What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
Likeable and efficient seem to be disqualifications for this government. Maybe Johnson doesn't want to be shown up.
Whatever this cabinet is grimmer than it needs to be.
I can believe it's a leadership rivalry lack of trust thing, but let's face it Leadsom's campaign never really got out of the blocks. She isn't a threat. Perhaps she's never got on with Boris and Cummings on a personal level.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
That would indicate an ideological motivation that I don't think Boris has.
Looks like the plan was to flood the Treasury with Boris-mafia types who would spy on Saj and report any transgressions back to Dom. I don't blame Saj for not wanting to work under those conditions.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
I’m pondering why Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been retained. The best that I’ve come up with is that Boris Johnson wants to save sacking him for a special occasion when he really needs a distraction.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
I’m pondering why Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been retained. The best that I’ve come up with is that Boris Johnson wants to save sacking him for a special occasion when he really needs a distraction.
I'm most puzzled by Liz Truss. JRM is fairly harmless as long as they keep him off the airwaves but Ms Truss is embarrassingly bad in what is supposed to be a key area for the government.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
No one who followed Boris Johnson's tenure as Mayor of London will be surprised by any of this. He took control of both the Met and Transport for London away from Ken's independent commissioners and took them both into his office.
Did it improve things? No, not really.
We all know how Margaret Thatcher came to want to run economic policy via Sir Alan Walters and a unit at No.10 and how that led to Lawson's departure.
With Javid gone, Johnson has neutered the three main offices of State - Sunak will say whatever his master tells him, Raab neutered himself during the leadership campaign and Patel is loyal for now (I suspect she will be his next big problem oddly enough).
As for Javid, will he become the Heseltine de nos jours? Loyal but not loyal biding his time until Johnson is weakened - Heseltine only inflicted a mortal wound as it turned out.
Yet we're less than two months on from a crushing GE victory - Johnson has the power and has chosen to centralise most of it into No.10 or to have in the various departments Ministers beholden to him in one form or another. It took Thatcher two election victories to shape the Cabinet to her desire but that didn't end well as even the most loyal let her down in her eyes.
Johnson may see himself as the 21st century Thatcher but this sign of ego is the first mark of his eventual fall from grace. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" goes the maxim - perhaps but a Cabinet devoid of dissent doesn't make good decisions and it will be harder for Johnson to avoid personal responsibility when (not if) problems arise and all his bonhomie may not be enough to avoid the serious questions and scrutiny.
Sajid Javid (who has never really blown my socks off, but I suspect is a quiet grafter) has gone up in my estimation simply for having the integrity to stand by his team.
Yes, he didn’t want to be Chancellor-in-name-only either but it’s far from all politicians who’d end their tenure of a major office of state on a point of principle because they refuse to sack their staff.
Some would reluctantly acquiese, privately profusely apologise to the staff and promise to try and get them back in at a later date, or with another colleague, and carry on in the job.
It’s not all about the the trappings of office for him, which reassures me he has backbone.
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
I’m pondering why Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been retained. The best that I’ve come up with is that Boris Johnson wants to save sacking him for a special occasion when he really needs a distraction.
I'm most puzzled by Liz Truss. JRM is fairly harmless as long as they keep him off the airwaves but Ms Truss is embarrassingly bad in what is supposed to be a key area for the government.
JRM isn’t harmless.
He’s starting to cause problems for us as leader of the house in refurbishing the Palace of Westminster.
Andrea Leadsom was actually supportive and helpful.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
Casino_Royale, it's hard to see that sheen.
Javid said and did very little since becoming CoE. It may be that he couldn't join the dots, and perhaps those dots are not joinable.
The Tories clearly have a problem in that so far as anyone can see they've over-promised. Not nearly in the league of the other parties of course.
Under Sunak this'll have to be 'quiet austerity', however I hope he makes some noise about the ludicrous spend in some areas - defence is the clear example.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
Casino_Royale, it's hard to see that sheen.
Javid said and did very little since becoming CoE. It may be that he couldn't join the dots, and perhaps those dots are not joinable.
The Tories clearly have a problem in that so far as anyone can see they've over-promised. Not nearly in the league of the other parties of course.
Under Sunak this'll have to be 'quiet austerity', however I hope he makes some noise about the ludicrous spend in some areas - defence is the clear example.
