Why This Fight? Why Now? – politicalbetting.com

System

Why This Fight? Why Now? – politicalbetting.com

It is quite something for a government to challenge via judicial review the use of legal powers exercised by an inquiry it set up, run by a judge it appointed, with terms of reference it drafted.

Read the full story here

eek

first

bondegezou

Second!

dixiedean

It is indeed an enigma.
It's making Boris Johnson look honest and straightforward for one.

Pulpstar

The Gov't will have to try and shoehorn in some sort of plausible national security angle to the judge or they'll lose badly.
I don't think whichever beak sees their arguments is going to have much truck with them frankly.

Chris

Why?

It could be as simple as Sunak being on record as saying he didn't care how many people died, so long as the economy got back on track.

Sandpit

Well someone doesn’t want everyone’s messages sent to the inquiry.

Amazingly, this time that someone isn’t Boris Johnson.

eek

dixiedean said:

It is indeed an enigma.
It's making Boris Johnson look honest and straightforward for one.

Only because you haven't noticed a get out clause well hidden within his letter

david allen green
@davidallengreen
Be careful about the exact wording Johnson is using before you get too excited.

Eg, the impressively deft use of "relevant" in the seventh paragraph - so well camouflaged you may miss it.

Jonathan

Boris knows a bit about politics. Sunak doesn't.

kle4

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

dixiedean

eek said:

dixiedean said:

It is indeed an enigma.
It's making Boris Johnson look honest and straightforward for one.

Only because you haven't noticed a get out clause well hidden within his letter

david allen green
@davidallengreen
Be careful about the exact wording Johnson is using before you get too excited.

Eg, the impressively deft use of "relevant" in the seventh paragraph - so well camouflaged you may miss it.

Well of course. That's why I said "look" honest and straightforward.
Of course he isn't. That's taken as read, surely?

turbotubbs

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

CorrectHorseBat

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

DecrepiterJohnL

Conservative Party manifesto 2019:-

We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019

Sandpit

As I said before, one of the first things to learn from this debacle, is to manage use of messaging systems in government. It’s mad that individuals are having to be asked to hand over messages, rather than the messages be available centrally to be handed over. This is how sensitive companies such as banks and military contractors work.

Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.

There should be three forms of written communication allowed:

1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants.
2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants.
3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.

This stuff is IT management 101.

IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow! That’s the ministers and the permanent secretaries.

Carnyx

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

Irrelevant. The current government, admittedly under somewhat different persons, enacted this inquiry with its broad remit. Too late to change their minds.

Pulpstar

Whatever the Gov't is trying to hide must be more incriminating than the terrible PR they're incurring by using a JR to try and hide it.

So it must be dire.

Sandpit

Chris said:

Why?

It could be as simple as Sunak being on record as saying he didn't care how many people died, so long as the economy got back on track.

There will be plenty of messages like that, which were perfectly valid opinions at the time, but might come across as rather crass and insensitive now.

Those dealing with the emergency had to balance the health issue against the economic issue, and one can well imagine the Chancellor playing the devil’s advocate with regard to many of the restrictions.

kle4

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

williamglenn

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

It's not as if they were on course for victory.

dixiedean

The wider issue is we haven't got to a proper understanding of where social media apps sit either legally or in wider society as of yet.
A colleague of mine was tracked down on Facebook by a former student who left a lovely message saying how much they appreciated everything they'd done for them.
The school's response? Delete it, don't acknowledge, and block them. Redouble privacy settings. Any further contact would be a disciplinary matter.
My colleague pointed out they run into each other almost every week in Asda anyway.

TheScreamingEagles

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

kle4

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Why?

It could be as simple as Sunak being on record as saying he didn't care how many people died, so long as the economy got back on track.

There will be plenty of messages like that, which were perfectly valid opinions at the time, but might come across as rather crass and insensitive now.

Those dealing with the emergency had to balance the health issue against the economic issue, and one can well imagine the Chancellor playing the devil’s advocate with regard to many of the restrictions.

In fact there were reports more than 2 years ago making that basic point, of the Chancellor for instance providing a view and advice based on the economic side of things.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-september-lockdown-b1825193.html

Much of it might indeed come across as crass and insensitive, which is one reason why we don't habitually see such things as it is hardly fair to pillory people for such, but general rules are set aside for an inquiry - by its nature we don't usually hold such things, so it is not business as usual.

