I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
I want to make an open and comprehensive offer to PB Tories.
Join our cause, a strong and stable Government in the national interest can be achieved.
Fuck off
It was a joke...
you will find a number of PB righties turn nasty when things aren't going their way. Wear it as a badge of honour!
He will? Today alone, two PB 'lefties' have called a PB 'righty' mentally ill (due to a typo), and nobody has batted an eyelid, least of all the individual concerned. 'fuck kindness and fuck tolerance' is a quote from another one.
SeanT does a good line in colourful insults, and that gets a lot of attention, but it always seems to me it's our 'kinder, gentler' comrades who have a more frequent tendency to get unpleasant. I've always thought that it's because they're left wing and therefore automatically on the moral high ground that many feel they don't actually have to work at being a decent human being.
Neither side has a monopoly on the moral high ground and there are some unpleasant characters on either side of the spectrum.
There we agree.
I concur although I do find a select few of the right-wing posters on here spend a lot of time attacking me a lot more than others, bringing up old posts, etc. and trying to get some kind of reaction.
I don't tend to get any such reaction from the left, so you'll forgive me if I think much of it does come down to blind tribalism as opposed to actual distaste for any particular user.
For what it's worth, I have no problems with anyone.
Boris said something weird in the press conference about a health condition, i can't remember how he phrased it, but it sounded like something that isnt public knowledge. Could be more BS, but it came out all weird, not like a thought out story, more the Boris waffle, woophs i have let slip something i shouldn't have.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
What does your average swing voter think of this I wonder.
They leant their vote to a new type of Tory Party. Looks a lot like the old Tory Party at the moment - will they make that mistake again now that Labour has woken up?
Ahem - no, it doesn't look anything even remotely like the old Tory party, the one which was fiscally prudent, grounded in reality, keen on the rule of law, pro-business. This is the Tory party taken over and deformed by some malign parasite, as Labour was until a few weeks ago.
The Cameroons as a malign parasite is an interesting idea.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
By not mentioning it?
Why has it been leaked then? What other purpose could it serve?
We've had the "My poor son is grieving, Mummy make it all better" defence, now it is the "my son has autism" defence.
I'm not saying his son or indeed himself aren't in a difficult situation but the point is that thousands of people are too. And all this does is reinforce the idea it is one rule for them and one rule for us.
And why not mention this earlier, why bring it up suddenly now? Can you not see how cynical it looks?
I want to make an open and comprehensive offer to PB Tories.
Join our cause, a strong and stable Government in the national interest can be achieved.
Fuck off
It was a joke...
you will find a number of PB righties turn nasty when things aren't going their way. Wear it as a badge of honour!
He will? Today alone, two PB 'lefties' have called a PB 'righty' mentally ill (due to a typo), and nobody has batted an eyelid, least of all the individual concerned. 'fuck kindness and fuck tolerance' is a quote from another one.
SeanT does a good line in colourful insults, and that gets a lot of attention, but it always seems to me it's our 'kinder, gentler' comrades who have a more frequent tendency to get unpleasant. I've always thought that it's because they're left wing and therefore automatically on the moral high ground that many feel they don't actually have to work at being a decent human being.
Neither side has a monopoly on the moral high ground and there are some unpleasant characters on either side of the spectrum.
There we agree.
I concur although I do find a select few of the right-wing posters on here spend a lot of time attacking me a lot more than others, bringing up old posts, etc. and trying to get some kind of reaction.
I don't tend to get any such reaction from the left, so you'll forgive me if I think much of it does come down to blind tribalism as opposed to actual distaste for any particular user.
For what it's worth, I have no problems with anyone.
Stop being so sensitive.
Criticism is part of the territory particularly if you are not in the PB Tory club, you are such a drama queen at times.
You remind me of Jess Phillips not everything is about you.
And I am on the same side of you on most things and quite like you.
Personally I prefer to err on the side of giving people as much freedom as possible albeit with providing them with as much information as possible to make their decisions upon.
I should add that while I support giving people as much freedom as possible to make their own decisions that that goes with the proviso that people must be willing to take some responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.
Its that secondary point which I think we struggle with in this country.
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
We don't know about that, one way or another.
Who was for and against various decisions on lockdown, entry to the UK, PPE, testing, care homes etc would be interesting to know.
Personally I prefer to err on the side of giving people as much freedom as possible albeit with providing them with as much information as possible to make their decisions upon.
I should add that while I support giving people as much freedom as possible to make their own decisions that that goes with the proviso that people must be willing to take some responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.
Its that secondary point which I think we struggle with in this country.
People are quick to bang on about their rights, but few of them seem to acknowledge their responsibilities. It has been that way for quite some time, but it has been getting more and more pervasive.
I want to make an open and comprehensive offer to PB Tories.
Join our cause, a strong and stable Government in the national interest can be achieved.
Fuck off
It was a joke...
you will find a number of PB righties turn nasty when things aren't going their way. Wear it as a badge of honour!
He will? Today alone, two PB 'lefties' have called a PB 'righty' mentally ill (due to a typo), and nobody has batted an eyelid, least of all the individual concerned. 'fuck kindness and fuck tolerance' is a quote from another one.