Yes, he’s a poor politician but a capable minister. I have no reason to doubt his work ethic and basic competence. But he can’t do anything politically exciting nor communicate a vision that excites others. He’s just dull.
Osborne was an example of someone who could do both, even if he was personally more dislikeable.
I think Defence is seriously underfunded by the way.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
Perhaps you could describe, in detail, with reference to actual cases and the laws under which these cases arose, this “large element of overreach”.
Boris has junked everyone else and at some point, when it no longer suits him, he’ll junk Cummings as well.
Cummings may decide to go first once he sees the writing on the wall, as he’s been clear he doesn’t want to do the job for more than 18-24 months, but it will happen.
When that happens Boris will no doubt try and find a new gatekeeper but he might find himself more vulnerable than he thinks.
Boris Johnson has never really forgiven Andrea Leadsom for fecking up his leadership bid in 2016. Whilst Gove gets a lot of the blame, Leadsom was the first indication that things weren't going well for Johnson in 2016.
I was astonished he appointed her in the first place.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
She was great in Play Away, so I'm sad that she's been incompetent as a minister.
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
I thought Matthew D'Ancona (Cameron's staunchest ally and no friend of Boris I suspect) put it well in last evening's Standard:
"You can have your cake, you can eat it but either way you'll end up paying for it".
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Could you be possibly persuaded that you may, just a touch, be over-egging the pudding here?
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
Perhaps you could describe, in detail, with reference to actual cases and the laws under which these cases arose, this “large element of overreach”.
Maybe it is time to "String 'em up" or for "Short, sharp shock" ? Failing those Stocks, Pillories and Branding on the cheek.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
I’d find it grimly amusing were I and my family not living here.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
I think it's very sweet that you believe the government is only interested in restricting the judiciary's ability to review these cases. Any chance you could mail me about some magic beans I have going cheap?
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Could you be possibly persuaded that you may, just a touch, be over-egging the pudding here?
Easily, but it seems like a good day for it.
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
Effectiveness is doing the right things. Efficiency is doing things right.
The PM, supported by the Cabinet, should be in charge of effectiveness i.e. priorities. The Treasury should by in charge of efficiency i.e. ensuring spending departments stay within budget, focus on priorities and spend money efficiently.
The Chancellor encroached on priorities when he came out early for HS2. He should have been focused on the efficiency of Defence procurement processes as Dom says.
The Treasury first grew too big for its boots under Brown who had the audacity to complain that Blair "has stolen my budget" when Blair set a priority for increased spending on the NHS. It still thought it called the shots. You get Finance Directors like that. They should know their place. Look after the money but don't dictate priorities. That's the CEO's job.
@AlistairM - not Disraeli, Churchill, at his Oldham selection meeting before the 1900 election.
The others who asked about Amanda Milling - I know her. I don’t dislike her, and she’s not stupid, but no way is she capable of being party chairman. She simply doesn’t have the imagination or the energy. Junior FO Minister would have been more like it. That she has been promoted suggests a reshuffle that has gone badly wrong somewhere.
To all those who asked about Cummings - if anyone still thought he has a brain, surely today has proved them wrong. What an utter fucktard.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
Casino_Royale, it's hard to see that sheen.
Javid said and did very little since becoming CoE. It may be that he couldn't join the dots, and perhaps those dots are not joinable.
The Tories clearly have a problem in that so far as anyone can see they've over-promised. Not nearly in the league of the other parties of course.
Under Sunak this'll have to be 'quiet austerity', however I hope he makes some noise about the ludicrous spend in some areas - defence is the clear example.
Yes, he’s a poor politician but a capable minister. I have no reason to doubt his work ethic and basic competence. But he can’t do anything politically exciting nor communicate a vision that excites others. He’s just dull.
Osborne was an example of someone who could do both, even if he was personally more dislikeable.
I think Defence is seriously underfunded by the way.
I agree that Defence is underfunded, but what we get for what we spend is simply hopeless. So far as I know we have no credible land, sea, or air defence.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Could you be possibly persuaded that you may, just a touch, be over-egging the pudding here?
Easily, but it seems like a good day for it.
