politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the papers are treating the Javid sacking

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the papers are treating the Javid sacking

This is Danny Finkelstein’s conclusion in his Times column today:

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL

Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, Ken Clarke: maybe Boris just hates Chancellors.

Mysticrose

I'm no fan of Johnson but it was about time No.11 was brought to heel.

For donkeys years Chancellors and their teams have been out of control and that's simply no way to run a Government.

I thoroughly applaud this brutal sacking. No chance of a return to the nonsense of the Brown-Blair situation. Boris Johnson won the election. Boris Johnson runs the show.

For now.

Mysticrose

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

tlg86

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

DecrepiterJohnL

Holidaygate rumbles on.

The mystery over who funded Boris Johnson’s New Year Caribbean holiday deepened last night as the luxury villa’s owner told the Daily Mail it was not a freebie.

Sarah Richardson, who owns the magnificent home where the Prime Minister stayed on Mustique, confirmed that she and her husband Craig had rented it out – and that they had ‘got paid’.

However, she said she had ‘no idea’ who had actually covered the cost of the rental as it had been handled by The Mustique Company, the island’s management company.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8001973/US-financier-owns-Mustique-property-says-paid-PMs-stay.html

DecrepiterJohnL

The Saj appointed Andrew Bailey as the next Governor of the Bank of England (starting in a month's time). It might be worth keeping an eye on that office, and perhaps also the OBR, if this is about policy and not just ego.

alex_

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

Not, sure what “detail” Mike’s supposed to have got wrong, even if it is valid to argue that not every case will lead to the same outcome. It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

ydoethur

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

Lawson wasn’t sacked. He resigned, although admittedly the reason he resigned is that he expected to be sacked.

alex_

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Holidaygate rumbles on.

The mystery over who funded Boris Johnson’s New Year Caribbean holiday deepened last night as the luxury villa’s owner told the Daily Mail it was not a freebie.

Sarah Richardson, who owns the magnificent home where the Prime Minister stayed on Mustique, confirmed that she and her husband Craig had rented it out – and that they had ‘got paid’.

However, she said she had ‘no idea’ who had actually covered the cost of the rental as it had been handled by The Mustique Company, the island’s management company.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8001973/US-financier-owns-Mustique-property-says-paid-PMs-stay.html

Isn’t the obvious assumption that the person who paid was somebody who booked a holiday, paid in advance, and then cancelled. Who probably had no idea that the property had then been made available to Johnson?

One would have thought that Johnson had more than enough money to avoid the need to seek out and accept freebies though. Maybe he really is as profligate with his own money as he will be with the country’s. Or pays a hell of a lot of child support.

DecrepiterJohnL

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

Depends on how outraged any spineless stooges are at being compared to the current cabinet.

The photo though is surreal. It makes him look as though he was on whatever Sean, er, Eadric was on last night.

tlg86

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

Mysticrose

alex_ said:

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

It's ridiculous to compare Johnson starting as he means to go on with Thatcher 10 years into her 12 year reign. Her demise was under way. You're the one who is beyond 'sketchy'. 1989 saw her introduce 'The Scottish experiment' with her poll tax. She was already losing her grip, with Labour beginning to breathe again under Neil Kinnock's leadership. Your 'widely perceived' is short hand for 'I haven't got a single backup for this.' I remember 1989 well and Thatcher's zenith had occurred just before her 1987 victory. She was already on the wane.

1979 was a crushing victory for Thatcher, though even less than Johnson's crushing victory this time around.

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

DecrepiterJohnL

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

DecrepiterJohnL

Reshuffle: does it continue with junior ministers today or is that it?

tlg86

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

felix

Mysticrose said:

alex_ said:

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

It's ridiculous to compare Johnson starting as he means to go on with Thatcher 10 years into her 12 year reign. Her demise was under way. You're the one who is beyond 'sketchy'. 1989 saw her introduce 'The Scottish experiment' with her poll tax. She was already losing her grip, with Labour beginning to breathe again under Neil Kinnock's leadership. Your 'widely perceived' is short hand for 'I haven't got a single backup for this.' I remember 1989 well and Thatcher's zenith had occurred just before her 1987 victory. She was already on the wane.