SeanT does a good line in colourful insults, and that gets a lot of attention, but it always seems to me it's our 'kinder, gentler' comrades who have a more frequent tendency to get unpleasant. I've always thought that it's because they're left wing and therefore automatically on the moral high ground that many feel they don't actually have to work at being a decent human being.
Neither side has a monopoly on the moral high ground and there are some unpleasant characters on either side of the spectrum.
There we agree.
I concur although I do find a select few of the right-wing posters on here spend a lot of time attacking me a lot more than others, bringing up old posts, etc. and trying to get some kind of reaction.
I don't tend to get any such reaction from the left, so you'll forgive me if I think much of it does come down to blind tribalism as opposed to actual distaste for any particular user.
For what it's worth, I have no problems with anyone.
Stop being so sensitive.
Criticism is part of the territory particularly if you are not in the PB Tory club, you are such a drama queen at times.
You remind me of Jess Phillips not everything is about you.
And I am on the same side of you on most things and quite like you.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
He didn't need looking after, his parents could do that as many thousands of parents have done for the last 10 weeks. All he needed was someone to come round with supplies. If they both needed to go into hospital his parents driving 250 miles to collect his son would have been perfectly in line with the law and quite understandable by everyone.
The mother is now bleating “You know, we have been a grieving family,” she continued, “and there’s been no recognition of that, and I wish reporters would be cognisant of that fact.” Well tough so are many tens of thousands of others and they're doing it alone in respect of the law.
Any Tory who supports this needs their head examining and thankfully it's another Black Wednesday moment and their reputation completely trashed.
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
I think that he thinks that he needs Cummings to fulfil the manifesto; sort out the civil service, get things built quickly, "level up" the north, improve procurement, privatise stuff quietly and so on. He seems to think only Cummings can do these things. His Cabinet appointments suggest that he doesn't have much faith in his MPs; with a few exceptions, his Cabinet is very weak and will not be capable of "getting things done".
Boris is not capable of leading on big projects himself - far too lazy.
But I agree there isn't any evidence yet of Cummings being a force for good.
Personally I prefer to err on the side of giving people as much freedom as possible albeit with providing them with as much information as possible to make their decisions upon.
I should add that while I support giving people as much freedom as possible to make their own decisions that that goes with the proviso that people must be willing to take some responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.
Its that secondary point which I think we struggle with in this country.
People are quick to bang on about their rights, but few of them seem to acknowledge their responsibilities. It has been that way for quite some time, but it has been getting more and more pervasive.
We've increasingly become a 'victim culture' with a need to blame someone / something else for our own failings.
You could say that this has been encouraged by the 'leaders of society' own actions.
Boris still doesn't look right to me. I suggested the other day that he should take 6 months off from the job and let someone else be caretaker leader.
That move gets closed off as his popularity drops, because once somebody else has the job they won't want to give it back.
I want to make an open and comprehensive offer to PB Tories.
Join our cause, a strong and stable Government in the national interest can be achieved.
Fuck off
It was a joke...
you will find a number of PB righties turn nasty when things aren't going their way. Wear it as a badge of honour!
He will? Today alone, two PB 'lefties' have called a PB 'righty' mentally ill (due to a typo), and nobody has batted an eyelid, least of all the individual concerned. 'fuck kindness and fuck tolerance' is a quote from another one.
SeanT does a good line in colourful insults, and that gets a lot of attention, but it always seems to me it's our 'kinder, gentler' comrades who have a more frequent tendency to get unpleasant. I've always thought that it's because they're left wing and therefore automatically on the moral high ground that many feel they don't actually have to work at being a decent human being.
Oh?
A quick flick through my well tended memory banks shows that at various times on here I've been called dickstain, prick, cretin, leftard, cunty, traitor, racist, Nazi and paedo among other things. I'm quite capable of looking after myself and giving as good as I get, though I tend to prefer, if not a rapier, at least a sabre rather than the bludgeon used by some of these goons. However I don't remember any of those epithets coming from lefties, nor any right wingers getting precious about their less delicate fellow travellers. On that basis pious bleating about working at being a decent human being just gets a contemptuous snort from this 'kinder, gentler' comrade.
Maintaining social distancing after the end of lockdown is a contradiction in my view. Lockdown is a prohibition on leaving your home but also a prohibition on other usually permitted activities, such as social contact. If compulsory social distancing is continuing, then as far as I am concerned the lockdown is still in force.
At this point society is still a long way from experiencing the full consequences of long-term social distancing. These consequences will of course include economic costs, but many others as well. Long-term consequences will not be felt quickly, but they will be eventually. Until then social distancing has a role in managing the pandemic in the short term. The epidemic has raised a huge range of questions that people have not thought about much. It will take a long time before they reach answers that could be difficult and unfamiliar.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Perhaps the explanation is that they were both unwell, became panic stricken and then made a rather deranged decision.
It could happen to many of us but it might not fit the image Cummings has of himself / wants others to have of himself.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
We don't know about that, one way or another.
Who was for and against various decisions on lockdown, entry to the UK, PPE, testing, care homes etc would be interesting to know.
