politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting rid of the FTPA won’t be that easy

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting rid of the FTPA won’t be that easy

The classic interpretation is wrong. Britain’s constitution is not unusual because it is uncodified (or unwritten, to use the inaccurate but more frequently-used description). It is, of course, uncodified – it cannot be found in a single source – and it is, in some important aspects of convention, unwritten; and while the former is unusual, to focus there misses the crucial point and places the stress on the wrong thing.

Read the full story here

Jonathan

Fascinating

IanB2

Second

TheScreamingEagles

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

IshmaelZ

IshmaelZ said:

SandyRentool said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.

I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.

I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.

Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.

Not good.

Good or not, it is simply what routinely happens at SAGE meetings where in some cases observers outnumber scientists. 3 sets ofminutes, to recap

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

FPT

Casino_Royale

Absolutely fascinating David. Essential reading.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

MarqueeMark

What if a law was passed saying that the FTPA was repealed as if it had never existed and the position is to be deemed restored to the status quo ante? Surely if the judges had to examine any questions brought to it, it would be clear that Parliament's intention was unambiguous?

Jonathan

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

There is now a mechanism for a Parliament to bind its successors. Simply hold a referendum on the subject, 😁 The precedent is that result has to be respected by future governments, even if circumstances change.

Slackbladder

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

Slackbladder

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

There is now a mechanism for a Parliament to bind its successors. Simply hold a referendum on the subject, 😁 The precedent is that result has to be respected by future governments, even if circumstances change.

No. The bind could be removed by democratic means. Either a manifesto commitment in a GE, or second referendum.

TheScreamingEagles

I’m really up for a discussion of the Septennial Act 1716.

As a nation that believes in taking back from our unelected rulers do we really want to give King Charles III more powers?

Scott_xP

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

Cummings is now "the Government"...

Yeah, no problem there.

RochdalePioneers

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

HYUFD

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

There is now a mechanism for a Parliament to bind its successors. Simply hold a referendum on the subject, 😁 The precedent is that result has to be respected by future governments, even if circumstances change.

As Parliament showed from January 2019 to December 2019 it can also refuse to respect the result of a referendum it itself voted for if it dislikes that result

DecrepiterJohnL

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

SandyRentool said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.

I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.

I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.

Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.

Not good.

Good or not, it is simply what routinely happens at SAGE meetings where in some cases observers outnumber scientists. 3 sets ofminutes, to recap

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

FPT

Also from FPT in response to your identifiying the Toddbrook minutes:

A quick google search on the Environment Agency nominees named finds the Head of Emergency Planning (including flood response) at the Red Cross, the EA's flood and coastal risk manager, and the EA's research director and chief scientist. Not quite the same thing.

ETA that example is more like having the CMO at observing the SAGE meetings, not the Chief SpAd who iirc sports a degree in history.

alex_

FPT

MaxPB said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

And finally a 2014 SAGE Ebola meeting featuring two not-even-governmental attendees from the Wellcome Trust

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

Source for all this

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage

Time to release the SAGE minutes from Feb and March then, so we can see what was discussed and when.

It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.

You know why and I know why. Let's not pretend otherwise. This committee is going to be responsible for a lot of tough decisions and hardship. Better to let them make the sausage in private.

Maybe they haven’t written them yet. And haven’t yet decided what they want them to say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s

HYUFD

I did a law course at City university over a decade ago and Robert Craig was one of the tutors, as David Herdson says he is very good on constitutional law

alex_

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

Titulus Regius

IshmaelZ

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

SandyRentool said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.

I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.

I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.

Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.

Not good.

Good or not, it is simply what routinely happens at SAGE meetings where in some cases observers outnumber scientists. 3 sets ofminutes, to recap

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

FPT

Also from FPT in response to your identifiying the Toddbrook minutes:

A quick google search on the Environment Agency nominees named finds the Head of Emergency Planning (including flood response) at the Red Cross, the EA's flood and coastal risk manager, and the EA's research director and chief scientist. Not quite the same thing.

ETA that example is more like having the CMO at observing the SAGE meetings, not the Chief SpAd who iirc sports a degree in history.

