What unravelled? I didn’t get all the q&a but did he say Mary doesn’t drive?
Well he said the trip towards the Barnard Castle area to test it was safe to drive for him, but why didn't let his wife drive instead if he wasn't sure about driving.
My wife is a better driver than me but doesn’t like long drives so I do all motorway driving.
Why didnt he ask for a govt driver? He is the second most important person in govt.
What unravelled? I didn’t get all the q&a but did he say Mary doesn’t drive?
Well he said the trip towards the Barnard Castle area to test it was safe to drive for him, but why didn't let his wife drive instead if he wasn't sure about driving.
My wife is a better driver than me but doesn’t like long drives so I do all motorway driving.
Why didnt he ask for a govt driver? He is the second most important person in govt.
Who is first?
I was being unusually deferential to the PM, you are quite right.
He's a massive c*** and he's going to destroy the party's credibility with voters. He has to go and so does Boris.
Didn't see it but I would imagine this is the appropriate response.
I didn't see it either. I can't imagine anything more boring. We were advised against non-essential travel. His travel sounds essential. At that point, for me, this just becomes a silly story sustained because people dislike him and the Government, and want to humiliate one and weaken the other.
We left home for the first time in months for a half hour's drive. No, we didn't go to Barnard Castle. I can confirm that the world beyond our gate looks much the same as it did in March. Didn't see anyone with a face covering.
Got home to find out that my mother-in-law had a heart attack this morning. She seems to be doing OK, but of course we can't go to visit her in hospital. At least Wor Lass is able to phone her.
Biggest question I have now is how the UK hangs together when in a few days England and Scotland at least are one whole step out of phase. Boris is talking about phase 2 from June 1. Sturgeon is talking about phase 1 from 28 May.
And the gap in lockdown restriction easing is getting bigger not smaller.
It's a political opportunity for unionism if Scotland requires furlough money for longer. Played carefully, it could even benefit the non-existent Scottish Tories, as they could be given a role in 'tense behind the scenes negotiations with the Chancellor'.
So, saving lives not really a key consideration for Unionists.
What unravelled? I didn’t get all the q&a but did he say Mary doesn’t drive?
Well he said the trip towards the Barnard Castle area to test it was safe to drive for him, but why didn't let his wife drive instead if he wasn't sure about driving.
My wife is a better driver than me but doesn’t like long drives so I do all motorway driving.
Occasionally - once every couple of years maybe, and particularly if I've been under the weather healthwise - I have a funny feeling with my eyesight. It just doesn't seem "right" somehow, subjectively anyway. It's disconcerting so I try to check it objectively, and I find I can focus fine on near objects, I can read text far away, there's no sensation of shaking or "swimming", and there isn't any region in my field of vision that is discernibly blurred. Though if I was asked "why does your eyesight feel 'off' to you, what's wrong with it?", the closest I could say is probably "it feels blurry". It just doesn't look blurry, despite "feeling" it, if that makes any sense?
For fellow glasses-wearers, perhaps a clearer explanation: the visual disconcertment is like the feeling you get when you switch to a new pair of spectacles with a slight change in prescription (or a change in material so you have to get used to a different amount of chromatic aberration, glare etc). That always feels quite badly "off" to me for a few days, and only starts to feel actively "normal" after a couple of weeks.
What Cummings said about this actually rang a lot of bells for me - not quite trusting your eyesight, yet not being able to identify any specific flaw or deficiency, and wanting to "get my eye in" before undertaking any serious activity. Yet the general public reaction to it seems to be treating it as something alien and incomprehensible.
Does anyone else ever experience this feeling, or better still know what it's called? I'd love to know whether it's entirely subjective (which is what I lean towards) or whether it actually is a deterioration in vision - perhaps the eyes not quite focusing correctly.
(For what it's worth, I try to deal with it by pottering around the house and garden, avoiding TV/computer/phone screens, until I feel confident in my vision - it still feels "off" but once I've got some faith that things are where I am visualising them as being, it stops being so disconcerting. If possible I'll cancel anything that requires going out. Once or twice this has struck while I'm out and about, and I'll go for a bit of a walk first before driving home cautiously if I'm satisfied that my vision is actually okay, despite the sensation. Though personally I'd need to feel really satisfied it's all okay before taking passengers or undertaking a long drive, and if I could switch driving duties with somebody I would.)
I'd only get behind the wheel if I felt my eyesight was up to it. But if I'd been sick or not driven for a long time I always do short drives before going on cross country drives. ...
PS the half hour rule of thumb I've followed since I was 18, came from an RAC agent.
You're taking a lot of ridicule for this, presumably because of the person it's being used in defence of, but just as a standalone piece of advice I think this is a good one. I sometimes go weeks or even a couple of months without driving, and always like to get a short, unpressurised practice run in before starting up driving again. Not sure about optimal duration, but I suspect 30 mins is good for the car too if it's been sitting unused!
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
More than that, Rishi just comments on the agreed and obvious thought - that DC is trying to protect his child - and says that he, Rishi, 'believes that he has explained himself'.
I too believe DC has explained himself. (Though I think the explanation is thin).
To defend him Rishi would have to say 'that I believe him'. It is noticeable that no-one is saying this - including Boris.
Rishi sinks in my estimation.
And triumphalist tory dweebs should reflect on the fact that Cummings is not distracting attention from the government's many triumphs, it is dead catting a series of much more serious blunders which have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary and horrible deaths. “Nobody died and the Guardian lied” may sound clever and funny to those who think it sophisticated to laugh about that kind of thing. Actually, it isn't. And you have to be really, really tone deaf not to see that the tories have lost for good a huge wodge of traditional support. I don't know much about the Red Wall, but it seems a fair assumption it will turn red again.
Re the car journey why didnt he just ask for a government driver!?
I suspect because he knew there would then be a good chance his jaunt to Durham would leak out if hje did that. Same reason his wife neglected to mention they were in Durham in her lengthy Spectator piece.
They knew from the start they were in the wrong and just hoped they would get away with it.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
So it used to be people with family castles, people who went to Eton, etc, who is it now?