And of course this is the problem with the government's stance - I'm sure it would say it wouldn't remove stuff solely because it is potentially embarrassing, but how can anyone know that is true? Governments hide embarrassing stuff all the time, they're telling me they wouldn't dare cover up even one little bit of embarrassment amongst the 'sensitive' materials? Come off it.

turbotubbs

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

I disagree a bit. I think there will be stuff that comes out that will be vital to the inquiry AND electorally damaging. Sunak saying things about deaths vs the economy will affect how people see him come the election.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

If he thinks they will lose regardless I would imagine him to be pretty indifferent to that outcome - he already has his narrative that they would have won easily had they kept him, pushed by Dories and Rees-Mogg, so he can be 'loyal' and not say that himself, in case they do somehow win.

noneoftheabove

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Conservative Party manifesto 2019:-

We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019

They simply forgot to insert "by pesky lefty liberals" after abused.

kle4

Sandpit said:

As I said before, one of the first things to learn from this debacle, is to manage use of messaging systems in government. It’s mad that individuals are having to be asked to hand over messages, rather than the messages be available centrally to be handed over. This is how sensitive companies such as banks and military contractors work.

Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.

There should be three forms of written communication allowed:

1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants.
2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants.
3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.

This stuff is IT management 101.

IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow! That’s the ministers and the permanent secretaries.

Yes, definitely a top down problem more than it being an unsolvable technological issue. In fact as you know it's very straightforward for a change!

kle4

turbotubbs said:

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

I disagree a bit. I think there will be stuff that comes out that will be vital to the inquiry AND electorally damaging. Sunak saying things about deaths vs the economy will affect how people see him come the election.

I don't disagree with that - and that's probably a bigger motivation behind witholding stuff than the rather risible position that unless you can guarantee 100% leak protection it is not permissable to provide things. My point was that there isn't a problem with the principle of protection of private communications etc being on delayed release, just that we shortcut the process deliberately when we hold inquiries - it's not a bug but a feature.

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

Chris said:

Why?

It could be as simple as Sunak being on record as saying he didn't care how many people died, so long as the economy got back on track.

There will be plenty of messages like that, which were perfectly valid opinions at the time, but might come across as rather crass and insensitive now.

Those dealing with the emergency had to balance the health issue against the economic issue, and one can well imagine the Chancellor playing the devil’s advocate with regard to many of the restrictions.

Sure, but that's no reason to ban the release. Embarrassment is a healthy part of democracy.

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

I believe I was that poster, and that was not what I was saying. Also, it seems as though the information being given is so broad that a whole load of individuals will be dragged into this.

If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.

Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.

This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.

Sandpit

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

noneoftheabove

Sandpit said:

As I said before, one of the first things to learn from this debacle, is to manage use of messaging systems in government. It’s mad that individuals are having to be asked to hand over messages, rather than the messages be available centrally to be handed over. This is how sensitive companies such as banks and military contractors work.

Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.

There should be three forms of written communication allowed:

1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants.
2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants.
3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.

This stuff is IT management 101.

IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow! That’s the ministers and the permanent secretaries.

There is should and there is possible. Yes it should be as you say, but good luck getting a bunch of entitled and incompetent cabinet ministers following this for 24 hours, let alone ongoing.

Sean_F

Surely you should keep the embarassing stuff for private conversations, and if you do send it by text, then delete it.

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Run a ball. Won't happen either due to wickets or a declaration, but chance for a millenium team score if they want it at this rate.

OldKingCole

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

I think it will last until tomorrow; however, a fourth day is highly questionable.

CorrectHorseBat

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Ireland are pretty awful.

CorrectHorseBat

England likely to declare surely on this run rate

Luckyguy1983

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

He doesn't need to intervene for that to happen.

FF43

The argument is not about relaying information into the public domain. It's about whether the enquiry judge is allowed to review the material to determine what is relevant to the enquiry. I don't think this is "executive aggrandisement". It's a cover up. There is material the government doesn't want the judge to see because it knows or suspects this material is relevant to the enquiry and compromises them.

turbotubbs

CorrectHorseBat said:

England likely to declare surely on this run rate

I'm expecting England to be bowling after tea, if not before.

CorrectHorseBat

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

It's not my strategy, it's his.