Fair enough but what all 3 meetings have in common is a bod from the Cabinet office - also not the same thing, but definitely political rather than scientific.

kle4

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

TOPPING

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

kle4

Eh. With both the big two on the record as wanting to ditch the FTPA it might be more complicated than theyd like, but will it be hard?

I was eventually persuaded it was not fit for purpose but thats still mostly down to our political culture not adjusting itself to the situations.

RochdalePioneers

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

Jonathan

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

Nothing on BBC news about it, though if confirmed he did die as he was only 35 it was more likely assassination than natural causes, ecen if indirectly via deliberately botched surgery

TGOHF666

https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1253954451796262912?s=21

logical_song

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

MarqueeMark

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

Cummings is now "the Government"...

Yeah, no problem there.

You really think the senior advior to Number 10 is not "of the Government"?

You really think Peter Mandelson was utterly disconnected from the Government of Tony Blair? Good luck running that line....

RochdalePioneers

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

Yes it is. I do think though that our "American style media, government and economy" compared reasonably with the real deal. Americans voted for a self-confessed sexual predator who advocated ingesting harmful chemicals at a press conference. Britons voted for a buffoon who whilst not an intellectual titan has at least managed to get the basics right.

Johnson vs Trump isn't the fair comparison it's often made out to be.

Slackbladder

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?

Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.

HYUFD

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

Yes it is. I do think though that our "American style media, government and economy" compared reasonably with the real deal. Americans voted for a self-confessed sexual predator who advocated ingesting harmful chemicals at a press conference. Britons voted for a buffoon who whilst not an intellectual titan has at least managed to get the basics right.

Johnson vs Trump isn't the fair comparison it's often made out to be.

Though Biden is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box either not immune from allegations himself


https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1253835494468866050?s=20

AlastairMeeks

The problem is not the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is the inadequacy of MPs to work within its dynamics. It would be entirely in keeping for them to be too inadequate to work out a replacement for it.

Interesting and informative article, thanks.

Scott_xP

MarqueeMark said:

You really think the senior advior to Number 10 is not "of the Government"?

That's not what either of us said, and you know it.

Earlier the statement was made that what the public wants is our elected officials running things, not unelected bureaucrats

So MPs should be quizzing the scientists.

SPADs running meetings doesn't meet that criteria

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

Nothing on BBC news about it, though if confirmed he did die as he was only 35 it was more likely assassination than natural causes, ecen if indirectly via deliberately botched surgery

Reuters saying China has sent medical team to help him:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-politics-exclusive/exclusive-china-sent-team-including-medical-experts-to-advise-on-north-koreas-kim-sources-idUKKCN2263E0

Jonathan

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

Yes it is. I do think though that our "American style media, government and economy" compared reasonably with the real deal. Americans voted for a self-confessed sexual predator who advocated ingesting harmful chemicals at a press conference. Britons voted for a buffoon who whilst not an intellectual titan has at least managed to get the basics right.

Johnson vs Trump isn't the fair comparison it's often made out to be.

Johnson is in a different league from Trump. Nevertheless there are still those on the right who look at America today and like what they see.

logical_song

Slackbladder said:

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?

Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.

Do you actually read these postings before commenting?

"TOPPING said:
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings."

JohnLilburne

RochdalePioneers said:

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

I agree with much of that. However surely you cannot guarantee both a federal constitution and autonomous regional government as local government will be a matter for the constituent Countries. My response to the Labour policy of "government of countries and regions" the is "OK then, what regions are you going to split Scotland into?"

HYUFD

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

Yes it is. I do think though that our "American style media, government and economy" compared reasonably with the real deal. Americans voted for a self-confessed sexual predator who advocated ingesting harmful chemicals at a press conference. Britons voted for a buffoon who whilst not an intellectual titan has at least managed to get the basics right.

Johnson vs Trump isn't the fair comparison it's often made out to be.

Boris also won the UK popular vote in 2019, Trump lost the US popular vote in 2016

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m really up for a discussion of the Septennial Act 1716.

As a nation that believes in taking back from our unelected rulers do we really want to give King Charles III more powers?

An interesting way of putting it. Given we've not been a nation that believes in taking back all power from unelected rulers, infact we left quite a lot theoretically in place, you seem in effect to be arguing that while we dont want to give more power to King Charles III, nor should we take any power from him. A curious position for s Republican!

