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.
I am genuinely surprised the Guardian haven't eased her out, as she is bascially a left wing Alex Jones... absolutely everything is a massive conspiracy.
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.
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...
SAGE meetings are invariably attended by non scientists
How many of these non scientists were SPADs to the PM?
They were from the Cabinet Office, so just a slightly different sort of civil servant, and equally "blurring the distinction between politicians and scientists."
I have rarely seen such a non-point being defended. The grauniad simply didn't do their homework about how these meetings are constituted.
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.
The level of suspicion is because of the fear. I agree the worry is hes too influential, and he is very influential, but the theme of do many stories is outrage he offers advice, which is his job even if we dont like him. Now, is there something to him having too much pull with people besides Johnson?
The implication behind the accusations appears to be SAGE is now useless because Cummings either affected what they recommended by his very presence, or the PM will have ignored what they said to listen solely to Cummings.
The idea Cummings is that powerful I dont think can be explained other than fear. Abd to be clear I dont want his advice driving things either.
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
Would you expect anything else from CCHQ employee.
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?
Maybe Cameron didn't agree with him. People say such things about their political opponents
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
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?
The David Cameron whose career was ended in spectacular ignomy by Cummings' masterminded Brexit? That impartial observor David Cameron?
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
I think London is really the only area within England that should have its own regional Government. That would be fair on everyone.
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?
The David Cameron whose career was ended in spectacular ignomy by Cummings' masterminded Brexit? That impartial observor David Cameron?
Good point, except Cameron said it before all that.
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?
The David Cameron whose career was ended in spectacular ignomy by Cummings' masterminded Brexit? That impartial observor David Cameron?
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..
The other thing is, Cummings probably has a better capacity to understand what he is hearing than anyone else they could send from Number 10. Even his greatest detractors would have to admit that he has a significantly above-average understanding of science and its application to society.
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?
I dont believe I suggested his influence was small or benign. I said he was influential and noted how that influence led to conflict with ministers.
I merely think the reaction to him is disproportionate and thats unhelpful to those seeking to criticise the government, because him being involved in or commenting on anything is treated like a conspiracy in itself.
He stirs up a lot of shit and can be attacked for that. But I doubt everything he touches or looks at turns to shit, and the major complaint against him appears to be his existence. I'd save complaints to when hes causing resignations, blustering about things he knows nothing about, leaking silly ideas, and being vulgar because he thinks that shows hes a free thinker.
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.
A La Trump you surround yourself with nodding donkeys and you get the answers you want. You just pick the right experts and have them run by your pet doberman and hey presto.
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.
The level of suspicion is because of the fear. I agree the worry is hes too influential, and he is very influential, but the theme of do many stories is outrage he offers advice, which is his job even if we dont like him. Now, is there something to him having too much pull with people besides Johnson?
The implication behind the accusations appears to be SAGE is now useless because Cummings either affected what they recommended by his very presence, or the PM will have ignored what they said to listen solely to Cummings.
The idea Cummings is that powerful I dont think can be explained other than fear. Abd to be clear I dont want his advice driving things either.
Look, I don't think Cummings is running the SAGE committee meetings but I would like to be assured that he is not unduly influencing them. If it's all a fuss about nothing why not simply release the minutes of any Cummings interventions ?
Cummings is an operator for sure and there are more than one way of getting what you want as we saw by the way he manoeuvred the last Chancellor out of office.
I would also be less concerned about Cummings activities if I felt Johnson had a grip on things but we knew that was going to unlikely when we elected him.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
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
I think London is really the only area within England that should have its own regional Government. That would be fair on everyone.
They can stick their regional crap right up their jacksies
The vehemency with which the BoZo fanbois are determined to claim it doesn't rather suggests it does. A lot.
Judging the worthiness or significance of something because of who you believe is opposing your view is always a bad idea. People should not dismiss your views outright simply because of suspected motivations. And the premise falls apart if even one person can be found who does not have that motivation but shares the view.
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
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....
Any other advisor wouldn’t be an issue.
