But that wasn't the crime he was convicted of. He was convicted of possessing extremist material. He was given a sentence commensurate with that offence.
Are you saying that all people who have a copy of a book that constitutes extremist material should be locked up indefinitely?
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
The parole board only considers whether someone should be released early. And obviously (duh), they should not have been in this case.
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent 2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
This is simple: sentence all terrorists to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum based on severity of original offence and release based upon a parole board saying they are not a threat to the public anymore.
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
Should terrorists be locked up indefinitely unless or until they're not a threat? Yes.
Yeah. But there's a scale here:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
He was convicted of (d).
In the Internet age, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the UK that have ended up in possession of that kind of material - and not just Islamic stuff, but also historically stuff about Northern Ireland and the like.
99% of people who have possession of this material never make it even to (c). Many will look and move on. Are we really going to lock up people indefinitely (in environments where they are *more* likely to be radicalised)?
That should be a question the parole board should answer.
The parole board only considers whether someone should be released early. And obviously (duh), they should not have been in this case.
But we can't keep people in prison for longer than they've been sentenced. If the Judge says 12 months (because that's what the sentencing guidelines say), then at the end of the 12 months they go free. The parole board doesn't get to say "Hmmm... you've served your sentence, but we still don't think you're good."
If you want that, then you need to have indeterminate (or life) sentences for offences. Which then raises two issues:
1. If a jury thinks that the likely sentence is too severe for the crime committed, they will often find the guilty innocent 2. Don't we want to have rising sentences with severity of offence? If someone's already liable for indefinite imprisonment, what's the incentive for them not to take the next step?
This is simple: sentence all terrorists to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum based on severity of original offence and release based upon a parole board saying they are not a threat to the public anymore.
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
Given the rubbish which is coming out of Ministers mouths about the rule of law and the appointment of an A-G of whom the phrase "third-rate" would be an undeserved compliment, it can only be a matter of time before someone in the Tory party starts suggesting internment without trial.
Anyway, kudos to you for your Sunak tip. I hope you made some money on it!
Thank heavens for the end of the last thread. A whole load of posts about how awful Boris and Dom are mostly from folk who haven't got over being wrong about Brexit, the GE and wrong about Boris and Dom. I stopped laughing eventually as they got into a sort of feeding frenzy near the end which became crushingly boring. The level of dissonance in these people is becoming chronic as their world is all topsy turvy. They didn't even notice the £ soaring to it's highest level for months. If they had some of em might literally have exploded. What larks!
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
It was clearly planned, Javid was deliberately put in an impossible position....now if you go full Rambo like this, you better not have to reshuffled the pack again any time soon, because all of a sudden people aren't going to be very keen on joining a setup where Big Dom getting out of the bed the wrong side can result in your firing.
Just a thing worth noting, aside from Brown, Tony Blair used to be very trigger happy on reshuffles, nobody lasted in the same job for very long during his time in office.
Cameron had the best approach, where the instinct was the leave people in the same roles, so they gained experience and expertise.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcements slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
Today, they called him in, clearly he said you got to be kidding, no we aren't, ok well I have to resign, and they carried on the reshuffled as if no biggie. Says to me, they fully expected his react.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
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.
You're rather missing the point. Try and understand what role Methodism, for instance, played in the development of the Labour Party. Or what role religion played in the development of Mrs Thatcher. It is impossible to understand either - beyond a superficial level anyway - without understanding this.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
Absolutely religion played an important role in the past, that is where it belongs though - in the past. One can understand and learn from history without having to fall for ignorant historical myths that were made up by humanity to explain what they did not understand.
I don't need to believe in Zeus to learn about Graeco Roman times. I don't need to believe in Ra to learn about Amcoent Egypt. I don't need to believe in Thor to learn about the Norse. And I don't need to believe in God to understand the more recent past. There are hundred of historical gods and everyone of them as far as politics is concerned should be consigned to the past.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
I disagree. If you remember during the GE, he was sent out to do a debate etc. They clearly like him and were promoting him even before today.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
Yes, that makes most sense. In fairness, The Saj always looked a rather shy and awkward character - just the sort of person Dom might assume he could push around. The worm turned.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
The idea that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" is just..... embarrassing. Whatever you think of the man - good, evil, arrogant, mad - he has an incredible record of political victories and is clearly super smart.