After all, we're a nation that believes in taking back from our unelected rulers only up to a certain point, by evidence of constitutional settlement, not one which believes in taking back from them completely.

TOPPING

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

The key is what the government does with the advice and what it says it is doing.

At the moment it is saying it is following scientific advice when my guess is that it is listening to scientific advice and then overlaying a political policy. It shouldn't do this.

As to unbiased advice? I'm sure they would give unbiased advice before they would say that their advice didn't coincide with government policy.

Everything about this crisis is political. The scientific advice is secondary.

HYUFD

RochdalePioneers said:

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

Agree with some of that but if we had PR that means the LDs would have determined who formed the government for every general election for tye last few decades bar 2015 when UKIP woild have held the balance of power

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1253776549343571970

As the replies to this may draw the attention of lawyers, I wont post them.

TOPPING

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

Cummings is now "the Government"...

Yeah, no problem there.

You really think the senior advior to Number 10 is not "of the Government"?

You really think Peter Mandelson was utterly disconnected from the Government of Tony Blair? Good luck running that line....

A hitherto silent Mandy/Blair fan.

Eeuuuuw.

Sandpit

Good piece as usual David. I guess the key question has to be whether the 2019 circumstances were unique, with a government shorn of a majority for anything they wanted to do, an opposition unwilling to call a vote of confidence, and an activist Speaker prepared to tear up his own mostly unwritten rule book in order to facilitate the opposition?

I would say that’s probably a situation we’re not going to see again in our lifetimes, which gives time for more thoughtful discussions around many constitutional issues, what should replace the FTPA being one of them.

TGOHF666

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

Cummings is now "the Government"...

Yeah, no problem there.

You really think the senior advior to Number 10 is not "of the Government"?

You really think Peter Mandelson was utterly disconnected from the Government of Tony Blair? Good luck running that line....

After spending the Brexit campaign saying “listen to the experts “ it turns out what Scott and the FBPE crowd meant was “ Listen to the experts but not on a conference call” ..

Tough crowd..

Slackbladder

Scott_xP said:

MarqueeMark said:

You really think the senior advior to Number 10 is not "of the Government"?

That's not what either of us said, and you know it.

Earlier the statement was made that what the public wants is our elected officials running things, not unelected bureaucrats

So MPs should be quizzing the scientists.

SPADs running meetings doesn't meet that criteria

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

Nothing on BBC news about it, though if confirmed he did die as he was only 35 it was more likely assassination than natural causes, ecen if indirectly via deliberately botched surgery

Reuters saying China has sent medical team to help him:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-politics-exclusive/exclusive-china-sent-team-including-medical-experts-to-advise-on-north-koreas-kim-sources-idUKKCN2263E0

In which case if he died China probably bumped him off to put a puppet in his place.

However all runour at this stage

CarlottaVance

Excellent thread header Mr Herdson - thank you - as you observe its a lot more complicated than appears at first glance.

In other news, speculation on Kim Jong Un continues:

https://www.ibtimes.sg/china-medical-team-north-korea-tv-boss-kim-jong-un-dead-solid-source-43725

kle4

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

I think people ascribe an unrealistic level of power and control to Cummings. He seems like a disruptive and difficult figure, and i don't like much of what I hear of his ideas and personality, but I dont understand this degree of fear of him, that all he touches is compromised. Is it because he was played by Benedict Cumberbatch on TV?

Sandpit

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

There is now a mechanism for a Parliament to bind its successors. Simply hold a referendum on the subject, 😁 The precedent is that result has to be respected by future governments, even if circumstances change.

The precedent is that Parliament refused to implement the result of the referendum, hence we ended up with a new Parliament.

Dura_Ace

Sinophobia is now going mainstream in the tory party. Now that the ERG are spent the new Sonderkommando is the CRG!

https://www.ft.com/content/b354c58b-06fc-4848-a823-584bcc0c3869

logical_song

TOPPING said:

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

The key is what the government does with the advice and what it says it is doing.

At the moment it is saying it is following scientific advice when my guess is that it is listening to scientific advice and then overlaying a political policy. It shouldn't do this.