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
And, following that line of thinking, and looking at what’s being reported this afternoon, it’s clear to me that Javid was influential over the GE2019 Tory manifesto.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
I thought Matthew D'Ancona (Cameron's staunchest ally and no friend of Boris I suspect) put it well in last evening's Standard:
"You can have your cake, you can eat it but either way you'll end up paying for it".
It’s possible Boris wants to try Uber stimulus to create a Lawson boom for the next couple of years to get over the hump of a hard Brexit.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
I am not saying Sunak will be unable to do the job - rather that he will not have the political clout usually associated with his office. That was true of Owen in the late 1970s too.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
I am not saying Sunak will be unable to do the job - rather that he will not have the political clout usually associated with his office. That was true of Owen in the late 1970s too.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
Ok - I had forgotten he was appointed by Michael Howard rather than David Cameron.
Effectiveness is doing the right things. Efficiency is doing things right.
The PM, supported by the Cabinet, should be in charge of effectiveness i.e. priorities. The Treasury should by in charge of efficiency i.e. ensuring spending departments stay within budget, focus on priorities and spend money efficiently.
The Chancellor encroached on priorities when he came out early for HS2. He should have been focused on the efficiency of Defence procurement processes as Dom says.
The Treasury first grew too big for its boots under Brown who had the audacity to complain that Blair "has stolen my budget" when Blair set a priority for increased spending on the NHS. It still thought it called the shots. You get Finance Directors like that. They should know their place. Look after the money but don't dictate priorities. That's the CEO's job.
Ah yes, Gordon Brown. Not, for instance, Nigel Lawson shadowing the DM as a sort of monetary union by stealth? A policy that led to ERM entry under Lawson's successor as Chancellor, John Major.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
I am not saying Sunak will be unable to do the job - rather that he will not have the political clout usually associated with his office. That was true of Owen in the late 1970s too.
But not true of Osborne.
That derived from his close partnership with Cameron during the years in Opposition.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
It is not the judiciary which is stopping the government from taking action but, variously:-
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release. 2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1. 3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021. 4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity. 5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
Please credit Boris and Co with the vision of extending the UK's redefinition of its self from a Third Country into a Third World Country complete with supine sycophants and non-entities in charge. Not everyone could manage the decline of a country like Britain so quickly. Over here in Ireland they cannot decide if Brexit is serious or hilarious, but mostly they seem to pity the UK.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Could you be possibly persuaded that you may, just a touch, be over-egging the pudding here?
Easily, but it seems like a good day for it.
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
Of course, but you know the UK isn't just a bigger Ireland.
The UK is a big picture, and I think likely to be the biggest picture. Your pity may be a worthless currency.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
It’s possible Boris wants to try Uber stimulus to create a Lawson boom for the next couple of years to get over the hump of a hard Brexit.
That's been the plan since last summer and even when a No Deal exit looked possible on 31/1.
Johnson has seen the Treasury analysis so he must know there is a risk a "hard" Brexit will be less than optimal for the economy so he is trying to put in as much stimulus as possible to cushion the shock.
That's politically obvious - as to whether it's economically wise to ratchet up borrowing, that remains to be seen.
The point is that borrowing will have to be paid for at sometime by someone.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Does the last extend to Dominic Cummings? He’s done more damage than even the most overzealous Islamist could do.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
Perhaps you could describe, in detail, with reference to actual cases and the laws under which these cases arose, this “large element of overreach”.
Maybe it is time to "String 'em up" or for "Short, sharp shock" ? Failing those Stocks, Pillories and Branding on the cheek.
No more soft prison stuff. Proper justice....
Maybe we should do something about this if we want people banged up:
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
Released early by a Tory government.
It is as well you are a doctor. He might need some help if his prostate explodes after reading this.
Appointing such a young and inexperienced Minister as Sunak is likely to deny the office holder much of the authority normally associated with the position. It reminds me a bit of Callaghan appointing David Owen as Foreign Secretary following the death of Anthony Crosland in February 1977. Despite being promoted, Owen was never seen as one of the 'big beasts' of that administration - though it set him up to become one of the Gang of Four a few years later.
Sunak's older and more experienced as a minister than George Osborne was when he was appointed Chancellor.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor for nearly four and a half years before taking office.