He doesn't care if he destroys the Tory Party at this point.

CorrectHorseBat

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

England likely to declare surely on this run rate

I'm expecting England to be bowling after tea, if not before.

When do you think they will declare?

CorrectHorseBat

A second Test century for Ben Duckett and his first on home soil!

It's been rapid, coming from 106 balls, and he has barely given a chance.

Lord's stands for him as he removes his helmet and soaks up the applause, rightfully delighted. An utterly dominant innings.

CorrectHorseBat

And now Ollie Pope reaches a milestone of his own, reaching his half-century from 64 balls.

These two genuinely look as if they could bat all day.

From BBC, incredible run rate, did they forget they were playing a test match?

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

I believe I was that poster, and that was not what I was saying. Also, it seems as though the information being given is so broad that a whole load of individuals will be dragged into this.

If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.

Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.

This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.

I know that is not what you were saying, but it is the absolutely clear impact from what you were saying, that if leaks could occur then there is no proportionate means of sharing or assessing the information to be withheld. It means the government is the sole arbiter of what is relevant, and that will be abused because that is human nature.

And I agree about the likely outcome of the inquiry - most people, politicians and the media for all inquiries want to find something to blame individuals to fit preconceived opinions (we see this when angry relatives or whoever find marginal connections from a proposed chair of an inquiry and demand replacement, because they want X to be blamed and think that person won't do that), and so whatever the inquiry itself states that is what most people will remember from it, or it will be so bland to be pointless.

Luckyguy1983

Jonathan said:

Boris knows a bit about politics. Sunak doesn't.

But yet, the ferret-like struggle of the Sunakites, trying to direct the ordure back at Boris, is formidable. The Times headline mentioning Boris was no surprise, but to get The Telegraph to headline their piece 'Boris fails to deliver all his messages' or similar, was quite a coup. I don't think it will work, but it is grotesquely impressive.

kle4

CorrectHorseBat said:

England likely to declare surely on this run rate

Probably, a 2 day test is not unlikely.

Ireland probably not really Test standard, but let's be fair not much is played and very few outside England care about Tests, so it hardly matters.

There was that time Ireland bowled England out for 85, that was amusing. Still ost by 143 runs.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ireland-tour-of-england-2019-1152835/england-vs-ireland-only-test-1152839/full-scorecard

noneoftheabove

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

It's not my strategy, it's his.

He doesn't care if he destroys the Tory Party at this point.

The strategy is to create as much mischief as possible for Sunak so he goes later this year. At which point the only person with a sliver of a chance of reviving the Tories will be Boris.

So he wants the Tories to go 3-0 down, rather than lose the match. Obviously being 3-0 down increases the chance of the loss but the plan is a Boris PM GE win in 24 rather than a Tory loss.

Stereodog

Far be it from me to defend this current government but I think part of their concern might be the massive administrative burden that would result from this level of disclosure.

The remit of this inquiry is truly massive and doesn’t just cover what the leaders at the very top did but how HMRC managed COVID relief schemes, law enforcement policy, procurement across multiple government departments etc.

I’ve seen a tiny part of the prep for this inquiry and even in my tiny area it’s taking a massive amount of time to identify documents for submission and to propose redactions for sensitive information within them (such as individual data and commercially sensitive information).

Added to that is the issue that the inquiry will publish the original documents of any submissions so you’re going to get a whole page of information on, for example, a department’s IT security policy for the sake of a few paragraphs of minutes related to COVID. This won’t be redacted as it’s not sensitive but it’s also not information that you particularly want to share.

As someone who is marginally involved in this I dread the amount of work if the inquiry decides it not only wants to see documents from my department that specifically discusses COVID but all documents in that period.

Having said the above the government could have handled this specific issue better. It could have offered the inquiry Chair a secure reading room to see any documents she wishes or agreed to release these papers on the understanding that this doesn’t set a precedent.

kle4

CorrectHorseBat said:

A second Test century for Ben Duckett and his first on home soil!

It's been rapid, coming from 106 balls, and he has barely given a chance.

Not rapid for the Stokes team

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

I believe I was that poster, and that was not what I was saying. Also, it seems as though the information being given is so broad that a whole load of individuals will be dragged into this.

If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.

Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.

This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.