As to unbiased advice? I'm sure they would give unbiased advice before they would say that their advice didn't coincide with government policy.

Everything about this crisis is political. The scientific advice is secondary.

If that's the case should the government say that they had scientific advice but are ignoring it?
The virus will of course not worry about politics.
Here's a scientific advisor hearing her political master talking about how to tackle coronavirus.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11470392/birxs-reaction-trump-disinfectant-injections-coronavirus-dettol/

CarlottaVance

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

Nothing on BBC news about it, though if confirmed he did die as he was only 35 it was more likely assassination than natural causes, ecen if indirectly via deliberately botched surgery

Reuters saying China has sent medical team to help him:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-politics-exclusive/exclusive-china-sent-team-including-medical-experts-to-advise-on-north-koreas-kim-sources-idUKKCN2263E0

In which case if he died China probably bumped him off to put a puppet in his place.

However all runour at this stage

Interesting that it was a Beijing backed Hong Kong News station that broke the news with an unverified photo:

https://twitter.com/wosaurus/status/1253967204527206403?s=20

Scott_xP

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

NickPalmer

Interesting article - I suspect it won't be a priority for the Government for a year ro two...

In a similar vein, what do we tthink of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-donald-trump-delay-election

I can perfectly well see Trump making an argument. "Postal voting is crooked, no wonder the Democrats want it. In-person voting right now isn't safe - looking at all the cases that have arisen from folk standing in line for the Wisconsin primary. We wanna have an election real soon, but it's gotta be safe."

It appears to be impossible, as Congress has to do it. Emergency powers, waved through by a complaisant Supreme Court? Is there a way?

Scott_xP

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1253776549343571970

As the replies to this may draw the attention of lawyers, I wont post them.

https://twitter.com/iamnickcrossley/status/1253956082046812161

kle4

AlastairMeeks said:

The problem is not the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is the inadequacy of MPs to work within its dynamics. It would be entirely in keeping for them to be too inadequate to work out a replacement for it.

I think this captures the principle problem. Whatever problems there were with the Act were not insurmountable to our body politic. They just didn't try.

I even remember complaints 5 year parliaments would mean running out of things to do because it was more common for them to last 3-4 even though 5 was possible. As though it was beyond our politics to adjust and find things to do.

DecrepiterJohnL

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Jonathan said:

America is totally broken.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.

We have flirted with an American style media, government and economy. Unless you’re into injecting bleach, as a matter of urgency we need to avoid any further Americanisation.

America is broken.

Yes it is. I do think though that our "American style media, government and economy" compared reasonably with the real deal. Americans voted for a self-confessed sexual predator who advocated ingesting harmful chemicals at a press conference. Britons voted for a buffoon who whilst not an intellectual titan has at least managed to get the basics right.

Johnson vs Trump isn't the fair comparison it's often made out to be.

Johnson is in a different league from Trump. Nevertheless there are still those on the right who look at America today and like what they see.

Boris and Trump speak similarly, both having a tendency to interject whatever thought or joke pops into their heads. Trump had seen something somewhere about bleach, and perhaps our equivalent would be Boris outlining the government's self-isolation and social distancing guidelines but then adding that he'd be seeing his own mother.

On the right, there may be a similarity in that both the GOP and CCHQ came to regard their opponents as so dangerous that anything goes; the ends justify the means which might include misrepresentation, dirty tricks or gerrymandering.

CarlottaVance

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

This vision of Sir Patrick Vallance sitting mute in meetings with the PM while Svengali Cummings ignores the Committee minutes and reports and delivers his own version at complete variance with the facts is clearly the product of a fevered imagination. Taken your temperature recently?

eek

CarlottaVance said:

Excellent thread header Mr Herdson - thank you - as you observe its a lot more complicated than appears at first glance.

In other news, speculation on Kim Jong Un continues:

https://www.ibtimes.sg/china-medical-team-north-korea-tv-boss-kim-jong-un-dead-solid-source-43725

Probably worth saying it states that Kim Jong-un dead rather than Kim Jong has joined the undead and is the Night King north of the wall

Sandpit

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

Kim is/was only about 35 years old. I wonder what happened.

His health was extremely poor.