But your original post talked about inexperienced ministers, shadowing isn't ministerial experience.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
I am not saying Sunak will be unable to do the job - rather that he will not have the political clout usually associated with his office. That was true of Owen in the late 1970s too.
He is not there to have clout. He is there to do as he is told.
It’s possible Boris wants to try Uber stimulus to create a Lawson boom for the next couple of years to get over the hump of a hard Brexit.
That's been the plan since last summer and even when a No Deal exit looked possible on 31/1.
Johnson has seen the Treasury analysis so he must know there is a risk a "hard" Brexit will be less than optimal for the economy so he is trying to put in as much stimulus as possible to cushion the shock.
That's politically obvious - as to whether it's economically wise to ratchet up borrowing, that remains to be seen.
The point is that borrowing will have to be paid for at sometime by someone.
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Sajid Javid (who has never really blown my socks off, but I suspect is a quiet grafter) has gone up in my estimation simply for having the integrity to stand by his team.
Yes, he didn’t want to be Chancellor-in-name-only either but it’s far from all politicians who’d end their tenure of a major office of state on a point of principle because they refuse to sack their staff.
Some would reluctantly acquiese, privately profusely apologise to the staff and promise to try and get them back in at a later date, or with another colleague, and carry on in the job.
It’s not all about the the trappings of office for him, which reassures me he has backbone.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Where are you going to imprison them? Lundy? The Outer Hebrides? You do not have enough prison places.
Or you will just pack each cell with inmates until you have trouble getting the door closed?
Where will you get the prison staff?
You lack the cops to catch them in the first place.
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
Of course, but you know the UK isn't just a bigger Ireland.
The UK is a big picture, and I think likely to be the biggest picture. Your pity may be a worthless currency.
It may well be. Who knows?
Well obviously I do and I'm enormously wise. But the same could be said of you.
I guess we'll see.
Look, I know you'll hate me for this, but. The UK will remain sufficiently important and economically important that Ireland will be a good destination for trade and business. Ireland matters because the UK matters.
At the other end of the scale a complete collapse of the UK would possibly help Ireland in the long term.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
And if a future government reading your posts decides you represent a danger to the public ? How would you go about demonstrating conclusively that you posed no risk ?
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
Maybe as part of the UK's post-Brexit Expert Reduction Strategy, they plan to eliminate all the lawyers and barristers and just move straight to "Guilty, if accused..."
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
BluestBlue has a pier, apparently.
BluestBlue appears to advocate the sort of justice system that he obviously believes will never apply to himself.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
The judiciary already has relatively little discretion in sentencing.
The reality is that 99.9% of people get sentences that are uninteresting and just and fair. But those don't make headlines. The 0.1% who seem to get a lighter sentences dominate press coverage.
The appointment of the spectacularly dimwitted Suella Braverman confirns that Johnson is intent on curtailing the independence of the judiciary and that he has no attachment to the UK being a fully-functioning democracy. We are now going to sfind out that all those Brexit-backers who said leaving the EU was all about preserving and enhancing liberty are actually fine with libery being curtailed if it is curtailed by a Tory PM they approve of. None of this is a surprise, of course.
Maybe the Government will actually be able to take action against people who want to harm the British public.
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
Yeah, who needs the rule of law?
Long since outstayed its welcome.
The rule of law in Britain contains a large element of overreach that frankly enables very serious criminals to take the piss. There are whole industries and legions of advocates for those to whom popular justice would give a long walk off a short pier.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
String em up!
If by the end of Boris' tenure we no longer have the ludicrous situation of armed officers having to tail dangerous extremists on early release 24 hours a day, then the entire Government will have been worthwhile.
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
You’d rather they weren’t monitored? Or that they were imprisoned for life? Or something else: internment without trial just as a previous Tory PM introduced, perhaps?
Life imprisonment unless and until it had been conclusively demonstrated that they posed no risk to the public. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Has a method been invented to "conclusively demonstrate that someone poses no risk to society"? Who made that invention? Dominic Cummings? Or was that you?
What was the issue with Andrea Leadsom? I know she's been tipped for sacking forever but not sure why. She seemed likeable and efficient to me.
She's not exactly the greatest talent in the Commons, but that can't be the reason she was sacked given that Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Raab are still in place, and Suella Braverman has actually been promoted.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
I’m pondering why Jacob Rees-Mogg might have been retained. The best that I’ve come up with is that Boris Johnson wants to save sacking him for a special occasion when he really needs a distraction.