1979 was a crushing victory for Thatcher, though even less than Johnson's crushing victory this time around.

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

Yup another load of 'raging against the machine' from all the usual suspects on here. On an issue about which atpit no-one in the great world outside gives a monkey's f***. The chattering classes hate Johnson and Cummings because they were given a rare old shellacking in December - and they still haven't got over Brexit. Who knew!?!?

DavidL

The real difference is that Lawson was a genuine heavyweight, as responsible for the creation and development of “Thatcherism” as Maggie herself. He had driven both the Big Bang in the City and the privatisation agenda along with several iterations of monetary policy. His book, the View from number 11, remains one of the best books on the mechanics of Chancellorship there is. Maggie falling out with him was a deep rift in the whole government project suggesting underlying divisions that would ultimately bring her down.

The Saj, in contrast, has never given a single budget, never contributed an original idea, showed no deep understanding of what he was trying to do and has fallen out with his boss for much more superficial reasons. It creates no rift and does nothing to undermine Boris.

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

He was actually accused of antisemitism not that long ago:

https://www.indy100.com/article/dominic-cummings-blog-post-racism-antisemitism-goldman-sachs-foreign-voters-9223211

I have to say the claim on its own seems a bit of a stretch, unless it fits a wider pattern i’m not aware of.

ydoethur

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

tlg86

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

kamski

felix said:

Mysticrose said:

alex_ said:

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

It's ridiculous to compare Johnson starting as he means to go on with Thatcher 10 years into her 12 year reign. Her demise was under way. You're the one who is beyond 'sketchy'. 1989 saw her introduce 'The Scottish experiment' with her poll tax. She was already losing her grip, with Labour beginning to breathe again under Neil Kinnock's leadership. Your 'widely perceived' is short hand for 'I haven't got a single backup for this.' I remember 1989 well and Thatcher's zenith had occurred just before her 1987 victory. She was already on the wane.

1979 was a crushing victory for Thatcher, though even less than Johnson's crushing victory this time around.

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

Yup another load of 'raging against the machine' from all the usual suspects on here. On an issue about which atpit no-one in the great world outside gives a monkey's f***. The chattering classes hate Johnson and Cummings because they were given a rare old shellacking in December - and they still haven't got over Brexit. Who knew!?!?

Yes, the sacking not such a big deal probably.

But surely the chattering classes had a massive victory in the last election. Eg Johnson, a lazy dishonest metropolitan elite newspaper columnist is now prime minister.

DecrepiterJohnL

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

Ah, the question of whether a trope is antisemitic independently of whether its subjects are Jewish. That was also the issue with the mural, iirc. Jacob Rees-Mogg was criticised for his musings on Soros. That raises the international dimension; if a trope is used in an antisemitic way in, say, the United States or Continental Europe, does it become contaminated in Britain?

tlg86

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

Ah, the question of whether a trope is antisemitic independently of whether its subjects are Jewish. That was also the issue with the mural, iirc. Jacob Rees-Mogg was criticised for his musings on Soros. That raises the international dimension; if a trope is used in an antisemitic way in, say, the United States or Continental Europe, does it become contaminated in Britain?

My view is, play it safe. The Mirror doesn't have to use that imagery, and one could argue they are dog whistling to racist Labour supporters.

Black_Rook

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Sandpit

Was out all day yesterday, I take it nothing much happened in the world of politics?

philiph

How the papers are treating Javids sacking.

I don't think No 10 will be worried by those headlines.

Mail and Metro the worst, Mirror, well what do you expect, the other three show decisive action and ruthlessness.

I'm not aware that Javid has a power base in the party. His performance in the leadership vote would suggest not a lot.

DecrepiterJohnL

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

Ah, the question of whether a trope is antisemitic independently of whether its subjects are Jewish. That was also the issue with the mural, iirc. Jacob Rees-Mogg was criticised for his musings on Soros. That raises the international dimension; if a trope is used in an antisemitic way in, say, the United States or Continental Europe, does it become contaminated in Britain?

