the price for 'increased efficiency' - and for the fatcat salaries of executives/directors.
Poll