I'm most puzzled by Liz Truss. JRM is fairly harmless as long as they keep him off the airwaves but Ms Truss is embarrassingly bad in what is supposed to be a key area for the government.
JRM isn’t harmless.
He’s starting to cause problems for us as leader of the house in refurbishing the Palace of Westminster.
Andrea Leadsom was actually supportive and helpful.
Does he want all measurements to be in feet and inches?
Well they are both films that aren't Christmas movies for starters.
My greatest ever insight was realising that Die Hard is a horror movie from the point of view of the bad guys.
A racially diverse group of friends get themselves locked in a location and are slowly picked off one by one by a largely unseen assailant who taunts them with the dead bodies of his victims. Even when they corner it and seemingly finish it off there is no body, only a trail of blood. Their every advantage is slowly turned against them.
Effectiveness is doing the right things. Efficiency is doing things right.
The PM, supported by the Cabinet, should be in charge of effectiveness i.e. priorities. The Treasury should by in charge of efficiency i.e. ensuring spending departments stay within budget, focus on priorities and spend money efficiently.
The Chancellor encroached on priorities when he came out early for HS2. He should have been focused on the efficiency of Defence procurement processes as Dom says.
The Treasury first grew too big for its boots under Brown who had the audacity to complain that Blair "has stolen my budget" when Blair set a priority for increased spending on the NHS. It still thought it called the shots. You get Finance Directors like that. They should know their place. Look after the money but don't dictate priorities. That's the CEO's job.
Ah yes, Gordon Brown. Not, for instance, Nigel Lawson shadowing the DM as a sort of monetary union by stealth? A policy that led to ERM entry under Lawson's successor as Chancellor, John Major.
You're right. Nigel Lawson is an earlier example. Responsibility for the money brings a lust for power in Finance Directors.
You don't get it for HR or IT Directors even though people and information are just as important as money, if not more so.
He hasn't lapsed. He chose to leave and embrace an alternative religion, though in name only. Or so I understand.
In reality the only God Boris believes in is himself. To call him a Catholic PM is just nonsensical. He doesn't even pretend to be religious let alone Catholic.
Good. Give me a PM who believes in self-interest over a PM who believes in a magical sky fairy any day.
You think a PM who thinks only of himself a good thing? Crikey.
No. I think that a PM who does what he does because he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do it is a very, very bad thing!
A PM who thinks of himself wants to be re-elected, to be re-elected he needs to do a good job for the country and for the public to think he's the best man or woman for the job.
A PM who does what he thinks a magical sky fairy wants him to do is a much more scary prospect. Someone who believes something is the divine truth is irrational and can not be reasoned with.
I wasn’t comparing the two.
Boris is utterly self-interested. We will see whether that makes him a good PM for the country or not.
But on your religion point, it is worth looking at the role religious belief played in Mrs T’s politics and her political views on liberty and choice - it is rather more interesting than the- to me - silly “sky fairy” approach which misses wholly the role religion has played in the Labour movement and in politicians like Mrs T.
I'll take Thatcher and any other leader without their religion preferably thank you very much. I would far rather that religion and politics never intersect, religious dogmatism in office is one of the greatest evils throughout history. The role religion has played in politics overall is one of much greater harm than good. The sooner religious dogma is gone from the operations of the state the better.
Religion to me is much like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, but please don't wave it around in public, and definitely don't shove it down my child's mouth.
... but. The UK will remain sufficiently important and economically important that Ireland will be a good destination for trade and business. Ireland matters because the UK matters.
At the other end of the scale a complete collapse of the UK would possibly help Ireland in the long term.
I have always promoted the idea that countries should work together and even work more closely. That is why I support the EU. It is why I voted Remain.
I would far rather see the UK succeed than fail, but that decision is in the hands of a mini-Trumpian narcissist and what looks like an increasingly sycophantic Cabinet.
Comments
Whatever this cabinet is grimmer than it needs to be.
So it must be because Andrea Leadsom is too tainted by having tried to get Theresa May's sensible deal approved by the Commons.
(I don't know the answer and am hoping you wonderful people can help me?)