My view is, play it safe. The Mirror doesn't have to use that imagery, and one could argue they are dog whistling to racist Labour supporters.

That would be a leap even without the question-begging description of Labour voters as racist.

felix

kamski said:

felix said:

Mysticrose said:

alex_ said:

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

It's ridiculous to compare Johnson starting as he means to go on with Thatcher 10 years into her 12 year reign. Her demise was under way. You're the one who is beyond 'sketchy'. 1989 saw her introduce 'The Scottish experiment' with her poll tax. She was already losing her grip, with Labour beginning to breathe again under Neil Kinnock's leadership. Your 'widely perceived' is short hand for 'I haven't got a single backup for this.' I remember 1989 well and Thatcher's zenith had occurred just before her 1987 victory. She was already on the wane.

1979 was a crushing victory for Thatcher, though even less than Johnson's crushing victory this time around.

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

Yup another load of 'raging against the machine' from all the usual suspects on here. On an issue about which atpit no-one in the great world outside gives a monkey's f***. The chattering classes hate Johnson and Cummings because they were given a rare old shellacking in December - and they still haven't got over Brexit. Who knew!?!?

Yes, the sacking not such a big deal probably.

But surely the chattering classes had a massive victory in the last election. Eg Johnson, a lazy dishonest metropolitan elite newspaper columnist is now prime minister.

Nope the chattering classes hate Johnson because of Brexit mainly.

philiph

The other question raised by the reshuffle is who are they targeting as voters in 2024?

Are they looking for an increase in ethnic minority support as a way of weakening labour further?

tlg86

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

Ah, the question of whether a trope is antisemitic independently of whether its subjects are Jewish. That was also the issue with the mural, iirc. Jacob Rees-Mogg was criticised for his musings on Soros. That raises the international dimension; if a trope is used in an antisemitic way in, say, the United States or Continental Europe, does it become contaminated in Britain?

My view is, play it safe. The Mirror doesn't have to use that imagery, and one could argue they are dog whistling to racist Labour supporters.

That would be a leap even without the question-begging description of Labour voters as racist.

Fair point, those type of Labour voters probably read the Guardian.

DavidL

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

alex_

Mysticrose said:

alex_ said:

Mysticrose said:

And Mike's wrong on detail. Nigel Lawson was sacked 10 years after Thatcher won her famous landslide, when her powers were long waning.

This is therefore incomparable. He has started out with a very clear message and he's done it with brutal brilliance.

It is certainly however true that you have a sketchy grasp of detail. Thatcher didn’t win a “landslide” in 1979. In 1989 she was widely perceived to be at the height of her powers, with total control over her Government -no opposition could stand up to her.

It was arguably that which resulted in her making so many mistakes, sacking or losing ministers who were more important than she realised, introducing the poll tax etc etc. PMs ultimately rule on the back of the support of their MPs. Creating support bases for internal dissent on the back benches almost always leads to trouble eventually (and will happen naturally anyway of course - but most try to avoid accelerating the process)

It's ridiculous to compare Johnson starting as he means to go on with Thatcher 10 years into her 12 year reign. Her demise was under way. You're the one who is beyond 'sketchy'. 1989 saw her introduce 'The Scottish experiment' with her poll tax. She was already losing her grip, with Labour beginning to breathe again under Neil Kinnock's leadership. Your 'widely perceived' is short hand for 'I haven't got a single backup for this.' I remember 1989 well and Thatcher's zenith had occurred just before her 1987 victory. She was already on the wane.

1979 was a crushing victory for Thatcher, though even less than Johnson's crushing victory this time around.

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

You miss my point. Of course Johnson has the power to pretty much do what he wants. As did Thatcher in 1989. This is not about whether they are making good decisions, but whether they have the power to make them unfettered. In 1989 that power increasingly resulted in Thatcher making bad ones as she began to believe in her own infallibility. Only time will tell if an unfettered Johnson will do the same.

