Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
There's definitely some truth in that.
But equally I can't think of a cabinet minister quite as universally incompetent as Gavin Williamson during the Thatcher years.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
OGH offers us a bit of a poser. During her eleven and a half years in Downing Street, there were five Secretaries of State for Health - Patrick Jenkin, Norman Fowler, John Moore, Ken Clarke and William Waldegrave.
I wonder which of the five we think would have been best suited to have been the "front man" for responding to the virus and what they would have done. Possibly Fowler followed by Clarke.
I can see why Thatcher is the favoured choice - even more than thirty years after her departure, she casts the longest of shadows (though not as long as WSC it seems).
I suspect her response would have been akin to Merkel's given her scientific education but it's impossible to know for sure. Fighting a virus isn't like fighting a human enemy - the virus has no supporters but it is relentless and challenging it at an emotional level is impractical. I suspect all the Prime Minister sin the list would have managed in their own way - it depends whether you prefer grim reality or folksy re-assurance.
On a parallel subject who will be the leader to tell us that, if the science is correct, the climate crisis is already an absolute certainty, whatever steps are taken in some countries to emit less CO2 than before, and that mitigation planning is the only option, and that net Zero emissions, or anything close to it, cannot in practice (political and economic) in any foreseeable time scale and circumstance come about.
I think the great Greta Thunberg may already be trying to work out the implications of this very obvious truth.
My sense is that this is obvious to almost everyone but almost no-one is prepared to say so. Is that how it seems generally?
It's a mistake to think of a climate crisis in on/off terms, which regrettably is how almost all the discussion is framed.
However bad it is already unavoidably going to be we will still make it worse by burning more fossil fuels. Every bit of fossil fuel we avoid burning reduces the extent to which it gets worse.
I also think that some of the transition away from fossil fuels might happen surprisingly quickly once technological tipping points are reached. Coal pretty much disappeared from the UK electricity grid surprisingly quickly. The transition to electric cars may also happen more quickly than expected.
The difficulties with air travel, shipping, land freight and production of high energy products like concrete and steel will all remain.
Mass tree planting seems the best way to manage the next decades alongside reductions in fossil fuels.
Mass tree planting really is not, for a variety of reasons.
Did you know BTW there's a lot more foliage planet wide than there was 30 years ago, anyway? Ironically because CO2 is so good for plants. Or so Matt Ridley said in the Spectator the other day.
Temperatures have varied by more than 1.5C in the past so it makes sense that the planet has evolved life that is quite good at both adaption and self-correction.
Despite knowing that the planet was warmed than it is now in the past, a lot of people have fallen for the notion that warming will become self-reinforcing as ice melts releasing trapped CO2 etc but the opposite is probably more likely. As CO2 levels rise, the planet becomes more habitable for greenery that processes that CO2.
Yes, the *planet* may have evolved life which overall is good at coping with shit, but you do realise 99% of known species have gone extinct because their niche disappeared? Life overall adapts, individual species don't. And we do occupy a niche, even if its quite a generous one. This is a parallel to your insouciance about business failures because "the market will find an equilibrium." Fine and dandy for the market, still not great for the businesses.
Did you make that up about greenery saving the day? That redundant "probably" is a bit quixotic.
Global heating is not a problem for life on earth, it will adapt and evolve. It is very bad for human civilisation, however. That's what we are striving to protect via net zero etc.
Not a lot of striving being done, lots of waffling and windbaggery , little on the action front. We will see nothing from COP meeting other than platitudes and lies about how they are all desperate to do something.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested. What were you really doing?
I was walking down Union Street - I had just bought a new Nokia though which the Police Scotland officer promptly nicked off me.
To be honest I'm fairly sure I have more than 1 under cover cop tracking me whenever I head into town - But as long as I keep taking the meds...
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Well, except for the boosters. That horse seems to be heading for a fall on the rails.
Is Mike still babbling about the Cheltenham Festival ???
Where does he think all the people would have been if they weren't there ?
And if March 2020 was as decisive as Mike thinks then why is it Eastern Europe which has been hit hardest even though they were barely affected in the first wave.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested. What were you really doing?
I was walking down Union Street - I had just bought a new Nokia though which the Police Scotland officer promptly nicked off me.
To be honest I'm fairly sure I have more than 1 under cover cop tracking me whenever I head into town - But as long as I keep taking the meds...
A Nokia?! Was this 2002?
OK - first things first - I meant Breach of the Peace not Breach of the Police.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Ummm...
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
I would have chosen Theresa May. She was conscientious and with a scientific background. Like most others I'd put Johnson last.
If she hadn't been so arrogant and If Corbyn had a chance of winning I'd have voted Tory for the first time in my life in 2017.
I thought she was the closest thing to Angela Merkel we've had and Merkel has to be the best European leader ever
Merkel has to be the best European leader ever
Really?
In Germany alone, I'd rate Kohl and Adenauer higher. And that's just in the post WW2 period.
Churchill stands head and shoulders above the rest to be honest. If you think of history without him I shudder at the outcome.
Churchill did a great job as wartime PM. Before and after, not so much. As someone pointed out here a day or so ago, it was the Norwegian campaign bog-up which brought down Chamberlain. A campaign for which WSC had considerable responsibility. He was significantly concerned with Gallipoli, too.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested. What were you really doing?