So you win a coconut for "stupidest comment of the night"! Bravo
He really, really isn’t. He thinks he is, but his ideas are childishly simplistic and frequently expressed in language and form that would embarrass a fairly bright eleven year old.
Thornberry is now on 29 CLP nominations , but it rather looks that she will fall short of the 33 needed. To some extent , it is perhaps of little consequence in that all the campaign teams are now likely expecting Starmer to be elected.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
They clearly had a replacement lined up. The Treasuries pre existing Number 2 who had been handpicked to represent the party during an election debate.
The government could have panicked and gone for Gove and I would have been equally happy with that but they clearly didn't feel that was necessary.
As for 4 weeks before the budget, one would hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was already familiar with the planning for that.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
The idea that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" is just..... embarrassing. Whatever you think of the man - good, evil, arrogant, mad - he has an incredible record of political victories and is clearly super smart.
So you win a coconut for "stupidest comment of the night"! Bravo
He really, really isn’t. He thinks he is, but his ideas are childishly simplistic and frequently expressed in language and form that would embarrass a fairly bright eleven year old.
As for his ‘political victories,’ name four.
Business for Sterling The NE Assembly Referendum The EU Referendum The 2019 General Election
My god, you really are as dim as you first appear.
Business for Sterling never had a campaign so it never won a victory.
The opposition in the NE assembly referendum would have won if the lizard people had led it.
The EU referendum was narrowly won due to a combination of factors, of which Cummings was one.
It was claimed he had a limited role in the general election, although given that was claimed by Cummings himself and he’s a fluent liar I will accept that one.
So you still need to find at least two.
As for the rest, including the racist abuse, you’ve been starting early on the whisky again, haven’t you, Sean?
This is simple: sentence all terrorists to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum based on severity of original offence and release based upon a parole board saying they are not a threat to the public anymore.
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
The problem is the definition of terrorism. To come back to my earlier four categories:
(a) committing terrorist attacks (b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks (c) being a member of a terrorist organisation (d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
I think it's very easy to say that (a) makes you a terrorist. But by the time you get to (d) it's a much harder call. Terrorist organisation spew out hate filled propaganda all the time, and we make possession of (or distribution of) this material a crime.
But we don't have it as as serious an offence as (a) because hundreds of thousands of people probable have viewed or downloaded material that would be classified as illegal at one point or another.
Let me put it another way.
If you hit your girlfriend, then you are guilty of assault, and you may go to prison.
At the end of your sentence, you'll be released, whether or not a parole board says you have been rehabilitated. Because at that point, you'll have served your time.
Some of those people who hit their girlfriends and were jailed for assault will go on to kill their next girlfriend.
I struggle to see the difference. If we're locking people up because they may commit another crime in the future, then surely the prospective girlfriend killer is the same risk as the prospective terrorist killer.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
They clearly had a replacement lined up. The Treasuries pre existing Number 2 who had been handpicked to represent the party during an election debate.
The government could have panicked and gone for Gove and I would have been equally happy with that but they clearly didn't feel that was necessary.
As for 4 weeks before the budget, one would hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was already familiar with the planning for that.
The last time a CST became Chancellor directly was Lamont in 1990. Arguably Major (via the FO, very briefly) was the previous one. Prior to that I don’t think it had happened since 1922.
Let’s hope it doesn’t end in a similar catastrophe to Lamont’s tenure.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
They clearly had a replacement lined up. The Treasuries pre existing Number 2 who had been handpicked to represent the party during an election debate.
The government could have panicked and gone for Gove and I would have been equally happy with that but they clearly didn't feel that was necessary.
As for 4 weeks before the budget, one would hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was already familiar with the planning for that.
Bit nasty though - appointing Saj in the first place when they knew they'd only give him a few months before humiliating him. Almost sadistic by your man Boris.
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.
You're rather missing the point. Try and understand what role Methodism, for instance, played in the development of the Labour Party. Or what role religion played in the development of Mrs Thatcher. It is impossible to understand either - beyond a superficial level anyway - without understanding this.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
Absolutely religion played an important role in the past, that is where it belongs though - in the past. One can understand and learn from history without having to fall for ignorant historical myths that were made up by humanity to explain what they did not understand.