Remember the saying “every PM needs a Willie...”?

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

I would have thought personally it would make paralysing squabbles more likely, not less likely.

ydoethur

tlg86 said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

That's a brave front page from The Mirror.

Is brave the word?

Country is now run by a Government filled with spineless stooges

Expecting any libel writs?

I was thinking more about the antisemitic trope.

The puppet master? Is Cummings Jewish? I didn't know.

Either that sort of image is acceptable or it is not. Whether he is Jewish or not is besides the point.

Thatcher was constantly portrayed as Reagan’s puppet. As long as it’s not implying a particular group or race is controlling somebody I really don’t see the problem.

Do you have a problem when Soros is portrayed like that?

You make a fair point. My answer would be however that unlike the mural referred to - which was clearly a ripoff of Nazi antisemitic propaganda - I don’t think it’s intended to ape any antisemitic tropes about Soros. Although as you have just pointed out, if it can be interpreted that way (particularly as the Mirror has a somewhat chequered past on such issues) it might have been wiser to avoid it.

malcolmg

alex_ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Holidaygate rumbles on.

The mystery over who funded Boris Johnson’s New Year Caribbean holiday deepened last night as the luxury villa’s owner told the Daily Mail it was not a freebie.

Sarah Richardson, who owns the magnificent home where the Prime Minister stayed on Mustique, confirmed that she and her husband Craig had rented it out – and that they had ‘got paid’.

However, she said she had ‘no idea’ who had actually covered the cost of the rental as it had been handled by The Mustique Company, the island’s management company.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8001973/US-financier-owns-Mustique-property-says-paid-PMs-stay.html

Isn’t the obvious assumption that the person who paid was somebody who booked a holiday, paid in advance, and then cancelled. Who probably had no idea that the property had then been made available to Johnson?

One would have thought that Johnson had more than enough money to avoid the need to seek out and accept freebies though. Maybe he really is as profligate with his own money as he will be with the country’s. Or pays a hell of a lot of child support.

He is just a greedy troughing buffoon, will be amazed if he has put his hand in his pocket.

malcolmg

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Just means they are under number 10 and chancellor is a nodding donkey.

logical_song

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Do you ever think that something Boris/Cummings do is unwise?

SouthamObserver

Cummings has assembled a spectacularly untalented cabinet. Labour spent five years with most of its best people stuck on the backbenches. They may now return to the front ones. Across the floor of the house they will be facing Raab, Patel, Truss, Braverman, Williamson, Sunak and multiple other placemen and women, as well as a PM who is incapable of handling detail and who hides away whenever the going gets tough. It could get interesting sooner than I was expecting.

Dura_Ace

The way the tories are pursuing the British Asian vote with the type of positive discrimination that they claim to eschew is notable.

SouthamObserver

Dura_Ace said:

The way the tories are pursuing the British Asian vote with the type of positive discrimination that they claim to eschew is notable.

I don’t think that’s it at all. Everyone appointed yesterday got their jobs because they agreed to the terms Cummings set, not because of their ethnicity.

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

ydoethur

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

If it’s as successful as his exam reforms, we’re stuffed.

OldKingCole

Good morning everyone; better looking day here, but red sky in the morning..... shepherds warning..... may well apply.

On topic I suspect the potentially disastrous appointment will be Brandon Lewis, rather than Rishi.

A_View_From_Cumbria5

DavidL said:

The real difference is that Lawson was a genuine heavyweight, as responsible for the creation and development of “Thatcherism” as Maggie herself. He had driven both the Big Bang in the City and the privatisation agenda along with several iterations of monetary policy. His book, the View from number 11, remains one of the best books on the mechanics of Chancellorship there is. Maggie falling out with him was a deep rift in the whole government project suggesting underlying divisions that would ultimately bring her down.

The Saj, in contrast, has never given a single budget, never contributed an original idea, showed no deep understanding of what he was trying to do and has fallen out with his boss for much more superficial reasons. It creates no rift and does nothing to undermine Boris.