I was walking down Union Street - I had just bought a new Nokia though which the Police Scotland officer promptly nicked off me.
To be honest I'm fairly sure I have more than 1 under cover cop tracking me whenever I head into town - But as long as I keep taking the meds...
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Back in March 2020, there were very few routes out of the mess.
*) We could have tried a permanent hard lockdown (viable in the modern age, but nasty). The NZ route. I doubt even a hard lockdown would have worked in the UK, given our location and connections. *) We could have let it rip through the population going for herd immunity (the only thing that could be done in the old days, and very costly in many ways). *) We could try delaying, waiting for vaccines. Again, this was only a viable approach in the last few years.
Given the characteristics of Covid, the government/their advisers realised the third approach was correct. Fortunately it was the correct bet.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Well, except for the boosters. That horse seems to be heading for a fall on the rails.
Jeremy Brown UCL and JCVI on BBC PM was saying Labour are wrong about boosters. He said we are doing fine with the booster programme. He is also unconvinced by the clamour to vaccinate children.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
Sounds like a tall tale to me, even for Scottish police. PS: Being a tory they probably had you for porkies on the Nokia and had you bang to rights.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested. What were you really doing?
Same for me. It probably wouldn't be an exaggeration to say hundreds or even approaching a thousand times. Usually after dark. And to be honest I often look like the kind of person the police WOULD stop. And yet I have never had anything other than a few polite exchanges usually instigated by me.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Ummm...
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
I am loathe to acknowledge this as a loyal former Remainer, but we would have been tied into the EU fiasco were it not for Johnson and Brexit.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
One test of course is that the alleged vegetables walked out of Thatch's Cabinets e.g Hezza, Lawson, The Sheep.
Can anyone imagine any of Johnson's bunch of toads actually resigning over anything political (rather than they grabbed one of the aide's ar*ses)?
This is the problem of memory recall, you're compressing all of Thatcher's leadership rather than comparing like-for-like.
Hezza resigned over Westlands six year into her leadership. Lawson after a decade and The Sheep after eleven years. Boris is barely two years into his leadership, if he were to be in charge for eleven years then yes quite possibly some of them would resign over something political in that time.
The equivalent of those three could be if eg Gove were to resign in 2025, then Sunak in 2029 and Truss in 2030. If that happened then in the 2070s would people be looking back at Boris's Cabinet as the titans versus the minnows of [by then] today?
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
So... what you're saying is that your memory of the night in question is so hazy, you don't even remember which year it was?
I earlier said that Margaret Thatcher would be the best of the previous PMs to handle covid and I retain that opinion
Boris is disliked by many on this forum not least because he has taken us out of the EU following a democratic vote and this has enraged a lot of people
Furthermore, Boris is not a detail person, but is a showman which upsets those who want a PM to be into and across every detail.
However, let us say that Boris and Frost conclude a deal on the NI protocol and he resists the calls from the health service and others to act on plan B, but also vaccinates the young ones quickly and completes booster doses in good time, then he will be seen as the PM who made the correct decision and protected the economy despite huge pressure to bow to the lockdown lobby
It is said that Scotland and Wales are much stricter but as I have mentioned in my part of Wales I do not detect any great love or use of masks, but not only that if mask wearing etc was so successful then why are Scotland and Wales seeing similar rises in infections
Events in time may see that Boris actually was the PM for brexit and covid and secure a substantial legacy
Of course it could all go wrong and then Boris would be seen as wholly unsuitable for this quite unique, and it is unique, period in our politics
Again a week is a long time in politics
Like most of the people on this board (not @HYUFD obviously), Boris doesn't get everything right. So while he got plenty of things right during the pandemic, he also got some wrong.
Looking at the world right now, I'd say the UK has done better than the US, and better than Spain or Italy, about the same as France, the Netherlands or Portugal, and a little worse than Northern Europe.
We've probably done worse than Japan or South Korea.
On the other hand we've done massively better than Eastern Europe, Russia or South America.
And we've done this with an about average level of damage to the economy.
Basically, for a developed country, we're middle of the pack. We got vaccines procurement spot on. But we were too slow to vaccinate the young, to do booster shots, and to impose proper travel restrictions.
A solid 6/10.
Testing and sequencing were good.
The lack of a general public health campaign was bad.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Ummm...
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
I am loathe to acknowledge this as a loyal former Remainer, but we would have been tied into the EU fiasco were it not for Johnson and Brexit.
Although (as a Leaver), the EU did get it together in the end and managed to everyone vaccinated only about six to eight weeks after the UK.
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
So... what you're saying is that your memory of the night in question is so hazy, you don't even remember which year it was?
It was during the day - they let me out of my "safe place" around midnight. It's not a happy memory.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Ummm...
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
I am loathe to acknowledge this as a loyal former Remainer, but we would have been tied into the EU fiasco were it not for Johnson and Brexit.
Although (as a Leaver), the EU did get it together in the end and managed to everyone vaccinated only about six to eight weeks after the UK.
Vaccinated everyone who wanted to or was forced to (France and Italy).
Incidentally are France and Italy going to force booster doses ?
If not then that could be problems during winter for them.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
The Boris cabinet is has got a lot of rubbish in it. Hancock getting done improved it a lot. I mean it has Gavin Williamson in it for almost two years.
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
Ummm...
