Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
BJ more Asquith than Neville, especially in the trusting them to drive your daughter home stakes.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
That is really excellent. You have gone from a Tory party member to SKS's speech writer in a matter of days. Very impressive.
Was Cummings the reason the rocket launch was delayed last night?
No delay - Scott was here nice and early to post his tweets.
Funny you should say that because I have always found it odd that both you and Philip Thompson tell us you have young children yet appear to spend all day, every day posting on here.
Its half term fella.
So your young children are at home and you spend all day making comments on a political blog. Just don't think that's what I would be doing but each to his own.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
I think the Govt, in its messages today, has missed the point re people obeying the rules. It is pleading with people to do the right thing regardless of the Cummings issue. Those that believe it is the right thing will almost certainly do so even if they are angry about Cummings.
However there are two other groups of people who largely followed the rules who may now not.
There are those who don't give a toss, but didn't want to get into trouble.
There are those who think the lockdown is nonsense, or has gone too far or who want the economy to get going again, but again didn't want to get into trouble.
These people aren't angry with Cummings, but may well break the rules in greater numbers. Boris won't lose these people's vote, and the former may well be non-voters anyway.
Those that are angry, will probably not break the rules, but Boris will probably lose their vote. But as people say the next election is a long way off.
What I hate in this is hypocrisy. I wonder how many people who are on Furlough are actually working? I am coming across it on an hourly basis. "Yeah im on Furlough but I am working a bit" I wonder how many of those people are saying Cummings should get the sack?
You raise an interesting point. Money Box was reporting widespread abuse by employers this week (the implication was small employers). Even employees finding out they were furloughed only after receiving their payslip. It is particularly hard for employees of small companies to whistleblow. Even though they are protected in law, the practicalities are difficult.
There are huge abuses going on. I know some self employed who are claiming their £2500 but are carrying on working, they just will not invoice for the work they are doing until August. They know there is no chance of any Government audits as the Government simply do not have enough staff. Yet these peeple would consider what Cummings did is far worse than what they are doing.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
BJ more Asquith than Neville, especially in the trusting them to drive your daughter home stakes.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Was Cummings the reason the rocket launch was delayed last night?
No delay - Scott was here nice and early to post his tweets.
Funny you should say that because I have always found it odd that both you and Philip Thompson tell us you have young children yet appear to spend all day, every day posting on here.
What is odd about that? When you're at home with kids having adult conversations is a relief ...
I've been at home observing lock down since it began. My wife is a key worker, I'm not, so I've taken up all childcare duties and I can be on my phone while I'm not doing their education or Joe Wicks exercises etc ... More time to talk to people here.
Fair enough, I just find it odd that people who are still working and have children can spend so much time posting on a web site.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
I'm hoping IshmaelZ's first PB post was 'Call me Ishmael'.
Broadly speaking, Biden needs to win Florida to get the keys to the White House and if he does get Florida he will probably do well enough elsewhere to win the presidency. His entire campaign including VP pick should be focused on what will win Florida.
I think he has several routes to victory but the mid western states that went to Trump by tiny margins where Clinton neglected to campaign are probably the easiest. Then probably Pennsylvania, then Florida.
Barring a major upset, Biden should hang onto all the states that went Clinton last time. Pennsylvania is also looking good for him, if by no means a certainty. Beyond that he needs to win either Florida or several Mid West states that went Trump last time. If he gets Florida he should be in the clear. So that looks like Florida should be the absolute focus of his campaign.
Although, that would risk repeating Hillary’s strategic error of ignoring the Midwest.
The Midwest states are notionally easier for him than FL, although admittedly the polling in FL looks (surprisingly) good at the moment.
The problem with Florida from the Democrat point of view is that the voting regulations are very much stacked against them, considerably more than in other states. I would be worried that the polls are not totally representative of the desired population i.e. those who are allowed to and do vote. The Dem strategy should be to push hard in other swing states and if FL does change then it will be in the bag.
The probability of Biden winning Florida, based on the last trade on Betfair, is 46%.
I have calculated the probabilities for all states based on latest trades on Betfair, multiplied it by the electoral votes by state, and come to a total of 302 seats for Biden.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
Boris Johnson doesn't "lead" a party in Parliament, because, as I have said many times before his elevation to Conservative Party "leader" and PM, he has zero leadership skills. He is a blusterer. Some would say a good speech maker (provided no questions are asked); he undoubtedly can write a good article for a newspaper; and he can win an election by default if the opposition is weak, but he is most definitely not a leader. Every day that goes by proves this to the nation and himself.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
That is really excellent. You have gone from a Tory party member to SKS's speech writer in a matter of days. Very impressive.
It works on multiple levels, firstly it shows he still has the moral authority to ask the public to do these things while the government doesn't, secondly it makes him look eminently reasonable in the face of unreasonable actions by Boris and thirdly it's simply the right thing to do and people will recognise that he's doing the right thing even if it means giving up on a big political win by ousting Dom.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Not a prediction game, though. The discussion has been hardly at all about whether Cummings will go or not, it's about whether he is a lying little shit or not. You have the same problem as the dimmer warmists who defended those lying little shits at UEA, of not appreciating that not every hill is worth dying on. A more intelligent tory like, um, myself would recognize that Johnson's failure either to sack him or to enforce a swift admission, apology and offer of resignation) is the worst aspect of the whole matter.
Exactly. Plenty (including yours truly) have opined that Cummings would not be going. This was not hard to foresee. What was hard to foresee was that Johnson would choose to praise Cummings' behaviour rather than criticize it. This is the amazing bit. This is the big "tell" from the whole affair. He is clearly utterly beholden to him. Cannot function as PM without his grace and favour.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
Politics is about vision, integrity, a desire to improve things for your fellow citizens and winning arguments. It’s never been a game it’s to important for that. It’s not about the color of your team it’s about their values and performance, shame these values are disappearing.