The rift between Thatcher and Lawson centred upon policy towards the EC. Lawson wanted greater co-operation, Thatcher less. Ironic that as time progressed Lawson became one of the greatest advocates of the position Mrs Thatcher held when they were in government.

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Nigelb

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except we do not have a presidential system, and while everything seems achievable in the first flush of victory, Johnson is very likely to find himself with a shortage of allies when the going gets tough.
One might add that in such circumstances, the financial markets might not the entirely keen on the Treasury being run as an annexe of No.10.

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Maybe. It might result in a lack of plurality of ideas. We shall see.

Nigelb

Mike is way too modest.
He’s more than old enough to remember that the last Chancellor to enjoy so short a term in office was Iain Macleod. And that only because he died in post.

TGOHF666

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

Nigelb

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Maybe. It might result in a lack of plurality of ideas. We shall see.

I don’t know. Cummings has at least ten every day before breakfast.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Has it been noted that the Treasury was not the only department where the sacking of SPADs was enforced ?

SouthamObserver

When will Cummings reshuffle Johnson?

SouthamObserver

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

IanB2

No Times, Telegraph or Mail front pages?

DecrepiterJohnL

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Maybe. But there is a good economic case for investment, and if growth is delivered, that will take care of it (assuming Project Fear was wrong about Brexit). This is not the Conservative economic policy of the past decade; if the announcements are to be believed, it is closer to Labour's. That is a big if, however.

TGOHF666

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

Foxy

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Has it been noted that the Treasury was not the only department where the sacking of SPADs was enforced ?

Beria has had his way.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1228028004468654080?s=19

IanB2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sajid Javid, Philip Hammond, Ken Clarke: maybe Boris just hates Chancellors.

Boris is probably akin to those HR managers who gaze at their desktop and wonder what the green icon for Excel actually does.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Complex business requires critical friends who can safely voice their differences without fear of reprisals. That seems to have disappeared here.

While the treasury and HMRC both need to be taken down a few pegs (for instance the forthcoming IR35 changes are going to seriously impact the UK's knowledge economy) I think this change is not going to fix that and just create other problems...

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Nah, it will be deficit spending by the bucket load, indeed tax cuts for higher earners are likely.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Has it been noted that the Treasury was not the only department where the sacking of SPADs was enforced ?

Beria has had his way.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1228028004468654080?s=19

Buckland presumably to be known hereafter as Sub... ?

Foxy

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

IanB2

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

It will be ironic if the next Labour government’s principal task is clearing up the financial mess left by the Tories.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

No Times, Telegraph or Mail front pages?

The Mail is there (top left). The Sun is missing but iirc asked for its front pages not to be tweeted in previews so short of nipping down to the newsagent, it might be hard to find its front page.

eek

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Nah, it will be deficit spending by the bucket load, indeed tax cuts for higher earners are likely.

Modern Monetary theory says that isn't a problem provided you have your own currency and keep some things in check

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-21/modern-monetary-theory-beginner-s-guide?

It does require importing workers though...

Nigelb

This polls looks likely to add to Biden's woes:

Majority of voters say Hunter Biden's job at Burisma was 'inappropriate'
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483066-majority-of-voters-say-hunter-bidens-job-at-burisma-was-inappropriate-poll

In the context of Trump's behaviour, this is a could be viewed as a truly minor matter (and indeed there is no firm evidence of any wrongdoing, let alone anything actually illegal), but for someone aspiring to run against Trump, the poll results could be devastating.

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

IanB2

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

Some doctors probably are now excessively remunerated. But I doubt you'll find any profession where people would work extra hours if they could get more financial benefit from working fewer hours.

eek

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

The Doctors don't need to work overtime and / or can afford to retire.

If anything that's the opposite of greedy.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Brooke, I don't share the weird, almost cultish zealous love for the NHS some seem to delight in, but I don't agree that the problem is greedy doctors. The problem is a short-sighted policy that's having an obvious effect. If you remove an incentive to keep working it's predictable fewer people will keep working.