I have addressed it repeatedly. Safety comes first. Before going on a long cross country drive after illness going on a short drive first makes sense.
30 miles is not a short drive. A test drive if you think you might not be safe is not one where you bring your wife and child. You risk putting them - as well as others - at serious risk.
Honestly sometimes you do give the impression you will swallow any old rubbish.
I doubt PT actually believes it himself, he's not stupid, he's simply trying to spin it as best he can in the hope that the rest of us are stupid. .
It's reasonable. Before going on a cross country drive I'd go on a half hour drive in those circumstances. It's what I was taught to do. I don't know local are not 30 miles is half an hour if it's national speed limit.
Even if you think the explanation would provide a reasonable excuse under sec 6, Do you actually believe him?
On the short drive before a cross country one after an illness. Yes, it's what I'd do in those circumstances.
Most people here seem to be getting bogged down in rather dull detail that's not going to have any impact on the outcome, unless there's any new revelation.
I would suggest:
1. Cummings did well enough today to survive, and picking away at his account is pointless unless there's something brand new. It should have come earlier, but BLTN.
2. The government's handling of this has been atrocious over the last 72 hours, and contrasts sharply with previous administrations' handling of such PR disasters.
3. Boris needs Cummings much more than vice versa.
4. And the key point: Boris is a much diminished figure, and while this story will fade, Boris's diminution won't. He is not, actually, prime ministerial material. This is nothing like being Mayor of London. It does not suit him, and he can't really do it. This is what should really worry the Tories on here, not the Cummings stuff.
Biggest question I have now is how the UK hangs together when in a few days England and Scotland at least are one whole step out of phase. Boris is talking about phase 2 from June 1. Sturgeon is talking about phase 1 from 28 May.
And the gap in lockdown restriction easing is getting bigger not smaller.
It's a political opportunity for unionism if Scotland requires furlough money for longer. Played carefully, it could even benefit the non-existent Scottish Tories, as they could be given a role in 'tense behind the scenes negotiations with the Chancellor'.
So, saving lives not really a key consideration for Unionists.
I don't think that can really be inferred from what I said.
Tribal politics is alive and kicking I see, pathetic.
Johnson was abysmal last night but much better this evening, thanks in large to the inane questions from a desperate media. They want a scalp and they are not going to get it.
Johnson fended them off really easily and even managed to get in a dig at the Guardian and their false reporting.
To be honest I am not remotely interested in what the likes of CHB thinks, it puerile rubbish.
However I am interested in what Big G thinks as he was so critical last night
Today is the first time I have really seen or heard from Cummings and outside of the bubble he did not look like the monster he is portrayed as and he did prove the Guardian were wrong when they said he had gone back and the Guardian lied about the police speaking to Cummings himself. It will be interesting to see if the Guardian retract and apologise
My wife listened with me and felt he had given an honest and frank statement and indeed the vox pop from Barnard Castle seemed to bear that out, with some support for Cummings, especially from women
The divides on here are self evident but I expect he will retain his job, the polls will be bad for Boris, and the gap to labour will close
In a 4 year parliament it is not the event that decides GE 24, it is the way HMG deals with the economic armageddon that will.
As for Boris he lost me last night and I believe he needs to go on paternity leave, he has not recovered by some distance from covid
I agree about last night but thought he was back and fighting this evening, though I do agree that this has taken a lot out of him.
I reckon if he gets to the end of the year and we have left the EU, regardless of whether there is a trade deal or not, he will retire on health grounds and he will be able to say he got Brexit done
Quite possibly
I don't think Beth Rigby will get an honour in Boris' retirement honours!
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
That was the reply of a working class woman to the BBC newscaster who asked her about "one law for them, another law for us" - "This is news? It's always been like that...."
Re the car journey why didnt he just ask for a government driver!?
I suspect because he knew there would then be a good chance his jaunt to Durham would leak out if hje did that. Same reason his wife neglected to mention they were in Durham in her lengthy Spectator piece.
They knew from the start they were in the wrong and just hoped they would get away with it.
If they had done the whole thing above board, this would never have been a big issue.
If he could genuinely stay away from his parents, I wouldnt have been fussed if they had been helicoptered the 350 miles there and back, on the basis he is key to the govt and can recuperate faster outside London.
Most people would have accepted that as a one off in the week when senior govt players were falling like flies.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
Perhaps.
But not so visibly.
On Friday, I asked "what's wrong with an old fashioned apology?" This, let's be honest, was a detention offence, not an expulsion one.
By choosing to deny Cummings did anything wrong, they have saved his skin at the expense of a little bit of reputation.
Governments are like the banks of rivers. It can look like nothing has changed but erosion, once it has happened, cannot easily be undone. The path of the river, slowly but surely, begins to change.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
Without Cummings the whole Brexit strategy is in limbo. Every government strategy is in limbo.
Which is why he will stay. Although there's nothing he couldn't do from a phone call away if he did choose to resign.
How anyone can be confident in Boris right now god only knows.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
So it used to be people with family castles, people who went to Eton, etc, who is it now?
Its still them but they have cliques.
Currently the internationalist liberals have been kicked out and the squirearchy has taken their place.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
So it used to be people with family castles, people who went to Eton, etc, who is it now?
Its still them but they have cliques.
Currently the internationalist liberals have been kicked out and the squirearchy has taken their place.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
Let us for a minute imagine this was a Labour adviser, how PB would have reacted then
Wouldn't make any difference with me. I tend to support the government of the day on most things. I did with Tony Blair. The only exception was the 3 years that Gordon Brown was in office.
Surely Dom's ability to dismantle the civil service and revolutionize government, or whatever he was intending to do, is now in tatters. This is the bloke who can't even arrange child care without almost bringing down the government and jeopardizing the principal public-health policy during a national crisis. Any crackpot schemes he comes up with now will be met with derision. His credibility is totally shot.
More than that, Rishi just comments on the agreed and obvious thought - that DC is trying to protect his child - and says that he, Rishi, 'believes that he has explained himself'.
I too believe DC has explained himself. (Though I think the explanation is thin).