I know that is not what you were saying, but it is the absolutely clear impact from what you were saying, that if leaks could occur then there is no proportionate means of sharing or assessing the information to be withheld. It means the government is the sole arbiter of what is relevant, and that will be abused because that is human nature.

And I agree about the likely outcome of the inquiry - most people, politicians and the media for all inquiries want to find something to blame individuals to fit preconceived opinions (we see this when angry relatives or whoever find marginal connections from a proposed chair of an inquiry and demand replacement, because they want X to be blamed and think that person won't do that), and so whatever the inquiry itself states that is what most people will remember from it, or it will be so bland to be pointless.

But the impact of what you are saying is that *everything* will have to be given over, even if it has little or even no relevance. Because the only people who can decide on the relevance are the Covid inquiry team.

And that makes me feel really uneasy.

Sandpit

Last three overs 13, 10, and 9 runs. 76 runs in 50 minutes. Could be 200 up by lunch at this rate, declaring soon afterwards?

CorrectHorseBat

Sandpit said:

Last three overs 13, 10, and 9 runs. 76 runs in 50 minutes. Could be 200 up by lunch at this rate, declaring soon afterwards?

I think so.

turbotubbs

CorrectHorseBat said:

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

England likely to declare surely on this run rate

I'm expecting England to be bowling after tea, if not before.

When do you think they will declare?

I think at tea, but Stokes is mad, so it could be before tea. ECB probably would prefer them to bat all day, but I don't think he cares!

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

I believe I was that poster, and that was not what I was saying. Also, it seems as though the information being given is so broad that a whole load of individuals will be dragged into this.

If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.

Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.

This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.

I know that is not what you were saying, but it is the absolutely clear impact from what you were saying, that if leaks could occur then there is no proportionate means of sharing or assessing the information to be withheld. It means the government is the sole arbiter of what is relevant, and that will be abused because that is human nature.

And I agree about the likely outcome of the inquiry - most people, politicians and the media for all inquiries want to find something to blame individuals to fit preconceived opinions (we see this when angry relatives or whoever find marginal connections from a proposed chair of an inquiry and demand replacement, because they want X to be blamed and think that person won't do that), and so whatever the inquiry itself states that is what most people will remember from it, or it will be so bland to be pointless.

But the impact of what you are saying is that *everything* will have to be given over, even if it has little or even no relevance. Because the only people who can decide on the relevance are the Covid inquiry team.

And that makes me feel really uneasy.

In highly controlled and limited circumstances.

There are problems either way, but for me the risk of the government abusing its power to withhold, or doing so in error and missing something crucial (the odds of that happening is north of 90% I'd say, if including error) is a greater threat to the purpose of the inquiry than the already present risk of there being a leak (since anything held might be leaked by the people already holding it) being a risk to that information.

If they didn't want this they should have set up various mini inquiries being more targeted, where the sifting of material would be an inevitability.

CorrectHorseBat

England’s Test run rate is faster than Afghanistan’s in their ODI against SL

Peter_the_Punter

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

I think it will last until tomorrow; however, a fourth day is highly questionable.

They should be about 300 ahead by tea, and I'm guessing they will declare then.

I'd expect Ireland to take it into a third day, but not a fourth.

kle4

CorrectHorseBat said:

England’s Test run rate is faster than Afghanistan’s in their ODI against SL

The match in Pakistan remains the greatest example of Bazball. Anyone can bash it about on a regular flat pitch or against subpar opposition for a bit, but doing it on an epically bad pitch fast enough to set a target and then bold enough to force a result and take 20 wickets, was the greatest vindication of the approach.

DecrepiterJohnL

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

They need to get the match finished before tomorrow's rail strikes.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, this is the only explanation.

Somebody in the chats must have had a huge rant about Captain Tom, I'm calling it now

https://twitter.com/agkd123/status/1664315151523237888?s=46

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

They need to get the match finished before tomorrow's rail strikes.

Ah, that’s why! 94 runs in the first hour, from 14 overs, someone forgot to tell them this isn’t a one-day match.

Taz

CorrectHorseBat said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Ireland are pretty awful.

They are not a bad one day side but have been starved of first class cricket for the last three years and played very few tests since elevated.

Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.

kle4

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

They need to get the match finished before tomorrow's rail strikes.

Ah, that’s why! 94 runs in the first hour, from 14 overs, someone forgot to tell them this isn’t a one-day match.