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
I am loathe to acknowledge this as a loyal former Remainer, but we would have been tied into the EU fiasco were it not for Johnson and Brexit.
Although (as a Leaver), the EU did get it together in the end and managed to everyone vaccinated only about six to eight weeks after the UK.
Vaccinated everyone who wanted to or was forced to (France and Italy).
Incidentally are France and Italy going to force booster doses ?
If not then that could be problems during winter for them.
France has given 2.2m booster doses so far and they're talking about removing people's covid passes if they refuse a third dose, but so far the programme is restricted to certain categories.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
On topic, perhaps we should be led by Mr Rees-Mogg, as he really knows how infections work? From the Huffington Post...
Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Conservative MPs do not need to wear face masks in the Commons chamber because they know each other and have a “convivial fraternal spirit”. This was despite Sajid Javid, the health secretary, on Wednesday saying MPs should be “setting an example” for the public. “There is no advice to wear face masks in work places,” Rees-Mogg told parliament after calls from opposition MPs. “The advice on crowded spaces is crowded spaces with people you don’t know. We on this side know each other.”
On topic, perhaps we should be led by Mr Rees-Mogg, as he really knows how infections work? From the Huffington Post...
Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Conservative MPs do not need to wear face masks in the Commons chamber because they know each other and have a “convivial fraternal spirit”. This was despite Sajid Javid, the health secretary, on Wednesday saying MPs should be “setting an example” for the public. “There is no advice to wear face masks in work places,” Rees-Mogg told parliament after calls from opposition MPs. “The advice on crowded spaces is crowded spaces with people you don’t know. We on this side know each other.”
Given that they should all be vaccinated then Mogg is correct.
Now if some aren't vaccinated then those names would be worth knowing.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
The Boris cabinet is has got a lot of rubbish in it. Hancock getting done improved it a lot. I mean it has Gavin Williamson in it for almost two years.
All Cabinets of their time have had some rubbish. I really don't get the allure of Williamson but he was in May's Cabinet too so wasn't exactly a promoted unknown lightweight.
Raab, Truss, Patel, Gove, Javid, Barclay and even Williamson at least had all been Cabinet ministers before Boris. I may have missed others.
Sunak, Sharma, Kwarteng, Zahawi and more were all tipped for promotion long before they got it.
It might be a fun game to play to say who is the "Williamson" of each generation. Blair had a few you could suggest. Prescott? Clare Short? Frank Dobson?
A couple of years ago, we had a spate of crime in the village. A man got attacked with a machete a couple of streets away (and on the route I walk my son to school), and then a few months later, a man was murdered in a stabbing outside the local pub. After each of these, there was a frenzy of police activity in the village, and then they went invisible again. But I also haven't heard of any serious crime, either.
So the answer is simple; if you want to see police on your streets, ensure someone is attacked with a knife!
(It's not just that, though. A man went missing, and the authorities were concerned for his welfare. There was a massive search in the village, including the police, and thankfully the man was found safe and well.)
Seems reasonable to me? The police will never have infinite resources (and it'd be a bit disturbing if they were hovering on every corner), so prioritising an area where there's been serious criminal activity seems fair enough.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
The Boris cabinet is has got a lot of rubbish in it. Hancock getting done improved it a lot. I mean it has Gavin Williamson in it for almost two years.
Well, I recall Thatchers Cabinet being announced and IIRC they were all people who’d been around the top of the Conservative party few a while. Same with Heath’s. You couldn’t really say that about Johnson’s. I seem to recall too that when May appointed Johnson Foreign Sec. There was considerable amazement, and not just here.
For those asking why I bought a wisteria from Italy on the previous thread, I looked around some months ago for a wisteria and there was very little available locally. Eventually I found a specialist supplier recommended by someone living locally who holds one of the national collections (and has featured on Gardeners World - but who does not sell) and bought one. They were growing it up a trellis before it would be ready to deliver. It was only some time after that they told me where it was coming from. I did check that they had done all the right phytosanitary checks etc.
The plant is strong and healthy and large and the cost was reasonable.
Anecdotally - and based on my experience creating my front garden over these past few months - there has been a notable shortage of plants in garden centres, including in specialist nurseries, a consequence I am told of both Covid and Brexit. A lot of our plants and bulbs come from Holland in any case.
I will report back in due course. If you're all very nice to me I may even treat you to pictures!
On topic, perhaps we should be led by Mr Rees-Mogg, as he really knows how infections work? From the Huffington Post...
Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Conservative MPs do not need to wear face masks in the Commons chamber because they know each other and have a “convivial fraternal spirit”. This was despite Sajid Javid, the health secretary, on Wednesday saying MPs should be “setting an example” for the public. “There is no advice to wear face masks in work places,” Rees-Mogg told parliament after calls from opposition MPs. “The advice on crowded spaces is crowded spaces with people you don’t know. We on this side know each other.”
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
The Boris cabinet is has got a lot of rubbish in it. Hancock getting done improved it a lot. I mean it has Gavin Williamson in it for almost two years.
Well, I recall Thatchers Cabinet being announced and IIRC they were all people who’d been around the top of the Conservative party few a while. Same with Heath’s. You couldn’t really say that about Johnson’s. I seem to recall too that when May appointed Johnson Foreign Sec. There was considerable amazement, and not just here.