They just hate DC, mostly because Brexit, but also because he plans to turn the senior civil service upside-down - and has collected plenty of evidence in recent weeks to suggest that his plan is long overdue.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
The vehemency with which the BoZo fanbois are determined to claim it doesn't rather suggests it does. A lot.
Grow up. "BoZo fanbois" ffs, I have despised the man ever since the zaghari-ratcliffe episode. And that argumentative technique is straight out of the primary school playground
"You pee in your pants" "No I don't " Yes you do No I don't The vehemency with which you are determined to claim you don't rather suggests you do. A lot.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
Something akin to this, although I expect the populations are too big in this version:
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
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..
The other thing is, Cummings probably has a better capacity to understand what he is hearing than anyone else they could send from Number 10. Even his greatest detractors would have to admit that he has a significantly above-average understanding of science and its application to society.
Let’s pause for a moment and take the government’s line at face value and that Cummings has a rare if not unique ability to translate complex scientific points into a form non-experts can understand. And that he is somehow better at this than the CMO and CSO whose job that actually is.
Then the logical conclusion is Cummings needs to step forward at the regular Downing St briefing. We’ve heard from all the other advisor after all. Cometh the hour, cometh the Cummings.
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.
It could be fine. It could even be a very good thing. Perhaps Cummings is there soaking up information into that Neptune sized brain, occasionally augmenting and clarifying with a sharp question or an acute ad hoc summary of the key issues, and emerging with an enhanced ability to advise on the best course of action as we fight this debilitating pandemic. This is certainly possible. I'd go as far as likely.
But there is a risk. Dominic Cummings has a bumptious personality (the "Dom") to go with the humming intellect (the "Cummings") and he is known to have the ear of the PM. His reputation is that of the second most powerful man in government and nobody doubts it. So could his participation in SAGE cause its product to be shaped into what the PM wants to hear?
One thinks of Alastair Campbell, Blair, the "impartial" intelligence experts, the resulting "dodgy dossier" on Iraq and WMD. We must hope this is not being repeated. The last thing we want is a dodgy dossier on the location and capabilities of this particular WMD. To significantly either over or understate the threat of Covid-19 will lead to decisions with catastrophic consequences. Perhaps not of the order Iraq War but grave nonetheless.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
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?
The David Cameron whose career was ended in spectacular ignomy by Cummings' masterminded Brexit? That impartial observor David Cameron?
Good point, except Cameron said it before all that.
In wich case, Cameron comes out of it even worse for not taking Cummings' threat during the Referendum seriously enough.
Perhaps he'd now like to upgrade his assessment to "a highly-effective career psycopath, with some big scalps hanging from his tomahawk...including mine."
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
Not necessarily, the dominions were not yet fully independent and a Government under a hardline imperialist could have repealed the Statute and imposed direct rule from Westminster again, enforced by force if necessary
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.
Wasn't the position at one time that, however long the existing Parliament had served, there was an election consequent on the death of the sovereign?
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
Something akin to this, although I expect the populations are too big in this version:
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
Something akin to this, although I expect the populations are too big in this version:
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.
Wasn't the position at one time that, however long the existing Parliament had served, there was an election consequent on the death of the sovereign?
Pass.
Although @AlastairMeeks informed me during the prorogation crisis last year that had Her Majesty died then Parliament would be recalled/reconvened.
I'm not interested unless it has a trend line manipulated to confirm my viewpoint.
The next few days will be exciting for Covid Data Wranglers.
After having their beloved "SW3den PEEKed on ThE 8th" taken from them they are about to get the gift of Sweden's massive weekend reporting lag to claim the numbers have dropped precipitously.
They will memory hole all their previous pronouncements.
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
Leaving the EU suggests otherwise.
That was a different relinquishment of sovereignty, I was mainly talking about the context of that particular legislation. Arguably the position might have been different with the EU if the Article 50 mechanism did not exist.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
Bah. The North East is easy to solve on this point. Absorb Sunderland back into County Durham and make Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead part of Greater Northumberland. Job done.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
Bah. The North East is easy to solve on this point. Absorb Sunderland back into County Durham and make Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead part of Greater Northumberland. Job done.
Don't forget Middlesbrough, that's in the North East as well, and absolutely not in Yorkshire.