Stokes isn't fit, he needs it done so he can get back to proper recuperation.

CorrectHorseBat

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Ireland are pretty awful.

They are not a bad one day side but have been starved of first class cricket for the last three years and played very few tests since elevated.

Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.

Why are they playing us now?

kle4

Government institutional intransigence and cricket talk - this thread is now cyclefree's worse nightmare.

LostPassword

kle4 said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

England’s Test run rate is faster than Afghanistan’s in their ODI against SL

The match in Pakistan remains the greatest example of Bazball. Anyone can bash it about on a regular flat pitch or against subpar opposition for a bit, but doing it on an epically bad pitch fast enough to set a target and then bold enough to force a result and take 20 wickets, was the greatest vindication of the approach.

Yep. That match had "drifting to a tame draw" written all over it, with a lot of moaning about a dead pitch. Conjuring a result from it was magnificent.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-pakistan-2022-23-1330866/pakistan-vs-england-1st-test-1330871/full-scorecard

williamglenn

kle4 said:

Government institutional intransigence and cricket talk - this thread is now cyclefree's worse nightmare.

Cricket could be improved by referring all LBW decisions immediately to a judge-led inquiry.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

Surely you should keep the embarassing stuff for private conversations, and if you do send it by text, then delete it.

Anything you send by text or whatsapp can be screenshot and saved, or forwarded to someone else.

If you want something to remain confidential then you need a face-to-face conversation.

Even then you have to be careful who you trust.

bondegezou

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

The issue in the background here is also that we can’t wait 30 years to learn about how to handle the next pandemic better because a next pandemic of similar magnitude might be much sooner than 30 years away.

Sandpit

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Surely you should keep the embarassing stuff for private conversations, and if you do send it by text, then delete it.

Anything you send by text or whatsapp can be screenshot and saved, or forwarded to someone else.

If you want something to remain confidential then you need a face-to-face conversation.

Even then you have to be careful who you trust.

Something that became a lot more difficult than usual during the pandemic.

dixiedean

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

The issue in the background here is also that we can’t wait 30 years to learn about how to handle the next pandemic better because a next pandemic of similar magnitude might be much sooner than 30 years away.

My wager is this Inquiry won't be published before the next pandemic.

Peter_the_Punter

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

England’s Test run rate is faster than Afghanistan’s in their ODI against SL

The match in Pakistan remains the greatest example of Bazball. Anyone can bash it about on a regular flat pitch or against subpar opposition for a bit, but doing it on an epically bad pitch fast enough to set a target and then bold enough to force a result and take 20 wickets, was the greatest vindication of the approach.

Yep. That match had "drifting to a tame draw" written all over it, with a lot of moaning about a dead pitch. Conjuring a result from it was magnificent.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-in-pakistan-2022-23-1330866/pakistan-vs-england-1st-test-1330871/full-scorecard

Agreed, and of course Bazball is not just about smashing the leather off the ball. It also involves aggressive bowling, imaginative field placings, and bold declarations.

Long may it prosper.

bondegezou

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

I don't dismiss some concerns raised about provision of irrelevant or sensitive materials. But the position as advanced by one poster yesterday was such that, in effect, no inquiry could ever be held because there is not a 100% chance of preventing leaks of sensitive material - even though that is the case already!

I suspect cyclefree is right about the executive aggrandisement motivation - not solely a longterm government concern, but probably an increasing risk the longer you are around - but the fundamental problem they have is this inquiry is such a broad one that their slithers of reasonable concerns fall away, because something this broad cannot concern itself only with what the government deems appropriate. Governments do get things wrong after all, and the whole point is meant to be they too can learn what they got wrong.

And I say that as someone inclined to give the government a pretty big pass on some errors during Covid, given the emergency and unprecedented nature of it - I'm certainly not interested in those who just want to see embarrassing info and blame ministers for everything.

I believe I was that poster, and that was not what I was saying. Also, it seems as though the information being given is so broad that a whole load of individuals will be dragged into this.

If material is leaked from the inquiry that is related to Covid, that's bad; but also relevant to the inquiry and potentially of public interest. If/when material is leaked that is not related to Covid, and not relevant to the inquiry, the sh*t will really hit the fan.

Yes, much of this is the government's fault for the way they set up the inquiry. But then you also need to remember the febrile atmosphere in which it was set up: when people had already decided what the 'truth' was.