Which long-serving Leave-supporting Cabinet Ministers didn't make it through to Johnson's Cabinet? Gove et al all did even though Gove had according to many in the media previously stabbed Johnson in the back.
Yes people who backed Hunt's proposals to deal with Europe instead of Boris's proposals to deal with Europe didn't but that's just Collective Responsibility. May should surely have shown that we needed a Cabinet which was capable of having Collective Responsibility for dealing with the European issue that had nearly torn the country and party asunder by that point.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
The stock of the special-purpose acquisition company for Trump's supposed social-media platform went up almost 400% today. Before today, the stock had traded at $9.95 since trading started on September 30, so someone made a ton of dough today.
I mean fair play to Adam Neumann for extracting billions of pounds of investors money for is own personal enrichment but holy crap how dumb were the investors that they couldn't see what was happening?
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Indeed, I cannot recall Mrs Thatcher's having cabinet ministers who had been previously sacked from the cabinet for being a national security risks?
Boris Johnson appointed two disgraced national security risks.
WA State 2021 General Election - Ballot returns as of Wed 10.20 EDay -13
WA Secretary of State reports total ballots returned as of yesterday afternoon = 232,565 (4.8% of 4.8m active registered voters
Note that turnout for 2017 general was 37.1% so IF that's replicated this year, then current cumulative ballot returns represent 13% of final projected turnout.
Nothing on statewide ballot to drive turnout, no initiatives or referenda, no candidate races. Across the state the focus is on county and city races, most notably the open-seat contest for Seattle mayor.
Here in the Emerald City we've actually got three hotly contested citywide races, for mayor, city attorney and city council at-large. Here is lay of the land, including recent public poll published this week:
> for Mayor, top two finishers from August primary were former city council member Bruce Harrell (34%) and current councilmember Lorena González (32%). Both are ethnic minorities; Harrell is mixed race Black & Korean who grew up in Seattle, while González is Mexican American born & raised in Eastern WA, where she & her family worked the fields. She became a trial attorney specializing in civil rights and labor law; he is also an attorney with significant experience in same areas, plus a broader business and civic background. In this election, Bruce is the moderate Democratic candidate of the Seattle business & professional establishment (the race is non-partisan) while Lorena is the progressive establishmentarian backed by labor and district Democratic organizations.
Poll by Northwest Progressive Institute (Oct 12-15, n= 670 likely voters, 4.1% margin of error) shows following in mayor's race: Bruce Harrell 48% Lorena González 32% undecided 18% won't vote 2%
Further note that NPI poll just before August primary showed Bruce with 20%, Lorena with 12%, 36% for host of other candidates, and 32% undecided. Final result as noted was Harrell 34, Gonzalez 32%
So Lorena is likely to make up some ground on Harrell, question is, will it be enough? Methinks the answer will be no. Final voter turnout is a key factor, the higher the better for Lorena as her progressive base is significantly younger than Bruce's.
Speaking of turnout, so far in City of Seattle returned ballots = 26,586 (5.4% of 489k active reg) > back in 2017 general, final Seattle turnout was 49%, but the mayor's race was not very competitive, so expect that turnout will be around 55% or even a notch or two higher this year.
BREAKING NEWS - as of Noon, Thursday, 10.21, returns from Seattle = 31,475 (6.4%)
BTW, my own ballot is in that number, indeed according to ballot tracker has already been accepted (based on signature check) for counting.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Unprecedented when there was also Fox, Grayling and Letwin ?
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Williamson in Boris's Cabinet can't really be that unprecedented.
Afterall, we'd already had Williamson in May's Cabinet before then!
The stock of the special-purpose acquisition company for Trump's supposed social-media platform went up almost 400% today. Before today, the stock had traded at $9.95 since trading started on September 30, so someone made a ton of dough today.
Lol - that's just popped up on CNN now. It is very difficult to know how much PB affects the media. There might just be a lot of unplanned synchronisation.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Unprecedented when there was also Fox, Grayling and Letwin ?
I wonder if the SIS are doing this to Boris Johnson.
The Spanish secret service injected Juan Carlos, the now exiled and disgraced former king, with female hormones as his sex drive was a danger to the state, Spain’s most notorious police chief has claimed.
José Manuel Villarejo, a former police commissioner who is on trial for blackmail and corruption connected to a network of the country’s political and business elite, dubbed the “sewers of the state”, made the allegation during a parliamentary hearing.
Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI) injected Carlos, 83, with “female hormones and testosterone inhibitors to lower his libido because it was understood that it was a problem for the state that he was such an ardently passionate person”, Villarejo said. Members of parliament at the hearing met his claims with disbelief, with one sniggering and another saying it was like “the latest James Bond film”.
Villarejo attributed the alleged decision to try to temper Carlos’s reported ardour to Félix Sanz Roldán, the former CNI head and a close ally of the former monarch. Asked if he had played any role in administering hormones to Carlos, Villarejo said he had not, and explained that he learned about it “a posteriori” when Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, Carlos’s former mistress, told him.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Indeed, I cannot recall Mrs Thatcher's having cabinet ministers who had been previously sacked from the cabinet for being a national security risks?
Boris Johnson appointed two disgraced national security risks.
David Cameron brought a criminal into the heart of government (copyright Ed Miliband).
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:
Thatcher - I'll have steak Waiter - and the vegetables? Thatcher - They'll have the same.
I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.
The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.
Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.
A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.
Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
Have you yet met the youngster who will come to look back on this cabinet as the Titans of their generation? And how bad will what follows have to be to justify such a reminiscence.
It happens every time. I recall people saying the same about Blair's government and Cameron's. I'm not old enough to recall people saying it about Thatcher's but they clearly did (vegetables joke). I expect its the same every generation.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Wrong. Williamson and Shapps are unprecedented in my lifetime. They make Geoff Hoon look good.
Indeed, I cannot recall Mrs Thatcher's having cabinet ministers who had been previously sacked from the cabinet for being a national security risks?
Boris Johnson appointed two disgraced national security risks.
David Cameron brought a criminal into the heart of government (copyright Ed Miliband).
Ed Miliband was full of shite, he should have spent more time on learning how to eat a bacon sarnie than obsessing about phone hacking.
I wonder if the SIS are doing this to Boris Johnson.
The Spanish secret service injected Juan Carlos, the now exiled and disgraced former king, with female hormones as his sex drive was a danger to the state, Spain’s most notorious police chief has claimed.
José Manuel Villarejo, a former police commissioner who is on trial for blackmail and corruption connected to a network of the country’s political and business elite, dubbed the “sewers of the state”, made the allegation during a parliamentary hearing.
Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI) injected Carlos, 83, with “female hormones and testosterone inhibitors to lower his libido because it was understood that it was a problem for the state that he was such an ardently passionate person”, Villarejo said. Members of parliament at the hearing met his claims with disbelief, with one sniggering and another saying it was like “the latest James Bond film”.
Villarejo attributed the alleged decision to try to temper Carlos’s reported ardour to Félix Sanz Roldán, the former CNI head and a close ally of the former monarch. Asked if he had played any role in administering hormones to Carlos, Villarejo said he had not, and explained that he learned about it “a posteriori” when Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, Carlos’s former mistress, told him.
When yours truly was in the 7th grade, the word at my school (among the boys anyway) was that the cafeteria was putting saltpeter in our food to curb our own enthusiasm. So I can relate!
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
So... what you're saying is that your memory of the night in question is so hazy, you don't even remember which year it was?
It was during the day - they let me out of my "safe place" around midnight. It's not a happy memory.
That would have been Grampian Police. Controlled by the councillors of the area. Before the merger to Police Scotland.
I’m puzzled by these figures. You’re showing deaths below 100 and falling for the last three days, but the ONS has deaths at 179, 223 and 45 for Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.
She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.
Competence is what mattered to her.
Rubbish. Mrs Thatcher started with a balanced Cabinet but often publicly railed against her Cabinet, and purged the "wets" in her second term. As for competence, she appointed no women, and lost power because her campaign team was either a drunk nonce or stuck in Scotland rescuing a bank.
I’m in a beautiful hotel in Sagres, Portugal - the pousada - and the service is Fawlty Towers bad. I think there are three stuff running the entire hotel and restaurant
I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.
If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.
Major just middling.
Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.
Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.
The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.
Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.
If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.
Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.
It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.
I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.
Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
(IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)
For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?
Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.
In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.
Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)
In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
(joking) That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID! (/joking)
You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.
However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.
What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
I don't think it's called Breach of the Police. That has been legal since the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
This guy is an absolute nutjob. Nobody gets arrested for just walking down the street, just another excuse to whine about Scotland.
I can assure you that I dd get arrested for simply walking down Union Street under the Breach of the Peace act. I can assure you that the Police Officer promptly nicked my new Nokia during the process. And I'm pretty sure the year was 2011.
So... what you're saying is that your memory of the night in question is so hazy, you don't even remember which year it was?
It was during the day - they let me out of my "safe place" around midnight. It's not a happy memory.
That would have been Grampian Police. Controlled by the councillors of the area. Before the merger to Police Scotland.
Ok - to be honest I probably shouldn't have posted so much info on the web - but I was attemptting to warn, as a public service, my fellow PBers to be extremely wary of UK Police.
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.
She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.
Competence is what mattered to her.
Rubbish. Mrs Thatcher started with a balanced Cabinet but often publicly railed against her Cabinet, and purged the "wets" in her second term. As for competence, she appointed no women, and lost power because her campaign team was either a drunk nonce or stuck in Scotland rescuing a bank.
She appointed dripping wets like Douglas Hurd, Chris Patten, John Gummer, and Ken Clarke to her cabinets.
I’m puzzled by these figures. You’re showing deaths below 100 and falling for the last three days, but the ONS has deaths at 179, 223 and 45 for Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday.
Am I misreading the graph in some way?
You are reffering to 28 day reporting date deaths not ONS death certificate figures
I’m in a beautiful hotel in Sagres, Portugal - the pousada - and the service is Fawlty Towers bad. I think there are three stuff running the entire hotel and restaurant
And it is busy
This problem is obviously a worldwide issue
Please let us know if you spot a Siberian hamster.
Probably the worst BBC political editor of my lifetime. Nothing to do with her bias. She is just a really rubbish journalist. A walking, talking press release.