I don't need to believe in Zeus to learn about Graeco Roman times. I don't need to believe in Ra to learn about Amcoent Egypt. I don't need to believe in Thor to learn about the Norse. And I don't need to believe in God to understand the more recent past. There are hundred of historical gods and everyone of them as far as politics is concerned should be consigned to the past.
I’m not asking you to believe. I’m asking you to understand.
Religion is playing now - and will continue to play - a very important role in our politics, whether we like it or not. See, for instance, the LGBT teaching row, the issue of free speech and Muslim sensitivities etc etc. Now I am on the side of the secularists, as I imagine you are too, but anyone who fails to understand - or ignores - religion and its impact and the issues this raises is going to be handicapped in dealing with those issues.
No. I don't think Barr objects to doing what Trump wants in order to help him avoid justice and swing the next election, Barr simply wishes the President would tell him in private rather by the public megaphone of Twitter. So he has to act outraged to give the tiniest fig leaf of cover.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
The idea that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" is just..... embarrassing. Whatever you think of the man - good, evil, arrogant, mad - he has an incredible record of political victories and is clearly super smart.
So you win a coconut for "stupidest comment of the night"! Bravo
He really, really isn’t. He thinks he is, but his ideas are childishly simplistic and frequently expressed in language and form that would embarrass a fairly bright eleven year old.
As for his ‘political victories,’ name four.
Business for Sterling The NE Assembly Referendum The EU Referendum The 2019 General Election
My god, you really are as dim as you first appear.
Business for Sterling never had a campaign so it never won a victory.
The opposition in the NE assembly referendum would have won if the lizard people had led it.
The EU referendum was narrowly won due to a combination of factors, of which Cummings was one.
It was claimed he had a limited role in the general election, although given that was claimed by Cummings himself and he’s a fluent liar I will accept that one.
So you still need to find at least two.
As for the rest, including the racist abuse, you’ve been starting early on the whisky again, haven’t you, Sean?
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
The idea that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" is just..... embarrassing. Whatever you think of the man - good, evil, arrogant, mad - he has an incredible record of political victories and is clearly super smart.
So you win a coconut for "stupidest comment of the night"! Bravo
He really, really isn’t. He thinks he is, but his ideas are childishly simplistic and frequently expressed in language and form that would embarrass a fairly bright eleven year old.
As for his ‘political victories,’ name four.
Business for Sterling The NE Assembly Referendum The EU Referendum The 2019 General Election
My god, you really are as dim as you first appear.
The first was pointless given Labour's five tests already ruled out joining the Euro. The second, Dominic Cummings does not even feature on the relevant Wikipedia page. Brexit, yes, Cummings was a key figure. Ge2019, well, as @HYUFD kept posting, Boris was miles ahead in the polls anyway.
I think they didn't know that Saj would walk but thought he might and it was fine for them either way. He accepts and is then a diminished patsy to be walked over at will. Or he goes and they have an eager young puppy lined up and a collar to fit. Ruthless. Unedifying. Not for me. Sorry.
Amazing the amount of ministers that have come and gone in 10 years.
Looking back at Cameron's first cabinet the only survivor is Gove but he was sacked by May and came back
Looking at May's first cabinet I make it there are 4 survivors - Johnson, Truss, Patel and Baroness Evans
However, Johnson quit, Patel was sacked and Truss was demoted for a while to Chief Sec (attending) so Baroness Evans is the longest survivor with 4 years in post!
By contrast Brown and Straw managed the whole 13 years of the Last Labour government, which Darling did 12.
I think they didn't know that Saj would walk but thought he might and it was fine for them either way. He accepts and is then a diminished patsy to be walked over at will. Or he goes and they have an eager young puppy lined up and a collar to fit. Ruthless. Unedifying. Not for me. Sorry.
Not convinced. Remember DC had earlier summarily dismissed one of Saj's team whom he accused of leaking to Philip Hammond. Saj stayed on. Why would Boris and DC expect this time to be different?
I think they didn't know that Saj would walk but thought he might and it was fine for them either way. He accepts and is then a diminished patsy to be walked over at will. Or he goes and they have an eager young puppy lined up and a collar to fit. Ruthless. Unedifying. Not for me. Sorry.