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
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.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
Bah. The North East is easy to solve on this point. Absorb Sunderland back into County Durham and make Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead part of Greater Northumberland. Job done.
Don't forget Middlesbrough, that's in the North East as well, and absolutely not in Yorkshire.
Middlesbrough is full of Leeds United fans for a reason mate.
If the criticism is something is Unprecedented....i think a global pandemic resulting in half the world's population locked in their homes is kinda of you know Unprecedented.
The crux of the issue is, did Big Dom go, listen to the discussions and then ask some pertinent questions or was he sticking his oar in and driving the process.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
If the criticism is something is Unprecedented....i think a global pandemic resulting in half the world's population locked in their homes is kinda of you know Unprecedented.
The crux of the issue is, did Big Dom go, listen to the discussions and then ask some pertinent questions or was he sticking his oar in and driving the process.
And , if he did try to stick his oar in, whether the scientists in the room had the guts and integrity to tell him to bugger off. My guess is that they would.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
Bah. The North East is easy to solve on this point. Absorb Sunderland back into County Durham and make Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead part of Greater Northumberland. Job done.
Don't forget Middlesbrough, that's in the North East as well, and absolutely not in Yorkshire.
The crux of the issue is, did Big Dom go, listen to the discussions and then ask some pertinent questions or was he sticking his oar in and driving the process.
Exactly, and if he was, then I'd be one's of the one saying that was unacceptable.
But there isn't any evidence. It's 'we don't know if he did or not', even though it's utterly illogical he would.
and the minutes are no doubt kept secret for very very good reasons, so saying they should be made public is just throwing chaff around over nothing currently.
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?
It's probably easier to use the crisis to rig the election than postpone it. There's established constitutional precedent for this, because President Frank Underwood used a terrorism threat to shut down polling stations in his opponents' strongholds.
This is hard to do in swing states because their governors are generally Dem, but it may be enough to use a clash of federal and state power to depress the vote in the right places - it doesn't matter if the president is later found to have acted illegally, as long as it's too late for people to vote.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
Effectively binding future Parliaments.
Except that the Parliament Acts can be repealed.
You’re missing the point. The Parliament Act’s changed the way a bill can become law. It removed the requirement that the Lords had to be involved at all in the passing of certain bills under certain circumstances. To repeal it, you have to follow the new procedures.
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
@HYUFD stating that “no Parliament can bind its successors” is far too simplistic. I wrote a 2,000 word essay on this not too long ago.
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
In realty yes but in theory any future Parliament with a pro Empire majority could have repealed the Statute of Westminster
Which as I said would be an empty gesture. The relinquishment of sovereignty is permanent. Future Parliaments are bound by that.
Not if we send a fleet along with the repeal!
Would need to rent one first
One step at a time - they'll be given a chance to comply with the repeal first and return to the fold.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
Ah that's because the North East fell under the spell of Dominic Cummings.
Bah. The North East is easy to solve on this point. Absorb Sunderland back into County Durham and make Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead part of Greater Northumberland. Job done.
Don't forget Middlesbrough, that's in the North East as well, and absolutely not in Yorkshire.
Fighting talk to Traditional County enthusiasts
The second best thing Ted Heath ever did was to take Middlesbrough out of Yorkshire.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
Effectively binding future Parliaments.
Except that the Parliament Acts can be repealed.
You’re missing the point. The Parliament Act’s changed the way a bill can become law. It removed the requirement that the Lords had to be involved at all in the passing of certain bills under certain circumstances. To repeal it, you have to follow the new procedures.
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
The same procedures as before could be used to repeal the Parliament Act.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
Effectively binding future Parliaments.
Except that the Parliament Acts can be repealed.
You’re missing the point. The Parliament Act’s changed the way a bill can become law. It removed the requirement that the Lords had to be involved at all in the passing of certain bills under certain circumstances. To repeal it, you have to follow the new procedures.
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
The same procedures as before could be used to repeal the Parliament Act.