I suspect that restricting the judiciary's ability to interfere in such cases will be _massively_ popular.
The last time a Prime Minister sought to run the Treasury directly from Number 10 was Gladstone in 1880. It wasn’t a success.
Long since outstayed its welcome.
No one who followed Boris Johnson's tenure as Mayor of London will be surprised by any of this. He took control of both the Met and Transport for London away from Ken's independent commissioners and took them both into his office.
Did it improve things? No, not really.
We all know how Margaret Thatcher came to want to run economic policy via Sir Alan Walters and a unit at No.10 and how that led to Lawson's departure.
With Javid gone, Johnson has neutered the three main offices of State - Sunak will say whatever his master tells him, Raab neutered himself during the leadership campaign and Patel is loyal for now (I suspect she will be his next big problem oddly enough).
As for Javid, will he become the Heseltine de nos jours? Loyal but not loyal biding his time until Johnson is weakened - Heseltine only inflicted a mortal wound as it turned out.
Yet we're less than two months on from a crushing GE victory - Johnson has the power and has chosen to centralise most of it into No.10 or to have in the various departments Ministers beholden to him in one form or another. It took Thatcher two election victories to shape the Cabinet to her desire but that didn't end well as even the most loyal let her down in her eyes.
Johnson may see himself as the 21st century Thatcher but this sign of ego is the first mark of his eventual fall from grace. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" goes the maxim - perhaps but a Cabinet devoid of dissent doesn't make good decisions and it will be harder for Johnson to avoid personal responsibility when (not if) problems arise and all his bonhomie may not be enough to avoid the serious questions and scrutiny.
Yes, he didn’t want to be Chancellor-in-name-only either but it’s far from all politicians who’d end their tenure of a major office of state on a point of principle because they refuse to sack their staff.
Some would reluctantly acquiese, privately profusely apologise to the staff and promise to try and get them back in at a later date, or with another colleague, and carry on in the job.
It’s not all about the the trappings of office for him, which reassures me he has backbone.
He gave it a fiscally conservative sheen that Boris would otherwise have junked.
Boris couldn’t sack him then, and risk it overshadowing his campaign, so he didn’t - and acquiesced. That’s why the spending promises were so modest.
It’s clear he doesn’t feel bound by that manifesto, which No.10 are refusing to stick by today, which worries me.
Edit see the entire twitter thread by Dr Allin-Khan
https://twitter.com/DrRosena/status/1228020466239131648
He’s starting to cause problems for us as leader of the house in refurbishing the Palace of Westminster.
Andrea Leadsom was actually supportive and helpful.
It's time for some real populism from the Government, not just that Brexit toss.
Javid said and did very little since becoming CoE. It may be that he couldn't join the dots, and perhaps those dots are not joinable.
The Tories clearly have a problem in that so far as anyone can see they've over-promised. Not nearly in the league of the other parties of course.
Under Sunak this'll have to be 'quiet austerity', however I hope he makes some noise about the ludicrous spend in some areas - defence is the clear example.
1. Laws which the government passes mandating early release.
2. A lack of prison places because of a lack of funding - hence the need for the laws mentioned in 1.
3. A 40% cut in the budget for the criminal justice system which has resulted in courts being closed for long periods with trials now being scheduled for 2021.
4. The near destruction of the Probation Service by fools such as Chris Grayling. Boris has today managed to find the female equivalent of Grayling so expect more such destructive stupidity.
5. A police force which is scarcely fit for the purpose.
But, hey, let’s pick on the judges who are the very last step in the chain. Let’s make it hard to stop a government acting unlawfully. I mean, who cares about living in a country whose government thinks it should be able to break the law with impunity. That really shouldn’t worry anyone, should it.
There now looks to he nobody - not a Minister - with the chops or balls - to challenge Johnson/Cummings.
https://twitter.com/mattchorley/status/1227974653710389248?s=21
Osborne was an example of someone who could do both, even if he was personally more dislikeable.
I think Defence is seriously underfunded by the way.
Cummings may decide to go first once he sees the writing on the wall, as he’s been clear he doesn’t want to do the job for more than 18-24 months, but it will happen.
When that happens Boris will no doubt try and find a new gatekeeper but he might find himself more vulnerable than he thinks.
I was astonished he appointed her in the first place.