I am in the rare position of thinking both sides are in the right. It is perfectly reasonable to take efforts to avoid a TB-GB ongoing war in government and have a unified No 10-No 11 team accountable directly to the PM. It is also perfectly reasonable to not to want to play the subordinate role in such a government and walk.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
Amazing the amount of ministers that have come and gone in 10 years.
Looking back at Cameron's first cabinet the only survivor is Gove but he was sacked by May and came back
Looking at May's first cabinet I make it there are 4 survivors - Johnson, Truss, Patel and Baroness Evans
However, Johnson quit, Patel was sacked and Truss was demoted for a while to Chief Sec (attending) so Baroness Evans is the longest survivor with 4 years in post!
By contrast Brown and Straw managed the whole 13 years of the Last Labour government, which Darling did 12.
That's selective timelining....Under Cameron's time in government there was very few changes in the major roles. Other than Brown, Labour government everybody changed roles on a regular basis e.g. Darling had 6 jobs in 13 years.
The reason for the large change 2010 vs now is obviously the fall out of those unwilling to tow the government line on Brexit.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
As for the rest, including the racist abuse, you’ve been starting early on the whisky again, haven’t you, Sean?
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Being in favour of something isn't the same as caring a lot about it though or putting a lot of effort into it. But I agree Dominic Cummings is a very capable and bright guy. Cummingsography is also fascinating.
I can see why the lobby and certain Tories dislike Cummings but puzzled why he has so many detractors on here despite his consistent record of success. He seems to be the one guy capable of taking on the blob and shaking things up. People didn't vote for Brexit and Boris to maintain the status quo.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
I fear your bitterness is now making you silly.
Give it up mate you're better than this.
You scriptwriting Eastenders now?
Is EastEnders still going ?
The last time I watched it the demographics were closer to those of Havering rather than Tower Hamlets.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
What the actual hell is McDonnell's track record, beyond being selected for a safe Labour seat and losing two general elections, the first to the worst campaign of all time, and the second by a landslide to a man who is supposedly vastly inferior to him in every way?
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
Hopefully our friend will soon recover.
I thought his Cummings phobia was due to the experience as a teacher during the Gove (and Cummings) regime at DofE
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.
You're rather missing the point. Try and understand what role Methodism, for instance, played in the development of the Labour Party. Or what role religion played in the development of Mrs Thatcher. It is impossible to understand either - beyond a superficial level anyway - without understanding this.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
Absolutely religion played an important role in the past, that is where it belongs though - in the past. One can understand and learn from history without having to fall for ignorant historical myths that were made up by humanity to explain what they did not understand.
I don't need to believe in Zeus to learn about Graeco Roman times. I don't need to believe in Ra to learn about Amcoent Egypt. I don't need to believe in Thor to learn about the Norse. And I don't need to believe in God to understand the more recent past. There are hundred of historical gods and everyone of them as far as politics is concerned should be consigned to the past.
I’m not asking you to believe. I’m asking you to understand.
Religion is playing now - and will continue to play - a very important role in our politics, whether we like it or not. See, for instance, the LGBT teaching row, the issue of free speech and Muslim sensitivities etc etc. Now I am on the side of the secularists, as I imagine you are too, but anyone who fails to understand - or ignores - religion and its impact and the issues this raises is going to be handicapped in dealing with those issues.
Too right I am on the side of the secularists. The two issues you mention highlight the evils of allowing religion and politics to mix. I do understand the role of religion that exists - and oppose it.
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
Dominic Cummings could start an argument in an empty house.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
Hopefully our friend will soon recover.
ydoethur's anger with Cummings dates back to his time with Gove at Education.
I concur with the consensus that this looks like quite a rubbish reshuffle (tho they all do, generally). Losing your Chancellor after about a week is not a good look (tho they must have expected it, and anticipated it)
That said, surely we have all learned not to underestimate Dominic Cummings?
Maybe he has war-gamed this, as well
I think to find a Chancellor with a shorter spell in office who didn’t die in office you have to go back to Randolph Churchill in 1886.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
That statement only holds any truth if you know that Johnson and Cummings wanted Javid in office.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
If even somebody of the limited intellectual capacity of Cummings thinks it smart to de facto sack the Chancellor less than nine months into government with a budget four weeks away, then he is not merely thick, he is deranged.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
I don't think so, given they clearly had a replacement lined up. As we have seen in the past when somebody throws a wobbler during a reshuffle normally the announcement slow to a halt as there is a mad scramble to try and moves the cards around.