He was a heavy chain smoker and obese.

Being a medieval despot is stressful.

Nothing on BBC news about it, though if confirmed he did die as he was only 35 it was more likely assassination than natural causes, ecen if indirectly via deliberately botched surgery

Reuters saying China has sent medical team to help him:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-politics-exclusive/exclusive-china-sent-team-including-medical-experts-to-advise-on-north-koreas-kim-sources-idUKKCN2263E0

Is this going to be how Coronavirus ends up in North Korea?

RochdalePioneers

JohnLilburne said:

RochdalePioneers said:

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

I agree with much of that. However surely you cannot guarantee both a federal constitution and autonomous regional government as local government will be a matter for the constituent Countries. My response to the Labour policy of "government of countries and regions" the is "OK then, what regions are you going to split Scotland into?"

Don't live in Scotland so don't have personal experience of them, but do the 1973 - 1996 regions provide a starter for 10? At least you have that - in England (where regionalism really is needed) I know that big arguments would happen. As an example I live in the most northerly town in Yorkshire. We're subsumed into the Unitary authority of Stockton-on-Tees and are clearly an economic and social part of what seems to be called the Tees Valley these days far more than we are Yorkshire (no matter what our local "build a wall across the Tees" councillor wazzocks think).

Would we be allocated to a "Yorkshire" region? A north east region? A northumbria region? Don't know, but the reason for the long term decline of the NE is that it has minimal interest, attention, money from London and I know other parts of the UK who will say the same. Autonomy within a clearly defined framework seems at least to me like a solution. And with respects to federalism I don't see any other way to avoid the eventual collapse of the UK as a state - Scotland and NI will depart.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

Agree with some of that but if we had PR that means the LDs would have determined who formed the government for every general election for tye last few decades bar 2015 when UKIP woild have held the balance of power

I am a democrat. I may profoundly disagree with how some people vote but each vote has to be counted equally. If the way people vote means that currently "minor" parties end up potentially holding the balance of power then that is what people voted for - we always get the correct result in any election because people are free to vote as they see fit. They're only "minor" because our non-democratic system makes them so. 4m votes UKIP got, and no representation at all. Absurd.

Slackbladder

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

An advisor advises, the PM decides. No doubt the PM also had the minutes of whatever meetings, just as the cabinet would do too.

Of course Cummings would put his opinion across. Just like any advisor would, and no doubt has done throughout history.

Did Campbell never 'spin' what he talked to Blair about?

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

This is about Cummings, and his bogey man status to all the people he beat in the referendum. They don't like him, and they want to get him.

NickPalmer

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

I can't get worked up about this (as PM I thinhk I'd want to have at least an observer in the room), but it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

CarlottaVance

Never fear! Carole is on the case.....

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1253761561149259777?s=20

Scott_xP

CarlottaVance said:

This vision of Sir Patrick Vallance sitting mute in meetings with the PM while Svengali Cummings ignores the Committee minutes and reports and delivers his own version at complete variance with the facts is clearly the product of a fevered imagination.

You have indeed imagined it

We don't have the minutes so we don't know what they contain.

And I asked the question who briefed the PM, and you have made up an answer

kyf_100

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The problem is not the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is the inadequacy of MPs to work within its dynamics. It would be entirely in keeping for them to be too inadequate to work out a replacement for it.

I think this captures the principle problem. Whatever problems there were with the Act were not insurmountable to our body politic. They just didn't try.

I even remember complaints 5 year parliaments would mean running out of things to do because it was more common for them to last 3-4 even though 5 was possible. As though it was beyond our politics to adjust and find things to do.

In every place I have ever worked, Parkinson's Law has held true. I doubt Parliament is an exception.

RochdalePioneers

Sandpit said:

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m a fan of the FTPA lest we forget prior to the FTPA the constitutional convention of the sovereign granting an election was based on a letter written to The Times written by a pseudonym.

Anything is better than that.

We need a fully codified constitution.

Yet no parliament can bind its successors, so any subsequent parliament could repeal any statutory constitution just as it could repeal the FTPA.

There is now a mechanism for a Parliament to bind its successors. Simply hold a referendum on the subject, 😁 The precedent is that result has to be respected by future governments, even if circumstances change.