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
Boris Johnson doesn't "lead" a party in Parliament, because, as I have said many times before his elevation to Conservative Party "leader" and PM, he has zero leadership skills. He is a blusterer. Some would say a good speech maker (provided no questions are asked); he undoubtedly can write a good article for a newspaper; and he can win an election by default if the opposition is weak, but he is most definitely not a leader. Every day that goes by proves this to the nation and himself.
Hmmm. Last time I looked...yep. ...Just checked again....he is leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. Conservative Party has 365 MP's.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Broadly speaking, Biden needs to win Florida to get the keys to the White House and if he does get Florida he will probably do well enough elsewhere to win the presidency. His entire campaign including VP pick should be focused on what will win Florida.
I think he has several routes to victory but the mid western states that went to Trump by tiny margins where Clinton neglected to campaign are probably the easiest. Then probably Pennsylvania, then Florida.
Barring a major upset, Biden should hang onto all the states that went Clinton last time. Pennsylvania is also looking good for him, if by no means a certainty. Beyond that he needs to win either Florida or several Mid West states that went Trump last time. If he gets Florida he should be in the clear. So that looks like Florida should be the absolute focus of his campaign.
Although, that would risk repeating Hillary’s strategic error of ignoring the Midwest.
The Midwest states are notionally easier for him than FL, although admittedly the polling in FL looks (surprisingly) good at the moment.
The problem with Florida from the Democrat point of view is that the voting regulations are very much stacked against them, considerably more than in other states. I would be worried that the polls are not totally representative of the desired population i.e. those who are allowed to and do vote. The Dem strategy should be to push hard in other swing states and if FL does change then it will be in the bag.
The probability of Biden winning Florida, based on the last trade on Betfair, is 46%.
I have calculated the probabilities for all states based on latest trades on Betfair, multiplied it by the electoral votes by state, and come to a total of 302 seats for Biden.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Not a prediction game, though. The discussion has been hardly at all about whether Cummings will go or not, it's about whether he is a lying little shit or not. You have the same problem as the dimmer warmists who defended those lying little shits at UEA, of not appreciating that not every hill is worth dying on. A more intelligent tory like, um, myself would recognize that Johnson's failure either to sack him or to enforce a swift admission, apology and offer of resignation) is the worst aspect of the whole matter.
Oh, there were many, many posters predicting that Cummings was gone, from the moment the story broke to last night, so I'm afraid that part is rather inaccurate.
As for choosing a hill to die on, I wouldn't have picked this one, but it should be obvious to any intelligent person that the stakes in this particular game were not those of any ordinary resignation. This was a direct attack on the Government's programme, its chief policy adviser, and on the PM himself. It was designed to reassert the media's authority to control government decision-making and direct the course of events.
As such, stopping them is worth any temporary polling hit. Now the next time the media cooks up a scandal out of nothing - and they will - the Government can defy them with ease because, after all, they threw everything they had at Cummings and still failed to unseat him.
Of course, if your only obsession is short-term popularity and not long-term strategic victory, I can see how an otherwise intelligent person might have come to your conclusions...
What is more short termist than answering every criticism with "we have a majority till 2024"?
Secondly, people aren't angry with Cummings because the papers tell them to be, but off their own bats on the basis of the agreed and admitted facts.
Thirdly, every attempt to sound clever and funny about this runs slap into the brick wall of the thousands of people saying "My spouse or parent died alone, because I obeyed the rules." Try running a "Does this make me look a complete and utter c--t?" test before posting.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
The evidence shows in the UK that R was below 1 on the day we went into lockdown.
What evidence? Hopefully not Alistair Haimes' work of fiction. It looked to me like we managed to push it below 2 on the run-up to lockdown (the week we went for maximum social distancing short of lockdown) and nicely under one when we locked down.
The peak of deaths was the 8th April.
Fraser seems to have a series of assumptions, and questionable comparisons, in that piece.
If he wants to make that claim stick he has a lot more work to do.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
I'm hoping IshmaelZ's first PB post was 'Call me Ishmael'.
I did hope that people would realize that I wasn't just being weird with that question!
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
That is really excellent. You have gone from a Tory party member to SKS's speech writer in a matter of days. Very impressive.
It works on multiple levels, firstly it shows he still has the moral authority to ask the public to do these things while the government doesn't, secondly it makes him look eminently reasonable in the face of unreasonable actions by Boris and thirdly it's simply the right thing to do and people will recognise that he's doing the right thing even if it means giving up on a big political win by ousting Dom.
I agree. I genuinely thought it was brilliant for all the reasons you have said. I would have been proud to have drafted that.
In Israel they passed an emergency law to allow mobile phone signalling data to be used for contact tracing.
You don't need an "app", and users don't need to do anything. Mobile network operators already know where phones are, they couldn't route a call to the correct base station (cell) if they didn't. It's sufficiently accurate enough to round up people who may have been near someone with an infection, public health workers can narrow down the numbers with other data sources, and by questioning the people identified from the mobile phone data.
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
The other thing a statement like that does is it removes any doubt about Labour's patriotism. By appealing directly to the people and using phrases like "extraordinary capacity" it aligns Labour with exactly the kind of patriotic spirit of the nation that is needed right now. It's something Corbyn would never be able to do and it's something that Boris would absolutely be able to do and did many times in the election and Leave campaign.
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Don't know if you've read "War and Peace" but if not, the title is a good guide to the subject matter. Henry IV 1 and 2, the Iliad, Vanity Fair and the Flashman novels also have their admirers.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
It's awful that this view of politics is gaining ground here. It's the reason why US politics is so dysfunctional. It's the mentality of the bully and the authoritarian, and is not compatible with reasoned democratic debate and an open and pluralistic political culture. I imagine you are quite young and would hope that as you get older you will realise your perspective on the world is fundamentally unhealthy.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
Matt Hancock has signalled that there will be further easing of lockdown measures outside, raising hopes people will be able to see their families again.