But that is my point. They clearly didn’t have a replacement lined up. Promoting the junior minister to the most senior cabinet post smacks of desperately trying to solve an unforeseen problem, not of careful planning.
They clearly had a replacement lined up. The Treasuries pre existing Number 2 who had been handpicked to represent the party during an election debate.
The government could have panicked and gone for Gove and I would have been equally happy with that but they clearly didn't feel that was necessary.
As for 4 weeks before the budget, one would hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was already familiar with the planning for that.
The last time a CST became Chancellor directly was Lamont in 1990. Arguably Major (via the FO, very briefly) was the previous one. Prior to that I don’t think it had happened since 1922.
Let’s hope it doesn’t end in a similar catastrophe to Lamont’s tenure.
So in recent memory 2 had been promoted that way. Hardly unprecedented then.
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
Dominic Cummings could start an argument in an empty house.
I worked at a start-up in my youth, and a particular employee was brilliant mind and actually the job was way beneath what he was capable of, but had a similar ability to have disagreements over the tiniest of things. They ended renting an adjoining office unit and he was dispatched to work there solo surrounded by the servers.
It was like a bit like the scene out of Silicon Valley with the data centre dweller.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
Hopefully our friend will soon recover.
ydoethur's anger with Cummings dates back to his time with Gove at Education.
Laura K shouting at ministers coming and going like a fishwife. I had thought better of her.
No you didn't. Nor did just about anyone on this site. For some unfathomable reason.
I really did.
So you have not noticed that every political journalist shouts at ministers as they come and go from Downing Street and elsewhere but you now notice it with Laura?
And you a long standing contributor to a political website.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
Hopefully our friend will soon recover.
Evening Sean....
You think? SeanT/Byronic was/is far less confrontational than this new chap.
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
Dominic Cummings could start an argument in an empty house.
Yes, that's my worry
Cummings is self evidently very clever, and also politically gifted ("Get Brexit Done", "Take Back Control" - these are two genius slogans, and both his, I believe).
But he is also obviously bipolar, therefore prone to mood swings, and seriously argumentative. He may do more damage than good, in the end, as he is way better suited to aggressive campaigning than consensual government.
On the other hand, we are about to have a major fist fight with the European Union, and I'd much rather we had Dom C on our side, giving them stick, than not.
Amazing the amount of ministers that have come and gone in 10 years.
Looking back at Cameron's first cabinet the only survivor is Gove but he was sacked by May and came back
Looking at May's first cabinet I make it there are 4 survivors - Johnson, Truss, Patel and Baroness Evans
However, Johnson quit, Patel was sacked and Truss was demoted for a while to Chief Sec (attending) so Baroness Evans is the longest survivor with 4 years in post!
By contrast Brown and Straw managed the whole 13 years of the Last Labour government, which Darling did 12.
Looking quickly at the first and last of the Thatcher Cabinets (a span of 11.5 years but not much longer than the nearly 10 years of a Conservative Government) no minister other than the prime minister was in both. Geoffrey Howe practically made it through, his resignation effectively bringing about Thatcher's resignation.
The point I'm making is 10 years is a long time to stay in any cabinet.
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
Dominic Cummings could start an argument in an empty house.
Yes, that's my worry
Cummings is self evidently very clever, and also politically gifted ("Get Brexit Done", "Take Back Control" - these are two genius slogans, and both his, I believe).
But he is also obviously bipolar, therefore prone to mood swings, and seriously argumentative. He may do more damage than good, in the end, as he is way better suited to aggressive campaigning than consensual government.
On the other hand, we are about to have a major fist fight with the European Union, and I'd much rather we had Dom C on our side, giving them stick, than not.
Cummings strikes me as a man who's tortured by his own intelligence, who then takes it out on others.
I see the consensus on this site is that Boris and co have no idea what they are doing and the public will see straight through them. That was the consensus last year too. How did that work out?
Perhaps we’d all like to consider an alternative theory? Perhaps the Government is determined to deliver, but for a very different constituency than posts on here? And perhaps that constituency judges success on very different criteria.
It’s the intellectual cut and thrust I love about your posts....