The greed here is on the part of the Government and its taxation policy.

philiph

IanB2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

Some doctors probably are now excessively remunerated. But I doubt you'll find any profession where people would work extra hours if they could get more financial benefit from working fewer hours.

I suspect you don't get many professions where they get the choice or option.

Cyclefree

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

Cyclefree

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

Would you pay a 100% or more tax rate?

Luckyguy1983

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

British one. And as far as I am concerned, that's still a win.

Cyclefree

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

Mysticrose said:

Johnson has a thumping mandate. He's soaring in the polls. If ever he has the chance to set out his stall, now is it. He can almost do what he wants. That includes sacking a highly ambitious but overrated Sajid Javid.

Johnson won. Johnson's in power and has power. The time will come to land blows. This isn't it. I'm afraid that a number of commentators and posters are still stuck in the mindset of the last Parliament.

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

British one. And as far as I am concerned, that's still a win.

A bureaucrat who is not elected and whom you can’t vote out of power and who is not answerable to our elected representatives and whom it is not possible to scrutinise.

A win, you say?

What low expectations you have.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Nah, it will be deficit spending by the bucket load, indeed tax cuts for higher earners are likely.

Yes, Javid was contemplating a mansion tax and cut to pension relief to cut the deficit, now he is gone it will be Berlusconi style tax cuts and more spending, neither Boris or Cummings care about deficits

DecrepiterJohnL

eek said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Nah, it will be deficit spending by the bucket load, indeed tax cuts for higher earners are likely.

Modern Monetary theory says that isn't a problem provided you have your own currency and keep some things in check

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-21/modern-monetary-theory-beginner-s-guide?

It does require importing workers though...

Modern monetary theory shares its acronym with ...

tlg86

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

British one. And as far as I am concerned, that's still a win.

A bureaucrat who is not elected and whom you can’t vote out of power and who is not answerable to our elected representatives and whom it is not possible to scrutinise.

A win, you say?

What low expectations you have.

I'm sorry, but Cummings can very much be voted out of power thanks to FPTP. Again, it's not the Tories' fault that the Labour Party is an utter mess.

HYUFD

RBS group to become Natwest group

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51500062

northernpowerhouse2

IanB2 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

It will be ironic if the next Labour government’s principal task is clearing up the financial mess left by the Tories.

Might be the first time in modern history.

IanB2

Iain Martin from Reaction commented in a tweet yesterday afternoon that, in the latest piece of reshuffle news, “Boris Johnson has accepted the role of deputy prime minister”.

HYUFD

Shortage of dentists face masks due to coronavirus

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51493492

TheScreamingEagles

Well Bumble's not a fan, this reshuffle is doomed.

https://twitter.com/BumbleCricket/status/1228236089011265536

Casino_Royale

Are there any bookies offering a price on Al Gore to be Democratic Nominee, or Next President?

malcolmg

HYUFD said:

RBS group to become Natwest group

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51500062

It has always been Natwest

TheScreamingEagles

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Nah, it will be deficit spending by the bucket load, indeed tax cuts for higher earners are likely.

Yes, Javid was contemplating a mansion tax and cut to pension relief to cut the deficit, now he is gone it will be Berlusconi style tax cuts and more spending, neither Boris or Cummings care about deficits

Mrs Thatcher would have kicked their arses and quite rightly said neither Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings are Tories.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

Are there any bookies offering a price on Al Gore to be Democratic Nominee, or Next President?

None that I can see.

DecrepiterJohnL

northernpowerhouse2 said:

IanB2 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

It will be ironic if the next Labour government’s principal task is clearing up the financial mess left by the Tories.

Might be the first time in modern history.

The first time since 1997, which now seems a long time ago.

Cyclefree

tlg86 said:

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

British one. And as far as I am concerned, that's still a win.

A bureaucrat who is not elected and whom you can’t vote out of power and who is not answerable to our elected representatives and whom it is not possible to scrutinise.

A win, you say?

What low expectations you have.