Ahead of today’s review of the rules, the Health Secretary said that the “the risk of transmission outdoors is much lower”.
It is understood that the Government is working on plans to allow two households to meet up outdoors next month.
Mr Hancock also suggested beer gardens could open when asked if it would be possible to enjoy a pint soon.
He said: “During the summer in particular, a lot of the changes that you can expect to see will be based on the principle that outdoors is safer than indoors.
“And so there's all sorts of ways you can extend that.”
Plans to further ease lockdown are expected to be confirmed in this evening’s Downing Street press conference, with next steps expected to give the all-clear for schools to begin reopening next week.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
I'm hoping IshmaelZ's first PB post was 'Call me Ishmael'.
Don't think so, but that was the thinking behind it.
There is a novel by Peter de Vries which begins "Call me, Ishmael. Call me anytime, day or night."
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
In 2005 Blair won against Howard. From the evidence so far it looks like Starmer is in the Dave/Blair/Boris category of leader not the IDS/Hague/Brown one.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
Surely someone who has chosen the name @ozymandias appreciates nothing lasts forever?
Two huge risks for Starmer if he attempts to exploit backbench Tory unease on Cummings to embarrass the PM, or force those MPs to vote to support Cummings.
In the short term it would make it a much more partisan issue, reuniting the Tory backbenchers with their leadership.
In the long term it would look a lot like the Commons asserting a right to interfere with Prime Ministerial appointments. This would be one step towards the implementation of US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges, etc, as demanded by some Tories after the prorogation ruling last year.
Does Starmer really want to go down that road for the fleeting benefit of an awkward Parliamentary vote? I'd say, no way.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
Boris Johnson doesn't "lead" a party in Parliament, because, as I have said many times before his elevation to Conservative Party "leader" and PM, he has zero leadership skills. He is a blusterer. Some would say a good speech maker (provided no questions are asked); he undoubtedly can write a good article for a newspaper; and he can win an election by default if the opposition is weak, but he is most definitely not a leader. Every day that goes by proves this to the nation and himself.
Hmmm. Last time I looked...yep. ...Just checked again....he is leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. Conservative Party has 365 MP's. Do you have different information?
In name, most certainly, he is the "Leader of the Conservative Party". But in practice he provides no leadership, either for his party or for the country. In this sense, he is no leader....
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
I don't dispute his performance is currently impaired. The question is whether it is permanent or temporary.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
Boris has an 80-seat majority. What majorities were enjoyed by Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair, by Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Neville Chamberlain?
(Arguably Blair and Macmillan were not ousted, but then I expect Boris to retire on health rather than political grounds).
Given that the vast majority of those who got a positive test yesterday will be in care homes or around the NHS - the benefit of the app is pretty limited at this stage.
On the contrary. It is when the number in the community is relatively small and manageable that trace and test has a chance.
I meant the app element of trace and test has limited value when most of the testees are in a hospital bed, or work in the NHS.
It has been overhyped from the start. Every announcement seems to be for some sort of "game changing" or "world beating" development — field hosptials, vaccine targets, antibody tests, ventilator manufacturing, PPE deliveries, widening testing, the "app", Remdesivir — when many of them are of marginal value, and some will simply prove worthless.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
Why do you assume everything is about hatred of Cummings and not about right and wrong and doing the right thing?
There seems to be a small minority who think this is all about Cummings and Brexit and are completely blind to the fact that half the people complaining about this are Brexit supporters, Tories, Right of centre newspapers, etc. It also has got nothing to do with the next election. On that I agree with BluestBlue - it is 4 years away.
The evidence shows in the UK that R was below 1 on the day we went into lockdown.
What evidence? Hopefully not Alistair Haimes' work of fiction. It looked to me like we managed to push it below 2 on the run-up to lockdown (the week we went for maximum social distancing short of lockdown) and nicely under one when we locked down.
The peak of deaths was the 8th April.
And if the average time from infection to death is 16 days, that'd make the reduction of R under 1 as the 23rd of April.
It's somewhere very close to that, and we were effectively locked down from the 21st (schools were closed, workers had stopped going in to work, restaurants and pubs were all closed, and so on).
So maybe you could argue that we ducked below 1 on the 21st, I guess, but that hardly proves the lockdown was unnecessary - because the days before it (school still open, transport closing down, people not going anywhere on that weekend) still had R over 1.
Two huge risks for Starmer if he attempts to exploit backbench Tory unease on Cummings to embarrass the PM, or force those MPs to vote to support Cummings.
In the short term it would make it a much more partisan issue, reuniting the Tory backbenchers with their leadership.
In the long term it would look a lot like the Commons asserting a right to interfere with Prime Ministerial appointments. This would be one step towards the implementation of US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges, etc, as demanded by some Tories after the prorogation ruling last year.
Does Starmer really want to go down that road for the fleeting benefit of an awkward Parliamentary vote? I'd say, no way.
Sometimes when faced with an open goal, the shot rebounds off the crossbar and into your own net. Kinnock and Westland springs to mind.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
In 2005 Blair won against Howard. From the evidence so far it looks like Starmer is in the Dave/Blair/Boris category of leader not the IDS/Hague/Brown one.
He may be. But then so is Boris.
Next 4 years will be interesting. No individual drama between now and then will settle it. There will be many highs and lows to come.
I always think it's narcissistic (is there a better word) to think the dramas of today will lock things in stone. This too shall pass.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
Boris Johnson doesn't "lead" a party in Parliament, because, as I have said many times before his elevation to Conservative Party "leader" and PM, he has zero leadership skills. He is a blusterer. Some would say a good speech maker (provided no questions are asked); he undoubtedly can write a good article for a newspaper; and he can win an election by default if the opposition is weak, but he is most definitely not a leader. Every day that goes by proves this to the nation and himself.
Hmmm. Last time I looked...yep. ...Just checked again....he is leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. Conservative Party has 365 MP's. Do you have different information?