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
If you really DO hold the imbecilic belief that Dom Cummings has "limited intellect" and is some kind of political failure, I presume you will have no problem listing ten political operators in Britain, working in politics right now, who are evidently his superior in terms of achievement.
It should be easy. I guess you could probably name ten thousand people better than him, if you honestly believe he is that rubbish?
But ten will do.
If I list the whole site here, then I will run over the word limit.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
What the actual hell is McDonnell's track record, beyond being selected for a safe Labour seat and losing two general elections, the first to the worst campaign of all time, and the second by a landslide to a man who is supposedly vastly inferior to him in every way?
I believe that comment by ydoethur may literally be the most CRINGE in the history of PB.
It is so mortifying it achieves a careless suavity.
Laura K shouting at ministers coming and going like a fishwife. I had thought better of her.
No you didn't. Nor did just about anyone on this site. For some unfathomable reason.
I really did.
So you have not noticed that every political journalist shouts at ministers as they come and go from Downing Street and elsewhere but you now notice it with Laura?
And you a long standing contributor to a political website.
I deplore all of the oik shouty "journalists" who do that, and I'd never seen Laura try it before. Needless to say I still think highly of her normally measured and insightful commentaries.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
To be fair, even in that Guardian article the other week, they stated the Big Dom clearly is well read in a wide range of subjects.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
Dominic Cummings could start an argument in an empty house.
Yes, that's my worry
Cummings is self evidently very clever, and also politically gifted ("Get Brexit Done", "Take Back Control" - these are two genius slogans, and both his, I believe).
But he is also obviously bipolar, therefore prone to mood swings, and seriously argumentative. He may do more damage than good, in the end, as he is way better suited to aggressive campaigning than consensual government.
On the other hand, we are about to have a major fist fight with the European Union, and I'd much rather we had Dom C on our side, giving them stick, than not.
What a moronic last paragraph.
Do please explain why.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK, from the start of these trade negox. "Britain must obey EU laws, without a say," blah blah
This is what you would expect, of course. It's their opening move. The UK is equally hard faced in return: "give the City equivalence for ever". Etc etc
None of this is remotely surprising, but it does make clear - for any that were unsure - that we face a year of pretty tough deal-making.
In that light, who would you want on Britain's team, trying to get the best result for the country? I'd want the best political operators in the realm, and Dominic Cummings is provably one of those. Denying this is specious, and leads to humiliation, as we see from ydoethur, tonight
And now I must say goodnight, I have artisanal exports to the EU to hand-carve and sell.
The EU is taking a very belligerent stance against the UK as it feels it still has a point to make over Brexit. They're trying to get as close as possible to taking a political position that chimes with their still (deeply hurt and angered) emotions whilst still being able to credibly argue it's a rational one too.
It's impossible to say how long this will go on for. And it's possible they might never get over it.
The entire establishment was in favour of a NE assembly so you really shouldn't downplay Cummings achievement in defeating them.
Whatever the establishment wanted, the entire North East was against it. Getting a no vote in that was as difficult as getting a rise out of Dura Ace over matters military.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Even if the entire North East was against an assembly it still took some talent and courage to realise that when the political and government and big business establishments were pushing hard for one.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
ydoethur has a classic case of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Brexit is bad, wrong and stupid, and therefore anyone strongly associated with it MUST be bad, wrong and stupid, despite any evidence otherwise.
It is essentially a religious view of politics. And leads to major errors, and then to defeat.
Hopefully our friend will soon recover.
I wouldn't have thought ydoethur is a good candidate for BDS. Cummings and/or Gove DS maybe.
If Boris wins the next general election then Sunak has a good chance of being the next Tory leader and PM when Boris retires.
If however Starmer wins the next general election then the Tories will be looking for a leader of the opposition not the incumbent PM, in which case someone like Patel or even Rees-Mogg would be a better bet
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
Meanwhile: Labour are gonna make the wrong decision. Keir Starmer is the safe choice, the best choice for fighting an election next month. Since there isn't going to be an election next month, or this year, or next year, that is an irrelevant consideration. I've thought for a while that Lisa Nandy has the potential to be the best of the bunch on offer, but now I'm pretty certain she is the best.
I don't think whether Cummings is stupid or a genius is a particularly useful question. The better question is whether he is successful. Presumably by his own lights he would say he is.