Here's a prediction: this inquiry will not lead to any light; it will not make people safer the next time a medical or other crisis occurs. It will lead to lots of stuff being taken out of context for political ends - as we saw last night.

This is slightly personal for various reasons wrt Wikileaks. PM me if you want to know a little more.

I know that is not what you were saying, but it is the absolutely clear impact from what you were saying, that if leaks could occur then there is no proportionate means of sharing or assessing the information to be withheld. It means the government is the sole arbiter of what is relevant, and that will be abused because that is human nature.

And I agree about the likely outcome of the inquiry - most people, politicians and the media for all inquiries want to find something to blame individuals to fit preconceived opinions (we see this when angry relatives or whoever find marginal connections from a proposed chair of an inquiry and demand replacement, because they want X to be blamed and think that person won't do that), and so whatever the inquiry itself states that is what most people will remember from it, or it will be so bland to be pointless.

While public, media and politicians may react that way, I hope and expect that public health professionals etc. will be able to learn from the Inquiry’s findings.

LostPassword

CorrectHorseBat said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Ireland are pretty awful.

They are not a bad one day side but have been starved of first class cricket for the last three years and played very few tests since elevated.

Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.

Why are they playing us now?

Ireland's struggles in Test cricket aren't particularly different to other new Test-playing nations. People said the same about Bangladesh, but they don't say it now, because they were able to play matches and improve.

Luckyguy1983

Sure this has been done, but Boris is giving what he has directly to the enquiry:

https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/

“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.

I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

Daveyboy1961

CorrectHorseBat said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

It's not my strategy, it's his.

He doesn't care if he destroys the Tory Party at this point.

The Tory party is already destroyed, we have a UKIP/ERG party in powert atm, whose party members are mainly "waiting for God".

148grss

Two big options in my mind: 1) this is like POTUS' protecting executive privilege no matter who is in the WH to protect their own skin and expand the powers of the office, so Sunak / govt is trying to make Whatsapp messages a no go area (probably because too much work gets talked about in a candid way on there, and it isn't FOI able) or 2) Sunak knows he messaged Johnson specific things regarding Covid and he doesn't want that getting out (such as "Eat Out To Help Out might have killed 1,000 grannies, but at least I can go to the Spectator garden party and say I didn't have to raise taxes, lol)

Either way, it doesn't help Sunak and the gov

noneoftheabove

dixiedean said:

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

The issue in the background here is also that we can’t wait 30 years to learn about how to handle the next pandemic better because a next pandemic of similar magnitude might be much sooner than 30 years away.

My wager is this Inquiry won't be published before the next pandemic.

The whole point of such an inquiry is of course to shield the people responsible from any accountability through years of delay with the hope that whenever it is eventually published the public attention will have moved on, and the politicians will have been moved up to the Lords.

Cyclefree

FF43 said:

The argument is not about relaying information into the public domain. It's about whether the enquiry judge is allowed to review the material to determine what is relevant to the enquiry. I don't think this is "executive aggrandisement". It's a cover up. There is material the government doesn't want the judge to see because it knows or suspects this material is relevant to the enquiry and compromises them.

It is both. The government is seeking to take from the inquiry judge powers which have been granted by law to the latter. Not the executive.

DecrepiterJohnL

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sure this has been done, but Boris is giving what he has directly to the enquiry:

https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/

“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.

I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

Inquiry is an official investigation; enquiry is PBers asking questions informally.

RobD

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sure this has been done, but Boris is giving what he has directly to the enquiry:

https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/

“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.

I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

An enquiry is a question, inquiry is an investigation.

bondegezou

dixiedean said:

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

The issue in the background here is also that we can’t wait 30 years to learn about how to handle the next pandemic better because a next pandemic of similar magnitude might be much sooner than 30 years away.

My wager is this Inquiry won't be published before the next pandemic.

Technically, we’ve already had a next pandemic because we’ve had mpox, although that’s been a very different sort of pandemic and fortunately much better controlled (which is partly because we learnt so much from the HIV/AIDS pandemic).

Cyclefree

Stereodog said:

Far be it from me to defend this current government but I think part of their concern might be the massive administrative burden that would result from this level of disclosure.