I'm sorry, but Cummings can very much be voted out of power thanks to FPTP. Again, it's not the Tories' fault that the Labour Party is an utter mess.

What constituency is he an MP for? Remind me.

Foxy

Alanbrooke said:

Foxy said:

TGOHF666 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

Fat cat public sector defined benefit pensions would be a better place to start if you are dumb enough to want to tax pensions.

It's been done with the pensions taper, with the small side effect of a staffing crisis.

greedy doctors care more about money than patients

People acting on financial disincentive, who would have thought that a Tory would fail to understand that?

Action was promised within the first 30 days in the Tory manifesto. Not that that is worth anything.

https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news/tories-pledge-to-review-nhs-pensions-crisis-in-first-30-days/

IanB2

tlg86 said:

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

It goes back an awful lot further than that. Looking back over the decades, people are so used to the concept of the powerful Chancellor as right-hand man and/or check on the Prime Minister (Osborne, Brown, Clarke, Lawson, Howe, etc etc) that the notion of the Chancellor being just another cabinet minister feels quite alien. But that's what the situation would now appear to be.

We need to dispense with the idea of No.10 and No.11 acting as a duumvirate and treat Boris Johnson as a more presidential figure. We ought instead to assume that Rishi Sunak's job will be to look after the books and to develop taxation and borrowing options in line with the Prime Minister's needs and priorities, and not to co-determine those needs and priorities himself.

Except our more successful governments tend to be team efforts. Governing is hard and there is far too much for one person to be responsible for all the ideas, innovations and direction of travel. A definite weakness with Boris is his lack of a close cadres of like minded friends who can work together for a common objective. Eventually it will weaken him. But not yet.

If there is a joint number 10/11 economic team isn't that more likely, not less likely, to result in a team effort to pull in the same direction?

Cummings giving himself the economy to run as well as everything else is a bold move. Apparently, he’ll be negotiating Brexit too!

He has managed to consolidate a lot of power around himself, and has eliminated rivals and threats. Any Russophile can recognise his man of steel approach.

I cannot see Johnson having the backbone to sack him, so it is not clear how he goes.

Take Back Control...

Yes, indeed. We have taken back control from EU bureaucrats and given it to a scruffy English one instead.

British one. And as far as I am concerned, that's still a win.

A bureaucrat who is not elected and whom you can’t vote out of power and who is not answerable to our elected representatives and whom it is not possible to scrutinise.

A win, you say?

What low expectations you have.

I'm sorry, but Cummings can very much be voted out of power thanks to FPTP. Again, it's not the Tories' fault that the Labour Party is an utter mess.

We can only watch and hope that at the appropriate time those lucky voters living in marginal seats make the right decision.

northernpowerhouse2

HYUFD said:

Shortage of dentists face masks due to coronavirus

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51493492

A face mask is highly unlikely to filter small enough to stop an airborne virus. All it does ois stop you from putting your own grubby hands into your mouth so stopping you from either passing it on through contact or contracting it.

DecrepiterJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

Are there any bookies offering a price on Al Gore to be Democratic Nominee, or Next President?

1000/1 against Gore next president on Betfair exchange, where sfaict he is not quoted as Democrat nominee.

Nigelb

DecrepiterJohnL said:

northernpowerhouse2 said:

IanB2 said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF666 said:

The idea to cut pension relief for those in the 40% band was crass and stupid.

He is no loss.

At some point the spending Cummings is planning will have to be paid for. Tax rises will be a part of that. There is no magic money tree.

It will be ironic if the next Labour government’s principal task is clearing up the financial mess left by the Tories.

Might be the first time in modern history.

The first time since 1997, which now seems a long time ago.

The financial legacy in 97 was a pretty good one. whatever the other failings of the outgoing government.

SandyRentool

Joined up government: Cumstain gets to tell Rishi Rich where to spaff the cash.

CINO

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well Bumble's not a fan, this reshuffle is doomed.

https://twitter.com/BumbleCricket/status/1228236089011265536

Sticking up for competent bumblers.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228204057396801536?s=20

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228115558673125377?s=20