Less than a week after the Premier League approved the PIF takeover of Newcastle because its supposedly separate from the Saudi state, the Saudi Finance Minister has referred to Newcastle as a club "we own". 🤦♂️
Dominic Cummings backs Lisa Nandy; Andy Burnham is terrible value. Flip-flopping favourites in America where Donald Trump now heads the betting. Too early for AOC. Covid restrictions betting: facemasks 5/4; vaxports 6/4; lockdown 4/1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6CrdXGxL4s
I’m in a beautiful hotel in Sagres, Portugal - the pousada - and the service is Fawlty Towers bad. I think there are three stuff running the entire hotel and restaurant
And it is busy
This problem is obviously a worldwide issue
Spain has paradores, Portugal pousadas. Does any other country have Government hotels?
I’m just a few weeks short of the six month post-second-vac point, yet the NHS website just told me to go away as ineligible for a booster, without even saying when I should return and apply. Yet we are awash with supply. Where’s the sense in that?
Ditto. I am just days away from being eligible but I can't book online. No reason given other than not being eligible, yet if I booked now I would be 6m by time of vaccination.
My mother's had the same. She tried to book online but it just tells her she's not eligible even though it'll be six months tomorrow since her second jab.
She has got an appointment booked with the GP for 2nd December but we're going to try and get her to a walk in clinic before then
I’m in a beautiful hotel in Sagres, Portugal - the pousada - and the service is Fawlty Towers bad. I think there are three stuff running the entire hotel and restaurant
And it is busy
This problem is obviously a worldwide issue
Spain has paradores, Portugal pousadas. Does any other country have Government hotels?
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.
She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.
Competence is what mattered to her.
Rubbish. Mrs Thatcher started with a balanced Cabinet but often publicly railed against her Cabinet, and purged the "wets" in her second term. As for competence, she appointed no women, and lost power because her campaign team was either a drunk nonce or stuck in Scotland rescuing a bank.
She appointed dripping wets like Douglas Hurd, Chris Patten, John Gummer, and Ken Clarke to her cabinets.
Hurd was a loyalist and the other three came at the end of Mrs Thatcher's premiership when she was more-or-less forced into it.
I’m puzzled by these figures. You’re showing deaths below 100 and falling for the last three days, but the ONS has deaths at 179, 223 and 45 for Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday.
Am I misreading the graph in some way?
You are reffering to 28 day reporting date deaths not ONS death certificate figures
So what is the difference?
Sorry to sound like Peston, but I want to understand this.
I’m in a beautiful hotel in Sagres, Portugal - the pousada - and the service is Fawlty Towers bad. I think there are three stuff running the entire hotel and restaurant
And it is busy
This problem is obviously a worldwide issue
Spain has paradores, Portugal pousadas. Does any other country have Government hotels?
Some PBers have done time in Her Majesty's hotels.
Handy to have Doncaster and Rotherham adjacent on that table as well as geographically.
Because Doncaster has a two week school half term holiday (this week and next) whereas Rotherham has only next week.
And Doncaster's infection numbers have fallen this week.
Similarly there are falls in Bassetlaw and Mansfield (two weeks) but not in Bolsover and Chesterfield (next week only).
How come it has a two week half term? I have never heard of that before.
The Essex primary school where Eldest Grandson teaches is having a two week half-term.
Some schools have tried this- the run from September to Christmas is long (15 teaching weeks) and teachers and pupils are pretty much running on fumes by this point, even in a normal year.
I suspect Theresa May would have done best at handling the pandemic but it's interesting to think how Thatcher would have dealt with as it as I suspect her natural instinct would have been to keep the economy open but with her science background she'd have followed the science so she'd have been very conflicted I think?
Completely disagree
May would have been in thrall to the lockdown lobby and we would all be tied up at the bottom of the dungeon. And she wouldn’t have had the mindset to do the vaccine thing.
Thatcher was a scientist. Which would have given her the confidence to engage with and challenge rather than just “follow” the science
Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.
She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.
May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.
May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.
Fatch.
One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.
Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.
Remarkable.
Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.
She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.
Competence is what mattered to her.
Rubbish. Mrs Thatcher started with a balanced Cabinet but often publicly railed against her Cabinet, and purged the "wets" in her second term. As for competence, she appointed no women, and lost power because her campaign team was either a drunk nonce or stuck in Scotland rescuing a bank.
She appointed dripping wets like Douglas Hurd, Chris Patten, John Gummer, and Ken Clarke to her cabinets.
Hurd was a loyalist and the other three came at the end of Mrs Thatcher's premiership when she was more-or-less forced into it.
John Gummer joined the cabinet in 1985, Ken Clarke shortly afterwards.
I’m puzzled by these figures. You’re showing deaths below 100 and falling for the last three days, but the ONS has deaths at 179, 223 and 45 for Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday.
Am I misreading the graph in some way?
You are reffering to 28 day reporting date deaths not ONS death certificate figures
So what is the difference?
Sorry to sound like Peston, but I want to understand this.
"I want to understand this" - words that Peston has never uttered in his life. Don't worry about sounding like him!
English schools should not teach “contested theories and opinions … such as white privilege” as fact, the government has said prior to the publication of new guidance outlining how teaching certain political issues could break the law.
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils published by the education committee in June.
The Department for Education is working with schools to develop new guidance on how “to teach about complex political issues, in line with [schools’] legal duties on political impartiality, covering factors including age-appropriateness and the use of external agencies”, the response said.
Comments
Johnson just had vaccinations in his armoury. He threw everything at vaccines because he had no idea what else to do. Almost by accident he won the Covid war.
ALL the other PMs would have been far more cautious over vaccines and would have failed.