The remit of this inquiry is truly massive and doesn’t just cover what the leaders at the very top did but how HMRC managed COVID relief schemes, law enforcement policy, procurement across multiple government departments etc.

I’ve seen a tiny part of the prep for this inquiry and even in my tiny area it’s taking a massive amount of time to identify documents for submission and to propose redactions for sensitive information within them (such as individual data and commercially sensitive information).

Added to that is the issue that the inquiry will publish the original documents of any submissions so you’re going to get a whole page of information on, for example, a department’s IT security policy for the sake of a few paragraphs of minutes related to COVID. This won’t be redacted as it’s not sensitive but it’s also not information that you particularly want to share.

As someone who is marginally involved in this I dread the amount of work if the inquiry decides it not only wants to see documents from my department that specifically discusses COVID but all documents in that period.

Having said the above the government could have handled this specific issue better. It could have offered the inquiry Chair a secure reading room to see any documents she wishes or agreed to release these papers on the understanding that this doesn’t set a precedent.

That is not what they have said - either in their public statements or in their legal grounds. Production and disclosure being a burden is not an excuse for not doing it in civil or criminal trials. Nor should it be in a public inquiry.

The government drew up the terms of reference. If it wanted a narrower, shorter, more focused inquiry it could have got one. Instead, it over-promised and is now seeking to under-deliver.

NickPalmer

TheScreamingEagles said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Johnson wants the Tories to lose so he can make a comeback.

If the Tories lose he loses his seat.

Sight flaw in your strategy.

That's why he needs the Standards Committee to find against him - he would resign without waiting for the recall petition, "full of outrage at the finding but determined to uphold respect for politicians", etc.. Free from Uxbridge, he can look for a safe seat full of Boris fans in the constituency association.

Luckyguy1983

148grss said:

Two big options in my mind: 1) this is like POTUS' protecting executive privilege no matter who is in the WH to protect their own skin and expand the powers of the office, so Sunak / govt is trying to make Whatsapp messages a no go area (probably because too much work gets talked about in a candid way on there, and it isn't FOI able) or 2) Sunak knows he messaged Johnson specific things regarding Covid and he doesn't want that getting out (such as "Eat Out To Help Out might have killed 1,000 grannies, but at least I can go to the Spectator garden party and say I didn't have to raise taxes, lol)

Either way, it doesn't help Sunak and the gov

Guito Harri recently revealed that questions had been asked by Boris's team about Sunak spending a lot of money and getting poor value. If there's stuff of that nature relating to Covid contracts, it really could be incendiary.

Cyclefree

kle4 said:

Government institutional intransigence and cricket talk - this thread is now cyclefree's worse nightmare.

No. Being made to watch one would be.

viewcode

Luckyguy1983 said:

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

@Luckyguy1983 enquired upon PB with a question. @DecrepiterJohnL and @RobD held an informal inquiry and responded to @Luckyguy1983's enquiry with an answer.

Cyclefree

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sure this has been done, but Boris is giving what he has directly to the enquiry:

https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/

“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.

I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.

Gardenwalker

Sunak is utterly useless.

Luckyguy1983

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sure this has been done, but Boris is giving what he has directly to the enquiry:

https://order-order.com/2023/06/02/boris-giving-whatsapps-and-diaries-directly-to-covid-inquiry/

“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.

I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”

When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?

He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.

I believe Boris has changed his legal counsel - it was having the Cabinet Office fund his legal team that gave them access to the info they recently shopped him to the police and Privileges Committee with. I think the change happened after that.

TheScreamingEagles

Brian Lara’s record’s going to fall today isn’t it?

Tres

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Sandpit said:

Hope no-one here has tickets for Lord’s tomorrow.

Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.

Ireland are pretty awful.

They are not a bad one day side but have been starved of first class cricket for the last three years and played very few tests since elevated.

Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.

Why are they playing us now?

Ireland's struggles in Test cricket aren't particularly different to other new Test-playing nations. People said the same about Bangladesh, but they don't say it now, because they were able to play matches and improve.

they have a problem now as their test players are now counted as overseas players in county cricket, so potentially deprives young Irish players of a development route.

Carnyx

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Government institutional intransigence and cricket talk - this thread is now cyclefree's worse nightmare.

No. Being made to watch one would be.

Cricket or inquiry or both?

Nigelb

Great header.