The precedent is that Parliament refused to implement the result of the referendum, hence we ended up with a new Parliament.

Parliament had barely started implementing it when the new PM dissolved it and called an election. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the actions of the 2015 parliament. Just as the 2019 parliament is not bound by the actions of the 2010 parliament and can do whatever it likes to the FTPA.

IshmaelZ

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

Let me make a really wild guess and surmise that the secretarial staff produced minutes which were then approved by the meeting and signed off by the Chairman.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

Never fear! Carole is on the case.....

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1253761561149259777?s=20

Carole does seem rather easily stupefied. Maybe politics isn't for her?

Scott_xP

Slackbladder said:

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

Asked

NickPalmer said:

it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

And answered...

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/apolyakova/status/1253762302609891331?s=20

Slackbladder

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

Asked

NickPalmer said:

it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

And answered...

We don't have any proof that Cumming's didn't kill King Jong Un either.

MaxPB

Speaking of Twitter idiots, did that other random ever produce his evidence for his theory on government run accounts?

TOPPING

Slackbladder said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

An advisor advises, the PM decides. No doubt the PM also had the minutes of whatever meetings, just as the cabinet would do too.

Of course Cummings would put his opinion across. Just like any advisor would, and no doubt has done throughout history.

Did Campbell never 'spin' what he talked to Blair about?

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

This is about Cummings, and his bogey man status to all the people he beat in the referendum. They don't like him, and they want to get him.

We haven't had a PM for the past month or so. In case you hadn't noticed.

Scott_xP

We are following the completely independent and scientific advice of a bunch of scientists and a Government SPAD who think he is a genius.

Who could possibly have any issue with that?

Slackbladder

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Never fear! Carole is on the case.....

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1253761561149259777?s=20

Carole does seem rather easily stupefied. Maybe politics isn't for her?

I'm not sure that getting up and making a cup of tea is for her either...

JohnLilburne

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The problem is not the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is the inadequacy of MPs to work within its dynamics. It would be entirely in keeping for them to be too inadequate to work out a replacement for it.

I think this captures the principle problem. Whatever problems there were with the Act were not insurmountable to our body politic. They just didn't try.

I even remember complaints 5 year parliaments would mean running out of things to do because it was more common for them to last 3-4 even though 5 was possible. As though it was beyond our politics to adjust and find things to do.

It's not the job of governments to legislate incessantly. If there's nothing to do, they should do nothing. Or be reactive. (I would have said, it's actually not the job of governments to legislate at all, that's for Parliament. But the period of the 2017-2019 when we were ruled by resolutions of the House of Commons and Acts purporting to command the Government was unedifying)

Sandpit

NickPalmer said:

Interesting article - I suspect it won't be a priority for the Government for a year ro two...

In a similar vein, what do we tthink of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-donald-trump-delay-election

I can perfectly well see Trump making an argument. "Postal voting is crooked, no wonder the Democrats want it. In-person voting right now isn't safe - looking at all the cases that have arisen from folk standing in line for the Wisconsin primary. We wanna have an election real soon, but it's gotta be safe."

It appears to be impossible, as Congress has to do it. Emergency powers, waved through by a complaisant Supreme Court? Is there a way?

In theory Congress could change the date of the election, but it would take a constitutional amendment for the President’s term of office to be extended past Jan 20th 2021.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-no-the-president-can-not-delay-the-2020-election-amid-coronavirus-scare/65-e38b82ce-96b3-4e8c-aec7-71fca666662c

squareroot2

NickPalmer said:

Slackbladder said:

Commentators:

'Government should be asking more questions of scientists'

Commentators

'Why are advisors listening in meeting or asking questions of scientists'

Errrrrrr.......

I can't get worked up about this (as PM I thinhk I'd want to have at least an observer in the room), but it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

It is clearly a smear.. they are out to get Cummings.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/gideonrachman/status/1253967668002127876

MarqueeMark

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1253776549343571970

As the replies to this may draw the attention of lawyers, I wont post them.

https://twitter.com/iamnickcrossley/status/1253956082046812161

If these meetings are "top secret", then why in the name of fuck would the Government not be represented? The alternative is that groups of top scientists just implement stuff, by-passing Government. Which of these is the scariest notion, you twattish journos....