To defend him Rishi would have to say 'that I believe him'. It is noticeable that no-one is saying this - including Boris.
Rishi sinks in my estimation.
And triumphalist tory dweebs should reflect on the fact that Cummings is not distracting attention from the government's many triumphs, it is dead catting a series of much more serious blunders which have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary and horrible deaths. “Nobody died and the Guardian lied” may sound clever and funny to those who think it sophisticated to laugh about that kind of thing. Actually, it isn't. And you have to be really, really tone deaf not to see that the tories have lost for good a huge wodge of traditional support. I don't know much about the Red Wall, but it seems a fair assumption it will turn red again.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
So it used to be people with family castles, people who went to Eton, etc, who is it now?
Its still them but they have cliques.
Currently the internationalist liberals have been kicked out and the squirearchy has taken their place.
We can leave you with no more wisdom than that of that much-missed (and vastly-underestimated) political fighter, Jim Callaghan. During the 1979 General Election campaign, Jim was savvy enough to feel the sea-change around him. As he admitted to his driver at one point, sometimes politics just changes, and there’s nothing you can do. That change of feeling, he detected, was for Margaret Thatcher, and he was right.
It’s possible to imagine – though this might turn out completely wrong – that we are at a similar inflection point now. What do the Conservatives’ new voters really, really hate? Unfairness. The people ‘at the top’ – dare we say, the ‘elites’ – getting away with it. Well, this is them getting away with it redux. Had Cummings been, ooh, let’s say a dispensable scientist on an advisory body, he would have been out of a job. But because of who he is, he isn’t. It’s as simple as that.
After Labour’s betrayal of national security and Britain’s interests after the Russian chemical weapons attack on Salisbury – when they basically read out a Kremlin press release in response – something palpable, qualitatively, palpably changed about voters’ estimates of them. Are we at another one of those moments now? Could this be another of those periodic electoral shocks that change the landscape? It fees like it could be.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us....
I suspect there will be other instances illustrating that narrative, in due course.
What unravelled? I didn’t get all the q&a but did he say Mary doesn’t drive?
No the idea is why couldn't Mary drive back and therefore why was the trip to Barnard Castle necessary to see if Dom could drive?
May be she doesn’t like long distance driving? May be her license has been suspended? May be she was looking after the kid? maybe their “thing” is her giving him BJs while he drives.
Who knows. But if he was safe to drive then it was probably their standard MO
SeanT tells me it's traditional to wait until your kid is out the car
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
Labour is no longer run by a complete idiot, and I suspect this message will be repeated and repeated and repeated. Every scandal and misdemeanor will be seen through this lens.
there always has been one law for those in power and one for everyone else or didn't you realise that.
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
So it used to be people with family castles, people who went to Eton, etc, who is it now?
Its still them but they have cliques.
Currently the internationalist liberals have been kicked out and the squirearchy has taken their place.
When do the rest of us get a go?
A bit late to be born into the right family but you could try marrying into the right family.
Alternatively become very rich, become a successful politician or reach the higher rungs of your profession.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was the police speak to Cummings and they stated he had returned a second time, both of which were untrue. Indeed their story of his second trip turned me against him in that moment
The left cannot have it both ways. The Guardian lied twice in this story and a fulsome apology is needed
Let us for a minute imagine this was a Labour adviser, how PB would have reacted then
I expect this story to become yesterdays news quite quickly as we move to ongoing issues with opening schools and commerce
I expect a negative poll effect and Boris to continue struggling to regain his health and mo jo
It will be a big issue in the schools re-opening debate. Every parent is now an exceptional circumstance and can do what is best for their particular circumstances. So thats keeping it part of the debate June thru September.
Many unlucky kids will miss months if not years of schools because of this nonsense and the non apology.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
Without Cummings the whole Brexit strategy is in limbo. Every government strategy is in limbo.
Which is why he will stay. Although there's nothing he couldn't do from a phone call away if he did choose to resign.
How anyone can be confident in Boris right now god only knows.
I find it almost refreshing that we didn't get the easy option of a non-resignation resignation.
Surely Dom's ability to dismantle the civil service and revolutionize government, or whatever he was intending to do, is now in tatters. This is the bloke who can't even arrange child care without almost bringing down the government and jeopardizing the principal public-health policy during a national crisis. Any crackpot schemes he comes up with now will be met with derision. His credibility is totally shot.
This weekend has simply been a practice run, for the forthcoming much bigger rows over the government's reform agenda.
We can leave you with no more wisdom than that of that much-missed (and vastly-underestimated) political fighter, Jim Callaghan. During the 1979 General Election campaign, Jim was savvy enough to feel the sea-change around him. As he admitted to his driver at one point, sometimes politics just changes, and there’s nothing you can do. That change of feeling, he detected, was for Margaret Thatcher, and he was right.
It’s possible to imagine – though this might turn out completely wrong – that we are at a similar inflection point now. What do the Conservatives’ new voters really, really hate? Unfairness. The people ‘at the top’ – dare we say, the ‘elites’ – getting away with it. Well, this is them getting away with it redux. Had Cummings been, ooh, let’s say a dispensable scientist on an advisory body, he would have been out of a job. But because of who he is, he isn’t. It’s as simple as that.
After Labour’s betrayal of national security and Britain’s interests after the Russian chemical weapons attack on Salisbury – when they basically read out a Kremlin press release in response – something palpable, qualitatively, palpably changed about voters’ estimates of them. Are we at another one of those moments now? Could this be another of those periodic electoral shocks that change the landscape? It fees like it could be.
Proof of my laziness is the fact that I was supposed to be reading War & Peace and Atlas Shrugged during this lockdown and haven't started either of them.
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
It's this simple fact that for some reason eludes so many on here.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
Considering I'm tagged in this I feel its only fair to say that I agree with this.
Though I must insist I do believe in British fair play. I believe in fair play more than strict rules. Doing the right thing for your family as you see it within the law is fair play for me. If the laws not broken that is fair play for me.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
With your kid in the car? I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
His wife needed to be in the car - it was her who was worried about him being safe to drive. So the son had to come because he was too young to stay home alone and it would have been a breach of the rules to intermingle two households
Personally, if there was any doubt and I'd been that ill recently, and I had the facilities to work from home and my boss who I advise was not at work and recuperating for the next two weeks anyway, I think I'd have waited a few more days first.