Cummings has won most of his campaigns, showing the value of message discipline and good project management. He relies heavily on his opponents stupidly acting against their own interest, but to his credit that's paid off more than it's failed.
For policy we need to turn to his stint at education. Cummings was successful in getting his policy though, particularly on cutting out local authorities, which can count as a success. Implementation was very messy and outcomes can be said to be poor. Children in England now get a measurably worse education due to his policy than they would otherwise have Free schools, his favoured policy, perform like for like worse than academies, which perform worse than the remaining local authority schools that he wanted to get rid of. Albeit the differences are quite small.
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.
You're rather missing the point. Try and understand what role Methodism, for instance, played in the development of the Labour Party. Or what role religion played in the development of Mrs Thatcher. It is impossible to understand either - beyond a superficial level anyway - without understanding this.
I am not making a point about whether or not religion should play a formal part in a country's government but I am stating that it is impossible to understand our history and the politics of one of our recent and - to some - most effective PMs without understanding this.
Absolutely religion played an important role in the past, that is where it belongs though - in the past. One can understand and learn from history without having to fall for ignorant historical myths that were made up by humanity to explain what they did not understand.
I don't need to believe in Zeus to learn about Graeco Roman times. I don't need to believe in Ra to learn about Amcoent Egypt. I don't need to believe in Thor to learn about the Norse. And I don't need to believe in God to understand the more recent past. There are hundred of historical gods and everyone of them as far as politics is concerned should be consigned to the past.
Most if our great universities and many of our top schools had religious origins, as did many of our hospitals and great architectural buildings and cathedrals. Most of our food banks and many of our homeless shelters are provided by religious bodies too, if you do not believe in a big state then religion gas a part to play in filling the gap and providing a core set of values
Comments
FPT This is simple: sentence all terrorists to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum based on severity of original offence and release based upon a parole board saying they are not a threat to the public anymore.
Rising levels of minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence serves your point 2.
Anyway, kudos to you for your Sunak tip. I hope you made some money on it!
You have to wonder what’s the point.
Also fpt.
And he at least resigned of his own volition because he was ill and misjudged his own importance.
This is quite extraordinary and just shows how careless and politically inept Cummings and Johnson are.
I'm not sure that is a fact. It is an opinion.
https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1228068182000361477
Just a thing worth noting, aside from Brown, Tony Blair used to be very trigger happy on reshuffles, nobody lasted in the same job for very long during his time in office.
Cameron had the best approach, where the instinct was the leave people in the same roles, so they gained experience and expertise.
I personally think it’s more likely he genuinely thought Javid would fall into line and be bullied from henceforth.
Today, they called him in, clearly he said you got to be kidding, no we aren't, ok well I have to resign, and they carried on the reshuffled as if no biggie. Says to me, they fully expected his react.
I don't need to believe in Zeus to learn about Graeco Roman times. I don't need to believe in Ra to learn about Amcoent Egypt. I don't need to believe in Thor to learn about the Norse. And I don't need to believe in God to understand the more recent past. There are hundred of historical gods and everyone of them as far as politics is concerned should be consigned to the past.
There is no vaccine for it (yet!)
As for his ‘political victories,’ name four.
The government could have panicked and gone for Gove and I would have been equally happy with that but they clearly didn't feel that was necessary.
As for 4 weeks before the budget, one would hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was already familiar with the planning for that.
The opposition in the NE assembly referendum would have won if the lizard people had led it.
The EU referendum was narrowly won due to a combination of factors, of which Cummings was one.
It was claimed he had a limited role in the general election, although given that was claimed by Cummings himself and he’s a fluent liar I will accept that one.
So you still need to find at least two.
As for the rest, including the racist abuse, you’ve been starting early on the whisky again, haven’t you, Sean?
https://twitter.com/JakeBerry/status/1228061573614383109
(a) committing terrorist attacks
(b) aiding and abetting terrorist attacks
(c) being a member of a terrorist organisation
(d) being in possession of material created by a terrorist organisation
I think it's very easy to say that (a) makes you a terrorist. But by the time you get to (d) it's a much harder call. Terrorist organisation spew out hate filled propaganda all the time, and we make possession of (or distribution of) this material a crime.
But we don't have it as as serious an offence as (a) because hundreds of thousands of people probable have viewed or downloaded material that would be classified as illegal at one point or another.