Either he's an indispensable Svengali in control of the day to day affairs of government or he isn't. If he isn't he's not indispensable. If he is he's not very good.
I want to make an open and comprehensive offer to PB Tories.
Join our cause, a strong and stable Government in the national interest can be achieved.
Fuck off
It was a joke...
you will find a number of PB righties turn nasty when things aren't going their way. Wear it as a badge of honour!
He will? Today alone, two PB 'lefties' have called a PB 'righty' mentally ill (due to a typo), and nobody has batted an eyelid, least of all the individual concerned. 'fuck kindness and fuck tolerance' is a quote from another one.
SeanT does a good line in colourful insults, and that gets a lot of attention, but it always seems to me it's our 'kinder, gentler' comrades who have a more frequent tendency to get unpleasant. I've always thought that it's because they're left wing and therefore automatically on the moral high ground that many feel they don't actually have to work at being a decent human being.
Oh?
A quick flick through my well tended memory banks shows that at various times on here I've been called dickstain, prick, cretin, leftard, cunty, traitor, racist, Nazi and paedo among other things.
Look, I'm sorry ok, you caught me at a bad moment, I'd not had my coffee.
The reason Biden's lead is so wide compared to Clinton's is that he's running a little more than 5 points ahead of where Clinton was in terms of vote percentage. Biden is at slightly greater than 48%, while Clinton was a little less than 43%.
Even when Clinton's lead widened in June, she never got to 48% in the polls. She had to pick up a lot more late-deciding voters for her lead to feel secure than Biden will likely need to.
Interestingly, Trump's actually pulling about the same percentage of the vote in the polls as he was in late May 2016. Without rounding, he's running only about 0.4 points worse.
The reason Biden's lead is so wide compared to Clinton's is that he's running a little more than 5 points ahead of where Clinton was in terms of vote percentage. Biden is at slightly greater than 48%, while Clinton was a little less than 43%.
Even when Clinton's lead widened in June, she never got to 48% in the polls. She had to pick up a lot more late-deciding voters for her lead to feel secure than Biden will likely need to.
Interestingly, Trump's actually pulling about the same percentage of the vote in the polls as he was in late May 2016. Without rounding, he's running only about 0.4 points worse.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
And after several days of scrabbling about, here we are with some apologist speculating (not knowing, not based on any evidence, just groping blindly around) on a set of circumstances that might possibly have justified what Cummings did.
Cyclefree has got this. If there was a good explanation, it would have been made on day one, hour one of the story. What has in fact happened is a pathetic rifling through the rolodex of BS excuses whilst trying to work out what facts about his conduct are going to filter into the public domain, and which aren't.
If you've got a good explanation, you give it immediately and stick to it. He, and Johnson, just haven't. It's a shit show.
For anyone who still thinks the Cummings story is a 'Westminster Bubble' issue, it managed to make the Aussie 10pm commercial news last night. Not really sure why but it shows how far the story has travelled.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Perhaps the explanation is that they were both unwell, became panic stricken and then made a rather deranged decision.
It could happen to many of us but it might not fit the image Cummings has of himself / wants others to have of himself.
I think your explanation fits the facts. I suspect it is spot on. All the excuses are working back from that. A little humility and an admission of weakness under strain would have caught the mood swimmingly. Too late now.
The British version of the 25th Amendment is 15% of Conservative MPs sending letters to the 1922 Committee. However they don't care about the "governance of this country" part, and objectively they wouldn't be sensible to move on a leader who just won them a huge majority, and is still polling nearly 50%.
Nope. There is in the sense that at all times the PM must command the majority of the House. At any moment, LOTO can call a motion of no confidence.
And also if the entire, or most of, the Cabinet turned against them, then the command of the House would almost certainly be falling away next.
Its a better system than the US, imho, in that the Cabinet is appointed by PM, but only from the pool of MPs (and the odd Lord). In US the Cabinet is all made up of lackeys to the POTUS, with no hinterland or democratic link.
For anyone who still thinks the Cummings story is a 'Westminster Bubble' issue, it managed to make the Aussie 10pm commercial news last night. Not really sure why but it shows how far the story has travelled.
Tell me he hasn't flown to a beach in Australia during lockdown as well?
I suspect there's a bit of a psychodrama playing out at No. 10. Boris needs Cummings more than vice versa, and can't let him go. Cummings doesn't rate Boris at all other than as a populist leader, an election winner, but a useful idiot (like Trump); not a man for detail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
But what does Boris need Cummings FOR exactly? I understand he's a good campaigner but there is no election for 4 years. If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap. Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
We don't know about that, one way or another.
Who was for and against various decisions on lockdown, entry to the UK, PPE, testing, care homes etc would be interesting to know.
Either he's an indispensable Svengali in control of the day to day affairs of government or he isn't. If he isn't he's not indispensable. If he is he's not very good.
I said it earlier, Cummings is indespensible because he know where the bodies are buried, he buried them!
Austria's President Alexander Van der Bellen has apologised after he broke a coronavirus-related curfew. He stayed at a restaurant in the capital, Vienna, beyond the closing time mandated under the country's lockdown measures.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
There must be a significant possibility of Cummings himself being on the autism spectrum. Very likely I would think.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
I too have a child on the spectrum. Like you, like Dom. We are not special snowflakes deserving of unique rules. We all have our stories and have been through these unusual times together. We didn't ask for special pleading.