In name, most certainly, he is the "Leader of the Conservative Party". But in practice he provides no leadership, either for his party or for the country. In this sense, he is no leader....
In your opinion. Which is fine. But that's all it is.
How? He has come close to derailing the entire project
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
I don't dispute his performance is currently impaired. The question is whether it is permanent or temporary.
Normal for Boris Johnson, I would have thought. It is just that people are staring to see through him.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
It's awful that this view of politics is gaining ground here. It's the reason why US politics is so dysfunctional. It's the mentality of the bully and the authoritarian, and is not compatible with reasoned democratic debate and an open and pluralistic political culture.
Politics changed for ever in 1997. Blair won by lying, cheating, and leveraging his partisan support in the media.
Those on the right of politics have taken far too long to realise that they need to respond with the same tactics.
Out of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark - with similar climates, culture, societies, economies, population densities, and physical connectivity, and healthcare quality - all the factors that feed into infectivity and death tolls):
Per capita death rates:
Economic impact forecast:
And Sweden were hoping to protect their care homes and elderly - which has completely failed. They were hoping to get sufficient herd immunity to protect against a second wave - and they're nowhere near.
And their death rate has plateaued around 60-70 per day (which would be around 400-500 per day scaled up to the UK).
If Norway did lock down too hard, then that means they've now got far more scope going forwards, and they erred on the side of saving a hell of a lot more lives and preserving their economies better, at the cost of a couple of difficult months. Best side on which to err, really.
Point of order, Denmarks population density is completely different to Norway and Sweden.
Norway 15 P/km2 Sweden 25 P/Km2 Denmark 137 P/Km2
Denmark is more densely populated than France or Spain for example.
Sweden doing so much worse than Denmark is a big problem for those who think lockdown wasnt important.
Very good point; my apologies. Denmark would have every excuse for being a lot worse hit than Sweden, all else being equal.
Need to be careful with raw population density figures. Urban density probably matters more. Vast swathes of nothingness won't prevent spread, an absence of mass public transport etc might.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Give it a rest will you. You’re so boring and add nothing to the discussion.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
So we just carry on being childish then rather than discussing politely? What is it about people in this cult? Why can't you be polite like most on here?
What practical legislation can be passed to keep people breaking the lockdown in the next 48 hours? None/
Can good leadership do that? |Yes.
Pretty easy questions to answer.
Running in a country is not just about passing laws.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
Again, it is not a game, and certainly not a primary school playground game. One really doesn't expect to find adults celebrating the fact that the government formed by their party has "zero fucks to give."
Ishmael - may I call you Ishmael? - of course politics is a game, and it often relies on the same dynamics as any playground contest. It's about numbers, morale, noise, loyalty, tactics, strategy, face, intimidation, and strength. It's simply played for much higher stakes.
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
I'm hoping IshmaelZ's first PB post was 'Call me Ishmael'.
Don't think so, but that was the thinking behind it.
There is a novel by Peter de Vries which begins "Call me, Ishmael. Call me anytime, day or night."
And Moby Dick surely?
And Peter de Vries was the villianous Baron Harkonnen's very own right hand man. In fact now that I think of Harkonnen and de Vries, another duo spring to mind - overweight, entitled type with a dislikeable, weasly assistant. What were their names... Doris and Bummings?
Two huge risks for Starmer if he attempts to exploit backbench Tory unease on Cummings to embarrass the PM, or force those MPs to vote to support Cummings.
In the short term it would make it a much more partisan issue, reuniting the Tory backbenchers with their leadership.
In the long term it would look a lot like the Commons asserting a right to interfere with Prime Ministerial appointments. This would be one step towards the implementation of US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges, etc, as demanded by some Tories after the prorogation ruling last year.
Does Starmer really want to go down that road for the fleeting benefit of an awkward Parliamentary vote? I'd say, no way.
That's why a statement like the one I have written makes sense. It stays away from the political game playing and it appeals directly to voters while showing Labour has the moral authority to ask for these things and the government doesn't and it dispells any idea that Labour is still unpatriotic.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
When the voters start listening to him instead of the PM it's just a matter of time until the PM falls.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
How? Tell me. "Destroy" a PM with a 80 seat majority with 4 years to go until a GE.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
It goes back to moral authority, as of now Boris hasn't got it. Neither has Starmer but with a few smart plays he could show he has it in the eyes of the voters. It's the classic Blair play vs Major or Dave vs Gordon.
And my point is that with such a long way to go to an election and there are so many unknown unknowns that it is risible to predict what may happen in the eyes of voters.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
In 2005 Blair won against Howard. From the evidence so far it looks like Starmer is in the Dave/Blair/Boris category of leader not the IDS/Hague/Brown one.
He may be. But then so is Boris.
Next 4 years will be interesting. No individual drama between now and then will settle it. There will be many highs and lows to come.
I always think it's narcissistic (is there a better word) to think the dramas of today will lock things in stone. This too shall pass.
Nope, "Boris" as you so affectionately refer to him as only wins against very weak opposition. Corbyn and Livingstone ffs! The people of this country are clearly not Marxists.
The thing I find strange is how closely the Cummings situation parallels the ‘Stop the Coup’ issue. Govt does something supposedly beyond the pale, media firestorm commences, govt doesn’t back down baffling the expectations of the majority of pundits, all and sundry firmly conclude that Boris / Cummings et al are finished as a political force.
Whatever else the current saga has done, it has thoroughly distracted from the government’s real failings in handling Covid-19 - whether you think those failings are ‘reasonable’ or not.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
How? He has come close to derailing the entire project
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
I don't dispute his performance is currently impaired. The question is whether it is permanent or temporary.
Normal for Boris Johnson, I would have thought. It is just that people are staring to see through him.
Does it make any difference? If he isn't fit to make decisions at the moment he can't be expected or allowed to make decisions.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, big groups of people drinking in Hampstead Heath on Monday. I've been invited to three separate dinner parties.
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
I don't dispute his performance is currently impaired. The question is whether it is permanent or temporary.