"You can have your cake, you can eat it but either way you'll end up paying for it".
The mood of the country is not to be soft on these kinds of dangers - God knows, there were plenty of hand-wringing idiots up for election last December if the public had felt so inclined.
Let us hope, for the sake of the UK, that Labour's next leader is at least a bit capable.
Is it possible to run a functioning government with this grade of incompetence in key posts?
? Failing those Stocks, Pillories and Branding on the cheek.
No more soft prison stuff. Proper justice....
https://twitter.com/AmazonChique/status/1227842683198038016
There is a sense of pity and bewilderment over here in Ireland though. A lot of people are wondering WTF....?
I’m unconvinced by most of the rest.
Efficiency is doing things right.
The PM, supported by the Cabinet, should be in charge of effectiveness i.e. priorities.
The Treasury should by in charge of efficiency i.e. ensuring spending departments stay within budget, focus on priorities and spend money efficiently.
The Chancellor encroached on priorities when he came out early for HS2. He should have been focused on the efficiency of Defence procurement processes as Dom says.
The Treasury first grew too big for its boots under Brown who had the audacity to complain that Blair "has stolen my budget" when Blair set a priority for increased spending on the NHS. It still thought it called the shots. You get Finance Directors like that. They should know their place. Look after the money but don't dictate priorities. That's the CEO's job.
The others who asked about Amanda Milling - I know her. I don’t dislike her, and she’s not stupid, but no way is she capable of being party chairman. She simply doesn’t have the imagination or the energy. Junior FO Minister would have been more like it. That she has been promoted suggests a reshuffle that has gone badly wrong somewhere.
To all those who asked about Cummings - if anyone still thought he has a brain, surely today has proved them wrong. What an utter fucktard.
Are you saying George Osborne lacked authority because of his age and inexperience?
We need at least two.
As an aside Osborne had been Shadow Chancellor days short of five years when he became Chancellor.
The UK is a big picture, and I think likely to be the biggest picture. Your pity may be a worthless currency.
https://twitter.com/FrankRGardner/status/1228034295119437824?s=20
Johnson has seen the Treasury analysis so he must know there is a risk a "hard" Brexit will be less than optimal for the economy so he is trying to put in as much stimulus as possible to cushion the shock.
That's politically obvious - as to whether it's economically wise to ratchet up borrowing, that remains to be seen.
The point is that borrowing will have to be paid for at sometime by someone.
https://twitter.com/shitbarrister/status/1227667429884678144?s=19
Every house will soon be issued instructions on their DIY Torch-and-Pitchfork set so they can join in the Baying Mob events and feel included.
Or you will just pack each cell with inmates until you have trouble getting the door closed?
Where will you get the prison staff?
You lack the cops to catch them in the first place.
I guess we'll see.
Look, I know you'll hate me for this, but. The UK will remain sufficiently important and economically important that Ireland will be a good destination for trade and business. Ireland matters because the UK matters.
At the other end of the scale a complete collapse of the UK would possibly help Ireland in the long term.
How would you go about demonstrating conclusively that you posed no risk ?
The reality is that 99.9% of people get sentences that are uninteresting and just and fair. But those don't make headlines. The 0.1% who seem to get a lighter sentences dominate press coverage.
Who made that invention? Dominic Cummings? Or was that you?
Sorry, I thought your definition of Ireland included NI.
A racially diverse group of friends get themselves locked in a location and are slowly picked off one by one by a largely unseen assailant who taunts them with the dead bodies of his victims. Even when they corner it and seemingly finish it off there is no body, only a trail of blood. Their every advantage is slowly turned against them.
It is the perfect paradigm.
You don't get it for HR or IT Directors even though people and information are just as important as money, if not more so.
Religion to me is much like a penis. Its OK to have one, its OK to be proud of it, but please don't wave it around in public, and definitely don't shove it down my child's mouth.
There are some people on here I dislike (you are not on that list), but I do not hate anyone.
I have always promoted the idea that countries should work together and even work more closely. That is why I support the EU. It is why I voted Remain.
I would far rather see the UK succeed than fail, but that decision is in the hands of a mini-Trumpian narcissist and what looks like an increasingly sycophantic Cabinet.
Nuffink to do wiv me Guv'nor....