As a practicing Anglican and Tory member I really don't think the Anglican Church should get into party politics whatever the mistakes of Cummings but nor is this a case for the Church to be disestablished
Cyclefree's valiant effort to talk about something other than Cummings has been mislaid by most of the responses. But it's an interesting piece.
The key issue here is that many of the people most inclined to mingle closely - the young, the fit - are the people least likely to be affected. So the question - assuming that they come into contact with others who are less young and fit - is how far they owe it to them to restrain themselves from having an enjoyable life. Most of the parallels that Cyclefree evinces are not that similar - if I smoke and increase the risk of having to have expensive treatment, that's risking an economic cost for society. If I contract the virus and pass it on to older relatives, that's accepting a risk of killing them. The closer parallel is driving at 150 mph - it's undoubtedly fun for many, but there's a major risk to life for other people (and themselves).
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
If the hopes of breakthrough prove elusive after a year, OK, we'll need to think again.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
There must be a significant possibility of Cummings himself being on the autism spectrum. Very likely I would think.
I would have thought it 99% certain Cummings was autistic, or at least that he had aspergers
Boris still doesn't look right to me. I suggested the other day that he should take 6 months off from the job and let someone else be caretaker leader.
He's going to be off longer than 6 months with more performances like sunday's.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
There must be a significant possibility of Cummings himself being on the autism spectrum. Very likely I would think.
Quite possibly. I am no expert, I can only offer my own experience. The artist formerly known as SeanT. put me right on my limited knowledge some years ago on PB. I learned all about 'Aspies' which is a term I had not previously come across, or for that matter have heard since.
Cyclefree's valiant effort to talk about something other than Cummings has been mislaid by most of the responses. But it's an interesting piece.
The key issue here is that many of the people most inclined to mingle closely - the young, the fit - are the people least likely to be affected. So the question - assuming that they come into contact with others who are less young and fit - is how far they owe it to them to restrain themselves from having an enjoyable life. Most of the parallels that Cyclefree evinces are not that similar - if I smoke and increase the risk of having to have expensive treatment, that's risking an economic cost for society. If I contract the virus and pass it on to older relatives, that's accepting a risk of killing them. The closer parallel is driving at 150 mph - it's undoubtedly fun for many, but there's a major risk to life for other people (and themselves).
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
If the hopes of breakthrough prove elusive after a year, OK, we'll need to think again.
A year of this will cause so much economic damage and so many mental health issues that, as a cure, it will be far worse than the disease.
In case you have not noticed, companies are starting to go *pop*! The impact on the travel, leisure and hospitality sectors is only beginning to bite.
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
There must be a significant possibility of Cummings himself being on the autism spectrum. Very likely I would think.
I would have thought it 99% certain Cummings was autistic, or at least that he had aspergers
Autism and Asperger's are the same thing, only no one calls it Asperger's anymore. It is Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
The key issue here is that many of the people most inclined to mingle closely - the young, the fit - are the people least likely to be affected. So the question - assuming that they he come into contact with others who are less young and fit - is how far they owe it to them to restrain themselves from having an enjoyable life. Most of the parallels that Cyclefree evinces are not that similar - if I smoke and increase the risk of having to have expensive treatment, that's risking an economic cost for society. If I contract the virus and pass it on to older relatives, that's accepting a risk of killing them. The closer parallel is driving at 150 mph - it's undoubtedly fun for many, but there's a major risk to life for other people (and themselves).
The other way to approach this is to more from regulating individual behaviour to regulating businesses. My now we have a pretty good idea what kind of activity is high-risk, and how to set up ventilation to reduce the risk. However in many cases this will be very expensive.
The high-risk places are mostly indoors, so they're managed by someone. We already have a precedent that anywhere that serves food has to comply with fairly onerous hygiene requirements, so expand those as a condition of reopening. Print some money to help places do this, and bail out places that need to be put into deep freeze for the duration.
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
I like the argument that we should repay the (largely selfless) sacrifice of the young.
The young have consistently been a lot more left-wing than the retired. They're also strongly in favour of rejoining the EU.
Maybe the boomers-and-older whose lives have been saved by the sacrifice of the young will repay the favour by letting the young have control over their destiny in these aspects?
No, I didn't think so either.
(But, hey, "arts and hospitality". That's pretty much a direct translation of "bread and circuses", isn't it?)
Apparently Cummings' son has autism, which just makes it worse because it sounds like yet again he's using his son to score political points
It does somewhat explain why Cummings didn't feel he could just palm him off on anyone with a London postcode as people here were glibly suggesting this morning.
What not even his aunt and uncle, both of whom live in London?
If he'd never stayed there before, I think it would be extremely difficult, going by my limited knowledge of some family friends having an autistic son. That's assuming that they were to feel up to the challenge. Obviously it's a spectrum, so we don't know the severity.
Given that both parents work I imagine they already had childcare arrangements in place. So it seems curious that those could not have been relied on.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
Arrangements which their illness may have made impossible.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
Do you really believe what you have just written in terms of Cummings making an essential journey? Surely not.