Slackbladder

Scott_xP said:

We are following the completely independent and scientific advice of a bunch of scientists and a Government SPAD who think he is a genius.

Who could possibly have any issue with that?

Are you proposing getting rid of SPADs and advisors completely then?

Cos at the moment that argument is nothing more than 'Cummings is a bit of a know it all'

Which would probably apply to any SPAD in the history of SPADs.

OllyT

kle4 said:

logical_song said:

TOPPING said:

It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.

But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)

Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.

If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.

I think people ascribe an unrealistic level of power and control to Cummings. He seems like a disruptive and difficult figure, and i don't like much of what I hear of his ideas and personality, but I dont understand this degree of fear of him, that all he touches is compromised. Is it because he was played by Benedict Cumberbatch on TV?

I don't think it's fear it's more suspicion of what influence he has behind the scenes. That suspicion is , of course, amplified when we have a PM who has a reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with detail.

Scott_xP

Slackbladder said:

Are you proposing getting rid of SPADs and advisors completely then?

Is a SPAD the most appropriate person to assign to an "independent Scientific committee" ?

IshmaelZ

Scott_xP said:

We are following the completely independent and scientific advice of a bunch of scientists and a Government SPAD who think he is a genius.

Who could possibly have any issue with that?

You really must stop believing everything you read in the grauniad. SAGE meetings are invariably attended by non scientists, as you will see from minutes of their last 3 incarnations

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

kle4

When Cummings leaves his position, even if voluntarily and amicably, the exultation from some quarters is going to be immense. 'We got him' will be the cry no doubt.

I just dont get it. We all have a good laugh at the idea Boris, being a bit lazy (except when ill when criticised for working too hard) essentially let's Cummings run things for him even to the point of it leading confrontation with ministers, but he's still just an adviser. An influential one to be sure. But advisers are small scale targets really. And he's probably not King Midas' successor, King Faeces (he was more literally named).

Scott_xP

IshmaelZ said:

SAGE meetings are invariably attended by non scientists

How many of these non scientists were SPADs to the PM?

malcolmg

IshmaelZ said:

IshmaelZ said:

SandyRentool said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.

I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.

I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.

Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.

Not good.

Good or not, it is simply what routinely happens at SAGE meetings where in some cases observers outnumber scientists. 3 sets ofminutes, to recap

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

FPT

Dom gives out the orders and scientists node sagely.

kle4

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

An advisor advises, the PM decides. No doubt the PM also had the minutes of whatever meetings, just as the cabinet would do too.

Of course Cummings would put his opinion across. Just like any advisor would, and no doubt has done throughout history.

Did Campbell never 'spin' what he talked to Blair about?

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

This is about Cummings, and his bogey man status to all the people he beat in the referendum. They don't like him, and they want to get him.

We haven't had a PM for the past month or so. In case you hadn't noticed.

Except we have, and had someone officially filling in for him no matter how many times you pretend we dont have one in order to make deputizing a bigger story than it is.

Slackbladder

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

Are you proposing getting rid of SPADs and advisors completely then?

Is a SPAD the most appropriate person to assign to an "independent Scientific committee" ?

That's not the question, the question is 'is there any reason why it's inappropriate?'

As far as I can see, No. He's getting information from a better clearly source, so can better inform him, and therefore the PM. As long as he's not actively influencing or directing the committee. which has 23 members on it..

CarlottaVance

Slackbladder said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

Asked

NickPalmer said:

it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

And answered...

We don't have any proof that Cumming's didn't kill King Jong Un either.

That was the Queen Mother. You never bought this whole "she died" thing did you?

AlastairMeeks

Others may find this of interest too:

https://twitter.com/henryjameslau/status/1253724758430101518?s=21

malcolmg

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1253776549343571970

As the replies to this may draw the attention of lawyers, I wont post them.

https://twitter.com/iamnickcrossley/status/1253956082046812161

If these meetings are "top secret", then why in the name of fuck would the Government not be represented? The alternative is that groups of top scientists just implement stuff, by-passing Government. Which of these is the scariest notion, you twattish journos....