What relevance does that have? I simply used the Parliament Act as evidence of where Parliament has changed the rules over what makes an Act valid as an Act of Parliament. The specifics are not relevant to my point.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
I'm against dividing up England into regions as I don't think the benefit is there and the boundaries of such would be arbitrary at best - it's a bit of a dog's breakfast with combined authorities too - though Iwould say that just because that particular effort did not work/was not wanted, does not mean that something similar but different could not possibly work.
I dont have a particular view on Cummings attending SAGE without knowing the details of his role and contribution but it is curious to see frequent comparisons to Alastair Campbell as justifications. With hindsight, even as a fan of many parts of new Labour, it is hard not to see that at times his contribution was toxic and potentially even malign. Comparisons to his role are just whataboutery not an argument that the current arrangement is good governance.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
Parliament could also legislate to change the rules surrounding how a bill becomes an Act. They’ve done this before, it’s called the Parliament Act. This could be used to entrench legislation, and require greater than a simple Parliamentary majority in the Commons.
Effectively binding future Parliaments.
Except that the Parliament Acts can be repealed.
You’re missing the point. The Parliament Act’s changed the way a bill can become law. It removed the requirement that the Lords had to be involved at all in the passing of certain bills under certain circumstances. To repeal it, you have to follow the new procedures.
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
The same procedures as before could be used to repeal the Parliament Act.
What relevance does that have? I simply used the Parliament Act as evidence of where Parliament has changed the rules over what makes an Act valid as an Act of Parliament. The specifics are not relevant to my point.
Sorry, I was just correcting a statement that was factually incorrect. I hadn't realised that by "Parliament Acts" you meant not the Parliament Acts. In fact, doesn't this show that there isn't an example by which parliament has restricted the ability of itself to pass acts?
If the criticism is something is Unprecedented....i think a global pandemic resulting in half the world's population locked in their homes is kinda of you know Unprecedented.
The crux of the issue is, did Big Dom go, listen to the discussions and then ask some pertinent questions or was he sticking his oar in and driving the process.
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.
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
But it is fair that a government represents at least 50% of the votes. The argument about Kingmaker is a red herring. If the Conservative and Labour governments weer able to find common ground they wouold be abe to form a coalition government.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
You should see the some of the reponses, it's a mix of 'he's been leaned on' (that old chestnut), and 'Cummings would do it anyway'
People believe what they want to believe, regardless of evidence or the lack of it.
They just create their own headcanon, and Cummings is an evil mastermind in it, so it must be as they think it is.
It's now established fact.
Tangentially, despite the emphasis placed on following the scientific advice from the government clearly there will have been and will continue to be political choices to be made in all this. It occurs that the government to a degree blunted political attacks (at least too soon) by emphasising the scientific side of things, and this story provides a convenient way to undermine that defence/delfection by making it more political. Which is smart, politically, by broadening the range of criticisms of political decisions, as even the scientific advice, if one wants, can now be claimed to be Cummings infected.
Comments
I have rarely seen such a non-point being defended. The grauniad simply didn't do their homework about how these meetings are constituted.
The implication behind the accusations appears to be SAGE is now useless because Cummings either affected what they recommended by his very presence, or the PM will have ignored what they said to listen solely to Cummings.
The idea Cummings is that powerful I dont think can be explained other than fear. Abd to be clear I dont want his advice driving things either.
That is the answer you were groping for...
For example in 1931 Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, which was a permanent relinquishment of sovereignty over the dominions of the Empire. Yes, Parliament could “repeal it”, but it would be an empty gesture. By passing that act, the Parliament of 1931 effectively bound all future Parliaments.
"It must matter or the guardian wouldn't be going on about it" is not a good answer.
I merely think the reaction to him is disproportionate and thats unhelpful to those seeking to criticise the government, because him being involved in or commenting on anything is treated like a conspiracy in itself.
He stirs up a lot of shit and can be attacked for that. But I doubt everything he touches or looks at turns to shit, and the major complaint against him appears to be his existence. I'd save complaints to when hes causing resignations, blustering about things he knows nothing about, leaking silly ideas, and being vulgar because he thinks that shows hes a free thinker.
https://twitter.com/YoungLabourUK/status/1253669499280244736
Maybe if somebody were to tweet it....