Let me put it another way.
If you hit your girlfriend, then you are guilty of assault, and you may go to prison.
At the end of your sentence, you'll be released, whether or not a parole board says you have been rehabilitated. Because at that point, you'll have served your time.
Some of those people who hit their girlfriends and were jailed for assault will go on to kill their next girlfriend.
I struggle to see the difference. If we're locking people up because they may commit another crime in the future, then surely the prospective girlfriend killer is the same risk as the prospective terrorist killer.
Let’s hope it doesn’t end in a similar catastrophe to Lamont’s tenure.
BTW, the technical term you are seeking is ‘a Cummings.’
Religion is playing now - and will continue to play - a very important role in our politics, whether we like it or not. See, for instance, the LGBT teaching row, the issue of free speech and Muslim sensitivities etc etc. Now I am on the side of the secularists, as I imagine you are too, but anyone who fails to understand - or ignores - religion and its impact and the issues this raises is going to be handicapped in dealing with those issues.
A better point is that Traditional Chinese Medicine is missing an opportunity to step up and prove its worth.
Looking back at Cameron's first cabinet the only survivor is Gove but he was sacked by May and came back
Looking at May's first cabinet I make it there are 4 survivors - Johnson, Truss, Patel and Baroness Evans
However, Johnson quit, Patel was sacked and Truss was demoted for a while to Chief Sec (attending) so Baroness Evans is the longest survivor with 4 years in post!
By contrast Brown and Straw managed the whole 13 years of the Last Labour government, which Darling did 12.
But seriously, just to reel a few off, Farage, Sturgeon, Corbyn, Grieve, Cox, May, McDonnell, Lansman, Sadiq Khan and Osborne (for a given value of politics) all have comparable or better track records of achievement than Cummings. Yes, many of them have disasters to their credit too, but none have left quite the trail of wreckage Cummings did in their wake (except maybe Grieve).
And most of them can express ideas in something vaguely akin to the Queen’s English, too.
The reason for the large change 2010 vs now is obviously the fall out of those unwilling to tow the government line on Brexit.
However, people tend to see what they want to see. If they see a Machiavellian genius rather than an egomaniac with a shady past and a track record of dismal failure, I suppose they will regardless of the evidence.
Anyway, I have a busy day tomorrow. Have a lovely evening.
Give it up mate you're better than this.
The Labour machine in the North East does not have a history of being beaten.
The last time I watched it the demographics were closer to those of Havering rather than Tower Hamlets.
The problem as we know is that he could start an argument in a lift, resulting in a massive punch-up and walk about claiming clearly everybody else was wrong and behaved appallingly, and if they only understood things better it would never have kicked off in the first place.
edit: male
I fear its going to be an affliction for life.
It was like a bit like the scene out of Silicon Valley with the data centre dweller.
Well, we all have our blind spots.
And you a long standing contributor to a political website.
The point I'm making is 10 years is a long time to stay in any cabinet.
Perhaps we’d all like to consider an alternative theory? Perhaps the Government is determined to deliver, but for a very different constituency than posts on here? And perhaps that constituency judges success on very different criteria.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228057674295590913
Don't ya think.
He's clearly dribbling money in and I expect him to be favourite before Super Tuesday.
I expect Biden to stay in until then too, given the strength of his polling.
I expect Bloomberg is hoping he'll endorse him once he quits thereafter.
But why did Johnson keep pushing?
Because Cummings was pushing Johnson.
It's impossible to say how long this will go on for. And it's possible they might never get over it.
If however Starmer wins the next general election then the Tories will be looking for a leader of the opposition not the incumbent PM, in which case someone like Patel or even Rees-Mogg would be a better bet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5DV-YZ4og
Cummings has won most of his campaigns, showing the value of message discipline and good project management. He relies heavily on his opponents stupidly acting against their own interest, but to his credit that's paid off more than it's failed.
For policy we need to turn to his stint at education. Cummings was successful in getting his policy though, particularly on cutting out local authorities, which can count as a success. Implementation was very messy and outcomes can be said to be poor. Children in England now get a measurably worse education due to his policy than they would otherwise have Free schools, his favoured policy, perform like for like worse than academies, which perform worse than the remaining local authority schools that he wanted to get rid of. Albeit the differences are quite small.