And of course all of that would have been irrelevant if he'd self-isolated in London as he was supposed to have done. I simply do not buy the argument that there were no child-care options for a wealthy and privileged couple like that in London
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
There's a strange tension on the right between libertarianism and authoritarianism on a lot of issues.
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
With your kid in the car? I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
His wife needed to be in the car - it was her who was worried about him being safe to drive. So the son had to come because he was too young to stay home alone and it would have been a breach of the rules to intermingle two households
Personally, if there was any doubt and I'd been that ill recently, and I had the facilities to work from home and my boss who I advise was not at work and recuperating for the next two weeks anyway, I think I'd have waited a few more days first.
And of course all of that would have been irrelevant if he'd self-isolated in London as he was supposed to have done. I simply do not buy the argument that there were no child-care options for a wealthy and privileged couple like that in London
Just as a question: @Philip_Thompson - as the father of a young lad yourself, would you, if there was reason to suspect your eyesight might be impaired, test it by going for a 30-mile drive with your son in the car? Rather than, say, wait a few more days and check in over Zoom.
I really wouldn’t, myself, but I’m wondering if I’m overcautious
If I felt my vision currently impaired I wouldn't get behind the wheel.
If I felt safe to drive but was concerned after a serious illness I'd certainly consider a short drive first before setting off on a cross country drive.
With your kid in the car? I wouldn’t, not if there was any reasonable chance I might be incapable. Such as when he was too sick to continue for a while at Barnard’s Castle.
His wife needed to be in the car - it was her who was worried about him being safe to drive. So the son had to come because he was too young to stay home alone and it would have been a breach of the rules to intermingle two households
Personally, if there was any doubt and I'd been that ill recently, and I had the facilities to work from home and my boss who I advise was not at work and recuperating for the next two weeks anyway, I think I'd have waited a few more days first.
And of course all of that would have been irrelevant if he'd self-isolated in London as he was supposed to have done. I simply do not buy the argument that there were no child-care options for a wealthy and privileged couple like that in London
Most people here seem to be getting bogged down in rather dull detail that's not going to have any impact on the outcome, unless there's any new revelation.
I would suggest:
1. Cummings did well enough today to survive, and picking away at his account is pointless unless there's something brand new. It should have come earlier, but BLTN.
2. The government's handling of this has been atrocious over the last 72 hours, and contrasts sharply with previous administrations' handling of such PR disasters.
3. Boris needs Cummings much more than vice versa.
4. And the key point: Boris is a much diminished figure, and while this story will fade, Boris's diminution won't. He is not, actually, prime ministerial material. This is nothing like being Mayor of London. It does not suit him, and he can't really do it. This is what should really worry the Tories on here, not the Cummings stuff.
Yes, much diminished; and a good deal of what diminishes is about belief and truthfulness. When there is some arcane debate about helicopters, tobacco advertising or Saudi Arabia, well, that's politics, let them get on with it would be the general medium term view.
ERM did for the Tories because of its direct cash consequences. Iraq did for Labour because we believed our people died in a worthless and dishonest cause. CV 19 of itself would not of course dish the Tories because it is an act of God; nor would actions which in hindsight look sub optimal. But dishonesty, elitism, special pleading and lies could scupper them in an Iraq like way. And this is the place they now look like.
A special danger is this, noteworthy in the media and indeed on PB. No-one, but no-one is standing up to say "I believe Dominic Cummings and I believe that the PM and the cabinet do too." That's because they don't. No-one does. That is what makes it a possible Iraq time for this government.
Now that Labour have an electable leader and a partially decent front bench life has changed. There is a possible alternative government. And we are not through Brexit yet.
We can leave you with no more wisdom than that of that much-missed (and vastly-underestimated) political fighter, Jim Callaghan. During the 1979 General Election campaign, Jim was savvy enough to feel the sea-change around him. As he admitted to his driver at one point, sometimes politics just changes, and there’s nothing you can do. That change of feeling, he detected, was for Margaret Thatcher, and he was right.
It’s possible to imagine – though this might turn out completely wrong – that we are at a similar inflection point now. What do the Conservatives’ new voters really, really hate? Unfairness. The people ‘at the top’ – dare we say, the ‘elites’ – getting away with it. Well, this is them getting away with it redux. Had Cummings been, ooh, let’s say a dispensable scientist on an advisory body, he would have been out of a job. But because of who he is, he isn’t. It’s as simple as that.
After Labour’s betrayal of national security and Britain’s interests after the Russian chemical weapons attack on Salisbury – when they basically read out a Kremlin press release in response – something palpable, qualitatively, palpably changed about voters’ estimates of them. Are we at another one of those moments now? Could this be another of those periodic electoral shocks that change the landscape? It fees like it could be.
Reaction in my household was what a waste of time, couldn't they have put something watchable on TV for the Bank Holiday ?
You might be right. It's always important for us to challenge ourselves to think beyond the here and now. Perhaps this is more of a bubble story than we think. Perhaps I'm more concerned with the government not managing the situation very well rather than what Cummings did.
But I suspect this is a crucial moment that the Tories won't recover from before the next election.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was "Police Speak to Cummings About Lockdown Breach"
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
Glad to see they have so much time to do this - rather than trying to offer constructive support in the biggest crisis this country has seen since the war.
Well I said from the moment this story broke that if he's broken the law he should go. But it seems that's not enough for most people here. It seems for most people here even if he's followed the rules he should still go. In which case I feel like I'm the one being reasonable while others are losing their heads. Expecting people to lose their jobs because acted legally while their family was sick is not my definition of reasonable.
Getting sucked into some Two Minutes Hate with everyone else who is losing their minds isn't great. Being able to avoid joining in to a hatefest just because someone lawfully looked after their family isn't unreasonable. There's something ugly going on here and I want no part in it.