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
I too have a child on the spectrum. Like you, like Dom. We are not special snowflakes deserving of unique rules. We all have our stories and have been through these unusual times together. We didn't ask for special pleading.
Yes indeed. I have spent the last 23 years trying to normalise my son's life rather than making a feature of him being different. We have never sought any preferential treatment.
Every (difficult) the Gov't makes is going to be ripped to shreds now. Parents don't want to send their kids back to school "Doing the best for my children" will be trotted out. People want to visit their relatives or head to beauty spots "Good enough for Cummings" The press can smell blood.
As a practicing Anglican and Tory member I really don't think the Anglican Church should get into party politics whatever the mistakes of Cummings but nor is this a case for the Church to be disestablished
So the Church of England really is the Conservative Party at prayer. Amen to you and good night.
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
I like the argument that we should repay the (largely selfless) sacrifice of the young.
The young have consistently been a lot more left-wing than the retired. They're also strongly in favour of rejoining the EU.
Maybe the boomers-and-older whose lives have been saved by the sacrifice of the young will repay the favour by letting the young have control over their destiny in these aspects?
No, I didn't think so either.
(But, hey, "arts and hospitality". That's pretty much a direct translation of "bread and circuses", isn't it?)
Sounds like you haven't accepted the Brexit vote yet. (I'm one of the few who's fairly neutral on it, so don't assume I'm a massive Leave supporter).
We're terrible at nuance. The reality is that you could probably keep CV-19 from taking off again with a fairly simple set of measures: masks on public transport (and other crowded places), track and trace, sporting events run without crowds, pubs being seating only for the time being, people being reminded to regularly wash hands, etc.
Yes, the virus would still spread, but it would be at a modest pace. It would become an irritation.
But people like "safe" and "not safe".
I find it astonishing that people in the UK are casting off their masks. It seems like making sure that people in crowded places where masks is a pretty simple measure that limits people coughing or sneezing droplets infused with the virus.
This isn't a "switch" than can be thrown, it is a continuum, and sensible modest measures can go a long way.
We're terrible at nuance. The reality is that you could probably keep CV-19 from taking off again with a fairly simple set of measures: masks on public transport (and other crowded places), track and trace, sporting events run without crowds, pubs being seating only for the time being, people being reminded to regularly wash hands, etc.
Yes, the virus would still spread, but it would be at a modest pace. It would become an irritation.
But people like "safe" and "not safe".
I find it astonishing that people in the UK are casting off their masks. It seems like making sure that people in crowded places where masks is a pretty simple measure that limits people coughing or sneezing droplets infused with the virus.
This isn't a "switch" than can be thrown, it is a continuum, and sensible modest measures can go a long way.
I wonder if the British are now in a situation where they can't put together a sensible response, because that would involve admitting that their stupid response (basically nothing for weeks, followed by all kinds of draconian things that don't help) was stupid.
I'm just going to post this in case you see somebody else posts it without the context that you should take your time to evaluate it before adjusting your betting positions.
We're terrible at nuance. The reality is that you could probably keep CV-19 from taking off again with a fairly simple set of measures: masks on public transport (and other crowded places), track and trace, sporting events run without crowds, pubs being seating only for the time being, people being reminded to regularly wash hands, etc.
Yes, the virus would still spread, but it would be at a modest pace. It would become an irritation.
But people like "safe" and "not safe".
I find it astonishing that people in the UK are casting off their masks. It seems like making sure that people in crowded places where masks is a pretty simple measure that limits people coughing or sneezing droplets infused with the virus.
This isn't a "switch" than can be thrown, it is a continuum, and sensible modest measures can go a long way.
In an ideal world all the people would be sensible enough to understand that the easing of restrictions to allow more economic activity needs to be balanced out by even more rigid protective measures (mask wearing, even stricter social distancing, etc). But we are living in a world where many people will feel that once the lockdown is being officially eased to some (however small) extent, they will have license to cut back rigorously on any such inconveniences.
Here in Germany, there has been a limited, gradual, cautios relaxation of the lockdown going on over the last fortnight. That has resulted in a number of new outbreaks. A dress rehearsal for a restaurant reopening has (so far) caused 40 new cases among 80 guests and 20 staff. A Baptist curch service has caused a larger new cluster. 3 days ago they reported 50 new cases at noon, 80 late at night, 120 the next day, today the count stood at 200, and that will not be the end of it. Five local health authorities from neighbouring districts have worked together, more than 100 contact tracers have worked for 4 days to identify the (so far) 200 cases. Each of these outbreaks has been caused by only a single transmitter, over a couple of hours. When it goes wrong, it can go wrong very quickly, and the two outbreaks described above were not the only ones.
Our authorities have so far not pulled the emergency break, but they had to deal with 'only' 5k new cases over the last 10 days, for the UK the number has been roughly 30k, and its tracing programme hasn't been all that robust to begin with. A large number of those cases will have occured in hospitals and care homes, where the tracing is comparatively easy, but the rest of them may easily overwhelm the capacity of the system. Any significant relaxation of the lockdown looks like a bold decision to make in these circumstances, but your government seems to have put itself into Zugzwang with its deteriorating communication strategy.