It seems to me that he always has been a lucky chancer, with little self-awareness or common sense.
By admitting, as he did yesterday, he doesn't read the technical briefs but relies on the non technical summaries ( not his exact words and my interpretation but I believe I am broadly right) utterly shocked me. I can't think of a previous Prime Minister who wouldn't have read the detail. They might have needed explanations of intricacies from specialists but I believe all would have made a fist of understanding the brief.
Jeremy Hunt clearly reads and makes sure he understands the science.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, on a huge scale. I’m not saying it’s anything to do with Cummings, but it’s certainly happening.
“Social distancing” is bollocks anyway and is in no way sustainable.
How? He has come close to derailing the entire project
Because it appears that Johnson cannot function without him.
This is the big takeout. I sense that Gove and Cummings are running the government with Johnson surplus to requirements.
I don't surplus to requirements is correct. Hors d 'combat may be.
A bit of a disadvantage when we're very much in the middle of said combat. A war-losing disadvantage possibly..
Its not ideal but trying to change the rider mid gallop might just be worse. The question remains whether Boris is permanently impaired by the virus or temporarily. No real evidence one way or the other at the moment.
We changed Prime Ministers during both world wars.
If the evidence mounts that he is permanently impaired we will need to do so again.
Just check out Mr Johnson's full HoC performance yesterday and his broadcast defending Cummings on Sunday. It is already a slam-dunk.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
I don't dispute his performance is currently impaired. The question is whether it is permanent or temporary.
Normal for Boris Johnson, I would have thought. It is just that people are staring to see through him.
Does it make any difference? If he isn't fit to make decisions at the moment he can't be expected or allowed to make decisions.
I refer you to the fact that I predicted this outcome from Day 1. If it were up to me, the story would have died there, but it has received such fanatical media attention, not to mention 50 squillion consecutive headers on here, until this one, that I don't feel the slightest bit bad about rubbing it in.
Not a prediction game, though. The discussion has been hardly at all about whether Cummings will go or not, it's about whether he is a lying little shit or not. You have the same problem as the dimmer warmists who defended those lying little shits at UEA, of not appreciating that not every hill is worth dying on. A more intelligent tory like, um, myself would recognize that Johnson's failure either to sack him or to enforce a swift admission, apology and offer of resignation) is the worst aspect of the whole matter.
Oh, there were many, many posters predicting that Cummings was gone, from the moment the story broke to last night, so I'm afraid that part is rather inaccurate.
As for choosing a hill to die on, I wouldn't have picked this one, but it should be obvious to any intelligent person that the stakes in this particular game were not those of any ordinary resignation. This was a direct attack on the Government's programme, its chief policy adviser, and on the PM himself. It was designed to reassert the media's authority to control government decision-making and direct the course of events.
As such, stopping them is worth any temporary polling hit. Now the next time the media cooks up a scandal out of nothing - and they will - the Government can defy them with ease because, after all, they threw everything they had at Cummings and still failed to unseat him.
Of course, if your only obsession is short-term popularity and not long-term strategic victory, I can see how an otherwise intelligent person might have come to your conclusions...
What is more short termist than answering every criticism with "we have a majority till 2024"?
Secondly, people aren't angry with Cummings because the papers tell them to be, but off their own bats on the basis of the agreed and admitted facts.
Thirdly, every attempt to sound clever and funny about this runs slap into the brick wall of the thousands of people saying "My spouse or parent died alone, because I obeyed the rules." Try running a "Does this make me look a complete and utter c--t?" test before posting.
To take your points in order:
1. I didn't mention that anywhere in my reply.
2. If you think the media didn't shape and massively amplify the public reaction, that is a rather naive view to take.
3. In case it wasn't clear by now, I've never moderated my political opinions to curry favour with anyone, let alone mildly-pompous randoms on the internet, and I don't intend to start now. The sad reality of personal losses doesn't somehow make the normal operation of politics irrelevant - as this episode has shown, it simply makes it all the more bitter and bad-tempered.
And a final suggestion, perhaps try actually answering my central point about the long-term strategic implications of why the government has chosen to fight this battle, rather than burying your lack of an answer in a mountain of moralizing froth?
"Why we remember wars but forget plagues Pandemics aren't represented in film or literature because they're too boring, too horrific and too depressing By Sean Thomas"
Terrific piece by Sean. I pretty-much agree with him. A month or so back my Agent said he was looking forward to first-hand writing on this virus and I thought at the time, 'oh no.' I've just forwarded him Sean's essay.
I don't think Coronavirus lit will be filling up people's Christmas stockings this year.
Sean did miss the film Contagion, which is more like a documentary and well worth watching, as well as a host of other virus films:
Is this Sean chap right though? First, the relative shortage of plague literature might be because actually it is a boring subject -- person X gets ill and either dies or recovers -- rinse and repeat thousands of times. The only heroism possible is on the medical front, and until recently the quacks with their leeches and potions were not much use and even now, how filmic are academics arguing about spreadsheets? House had an episode with some sort of plague iirc (no spoilers!).
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Don't know if you've read "War and Peace" but if not, the title is a good guide to the subject matter. Henry IV 1 and 2, the Iliad, Vanity Fair and the Flashman novels also have their admirers.
How many of those are anywhere close to contemporary? Even if we accept Flashman as great literature, it falls into the Birdsong (or Master and Commander) category, along with Shakespeare, as having been written long after the event.
I have the danger that I might sound really sententious here, but in case there are people who want to categories me as "negative" or "A Lockdowner" (as if it's a team you choose, or a political tribe you decide to join) when I disagree with certain things:
The way I see it, most of us (myself included) have a tendency to see discussions as methods to "win" or "lose" points - you can use rhetorical flourishes, carefully cherry-pick favourable stories or indications while ignoring a plethora of things pointing the other way, employ prejudices and cognitive biases to pressure people to believing you, or whatever.