Very surprised to see you supporting the rabid right wing duo of fatman Johnson and boy blunder cummings

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Never fear! Carole is on the case.....

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1253761561149259777?s=20

Carole does seem rather easily stupefied. Maybe politics isn't for her?

I'll never forget when a couple of years ago she thought she had a huge Tory sleaze story when a Tory donor was asked by his new bank for proof of identity and source of funds documentation.

Not realising the former is the standard procedure for all new customers and the latter is standard for all large investments.

malcolmg

TOPPING said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So Boris should now be attending all the Sage meetings as well in person?

Who conveyed the outcome of the SAGE meetings to the PM?

What spin did they put on them?

Did the PM or the rest of the cabinet (not a SPAD) have an opportunity to question the advice, or the spin?

An advisor advises, the PM decides. No doubt the PM also had the minutes of whatever meetings, just as the cabinet would do too.

Of course Cummings would put his opinion across. Just like any advisor would, and no doubt has done throughout history.

Did Campbell never 'spin' what he talked to Blair about?

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

This is about Cummings, and his bogey man status to all the people he beat in the referendum. They don't like him, and they want to get him.

We haven't had a PM for the past month or so. In case you hadn't noticed.

We have not had a PM for years

Jonathan

kle4 said:

When Cummings leaves his position, even if voluntarily and amicably, the exultation from some quarters is going to be immense. 'We got him' will be the cry no doubt.

I just dont get it. We all have a good laugh at the idea Boris, being a bit lazy (except when ill when criticised for working too hard) essentially let's Cummings run things for him even to the point of it leading confrontation with ministers, but he's still just an adviser. An influential one to be sure. But advisers are small scale targets really. And he's probably not King Midas' successor, King Faeces (he was more literally named).

Why did David Cameron describe Cummings as a career psychopath dripping poison if he is such a small benign influence?

Scott_xP

Slackbladder said:

As long as he's not actively influencing or directing the committee. which has 23 members on it..

According to the reporting he has more agency in the meetings than the CMO of Scotland, Ireland or Wales.

What is the scientific justification for that?

RochdalePioneers

CarlottaVance said:

Slackbladder said:

Scott_xP said:

Slackbladder said:

So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?

No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.

Asked

NickPalmer said:

it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.

And answered...

We don't have any proof that Cumming's didn't kill King Jong Un either.

That was the Queen Mother. You never bought this whole "she died" thing did you?

The Queen Mother killed Kim Jong Un? More up the DofE's street isnt it...

JohnLilburne

RochdalePioneers said:

JohnLilburne said:

RochdalePioneers said:

An interesting header as always from David.

The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further:
A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments
Autonomous regional government
Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another
Fully proportional voting systems

As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package

I agree with much of that. However surely you cannot guarantee both a federal constitution and autonomous regional government as local government will be a matter for the constituent Countries. My response to the Labour policy of "government of countries and regions" the is "OK then, what regions are you going to split Scotland into?"

Don't live in Scotland so don't have personal experience of them, but do the 1973 - 1996 regions provide a starter for 10? At least you have that - in England (where regionalism really is needed) I know that big arguments would happen. As an example I live in the most northerly town in Yorkshire. We're subsumed into the Unitary authority of Stockton-on-Tees and are clearly an economic and social part of what seems to be called the Tees Valley these days far more than we are Yorkshire (no matter what our local "build a wall across the Tees" councillor wazzocks think).

Would we be allocated to a "Yorkshire" region? A north east region? A northumbria region? Don't know, but the reason for the long term decline of the NE is that it has minimal interest, attention, money from London and I know other parts of the UK who will say the same. Autonomy within a clearly defined framework seems at least to me like a solution. And with respects to federalism I don't see any other way to avoid the eventual collapse of the UK as a state - Scotland and NI will depart.

I agree with you about Teesside and of course it used to have its own county. But we seem to be obsessed with regions. You could divide England into 50 second tier governments with an average population of a million. The ceremonial county of Hampshire has a bigger population than many US states (although I would be open to hiving some of it off to a Blackwater Valley region). I am sure the Cornish would expect to be a region. While I think England should be radically decentralised into areas supported and recognised by the inhabitants, that should be a matter for an English government