Note also the biting irony of a government, determined to limit the scope of judicial review, resorting to ... judicial review. In an attempt to circumvent a power determined by statute.

The government derives its power from Parliament, and only from Pariament. If it wishes to change the law, it should do so through Parliament.

The Act, as Cyclefree remarks, is quite clear:
(4)A claim by a person that—

(a)he is unable to comply with a notice under this section, or

(b)it is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require him to comply with such a notice,

is to be determined by the chairman of the inquiry, who may revoke or vary the notice on that ground.

(5)In deciding whether to revoke or vary a notice on the ground mentioned in subsection (4)(b), the chairman must consider the public interest in the information in question being obtained by the inquiry, having regard to the likely importance of the information..

The header is quite right. This is a matter of extremely important principle, irrespective of the petty details of ministers' WhatsApp messages.

Carnyx

bondegezou said:

dixiedean said:

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

There is something very wrong here. Cabinet minutes get locked away for 30 years, to allow full and frank discussions and protect those discussing them. Yet these WhatsApp messages are to be inspected are from less than three years ago, may well have material that will cause political (maybe even criminal?) damage to members of the government and civil servants.
In light of the leaking of a former Health Ministers messages (slightly different situation, but very fresh in the memory) I expect some are rather nervous about leaks.

I think governments should be allowed to discuss the unthinkable behind closed doors.
I do not think WhatsApp is the tool to do this.

I recall the Blair/Mandelson/Campbell axis of sofa government. How many things were discussed and debated on the sofa that might have been on WhatsApp if done today? I recall in the US the furore over secondary private emails being used for government affairs.

If we want the whole truth then the Inquiry needs to see everything. Yet those who will be under the spotlight deserve some degree of protection. As the very least you'd hope that a competent administration would ban the use of WhatsApp and any other social media style forms of communication.

I don't think there is a conflict here that you imagine.

The basic position is we don't see these things, which gives them the freedom to discuss and debate, even the unthinkable. It's only because there is an inquiry that this material would come to light much sooner than usual (and the stuff the government is conerned about probably won't come to light, since the issue is determining what is relevant, not putting everything in public domain) because they want to learn some lessons now, not in 30 years.

Don't want such materials released, don't hold an inquiry or set up a much more limited inquiry (or do it internally).

The sofa government point is true, but politicians and civil servants must be incredibly naiive if they thought saying something on an app would be as secure as saying it outloud with no notes taken - anything they write about government business they should expect might come out, that's something everybody working in government already knows. It might not come out to the full public, but its official business and so someone may see it, they cannot be so dumb as to not have realised that.

The issue in the background here is also that we can’t wait 30 years to learn about how to handle the next pandemic better because a next pandemic of similar magnitude might be much sooner than 30 years away.

My wager is this Inquiry won't be published before the next pandemic.

Technically, we’ve already had a next pandemic because we’ve had mpox, although that’s been a very different sort of pandemic and fortunately much better controlled (which is partly because we learnt so much from the HIV/AIDS pandemic).

Avian flu also causing more than a few worries, too, I gather.

Nigelb

Ukrainian strikes on the Russian facilities in occupied territories continue.

The video shows smoke rising in the port of Berdiansk at noon today.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1664595788972867585

Casino_Royale

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak is utterly useless.

Wrong.

Nigelb

LOL
AN AIRFORCE DRONE OPTIMISED FOR POINTS WENT ROGUE AND KILLED OPERATOR!: a thousand retweets
“In a simulation” - 100 retweets
“In a paper ‘what if” scenario brainstormed around a desk*” - 10 retweets
https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1664571000917315586

*As are most decisions to go to war, TBF.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brian Lara’s record’s going to fall today isn’t it?

Duckett will need a disproportionate amount of strike and will have to move up a couple of gears to achieve that particular milestone today. Possible though, he'll need to go at 7.8 an over if he gets half the balls.

Nigelb

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak is utterly useless.

Wrong.

Yes, here he's utterly wrong.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

Government institutional intransigence and cricket talk - this thread is now cyclefree's worse nightmare.

No. Being made to watch one would be.

To be honest, so is this issue.

I'm sure there's some skulduggery lying beneath it but I am so bored of Boris Johnson, Covid, lockdown and WhatsApp chats.

I hope the right thing is done, of course, but there are a million other things we should be talking about and I have next to no interest in this one.