Johnson may be idle and feckless, but he bet the farm on the vaccine horse and it romped home.
But equally I can't think of a cabinet minister quite as universally incompetent as Gavin Williamson during the Thatcher years.
Because Doncaster has a two week school half term holiday (this week and next) whereas Rotherham has only next week.
And Doncaster's infection numbers have fallen this week.
Similarly there are falls in Bassetlaw and Mansfield (two weeks) but not in Bolsover and Chesterfield (next week only).
OGH offers us a bit of a poser. During her eleven and a half years in Downing Street, there were five Secretaries of State for Health - Patrick Jenkin, Norman Fowler, John Moore, Ken Clarke and William Waldegrave.
I wonder which of the five we think would have been best suited to have been the "front man" for responding to the virus and what they would have done. Possibly Fowler followed by Clarke.
I can see why Thatcher is the favoured choice - even more than thirty years after her departure, she casts the longest of shadows (though not as long as WSC it seems).
I suspect her response would have been akin to Merkel's given her scientific education but it's impossible to know for sure. Fighting a virus isn't like fighting a human enemy - the virus has no supporters but it is relentless and challenging it at an emotional level is impractical. I suspect all the Prime Minister sin the list would have managed in their own way - it depends whether you prefer grim reality or folksy re-assurance.
(also, is it a coincidences that there is an election coming up?)
Where does he think all the people would have been if they weren't there ?
And if March 2020 was as decisive as Mike thinks then why is it Eastern Europe which has been hit hardest even though they were barely affected in the first wave.
The year would have been 2011
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/andreasfulda
I don't think that's true.
Because pretty much every other country also jumped on the vaccine train. What was unique about the Johnson/Bingham approach was a willingness to place large orders for far more doses than the country actually needed, and to encourage UK supply chains.
I don't think that PM Thatcher would - alone of the leaders of the Western world - passed on ordering vaccines at all.
*) We could have tried a permanent hard lockdown (viable in the modern age, but nasty). The NZ route. I doubt even a hard lockdown would have worked in the UK, given our location and connections.
*) We could have let it rip through the population going for herd immunity (the only thing that could be done in the old days, and very costly in many ways).
*) We could try delaying, waiting for vaccines. Again, this was only a viable approach in the last few years.
Given the characteristics of Covid, the government/their advisers realised the third approach was correct. Fortunately it was the correct bet.
PS: Being a tory they probably had you for porkies on the Nokia and had you bang to rights.
Hezza resigned over Westlands six year into her leadership. Lawson after a decade and The Sheep after eleven years. Boris is barely two years into his leadership, if he were to be in charge for eleven years then yes quite possibly some of them would resign over something political in that time.
The equivalent of those three could be if eg Gove were to resign in 2025, then Sunak in 2029 and Truss in 2030. If that happened then in the 2070s would people be looking back at Boris's Cabinet as the titans versus the minnows of [by then] today?
The lack of a general public health campaign was bad.
Incidentally are France and Italy going to force booster doses ?
If not then that could be problems during winter for them.
People over time forget the "Williamsons" and forget about why they really disliked the ministers of the time and look back with rose tinted glasses on those who've gone before.
Edit: I see BlancheLivermore got there before me
WeWork surges on first day of trade after SPAC (Briskin: whatever that means) deal
Jacob Rees-Mogg has said Conservative MPs do not need to wear face masks in the Commons chamber because they know each other and have a “convivial fraternal spirit”.
This was despite Sajid Javid, the health secretary, on Wednesday saying MPs should be “setting an example” for the public.
“There is no advice to wear face masks in work places,” Rees-Mogg told parliament after calls from opposition MPs. “The advice on crowded spaces is crowded spaces with people you don’t know. We on this side know each other.”
"I think the sentiment that I'm hearing out there, voters in Arizona are upset with her, especially Democratic voters,"
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1451264619033595910
Now if some aren't vaccinated then those names would be worth knowing.
It is generally sole purpose of the SPAC.
Raab, Truss, Patel, Gove, Javid, Barclay and even Williamson at least had all been Cabinet ministers before Boris. I may have missed others.
Sunak, Sharma, Kwarteng, Zahawi and more were all tipped for promotion long before they got it.
It might be a fun game to play to say who is the "Williamson" of each generation. Blair had a few you could suggest. Prescott? Clare Short? Frank Dobson?
Fuck. A. Duck.
Even its current value seems ridiculous.
I seem to recall too that when May appointed Johnson Foreign Sec. There was considerable amazement, and not just here.
The plant is strong and healthy and large and the cost was reasonable.
Anecdotally - and based on my experience creating my front garden over these past few months - there has been a notable shortage of plants in garden centres, including in specialist nurseries, a consequence I am told of both Covid and Brexit. A lot of our plants and bulbs come from Holland in any case.
I will report back in due course. If you're all very nice to me I may even treat you to pictures!
Yes people who backed Hunt's proposals to deal with Europe instead of Boris's proposals to deal with Europe didn't but that's just Collective Responsibility. May should surely have shown that we needed a Cabinet which was capable of having Collective Responsibility for dealing with the European issue that had nearly torn the country and party asunder by that point.
Nope, I cannot comment on the valuation of WeWork.
The stock of the special-purpose acquisition company for Trump's supposed social-media platform went up almost 400% today. Before today, the stock had traded at $9.95 since trading started on September 30, so someone made a ton of dough today.