But reality doesn't care. Reality can't be fooled, can't be pressured into believing you, has no cognitive biases, and doesn't care how many people believe you. Reality just is. It's something drilled in to engineers ("Nature cannot be fooled") and to the military ("wishful thinking gets you killed. Worse, it gets others killed") and I've been both.
When we're discussing what does and does not govern the death rates, whether or not people are harmed or are not, whether people get antibodies on infection or not, what resistance gets built or not, and so on, it doesn't matter if we've found someone or something that agrees with us: that doesn't let us win, or make us right. Or wrong. We're trying to find out what is, not what we can persuade others of.
And, as scientists have found out to their cost over centuries, it's so very easy to fool ourselves when we see an answer we like or want to be true. I'd love the risk to be gone, or the danger to be negligible. A one in ten thousand death rate? I'd take that! But then I need to check it - because I know that what I want to be true is irrelevant to what IS true, and getting this wrong means a metric fuckton of deaths. If one in ten thousand is true, then the most that can die in the UK is the population of the UK divided by ten thousand (and we wouldn't get very close to that thanks to herd immunity and the lack of exposure of quite a few people)... and that's only 6,700. So I can't see that as being true, and basing any policy on it would be not just stupid, but effectively murderous.
I can find stories that say what I'd like to be true very easily - but we need to then compare them with the stories saying things in the other direction and weighing up the evidence. (1/2)
Conclusions I've reached so far (new facts may shift me on these) on frequently discussed topics: - The Sweden route doesn't look promising for them; it was implausible in the UK, anyway, with our different social aspects and demographic layout and connectivity - The death rate is certainly well over one in a thousand, and the 0.5%-1.0% IFR range continues to look most likely - Asymptomatic proportions are likely to be 30%-50%, but up to 80% MAY be plausible - Infection gives antibodies, which should give protection for at least 6 months to a year and possibly longer - The proportion of the population infected and with antibodies varies between 5% and 20% in the UK dependent on where you are (and is nowhere near herd immunity levels) - Out of doors activity looks to be minimally risky and the easiest low hanging fruit; bar and restaurant gardens should probably be higher on the relaxation schedules - There's a whole suite of things that can probably be done with minimal impacts on R; we just need to work out which they are - While the death rates for younger demographics with no minor or major medical conditions seem to be very low when treated, the chances of having serious illness that needs hospitalisation is still significant and if the NHS was overwhelmed, these death rates would be far higher - A second wave remains a fear: the virus is still out there, its method of transmission is the same, if we act as we did before, the same thing happens - Some restrictions and some forms of social distancing are with us until either a working vaccine, a reliable treatment, or rapid, reliable, and ubiquitous test are with us - The pandemic has badly hurt our economy, as with others. The "pausing" method attempted by Sunak is the best way to preserve as much as possible to maximise the recovery (2/2)
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, on a huge scale. I’m not saying it’s anything to do with Cummings, but it’s certainly happening.
“Social distancing” is bollocks anyway and is in no way sustainable.
I wonder if the 2m rule will be relaxed imminently.
I think the Govt, in its messages today, has missed the point re people obeying the rules. It is pleading with people to do the right thing regardless of the Cummings issue. Those that believe it is the right thing will almost certainly do so even if they are angry about Cummings.
However there are two other groups of people who largely followed the rules who may now not.
There are those who don't give a toss, but didn't want to get into trouble.
There are those who think the lockdown is nonsense, or has gone too far or who want the economy to get going again, but again didn't want to get into trouble.
These people aren't angry with Cummings, but may well break the rules in greater numbers. Boris won't lose these people's vote, and the former may well be non-voters anyway.
Those that are angry, will probably not break the rules, but Boris will probably lose their vote. But as people say the next election is a long way off.
What I hate in this is hypocrisy. I wonder how many people who are on Furlough are actually working? I am coming across it on an hourly basis. "Yeah im on Furlough but I am working a bit" I wonder how many of those people are saying Cummings should get the sack?
You raise an interesting point. Money Box was reporting widespread abuse by employers this week (the implication was small employers). Even employees finding out they were furloughed only after receiving their payslip. It is particularly hard for employees of small companies to whistleblow. Even though they are protected in law, the practicalities are difficult.
There are huge abuses going on. I know some self employed who are claiming their £2500 but are carrying on working, they just will not invoice for the work they are doing until August. They know there is no chance of any Government audits as the Government simply do not have enough staff. Yet these peeple would consider what Cummings did is far worse than what they are doing.
The self employed can work perfectly legally whilst claiming.
OK, having read this morning’s comments on Cummings’ lack of brainpower, I am now feeling officially smug.
Is there slightly less to him than meets the eye?
He is like many of the social media so-called "influencers". Famous for being famous. Good at what he does because he tells us so. Other than being a SPAD he has never had a proper job in his life. He can bullshit a bullshitter though, because he convinced Johnson he was good.
Starmer's big idea is a Bill of Attainder against Cummings? 'Cos that's never been used as a tool of autocrats and won't look like a partisan witch-hunt at all!
Let him go ahead. As long as he realizes that he'll be declaring total war on a government with a landslide majority and zero fucks to give.
Hope it's worth it, Keir!
SKS isn't that stupid.
Agree - he's played this brilliantly from the start "never interrupt your enemy while he is making mistakes" - from a political point of view its better for Labour if Cummings stays - an eternal reminder of "one law for them, another for us". A more difficult calculus for SKS is what's in the national interest.....he may conclude "A Labour government from 2024" and find that coincides with what's best for Labour...
The smart move is to completely sideline the government and PM and make an appeal directly to the people about civic duty. Acknowledge that it's even more difficult to live by these rules because of the government's position on Cummings but make clear that they are still the right rules.