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
I like the argument that we should repay the (largely selfless) sacrifice of the young.
The young have consistently been a lot more left-wing than the retired. They're also strongly in favour of rejoining the EU.
Maybe the boomers-and-older whose lives have been saved by the sacrifice of the young will repay the favour by letting the young have control over their destiny in these aspects?
No, I didn't think so either.
(But, hey, "arts and hospitality". That's pretty much a direct translation of "bread and circuses", isn't it?)
Sounds like you haven't accepted the Brexit vote yet. (I'm one of the few who's fairly neutral on it, so don't assume I'm a massive Leave supporter).
Why ? Sounded to me like a rhetorical point being made - namely that the Brexit vote pissed off the greta majority of young people, and that isn’t going away.
In an ideal world all the people would be sensible enough to understand that the easing of restrictions to allow more economic activity needs to be balanced out by even more rigid protective measures (mask wearing, even stricter social distancing, etc). But we are living in a world where many people will feel that once the lockdown is being officially eased to some (however small) extent, they will have license to cut back rigorously on any such inconveniences.
This is definitely true - something similar happened in Japan in mid-March: Cases were growing in February, there was a response (closing schools, asking people to work from home and cancel events where practical), the number of new cases leveled off and the government announced that they'd be reopening schools. People then took this as a sign that the crisis was over and stopped doing most of the voluntary stuff, just as people were coming in from Europe spreading the bug, cases took off again and the government had to come back with a tougher response than they'd started with.
I think what they should probably be doing here is sterilizing any short-term loosening announcement with a more targeted longer-term toughening announcement. So say "we're going to allow normal shops to open again", but at the same time say, "nightclubs will need to be closed for at least 3 months". Do lots of these, and try to get people thinking about the actual contagion vectors and the long-term changes they'll need, instead of "can we go back to normal yet".
We're terrible at nuance. The reality is that you could probably keep CV-19 from taking off again with a fairly simple set of measures: masks on public transport (and other crowded places), track and trace, sporting events run without crowds, pubs being seating only for the time being, people being reminded to regularly wash hands, etc.
Yes, the virus would still spread, but it would be at a modest pace. It would become an irritation.
But people like "safe" and "not safe".
I find it astonishing that people in the UK are casting off their masks. It seems like making sure that people in crowded places where masks is a pretty simple measure that limits people coughing or sneezing droplets infused with the virus.
This isn't a "switch" than can be thrown, it is a continuum, and sensible modest measures can go a long way.
I wonder if the British are now in a situation where they can't put together a sensible response, because that would involve admitting that their stupid response (basically nothing for weeks, followed by all kinds of draconian things that don't help) was stupid.
The government certainly is, when it takes the position that it hasn’t made any stupid decisions. The Cummings case is emblematic of that; a simple ‘I’m sorry, I was wrong’ might have seen the end of it. As it is, a stubborn insistence to accept fault, over what is in itself a relatively minor matter, has severely weakened the government.
@rcs1000 is, of course, correct. But such sensible behaviour requires a broad measure of social consensus and direction from a competent government. Is there a country which has successfully addressed the pandemic where that isn’t the case ?
There was a fragile consensus engendered by the pandemic, but our politics in recent years have been about destroying consensus, and it’s increasingly clear that large parts of the government simply aren’t up to the task. So I think we fail on both counts.
I thought I might have dreamed this, but these were indeed Johnson’s precise words:
“I believe that in every respect he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity, and with the overriding aim to stopping the spread of the virus and saving lives.”
@rcs1000 is, of course, correct. But such sensible behaviour requires a broad measure of social consensus and direction from a competent government. Is there a country which has successfully addressed the pandemic where that isn’t the case ?
@rcs1000 is, of course, correct. But such sensible behaviour requires a broad measure of social consensus and direction from a competent government. Is there a country which has successfully addressed the pandemic where that isn’t the case ?
There's Hong Kong, but it's complicated.
Yes, it is. I’m not quite sure how you would categorise it.
All that Boris really amounts to is a parasitical ball of compromised ambition fuelled by a viral overload of neediness and cowardice. There is no substance or dignity left within the prime minister. His only instinct is his own survival.
Comments
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris said "Look, Dom, if you don't mind, it could be helpful if you expressed a bit of remorse at your actions, I can say you've apologised,then we can all move on".
To which Dom replied: "Fuck off Bojo, I've never apologised in my life for anything".
Boris: "Oh, okay Dom, I guess I'm just going to have to wing it then - normal bluster sort of thing".
Boris's dilemma - he can't justify keeping him, but he really can't let him go.
I don't tend to get any such reaction from the left, so you'll forgive me if I think much of it does come down to blind tribalism as opposed to actual distaste for any particular user.
For what it's worth, I have no problems with anyone.
https://youtu.be/rIOV3pI_VPI
My three-year old takes after me too. The poor sap.
We've had the "My poor son is grieving, Mummy make it all better" defence, now it is the "my son has autism" defence.
I'm not saying his son or indeed himself aren't in a difficult situation but the point is that thousands of people are too. And all this does is reinforce the idea it is one rule for them and one rule for us.