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1451267432312623109
Boris Johnson appointed two disgraced national security risks.
WA Secretary of State reports total ballots returned as of yesterday afternoon
= 232,565 (4.8% of 4.8m active registered voters
Note that turnout for 2017 general was 37.1% so IF that's replicated this year, then current cumulative ballot returns represent 13% of final projected turnout.
Nothing on statewide ballot to drive turnout, no initiatives or referenda, no candidate races. Across the state the focus is on county and city races, most notably the open-seat contest for Seattle mayor.
Here in the Emerald City we've actually got three hotly contested citywide races, for mayor, city attorney and city council at-large. Here is lay of the land, including recent public poll published this week:
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/10/as-voting-begins-in-the-2021-seattle-mayoral-race-bruce-harrell-has-a-sixteen-point-lead.html
> for Mayor, top two finishers from August primary were former city council member Bruce Harrell (34%) and current councilmember Lorena González (32%). Both are ethnic minorities; Harrell is mixed race Black & Korean who grew up in Seattle, while González is Mexican American born & raised in Eastern WA, where she & her family worked the fields. She became a trial attorney specializing in civil rights and labor law; he is also an attorney with significant experience in same areas, plus a broader business and civic background. In this election, Bruce is the moderate Democratic candidate of the Seattle business & professional establishment (the race is non-partisan) while Lorena is the progressive establishmentarian backed by labor and district Democratic organizations.
Poll by Northwest Progressive Institute (Oct 12-15, n= 670 likely voters, 4.1% margin of error) shows following in mayor's race:
Bruce Harrell 48%
Lorena González 32%
undecided 18%
won't vote 2%
Further note that NPI poll just before August primary showed Bruce with 20%, Lorena with 12%, 36% for host of other candidates, and 32% undecided. Final result as noted was Harrell 34, Gonzalez 32%
So Lorena is likely to make up some ground on Harrell, question is, will it be enough? Methinks the answer will be no. Final voter turnout is a key factor, the higher the better for Lorena as her progressive base is significantly younger than Bruce's.
Speaking of turnout, so far in City of Seattle returned ballots = 26,586 (5.4% of 489k active reg)
> back in 2017 general, final Seattle turnout was 49%, but the mayor's race was not very competitive, so expect that turnout will be around 55% or even a notch or two higher this year.
BREAKING NEWS - as of Noon, Thursday, 10.21, returns from Seattle = 31,475 (6.4%)
BTW, my own ballot is in that number, indeed according to ballot tracker has already been accepted (based on signature check) for counting.
Afterall, we'd already had Williamson in May's Cabinet before then!
@bbclaurak is off
The Spanish secret service injected Juan Carlos, the now exiled and disgraced former king, with female hormones as his sex drive was a danger to the state, Spain’s most notorious police chief has claimed.
José Manuel Villarejo, a former police commissioner who is on trial for blackmail and corruption connected to a network of the country’s political and business elite, dubbed the “sewers of the state”, made the allegation during a parliamentary hearing.
Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI) injected Carlos, 83, with “female hormones and testosterone inhibitors to lower his libido because it was understood that it was a problem for the state that he was such an ardently passionate person”, Villarejo said. Members of parliament at the hearing met his claims with disbelief, with one sniggering and another saying it was like “the latest James Bond film”.
Villarejo attributed the alleged decision to try to temper Carlos’s reported ardour to Félix Sanz Roldán, the former CNI head and a close ally of the former monarch. Asked if he had played any role in administering hormones to Carlos, Villarejo said he had not, and explained that he learned about it “a posteriori” when Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, Carlos’s former mistress, told him.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/juan-carlos-injected-with-hormones-by-secret-service-to-slow-sex-drive-pcfps8x7n
Con lead +2 from August
I’m puzzled by these figures. You’re showing deaths below 100 and falling for the last three days, but the ONS has deaths at 179, 223 and 45 for Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday.
Am I misreading the graph in some way?
And it is busy
This problem is obviously a worldwide issue
Less than a week after the Premier League approved the PIF takeover of Newcastle because its supposedly separate from the Saudi state, the Saudi Finance Minister has referred to Newcastle as a club "we own". 🤦♂️
Dominic Cummings backs Lisa Nandy; Andy Burnham is terrible value.
Flip-flopping favourites in America where Donald Trump now heads the betting. Too early for AOC.
Covid restrictions betting: facemasks 5/4; vaxports 6/4; lockdown 4/1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6CrdXGxL4s
There was a subsequent consultation and it will revert to 1 week next year.
Sorry to sound like Peston, but I want to understand this.
May would have been in thrall to the lockdown lobby and we would all be tied up at the bottom of the dungeon. And she wouldn’t have had the mindset to do the vaccine thing.
Thatcher was a scientist. Which would have given her the confidence to engage with and challenge rather than just “follow” the science
Schools should avoid promoting “partisan political views” and must instead teach racial and social justice topics in a “balanced and factual manner”, according to the government’s official response to a report on the educational disadvantages faced by white working-class pupils published by the education committee in June.
The Department for Education is working with schools to develop new guidance on how “to teach about complex political issues, in line with [schools’] legal duties on political impartiality, covering factors including age-appropriateness and the use of external agencies”, the response said.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/21/english-schools-must-not-teach-white-privilege-as-fact-government-warns