"Today I'm asking the people of the UK to continue observing the social distancing rules and to comply with contact tracers if they are asked to isolate. I know this is something that is even more difficult to do now than it was last week because of actions taken by the PM and Mr Cummings, but it is still the right thing to do. I believe that all of the people in the UK have an extraordinary capacity to do the right thing when asked. This doesn't mean we are letting the government or Mr Cummings off the hook and neither should you, but these actions by him should not be allowed to interfere with our ability to reopen the economy and keep our people and NHS safe from this virus."
That kind of statement makes Starmer the de facto PM and people will see him as PM material.
"Starmer the de facto PM"
Good job he leads a party in Parliament with a majority to pass legislation then. Oh...wait....
If he did what Max suggests he would be doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation.
Such as?
Did you not read what Max said? Did you reply to him without reading it?
Do keep up. Referring to this: "...doing a great deal more good for the country than passing legislation"
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Clearly it is not worth discussing it with you if you can't appreciate how the statement Max drafted could not have a positive influence on peoples actions. Especially as the Govt's actions have clearly had the opposite effect.
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
I'm so sorry to disagree with you....it must hurt dearly.
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
Because no one is actually going to pay attention to anything the government says on this any more. It's already happening. The government hasn't got the moral authority to ask people to do the right thing any more. When you understand this point you will realise that even a majority of 200 wouldn't make a difference. The only way the government will get compliance now is to send in the police, and that's going to lose even more votes (which is why the decision was taken to make it a voluntary scheme).
So have you seen social distancing breaking down?
Yes, on a huge scale. I’m not saying it’s anything to do with Cummings, but it’s certainly happening.
“Social distancing” is bollocks anyway and is in no way sustainable.
It's been happening for weeks. We always knew it would.
Comments
And yes, I would like the Tories to be far more aggressive and ruthless. The US Republicans with the Tories' current advantages wouldn't leave office for the next 20 years.
With two or three smart plays Starmer could absolutely destroy Boris.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1265932618421489664?s=20
I have calculated the probabilities for all states based on latest trades on Betfair, multiplied it by the electoral votes by state, and come to a total of 302 seats for Biden.
Perhaps the extinction of the human species won't be such a bad thing.
Write off BJ and DC at your peril. It's been done so many times. Each time they've proven their enemies as fools.
Do you have different information?
And is Sean even right about war? There is not much literature about war itself considering how much time we've spent on it. Take the Crimean, Boer and Great Wars: lots of poems and paintings but novels? Testament of Youth and A Farewell to Arms used the war as a backdrop. All Quiet on the Western Front, perhaps. Any others from anywhere near that time? More recently we've had books like Birdsong but are they based on the war or on war films? Spanish Civil War? Picasso's Guernica. Second World War? Any number of great films but literature?
More recently Vietnam and Iraq have given us quantity if not quality. Was the Korean War's Catch 22 the last great war novel?
Secondly, people aren't angry with Cummings because the papers tell them to be, but off their own bats on the basis of the agreed and admitted facts.
Thirdly, every attempt to sound clever and funny about this runs slap into the brick wall of the thousands of people saying "My spouse or parent died alone, because I obeyed the rules." Try running a "Does this make me look a complete and utter c--t?" test before posting.
Not quite sure what you don't understand.
Arrogance is not a good look in a prospective PM, but then he is a lawyer...
If he wants to make that claim stick he has a lot more work to do.
You don't need an "app", and users don't need to do anything. Mobile network operators already know where phones are, they couldn't route a call to the correct base station (cell) if they didn't. It's sufficiently accurate enough to round up people who may have been near someone with an infection, public health workers can narrow down the numbers with other data sources, and by questioning the people identified from the mobile phone data.
I'm sure Blair lost "moral authority" in 2003 with millions on the streets and an illegal war. If this site was around then we would be having the same conversations. Didn't stop him winning the 2005 election with a comfortable majority did it?
But hey. Let blind hatred of Dominic Cummings blind you to any sensible analysis of how political fortunes ebb and flow.
For someone on the left this should all be hilarious. I do not find it remotely funny.
Although she overstepped the mark in terms of partisanship, and clearly Dom got that message to Johnson so he could respond appropriately, Yvette Cooper made the startling point that Johnson seems to be making off-the-cuff policy decisions which might mitigate Cummings rather than in the interests of the nation's safety.
The reopening of pubs anytime soon, although welcome, seems crazy-ape-bonkers at this point in the cycle,
https://twitter.com/stephenfry/status/1265906373361106944?s=20
https://twitter.com/IrishCearuilin/status/1265911557873111041?s=20
And 'Do keep up' is just pathetic and childish.
Matt Hancock has signalled that there will be further easing of lockdown measures outside, raising hopes people will be able to see their families again.
Ahead of today’s review of the rules, the Health Secretary said that the “the risk of transmission outdoors is much lower”.
It is understood that the Government is working on plans to allow two households to meet up outdoors next month.
Mr Hancock also suggested beer gardens could open when asked if it would be possible to enjoy a pint soon.
He said: “During the summer in particular, a lot of the changes that you can expect to see will be based on the principle that outdoors is safer than indoors.
“And so there's all sorts of ways you can extend that.”
Plans to further ease lockdown are expected to be confirmed in this evening’s Downing Street press conference, with next steps expected to give the all-clear for schools to begin reopening next week.
There is a novel by Peter de Vries which begins "Call me, Ishmael. Call me anytime, day or night."
In the short term it would make it a much more partisan issue, reuniting the Tory backbenchers with their leadership.
In the long term it would look a lot like the Commons asserting a right to interfere with Prime Ministerial appointments. This would be one step towards the implementation of US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges, etc, as demanded by some Tories after the prorogation ruling last year.
Does Starmer really want to go down that road for the fleeting benefit of an awkward Parliamentary vote? I'd say, no way.
Makes no sense for bored people seeking some non-essential leisure to be driven indoors when outdoors is an option instead.
(Arguably Blair and Macmillan were not ousted, but then I expect Boris to retire on health rather than political grounds).
I'm baffled how making a speech can be more (or less) beneficial than the authority and ability to draft, present and enact legislation - which is of course how we are governed. The only pathetic and childish thing is your appreciation of how we are actually governed.