And why not mention this earlier, why bring it up suddenly now? Can you not see how cynical it looks?
Criticism is part of the territory particularly if you are not in the PB Tory club, you are such a drama queen at times.
You remind me of Jess Phillips not everything is about you.
And I am on the same side of you on most things and quite like you.
Its that secondary point which I think we struggle with in this country.
If it is to oversee an efficient, competent administration then the evidence is he simply isn't up to it. They are crap.
Sorry to keep banging on about this but it seems Cummings has had a resounding tin ear from the start of this pandemic.
Who was for and against various decisions on lockdown, entry to the UK, PPE, testing, care homes etc would be interesting to know.
But in any case it misses the point. The dizzying blizzard of different explanations suggest people thrashing around to come up with something that works rather than something genuine.
The mother is now bleating “You know, we have been a grieving family,” she continued, “and there’s been no recognition of that, and I wish reporters would be cognisant of that fact.” Well tough so are many tens of thousands of others and they're doing it alone in respect of the law.
Any Tory who supports this needs their head examining and thankfully it's another Black Wednesday moment and their reputation completely trashed.
Boris is not capable of leading on big projects himself - far too lazy.
But I agree there isn't any evidence yet of Cummings being a force for good.
You could say that this has been encouraged by the 'leaders of society' own actions.
A quick flick through my well tended memory banks shows that at various times on here I've been called dickstain, prick, cretin, leftard, cunty, traitor, racist, Nazi and paedo among other things. I'm quite capable of looking after myself and giving as good as I get, though I tend to prefer, if not a rapier, at least a sabre rather than the bludgeon used by some of these goons. However I don't remember any of those epithets coming from lefties, nor any right wingers getting precious about their less delicate fellow travellers. On that basis pious bleating about working at being a decent human being just gets a contemptuous snort from this 'kinder, gentler' comrade.
At this point society is still a long way from experiencing the full consequences of long-term social distancing. These consequences will of course include economic costs, but many others as well. Long-term consequences will not be felt quickly, but they will be eventually. Until then social distancing has a role in managing the pandemic in the short term. The epidemic has raised a huge range of questions that people have not thought about much. It will take a long time before they reach answers that could be difficult and unfamiliar.
And now look at him: unwilling to discipline an unelected advisor.
It could happen to many of us but it might not fit the image Cummings has of himself / wants others to have of himself.
The guidelines were not made with full foreknowledge of every possible situation, and therefore they must be subject to some interpretation, as long as the behaviour is safe. Hence the phrase 'no non-essential travel'. Personally, I would consider what Cummings did to be comfortably within what might be interpreted as 'essential travel'. I would think that without the autism. I think it even more with it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-press-conference-statement-24-may-2020
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/24/politics/biden-clinton-polling-analysis/index.html
Key point:
Hillary 48%
Trump 46%
Cyclefree has got this. If there was a good explanation, it would have been made on day one, hour one of the story. What has in fact happened is a pathetic rifling through the rolodex of BS excuses whilst trying to work out what facts about his conduct are going to filter into the public domain, and which aren't.
If you've got a good explanation, you give it immediately and stick to it. He, and Johnson, just haven't. It's a shit show.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/20/coronavirus-mental-health-trauma
All the excuses are working back from that. A little humility and an admission of weakness under strain would have caught the mood swimmingly.
Too late now.
And also if the entire, or most of, the Cabinet turned against them, then the command of the House would almost certainly be falling away next.
Its a better system than the US, imho, in that the Cabinet is appointed by PM, but only from the pool of MPs (and the odd Lord). In US the Cabinet is all made up of lackeys to the POTUS, with no hinterland or democratic link.
Austria's President Alexander Van der Bellen has apologised after he broke a coronavirus-related curfew. He stayed at a restaurant in the capital, Vienna, beyond the closing time mandated under the country's lockdown measures.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52792941
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8353139/Dominic-Cummings-blasts-press-not-social-distancing-returns-home.html
I have a son on the autistic spectrum. It is essentially a social condition, it is not a mental illness, and an autistic spectrum child is quite often well, rather than badly behaved. ASD can manifest itself in so many different ways. For my son the condition gave him difficulty in making friends and appearing excessively polite. Cumming's child could be high functioning or he could be a handful at times, do you know which? Either way a 300 mile trip up the A1 I would have though completely unnecessary.
We all have our stories and have been through these unusual times together.
We didn't ask for special pleading.
The key issue here is that many of the people most inclined to mingle closely - the young, the fit - are the people least likely to be affected. So the question - assuming that they come into contact with others who are less young and fit - is how far they owe it to them to restrain themselves from having an enjoyable life. Most of the parallels that Cyclefree evinces are not that similar - if I smoke and increase the risk of having to have expensive treatment, that's risking an economic cost for society. If I contract the virus and pass it on to older relatives, that's accepting a risk of killing them. The closer parallel is driving at 150 mph - it's undoubtedly fun for many, but there's a major risk to life for other people (and themselves).
