Sorry Stodge, but that comment on Churchill is still utter bollocks. Churchill was never a Liberal Unionist, to start with. He stood as an avowed Conservative in Oldham, before defecting to the Liberals in 1904.
Secondly, he left the Liberals long before any issues with India came to the fore. He broke with Asquith over WW1 and Lloyd George over Labour. Although he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1922 with Liberal backing, he had effectively abandoned the party and by 1924 he was standing as an Independent with Unionist backing in Windsor, as an anti-Labour candidate. He was then appointed Chancellor and rejoined the Tories the following year. His ‘move away’ from Liberalism was due to his gradual realisation that Liberal economic theory had failed, and by 1929 he was willing to consider tariffs. It wasn’t until 1930-31 that his increasingly shrill and hysterical statements about Gandhi led Baldwin to conclude he had lost his mind and exclude him from the inner circle. It was after the end of his journey, not a big part of it.
As for Cummings being a radical, if a nihilist is a radical, he’s radical. But really he’s just a man of no sense and great arrogance failing spectacularly at anything more complex than empty sloganising.
As I said yesterday, it’s lovely to see people taking an interest in history, but a little research might have helped here.
As far as Churchill is concerned, we'll have to agree to disagree. I accept Churchill was a complex political character and perhaps he defies any form of political pigeonholing. I think his influences may have included his father, Lord Randolph and well as others in and outside the Conservative Party.
In terms of Cummings, again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Radicals can often be seen as nihilists to those with a vested interest in the existing order. Indeed, Thatcher was at times scornful of traditional British institutions which she saw as no longer fit for purpose and in need of reform.
I do think Cummings and Johnson see a country in need of transformation after a decade of perhaps less than stellar Conservative rule (strongly aided by the lack of a viable centre-left alternative).
Stodge, it’s not about agreeing to disagree. You are wrong on matters of fact. When it comes to Churchill, your statements are the equivalent of 2+2=17. You are not even correct about the influence the Liberal Unionists had on him. Although Joseph Chamberlain first announced his Tariff Reform scheme at a dinner Churchill was hosting, the reason Churchill rejected it was not Beach (who was a Tory anyway) or Devonshire, or James of Hereford, but discussions he’d had with Democrats about the effect of the McKinley tariffs on a visit to America.
As for Cummings, well, those are opinions. But my opinions are based on the facts, and yours appear to be based on wishful thinking. He does verbally attack vested interests but he doesn’t understand what they are or how to deal with them. So who was the biggest vested interest in education? The Civil Service. Every time. He rails against them himself. So if he takes on vested interests, how did his tenure result in smashing the education system to pieces and putting more civil servants in direct charge of it? Would you like to know how many are now chief executives of academy chains? One is even running OFSTED (very badly).
Cummings is arrogant, reckless, divisive and a thoroughly dangerous and nasty human being. He is also on his own terms a complete failure.
If you want him for Liberalism, you’re welcome. But don’t expect my vote any time soon.
1. Deaths are a lagging indicator, wait a fortnight 2. Those catching the bug are much younger, fitter (beaches, protests) 3. Treatments are now much better, death is less likely
And the US did better than us at keeping it out of care homes (or, ore specifically, not ushering it in there)
1. Deaths are a lagging indicator, wait a fortnight 2. Those catching the bug are much younger, fitter (beaches, protests) 3. Treatments are now much better, death is less likely
And the US did better than us at keeping it out of care homes (or, ore specifically, not ushering it in there)
My sense is that number of COVID-19 deaths have been more under- than over-reported in most jurisdictions, especially at times when rise in cases is swamping or at least pressuring health care systems.
As for US doing better than UK, well, that's damning with faint praise. In Seattle area, first big hit was to a suburban nursing home. And for weeks hospitals kept discharging semi-recovered COVID-19 patients to nursing homes. Which is how a friend-of-mine's mother caught the Crud; luckily she survived, but she had enough problems as it was, didn't need that kind of criminal incompetence.