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was "Police Speak to Cummings About Lockdown Breach"
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
"Durham Constabulary deemed that no further action was required."
Presumably to deem no action was required, they had to speak to someone about it?
A thought's just occurred to me. It's a shame they didn't try to defend Ferguson. Had they done so we'd have been inundated with stories like "I was in the middle of an affair, and now I can't see my lover".
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was "Police Speak to Cummings About Lockdown Breach"
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
Proof of my laziness is the fact that I was supposed to be reading War & Peace and Atlas Shrugged during this lockdown and haven't started either of them.
Whatever other things you did were more worthwhile.
I find it much harder to read a 'classic novel' these days - the temptation is to look it up on wikipedia and save my time.
Glad to see they have so much time to do this - rather than trying to offer constructive support in the biggest crisis this country has seen since the war.
The biggest obstacle to the govt effort has become Dominic Cummings.
They can no longer use the effective STAY HOME messaging.
People will now make their own decisions on whats best for them and forget about any non binding guidelines. That will spread more virus, cause more deaths and reduce the number of kids getting an education.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was "Police Speak to Cummings About Lockdown Breach"
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
Of course, if they spoke to Cummings's Dad (presumably also called 'Cummings') then "Police speak to Cummings...." still stands.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
There's a strange tension on the right between libertarianism and authoritarianism on a lot of issues.
This is why viewing politics on at least two axes, rather than one, confers more understanding of where people are coming from and what they are likely to believe and support. I like the two axes model with egalitarian to authoritarian as the first, and individualistic to communitarian as the second
Well I said from the moment this story broke that if he's broken the law he should go. But it seems that's not enough for most people here. It seems for most people here even if he's followed the rules he should still go. In which case I feel like I'm the one being reasonable while others are losing their heads. Expecting people to lose their jobs because acted legally while their family was sick is not my definition of reasonable.
Getting sucked into some Two Minutes Hate with everyone else who is losing their minds isn't great. Being able to avoid joining in to a hatefest just because someone lawfully looked after their family isn't unreasonable. There's something ugly going on here and I want no part in it.
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
Again, I think the divide between Tories like Philip and HYUFD is the most significant thing here. Long term he may have lost some of the Mail readers. They’re not about to go and vote anything but Conservative but they have influence in the direction of the party and this, I think, has been an expression of disquiet about that. That’s why, for anti-Tories, it’s tactically better for Cummings to stay.
Most people here seem to be getting bogged down in rather dull detail that's not going to have any impact on the outcome, unless there's any new revelation.
I would suggest:
1. Cummings did well enough today to survive, and picking away at his account is pointless unless there's something brand new. It should have come earlier, but BLTN.
2. The government's handling of this has been atrocious over the last 72 hours, and contrasts sharply with previous administrations' handling of such PR disasters.
3. Boris needs Cummings much more than vice versa.
4. And the key point: Boris is a much diminished figure, and while this story will fade, Boris's diminution won't. He is not, actually, prime ministerial material. This is nothing like being Mayor of London. It does not suit him, and he can't really do it. This is what should really worry the Tories on here, not the Cummings stuff.
One other thing, which the Sunday Times reported on yesterday, but isn't going anywhere.
When the dust settles, it is certain that the UK will have done badly in terms of wave 1 COVID deaths, and quite possible that we will have the worst outcomes in Europe. The key reason for that is likely to have been that we faffed about for most of March. Because of the time we wasted then, we are going to be stuck in semi-lockdown for longer, because we had a bigger peak to squash (Eire, for example, is down to zero deaths today).
Neither Boris nor Dom can be forced from office against their will, unless lots of Conservative MPs show some sense and find an alternative. But this weekend has diminished both of them. Dom's diminution is just as important- can he really jeer at journos or swagger at Spads in the same way again?
Glad to see they have so much time to do this - rather than trying to offer constructive support in the biggest crisis this country has seen since the war.
I would imagine that they think saying get rid of that wizened wee Gollum mofo is offering constructive support.
2. The government's handling of this has been atrocious over the last 72 hours, and contrasts sharply with previous administrations' handling of such PR disasters.
This really stood out to me.
There was a lot of stuff that any competent PR person would surely have flagged up in terms of the timing of the Cummings statement, what facts needed to be available before anyone faced the media earlier, what line for the government to take in general.
Most of all, while it did sound like the prepared statement had been carefully "lawyered" (it would have been madness if it hadn't), it also struck me it hadn't been carefully "PRed". The thing about the "eyesight" could easily have been changed to "wanting to 'get my eye in' and check I really was fit to drive home", for example - would still get some ridicule but by replacing a specific concern with a generic one, doesn't carry the same suggestion of his driving attempt being actively endangering the general public.
Most of all, did he reject all coaching on the question-answering? He seemed very flat-footed and unprepared, when surely it was worth spending a few hours role-playing before the biggest media performance of his life. The majority of questions were predictable and he walked straight into all the elephant traps around regret etc. He could even have expressed many of the same sentiments in a less damaging way (I'm not an expert PR person but I'm pretty sure a better way of saying "No!" to "Do you regret it?" is something like "I'll always do the best thing for my young family, in the circumstances we face and within what's allowed by the rules" because then you can't be quoted as having said "I don't regret it").
This won't be a fix-all but I think Boris must surely be looking to beef up his spin team. Labour's have been looking very sharp at times under Starmer.
More than that, Rishi just comments on the agreed and obvious thought - that DC is trying to protect his child - and says that he, Rishi, 'believes that he has explained himself'.
I too believe DC has explained himself. (Though I think the explanation is thin).
To defend him Rishi would have to say 'that I believe him'. It is noticeable that no-one is saying this - including Boris.
Rishi sinks in my estimation.
And triumphalist tory dweebs should reflect on the fact that Cummings is not distracting attention from the government's many triumphs, it is dead catting a series of much more serious blunders which have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary and horrible deaths. “Nobody died and the Guardian lied” may sound clever and funny to those who think it sophisticated to laugh about that kind of thing. Actually, it isn't. And you have to be really, really tone deaf not to see that the tories have lost for good a huge wodge of traditional support. I don't know much about the Red Wall, but it seems a fair assumption it will turn red again.