Cummings is an operator for sure and there are more than one way of getting what you want as we saw by the way he manoeuvred the last Chancellor out of office.
I would also be less concerned about Cummings activities if I felt Johnson had a grip on things but we knew that was going to unlikely when we elected him.
Effectively binding future Parliaments.
They just hate DC, mostly because Brexit, but also because he plans to turn the senior civil service upside-down - and has collected plenty of evidence in recent weeks to suggest that his plan is long overdue.
Based on natural communities and not obsessed with ceremonial or historic boundaries
"You pee in your pants"
"No I don't "
Yes you do
No I don't
The vehemency with which you are determined to claim you don't rather suggests you do. A lot.
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679
https://twitter.com/greg_callus/status/1253794473106190338?s=21
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Then the logical conclusion is Cummings needs to step forward at the regular Downing St briefing. We’ve heard from all the other advisor after all. Cometh the hour, cometh the Cummings.
But there is a risk. Dominic Cummings has a bumptious personality (the "Dom") to go with the humming intellect (the "Cummings") and he is known to have the ear of the PM. His reputation is that of the second most powerful man in government and nobody doubts it. So could his participation in SAGE cause its product to be shaped into what the PM wants to hear?
One thinks of Alastair Campbell, Blair, the "impartial" intelligence experts, the resulting "dodgy dossier" on Iraq and WMD. We must hope this is not being repeated. The last thing we want is a dodgy dossier on the location and capabilities of this particular WMD. To significantly either over or understate the threat of Covid-19 will lead to decisions with catastrophic consequences. Perhaps not of the order Iraq War but grave nonetheless.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
Perhaps he'd now like to upgrade his assessment to "a highly-effective career psycopath, with some big scalps hanging from his tomahawk...including mine."
Shocked and appalled at how crap the Guardian's journalists are.
Although @AlastairMeeks informed me during the prorogation crisis last year that had Her Majesty died then Parliament would be recalled/reconvened.
After having their beloved "SW3den PEEKed on ThE 8th" taken from them they are about to get the gift of Sweden's massive weekend reporting lag to claim the numbers have dropped precipitously.
They will memory hole all their previous pronouncements.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/dominic-cummings-honed-strategy-2004-vote-north-east
How many times did the PMs SPAD attend?
None, is the answer you are looking.
There's a word for something that has not happened before.
Starts with unprecede...
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/status/1253971961954304000
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
The crux of the issue is, did Big Dom go, listen to the discussions and then ask some pertinent questions or was he sticking his oar in and driving the process.
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
But there isn't any evidence. It's 'we don't know if he did or not', even though it's utterly illogical he would.
and the minutes are no doubt kept secret for very very good reasons, so saying they should be made public is just throwing chaff around over nothing currently.
This is hard to do in swing states because their governors are generally Dem, but it may be enough to use a clash of federal and state power to depress the vote in the right places - it doesn't matter if the president is later found to have acted illegally, as long as it's too late for people to vote.
Here's the reply:
https://www.twitter.com/DLidington/status/1253978343793397760
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
https://twitter.com/MyDoncaster/status/1253971030382690305
People believe what they want to believe, regardless of evidence or the lack of it.
They just create their own headcanon, and Cummings is an evil mastermind in it, so it must be as they think it is.
Austria 0.79
Belgium 1.09
Denmark 0.71
France 0.89
Germany 0.78
Greece 0.38
Italy 0.64
Netherlands 0.62
Norway 0.71
Portugal 0.72
Spain 0.69
Sweden 1.27
Switzerland 0.67
United_Kingdom 0.68
The latter is unprecedented...
Required reading for some on this thread...
Big Dom.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Tangentially, despite the emphasis placed on following the scientific advice from the government clearly there will have been and will continue to be political choices to be made in all this. It occurs that the government to a degree blunted political attacks (at least too soon) by emphasising the scientific side of things, and this story provides a convenient way to undermine that defence/delfection by making it more political. Which is smart, politically, by broadening the range of criticisms of political decisions, as even the scientific advice, if one wants, can now be claimed to be Cummings infected.