All this stuff about Trump somehow hanging on if he loses is nonsense: if he loses the election, he'll be a loser, and if he's seen as a loser everyone who currently supports him or is loyal to him will run a mile. No one is going to help him hang on. In fact it will turn out they never ever supported him in the first place.
For once great minds think alike!
BTW did PBers notice that presidential result was a tad close in 1960, 2000 and 2016? Yet power was transferred - away from the party in power - to candidate who ended up with the most electoral votes as scheduled on Inauguration Day.
True, but in each of those years the incumbent President was not Donald John Trump.
President has zilch to do with the actual election by the Electoral College. He doe not count the votes, that is done by joint session of Congress with Vice President presiding - Nixon in 1961, Gore in 2001, Biden in 2017
You know much more than I do regarding the mechanics of the Electoral College. However doesn't the fact that Trump owns the DOJ, the AG and the SC worry you?
Trump does not own the SC. Which is why he keeps losing SC cases.
They just handed down two huge voter suppression wins for the GOP.
1. Deaths are a lagging indicator, wait a fortnight 2. Those catching the bug are much younger, fitter (beaches, protests) 3. Treatments are now much better, death is less likely
And the US did better than us at keeping it out of care homes (or, ore specifically, not ushering it in there)
My sense is that number of COVID-19 deaths have been more under- than over-reported in most jurisdictions, especially at times when rise in cases is swamping or at least pressuring health care systems.
As for US doing better than UK, well, that's damning with faint praise. In Seattle area, first big hit was to a suburban nursing home. And for weeks hospitals kept discharging semi-recovered COVID-19 patients to nursing homes. Which is how a friend-of-mine's mother caught the Crud; luckily she survived, but she had enough problems as it was, didn't need that kind of criminal incompetence.
The US suppression of COVID19 case data is similar to, and as disgusting as, the voter suppression.
1) In some places - Far East, Europe, it is the tail end of the first wave. 2) In some places - South America, Africa, the first wave is taking off 3) In the US - the first wave had a lull and is heading to a new peak.
In all cases, the second wave, if any is down the road.
What is true, is that on a world wide basis, it will continue to get worse.
It would be worth asking what aid packages the UK government is planning in this context.
1. Deaths are a lagging indicator, wait a fortnight 2. Those catching the bug are much younger, fitter (beaches, protests) 3. Treatments are now much better, death is less likely
And the US did better than us at keeping it out of care homes (or, ore specifically, not ushering it in there)
In the US, there are political pressures to suppress numbers.
In addition there are personal reasons - testing and treatment cost money. The pressure to avoid that and struggle on with illness exists and is a horrible factor
Comments
As for Cummings, well, those are opinions. But my opinions are based on the facts, and yours appear to be based on wishful thinking. He does verbally attack vested interests but he doesn’t understand what they are or how to deal with them. So who was the biggest vested interest in education? The Civil Service. Every time. He rails against them himself. So if he takes on vested interests, how did his tenure result in smashing the education system to pieces and putting more civil servants in direct charge of it? Would you like to know how many are now chief executives of academy chains? One is even running OFSTED (very badly).
Cummings is arrogant, reckless, divisive and a thoroughly dangerous and nasty human being. He is also on his own terms a complete failure.
If you want him for Liberalism, you’re welcome. But don’t expect my vote any time soon.
As for US doing better than UK, well, that's damning with faint praise. In Seattle area, first big hit was to a suburban nursing home. And for weeks hospitals kept discharging semi-recovered COVID-19 patients to nursing homes. Which is how a friend-of-mine's mother caught the Crud; luckily she survived, but she had enough problems as it was, didn't need that kind of criminal incompetence.
1) In some places - Far East, Europe, it is the tail end of the first wave.
2) In some places - South America, Africa, the first wave is taking off
3) In the US - the first wave had a lull and is heading to a new peak.
In all cases, the second wave, if any is down the road.
What is true, is that on a world wide basis, it will continue to get worse.
It would be worth asking what aid packages the UK government is planning in this context.
In addition there are personal reasons - testing and treatment cost money. The pressure to avoid that and struggle on with illness exists and is a horrible factor