There seems to be a small minority who think this is all about Cummings and Brexit and are completely blind to the fact that half the people complaining about this are Brexit supporters, Tories, Right of centre newspapers, etc. It also has got nothing to do with the next election. On that I agree with BluestBlue - it is 4 years away.
Is there slightly less to him than meets the eye?
It's somewhere very close to that, and we were effectively locked down from the 21st (schools were closed, workers had stopped going in to work, restaurants and pubs were all closed, and so on).
So maybe you could argue that we ducked below 1 on the 21st, I guess, but that hardly proves the lockdown was unnecessary - because the days before it (school still open, transport closing down, people not going anywhere on that weekend) still had R over 1.
Next 4 years will be interesting. No individual drama between now and then will settle it. There will be many highs and lows to come.
I always think it's narcissistic (is there a better word) to think the dramas of today will lock things in stone. This too shall pass.
Those on the right of politics have taken far too long to realise that they need to respond with the same tactics.
What practical legislation can be passed to keep people breaking the lockdown in the next 48 hours? None/
Can good leadership do that? |Yes.
Pretty easy questions to answer.
Running in a country is not just about passing laws.
And Peter de Vries was the villianous Baron Harkonnen's very own right hand man. In fact now that I think of Harkonnen and de Vries, another duo spring to mind - overweight, entitled type with a dislikeable, weasly assistant. What were their names... Doris and Bummings?
Whatever else the current saga has done, it has thoroughly distracted from the government’s real failings in handling Covid-19 - whether you think those failings are ‘reasonable’ or not.
By admitting, as he did yesterday, he doesn't read the technical briefs but relies on the non technical summaries ( not his exact words and my interpretation but I believe I am broadly right) utterly shocked me. I can't think of a previous Prime Minister who wouldn't have read the detail. They might have needed explanations of intricacies from specialists but I believe all would have made a fist of understanding the brief.
Jeremy Hunt clearly reads and makes sure he understands the science.
“Social distancing” is bollocks anyway and is in no way sustainable.
1. I didn't mention that anywhere in my reply.
2. If you think the media didn't shape and massively amplify the public reaction, that is a rather naive view to take.
3. In case it wasn't clear by now, I've never moderated my political opinions to curry favour with anyone, let alone mildly-pompous randoms on the internet, and I don't intend to start now. The sad reality of personal losses doesn't somehow make the normal operation of politics irrelevant - as this episode has shown, it simply makes it all the more bitter and bad-tempered.
And a final suggestion, perhaps try actually answering my central point about the long-term strategic implications of why the government has chosen to fight this battle, rather than burying your lack of an answer in a mountain of moralizing froth?
Poetry, on the other hand...
The way I see it, most of us (myself included) have a tendency to see discussions as methods to "win" or "lose" points - you can use rhetorical flourishes, carefully cherry-pick favourable stories or indications while ignoring a plethora of things pointing the other way, employ prejudices and cognitive biases to pressure people to believing you, or whatever.
But reality doesn't care. Reality can't be fooled, can't be pressured into believing you, has no cognitive biases, and doesn't care how many people believe you. Reality just is.
It's something drilled in to engineers ("Nature cannot be fooled") and to the military ("wishful thinking gets you killed. Worse, it gets others killed") and I've been both.
When we're discussing what does and does not govern the death rates, whether or not people are harmed or are not, whether people get antibodies on infection or not, what resistance gets built or not, and so on, it doesn't matter if we've found someone or something that agrees with us: that doesn't let us win, or make us right. Or wrong. We're trying to find out what is, not what we can persuade others of.
And, as scientists have found out to their cost over centuries, it's so very easy to fool ourselves when we see an answer we like or want to be true. I'd love the risk to be gone, or the danger to be negligible. A one in ten thousand death rate? I'd take that!
But then I need to check it - because I know that what I want to be true is irrelevant to what IS true, and getting this wrong means a metric fuckton of deaths. If one in ten thousand is true, then the most that can die in the UK is the population of the UK divided by ten thousand (and we wouldn't get very close to that thanks to herd immunity and the lack of exposure of quite a few people)... and that's only 6,700. So I can't see that as being true, and basing any policy on it would be not just stupid, but effectively murderous.
I can find stories that say what I'd like to be true very easily - but we need to then compare them with the stories saying things in the other direction and weighing up the evidence. (1/2)
- The Sweden route doesn't look promising for them; it was implausible in the UK, anyway, with our different social aspects and demographic layout and connectivity
- The death rate is certainly well over one in a thousand, and the 0.5%-1.0% IFR range continues to look most likely
- Asymptomatic proportions are likely to be 30%-50%, but up to 80% MAY be plausible
- Infection gives antibodies, which should give protection for at least 6 months to a year and possibly longer
- The proportion of the population infected and with antibodies varies between 5% and 20% in the UK dependent on where you are (and is nowhere near herd immunity levels)
- Out of doors activity looks to be minimally risky and the easiest low hanging fruit; bar and restaurant gardens should probably be higher on the relaxation schedules
- There's a whole suite of things that can probably be done with minimal impacts on R; we just need to work out which they are
- While the death rates for younger demographics with no minor or major medical conditions seem to be very low when treated, the chances of having serious illness that needs hospitalisation is still significant and if the NHS was overwhelmed, these death rates would be far higher
- A second wave remains a fear: the virus is still out there, its method of transmission is the same, if we act as we did before, the same thing happens
- Some restrictions and some forms of social distancing are with us until either a working vaccine, a reliable treatment, or rapid, reliable, and ubiquitous test are with us
- The pandemic has badly hurt our economy, as with others. The "pausing" method attempted by Sunak is the best way to preserve as much as possible to maximise the recovery (2/2)
https://twitter.com/PeterMannionMP/status/1265950442267295744
Pretending you are PM without bothering to ask the voters first sounds like game playing to me.