Sure, but the electorate are looking for two fundamental things from a government: that it keeps people physically safe, and that it has the basic competence needed to run the country- a "could they find their own arses in the dark without a torch, and Google maps" kind of test. It is rare for one party to outperform the other so much on these tests that it swings an election, but that is what happened in 1997. Starmer looks competent. Boris does not, and his "strength" is purely in the fact that the FTPA merans he can't be challenged until 2024. I foresee four years of Labour poll leads, lost by-elections and "in office but not in power," enlivened only by the fact that if Boris gets to look any weaker some of the reptiles in his cabinet are going to start assessing their chances in a leadership challenge.
I watched it from start to finish, and haven't read PB since way before it started, so none of this thread at all, and haven't read social media either.
All I saw was Ed Davey being critical of him briefly on the BBC
Very well done I'd say. I'd not seen him speak before, and was prepared for brash arrogance. In fact he came across better than most politicians I've seen. Plain speaking compared to the journos too
Didn't say sorry and won't resign, good to see he really doesn't just do the normal political routine.
So, the front page headline that started all of this was a made-up lie materially untrue?
Presumably the Guardian will be apologising to Mr Cummings, and printing their correction on page 1 tomorrow?
They should correct it if it is untrue but wasn't it denied that there had been any contact between the police and the Cummings family? Has it not now been admitted that there was contact between the police and Cumming's father.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
The headline was "Police Speak to Cummings About Lockdown Breach"
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
Of course, if they spoke to Cummings's Dad (presumably also called 'Cummings') then "Police speak to Cummings...." still stands.
I'd only get behind the wheel if I felt my eyesight was up to it. But if I'd been sick or not driven for a long time I always do short drives before going on cross country drives. ...
PS the half hour rule of thumb I've followed since I was 18, came from an RAC agent.
You're taking a lot of ridicule for this, presumably because of the person it's being used in defence of, but just as a standalone piece of advice I think this is a good one. I sometimes go weeks or even a couple of months without driving, and always like to get a short, unpressurised practice run in before starting up driving again. Not sure about optimal duration, but I suspect 30 mins is good for the car too if it's been sitting unused!
Thank you!
Indeed I said the advice came from an RAC agent when I was 18. I'd passed my drivers test the week before going to university. I didn't drive much while at uni and ended up just before the end of first term checking the car and it had a flat battery. Called RAC who sorted it and while chatting with the RAC agent he said to drive for half an hour both for the sake of the car and it was good for my own driving before crossing country to drive home.
Its a rule of thumb I've lived by since if I've ever had a period of not needing to drive for a long time then having to do a lone one. During lockdown I've not driven any futher than the local shops which makes me worry now about the state of the car - I wouldn't do a cross country drive now without doing a half hour drive first.
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
There's a strange tension on the right between libertarianism and authoritarianism on a lot of issues.
This is why viewing politics on at least two axes, rather than one, confers more understanding of where people are coming from and what they are likely to believe and support. I like the two axes model with egalitarian to authoritarian as the first, and individualistic to communitarian as the second
Agree. Also, quite often a right-winger can flip very suddenly from "let everyone do want they want regardless of the consequences" to "send in the troops to quell the mob".
I hope Cummings survives. [EDIT: Even though I lose a bet]
This is operating at several levels.
There is the basic emotional level across all political opinions that this stinks. One law for us, another for them. I agree with that. Tory MPs are getting this in their in-trays in spades. That's the political raw material.
The Left wing and maybe some Remainers see this as a way at undermining Johnson's credibility and possibly getting a change of Tory leader and softening of policy on the EU (Hunt?).
But the worrying movement is by the hard Brexiteeers who have always hated Cummings who is a soft Brexiteer (Farage, Baker etc hate him). Baker led the charge by Tory MPs. If they can get rid of Cummings, they stand a better change of getting a No Deal Brexit. Cummings is a steadying force in this Cabinet of half-wits. I hope he survives.
Interesting analysis.
As I said the other day for me it is not a matter of hoping he goes, rather of believing that there is a fundamentally important reason why he must go - which is faith in and adherence to the guidance which, for all the other many things the Government have done wrong, I still believe is the best chance we have of bringing the virus under control with the minimum of further deaths. Cummings staying undermines that.
However as a Brexiteer I also agree with your analysis that Cummings is a pragmatic and a moderating force as far as the type of Brexit we achieve is concerned. So I do worry about who will gain further influence once he is gone.
Finally, whilst he is a moderating influence as far as Brexit is concerned, he is undoubtedly a radical if not a proto-revolutionary when it comes to remodelling the way our country is governed. Again I am a strong advocate of this and do think that when he falls, so will fall the once in a century chance to really reform the civil service and all aspects of Government in Britain. I regret that but still feel that people's lives are more important so he should go.
The issue Cummings has is that he wants Britain to be a techno-libertarian (or even techno-anarchist) society free from the shackles of EU Regulation or, indeed, much regulation at all. I get that - don’t necessarily agree - but I get it.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
Considering I'm tagged in this I feel its only fair to say that I agree with this.
Though I must insist I do believe in British fair play. I believe in fair play more than strict rules. Doing the right thing for your family as you see it within the law is fair play for me. If the laws not broken that is fair play for me.
Even in advance of the Durham trips by his own admission he went back to work at Downing St, when the law required him to be self isolating at home, simply because his wife told him to.
That is a breach of the law.
And on what planet does his ill wifes advice trump the laws he has been working on, based on scientific advice, and which he enforced on 67 million on us?
But I am far from convinced this is the right outcome for the government. A narrative has been created that there is one rule for those in power, and one for the rest of us.
It's this simple fact that for some reason eludes so many on here.
Rubbing that simple fact in the faces of the plebs is not smart politics, though.
Proof of my laziness is the fact that I was supposed to be reading War & Peace and Atlas Shrugged during this lockdown and haven't started either of them.
I'm about a third of the way through War and Peace. Haven't made any progress this weekend mind.