Personally I reach a different conclusion. There seems a reasonable chance that either a vaccine or good treatment will be along within a year. Is it that unreasonable to ask young, fit people to avoid the types of contact that will endanger others for a year? Let's subsidise the arts and hospitsality industries for the year too, so there's something to come back to, and let's tax everyone including the older, often wealthier people, for the cost.
If the hopes of breakthrough prove elusive after a year, OK, we'll need to think again.
In case you have not noticed, companies are starting to go *pop*! The impact on the travel, leisure and hospitality sectors is only beginning to bite.
The high-risk places are mostly indoors, so they're managed by someone. We already have a precedent that anywhere that serves food has to comply with fairly onerous hygiene requirements, so expand those as a condition of reopening. Print some money to help places do this, and bail out places that need to be put into deep freeze for the duration.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1264682792429989891?s=20
The young have consistently been a lot more left-wing than the retired. They're also strongly in favour of rejoining the EU.
Maybe the boomers-and-older whose lives have been saved by the sacrifice of the young will repay the favour by letting the young have control over their destiny in these aspects?
No, I didn't think so either.
(But, hey, "arts and hospitality". That's pretty much a direct translation of "bread and circuses", isn't it?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAwVW_-Mhzk
Parents don't want to send their kids back to school "Doing the best for my children" will be trotted out.
People want to visit their relatives or head to beauty spots "Good enough for Cummings"
The press can smell blood.
We're terrible at nuance. The reality is that you could probably keep CV-19 from taking off again with a fairly simple set of measures: masks on public transport (and other crowded places), track and trace, sporting events run without crowds, pubs being seating only for the time being, people being reminded to regularly wash hands, etc.
Yes, the virus would still spread, but it would be at a modest pace. It would become an irritation.
But people like "safe" and "not safe".
I find it astonishing that people in the UK are casting off their masks. It seems like making sure that people in crowded places where masks is a pretty simple measure that limits people coughing or sneezing droplets infused with the virus.
This isn't a "switch" than can be thrown, it is a continuum, and sensible modest measures can go a long way.
https://twitter.com/adamscrabble/status/1264738318383808515
But we are living in a world where many people will feel that once the lockdown is being officially eased to some (however small) extent, they will have license to cut back rigorously on any such inconveniences.
Here in Germany, there has been a limited, gradual, cautios relaxation of the lockdown going on over the last fortnight. That has resulted in a number of new outbreaks.
A dress rehearsal for a restaurant reopening has (so far) caused 40 new cases among 80 guests and 20 staff.
A Baptist curch service has caused a larger new cluster. 3 days ago they reported 50 new cases at noon, 80 late at night, 120 the next day, today the count stood at 200, and that will not be the end of it.
Five local health authorities from neighbouring districts have worked together, more than 100 contact tracers have worked for 4 days to identify the (so far) 200 cases.
Each of these outbreaks has been caused by only a single transmitter, over a couple of hours. When it goes wrong, it can go wrong very quickly, and the two outbreaks described above were not the only ones.
Our authorities have so far not pulled the emergency break, but they had to deal with 'only' 5k new cases over the last 10 days, for the UK the number has been roughly 30k, and its tracing programme hasn't been all that robust to begin with.
A large number of those cases will have occured in hospitals and care homes, where the tracing is comparatively easy, but the rest of them may easily overwhelm the capacity of the system.
Any significant relaxation of the lockdown looks like a bold decision to make in these circumstances, but your government seems to have put itself into Zugzwang with its deteriorating communication strategy.
Sounded to me like a rhetorical point being made - namely that the Brexit vote pissed off the greta majority of young people, and that isn’t going away.
I think what they should probably be doing here is sterilizing any short-term loosening announcement with a more targeted longer-term toughening announcement. So say "we're going to allow normal shops to open again", but at the same time say, "nightclubs will need to be closed for at least 3 months". Do lots of these, and try to get people thinking about the actual contagion vectors and the long-term changes they'll need, instead of "can we go back to normal yet".
The Cummings case is emblematic of that; a simple ‘I’m sorry, I was wrong’ might have seen the end of it. As it is, a stubborn insistence to accept fault, over what is in itself a relatively minor matter, has severely weakened the government.
But such sensible behaviour requires a broad measure of social consensus and direction from a competent government. Is there a country which has successfully addressed the pandemic where that isn’t the case ?
There was a fragile consensus engendered by the pandemic, but our politics in recent years have been about destroying consensus, and it’s increasingly clear that large parts of the government simply aren’t up to the task. So I think we fail on both counts.
Tory whips apologise for urging MPs to support Dominic Cummings
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/24/tory-whips-apologise-for-urging-mps-to-support-dominic-cummings
“I believe that in every respect he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity, and with the overriding aim to stopping the spread of the virus and saving lives.”
It's a terrible moment for Johnson. He is weaker than I thought. Much weaker.
https://twitter.com/johnjcrace/status/1264645940801085446?s=21
I wonder how much the Mail’s position is driven by their (overwhelmingly hostile) readers comments?
At Levenson Rebekah Brooks said the Sun paid a great deal of attention to these when considering its editorial position.
He will never recover from this.
Black Sunday 2020 occurred 23 weeks after Boris Johnson's General Election victory.
The results will be the same. His ratings will plummet. The opinion polls will slide. He will not recover.