Comments
Occasionally - once every couple of years maybe, and particularly if I've been under the weather healthwise - I have a funny feeling with my eyesight. It just doesn't seem "right" somehow, subjectively anyway. It's disconcerting so I try to check it objectively, and I find I can focus fine on near objects, I can read text far away, there's no sensation of shaking or "swimming", and there isn't any region in my field of vision that is discernibly blurred. Though if I was asked "why does your eyesight feel 'off' to you, what's wrong with it?", the closest I could say is probably "it feels blurry". It just doesn't look blurry, despite "feeling" it, if that makes any sense?
For fellow glasses-wearers, perhaps a clearer explanation: the visual disconcertment is like the feeling you get when you switch to a new pair of spectacles with a slight change in prescription (or a change in material so you have to get used to a different amount of chromatic aberration, glare etc). That always feels quite badly "off" to me for a few days, and only starts to feel actively "normal" after a couple of weeks.
What Cummings said about this actually rang a lot of bells for me - not quite trusting your eyesight, yet not being able to identify any specific flaw or deficiency, and wanting to "get my eye in" before undertaking any serious activity. Yet the general public reaction to it seems to be treating it as something alien and incomprehensible.
Does anyone else ever experience this feeling, or better still know what it's called? I'd love to know whether it's entirely subjective (which is what I lean towards) or whether it actually is a deterioration in vision - perhaps the eyes not quite focusing correctly.
(For what it's worth, I try to deal with it by pottering around the house and garden, avoiding TV/computer/phone screens, until I feel confident in my vision - it still feels "off" but once I've got some faith that things are where I am visualising them as being, it stops being so disconcerting. If possible I'll cancel anything that requires going out. Once or twice this has struck while I'm out and about, and I'll go for a bit of a walk first before driving home cautiously if I'm satisfied that my vision is actually okay, despite the sensation. Though personally I'd need to feel really satisfied it's all okay before taking passengers or undertaking a long drive, and if I could switch driving duties with somebody I would.) You're taking a lot of ridicule for this, presumably because of the person it's being used in defence of, but just as a standalone piece of advice I think this is a good one. I sometimes go weeks or even a couple of months without driving, and always like to get a short, unpressurised practice run in before starting up driving again. Not sure about optimal duration, but I suspect 30 mins is good for the car too if it's been sitting unused!
The only difference on this is those in power have changed
And triumphalist tory dweebs should reflect on the fact that Cummings is not distracting attention from the government's many triumphs, it is dead catting a series of much more serious blunders which have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary and horrible deaths. “Nobody died and the Guardian lied” may sound clever and funny to those who think it sophisticated to laugh about that kind of thing. Actually, it isn't. And you have to be really, really tone deaf not to see that the tories have lost for good a huge wodge of traditional support. I don't know much about the Red Wall, but it seems a fair assumption it will turn red again.
They knew from the start they were in the wrong and just hoped they would get away with it.
I am a muppet
I would suggest:
1. Cummings did well enough today to survive, and picking away at his account is pointless unless there's something brand new. It should have come earlier, but BLTN.
2. The government's handling of this has been atrocious over the last 72 hours, and contrasts sharply with previous administrations' handling of such PR disasters.
3. Boris needs Cummings much more than vice versa.
4. And the key point: Boris is a much diminished figure, and while this story will fade, Boris's diminution won't. He is not, actually, prime ministerial material. This is nothing like being Mayor of London. It does not suit him, and he can't really do it. This is what should really worry the Tories on here, not the Cummings stuff.
Now if only we had a suitably motivated special adviser to get his teeth stuck into Phase 2...
If he could genuinely stay away from his parents, I wouldnt have been fussed if they had been helicoptered the 350 miles there and back, on the basis he is key to the govt and can recuperate faster outside London.
Most people would have accepted that as a one off in the week when senior govt players were falling like flies.
That is PBers believing what they want to believe
But not so visibly.
On Friday, I asked "what's wrong with an old fashioned apology?" This, let's be honest, was a detention offence, not an expulsion one.
By choosing to deny Cummings did anything wrong, they have saved his skin at the expense of a little bit of reputation.
Governments are like the banks of rivers. It can look like nothing has changed but erosion, once it has happened, cannot easily be undone. The path of the river, slowly but surely, begins to change.
Which is why he will stay. Although there's nothing he couldn't do from a phone call away if he did choose to resign.
How anyone can be confident in Boris right now god only knows.
Currently the internationalist liberals have been kicked out and the squirearchy has taken their place.
However many of the people who helped him deliver Brexit, whose mouthpiece is the Daily Mail, are not libertarian, or indeed liberal, let alone anarchist. Many of them don’t much like technology. They are actually quite authoritarian. They don’t like people they perceive as breaking the rules. They like rules. They like order. They like regulation. Not if it’s made in Brussels admittedly, but they like the rules that are made in the U.K. to be kept to the spirit and the letter. British fair play and all that.
This liberal vs traditional Tory beef shows up here on PB in the tension between @Philip_Thompson and @HYUFD. It’s the people more like HYUFD he’s upset. HYUFD himself has largely stayed out of it. Traditional Tories who follow the rules and believe in fair play. Cummings believes in disruption. That’s why this is significant. He going to find out he doesn’t understand many (not all by any means, but very many) of the people who achieved Brexit for him. They wanted out for different reasons.
They should simply say sorry, the contact was with Cumming's family and not as we originally believed with Cummings personally. Not sure how that improves things from Dom's point of view though.
I expect a negative poll effect and Boris to continue struggling to regain his health and mo jo
δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.
We can leave you with no more wisdom than that of that much-missed (and vastly-underestimated) political fighter, Jim Callaghan. During the 1979 General Election campaign, Jim was savvy enough to feel the sea-change around him. As he admitted to his driver at one point, sometimes politics just changes, and there’s nothing you can do. That change of feeling, he detected, was for Margaret Thatcher, and he was right.
It’s possible to imagine – though this might turn out completely wrong – that we are at a similar inflection point now. What do the Conservatives’ new voters really, really hate? Unfairness. The people ‘at the top’ – dare we say, the ‘elites’ – getting away with it. Well, this is them getting away with it redux. Had Cummings been, ooh, let’s say a dispensable scientist on an advisory body, he would have been out of a job. But because of who he is, he isn’t. It’s as simple as that.
After Labour’s betrayal of national security and Britain’s interests after the Russian chemical weapons attack on Salisbury – when they basically read out a Kremlin press release in response – something palpable, qualitatively, palpably changed about voters’ estimates of them. Are we at another one of those moments now? Could this be another of those periodic electoral shocks that change the landscape? It fees like it could be.
https://publicpolicypast.blogspot.com/2020/05/all-damage-they-can-do.html
Alternatively become very rich, become a successful politician or reach the higher rungs of your profession.
The left cannot have it both ways. The Guardian lied twice in this story and a fulsome apology is needed
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/25/attorney-general-faces-calls-to-resign-defends-dominic-cummings-suella-braverman
Many unlucky kids will miss months if not years of schools because of this nonsense and the non apology.
Reaction in my household was what a waste of time, couldn't they have put something watchable on TV for the Bank Holiday ?
£500 per post, £1000 per post about nationalisation
Proof of my laziness is the fact that I was supposed to be reading War & Peace and Atlas Shrugged during this lockdown and haven't started either of them.
Though I must insist I do believe in British fair play. I believe in fair play more than strict rules. Doing the right thing for your family as you see it within the law is fair play for me. If the laws not broken that is fair play for me.
ERM did for the Tories because of its direct cash consequences. Iraq did for Labour because we believed our people died in a worthless and dishonest cause. CV 19 of itself would not of course dish the Tories because it is an act of God; nor would actions which in hindsight look sub optimal. But dishonesty, elitism, special pleading and lies could scupper them in an Iraq like way. And this is the place they now look like.
A special danger is this, noteworthy in the media and indeed on PB. No-one, but no-one is standing up to say "I believe Dominic Cummings and I believe that the PM and the cabinet do too." That's because they don't. No-one does. That is what makes it a possible Iraq time for this government.
Now that Labour have an electable leader and a partially decent front bench life has changed. There is a possible alternative government. And we are not through Brexit yet.
But I suspect this is a crucial moment that the Tories won't recover from before the next election.
Both the police and Cummings say this is untrue and didn't happen.
Given that the story has led the news for three days despite being materially incorrect, I look forward to seeing what the Guardian's apology looks like tomorrow.
https://twitter.com/iromg/status/1264951085720010752?s=21
Getting sucked into some Two Minutes Hate with everyone else who is losing their minds isn't great. Being able to avoid joining in to a hatefest just because someone lawfully looked after their family isn't unreasonable. There's something ugly going on here and I want no part in it.
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
Presumably to deem no action was required, they had to speak to someone about it?
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1264968723460489219
I find it much harder to read a 'classic novel' these days - the temptation is to look it up on wikipedia and save my time.
They can no longer use the effective STAY HOME messaging.
People will now make their own decisions on whats best for them and forget about any non binding guidelines. That will spread more virus, cause more deaths and reduce the number of kids getting an education.
Pedantic of me, but this is PB
When the dust settles, it is certain that the UK will have done badly in terms of wave 1 COVID deaths, and quite possible that we will have the worst outcomes in Europe. The key reason for that is likely to have been that we faffed about for most of March. Because of the time we wasted then, we are going to be stuck in semi-lockdown for longer, because we had a bigger peak to squash (Eire, for example, is down to zero deaths today).
Neither Boris nor Dom can be forced from office against their will, unless lots of Conservative MPs show some sense and find an alternative. But this weekend has diminished both of them. Dom's diminution is just as important- can he really jeer at journos or swagger at Spads in the same way again?
There was a lot of stuff that any competent PR person would surely have flagged up in terms of the timing of the Cummings statement, what facts needed to be available before anyone faced the media earlier, what line for the government to take in general.
Most of all, while it did sound like the prepared statement had been carefully "lawyered" (it would have been madness if it hadn't), it also struck me it hadn't been carefully "PRed". The thing about the "eyesight" could easily have been changed to "wanting to 'get my eye in' and check I really was fit to drive home", for example - would still get some ridicule but by replacing a specific concern with a generic one, doesn't carry the same suggestion of his driving attempt being actively endangering the general public.
Most of all, did he reject all coaching on the question-answering? He seemed very flat-footed and unprepared, when surely it was worth spending a few hours role-playing before the biggest media performance of his life. The majority of questions were predictable and he walked straight into all the elephant traps around regret etc. He could even have expressed many of the same sentiments in a less damaging way (I'm not an expert PR person but I'm pretty sure a better way of saying "No!" to "Do you regret it?" is something like "I'll always do the best thing for my young family, in the circumstances we face and within what's allowed by the rules" because then you can't be quoted as having said "I don't regret it").
This won't be a fix-all but I think Boris must surely be looking to beef up his spin team. Labour's have been looking very sharp at times under Starmer.
All I saw was Ed Davey being critical of him briefly on the BBC
Very well done I'd say. I'd not seen him speak before, and was prepared for brash arrogance. In fact he came across better than most politicians I've seen. Plain speaking compared to the journos too
Didn't say sorry and won't resign, good to see he really doesn't just do the normal political routine.
Indeed I said the advice came from an RAC agent when I was 18. I'd passed my drivers test the week before going to university. I didn't drive much while at uni and ended up just before the end of first term checking the car and it had a flat battery. Called RAC who sorted it and while chatting with the RAC agent he said to drive for half an hour both for the sake of the car and it was good for my own driving before crossing country to drive home.
Its a rule of thumb I've lived by since if I've ever had a period of not needing to drive for a long time then having to do a lone one. During lockdown I've not driven any futher than the local shops which makes me worry now about the state of the car - I wouldn't do a cross country drive now without doing a half hour drive first.
That is a breach of the law.
And on what planet does his ill wifes advice trump the laws he has been working on, based on scientific advice, and which he enforced on 67 million on us?
Weston-Super-Mare Hospital halts admissions this afternoon due to major spike in Coronavirus cases (BBC).