Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
I don't actually see the need for this amended approach, and certainly approve of as much as possible being said by ministers in parliament, but I feel like journalists probably have a dim view both of how much ministers say there and how good MPs are at eliciting information compared to themselves.
MPs and journalists have a great deal in common though, not least a high opinion of their own importance.
I do like that government quesionnaire thing about skills. Who answers 'strongly disagree' to a statement like 'I want to make things better for people'? Even if you do disagree I'd think most people would not say so.
Apparently I might make a good Prison Governor based on my results. Or a Royal Marine Officer, which given my physical state and cowardice strikes me as unwise. In fairness it did also say Environmental Health Officer.
We had one of these job finder things when I was at school. No matter what you picked an armed forces job would be in the top results.
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Biden is doing better than Hillary did in all those states but still worse than Obama did in most of them. That suggests he will certainly get closer to Trump in the EC than Hillary did but he is still not on course for a clear EC win as Obama got so it could still be very close.
For comparison in 2012 Obama got 52% in Pennsylvania, 54% in Michigan, 53% in Wisconsin and 50% in Florida so Biden is still not doing as well as the President he served in those states, he is doing fractionally better in North Carolina than the 48% Obama got there in 2012 but worse than the 49.7% Obama got there in 2008.
Biden is doing better than the 44% Obama got in Arizona in both 2008 and 2012 though
"I predict we will see a majority unite against him [Trump] in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential election. I have never been more certain of something in my life."
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
I do like that government quesionnaire thing about skills. Who answers 'strongly disagree' to a statement like 'I want to make things better for people'? Even if you do disagree I'd think most people would not say so.
Apparently I might make a good Prison Governor based on my results. Or a Royal Marine Officer, which given my physical state and cowardice strikes me as unwise. In fairness it did also say Environmental Health Officer.
We had one of these job finder things when I was at school. No matter what you picked an armed forces job would be in the top results.
Algorithms, eh? (I know of someone who managed to get a "we can't think of a job for you- how about you try answering the questions again?' message...)
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
Joining in the "Alternative Career" thingie, it said..... (smileys added by me to indicate my response)
Your results What you told us Your answers show that:
you are sociable and find it easy to understand people you are a creative person and enjoy coming up with new ways of doing things you like dealing with complicated problems or working with numbers The following job categories are based on the answers you have given. You can choose to view more results at the bottom of the page.
10 job categories that might suit you
Sports and leisure Construction and trades Retail and sales Emergency and uniform services Animal care Healthcare
Creative and media
Been there, done that, several T-Shirts...
Computing, technology and digital Hospitality and food Managerial
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
Why should that matter? If people can be happy in that position then even if it is a backslide it's clearly fine. None of the great European powers are world powers anymore.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Great. I'm sure that Newsnight, Channel 4 and many other media outlets will be more than happy to talk to ministers, including the Prime Minister, giving them a platform to talk to the nation they rule. Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
I see we're back to people interfering in elections is bad again.
When Trump backed Brexit and interfered with May, we never got any outrage at all, why not?
Trump was effectively a crazy cranky celebrity when we had the Brexit vote. Celebrities spout off every election (typically luvvies backing Labour). There wasn't as much outrage when he spouted off because quite frankly we took him as a meaningless joke until we woke up in November 2016 to the news the Americans had actually elected him.
I dont know what you mean by "interfered with May".
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
The UK is still in roughly the same position as it was 10 years ago ie a medium range power.
The UK's slide from superpower to 'provincial backwater' as you put it was because of the loss of the British Empire, nothing to do with Brexit.
Ireland never had an Empire so was never a superpower, it is and always has been only a small power but it is part of a potential superpower as part of the EU but then with the loss of some independence that comes with that eg on its corporation tax rates
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
A gentle reminder of the mindset of a typical Trump supporter
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
A gentle reminder of the mindset of a typical Trump supporters
Why's that Roger? That I think a lollipop lady who does 30 years service in all weather and without complaining is more deserving of a higher award than an extremely highly paid footballer?
I'd said your view is a not so gentle reminder of the mindset of a wealthy elite that looks after its own and cares little about anyone who is poor
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Great. I'm sure that Newsnight, Channel 4 and many other media outlets will be more than happy to talk to ministers, including the Prime Minister, giving them a platform to talk to the nation they rule. Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
They already do all that, plus have media briefings which have always been done?
What is your problem with the time honoured British tradition of all Prime Ministers media spokespeople giving media briefings?
Well, that is for a longer post tomorrow but, just looking at the Gallup poll, 56% of Americans feel they are better off than they were 4 years ago and 49% believe Trump represents their views vs 46% for Biden.
We are all about believing the polls and the data, right?
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Great. I'm sure that Newsnight, Channel 4 and many other media outlets will be more than happy to talk to ministers, including the Prime Minister, giving them a platform to talk to the nation they rule. Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
They already do all that, plus have media briefings which have always been done?
What is your problem with the time honoured British tradition of all Prime Ministers media spokespeople giving media briefings?
I'm not sure why putting these things on camera would actually serve a purpose. The moment you put things on camera, you potentially move away from actually useful briefings that allow fairly detailed questioning and sensible answers, and replace them with both sides grandstanding looking for that "Gotcha'" TV moment that will lead on all the bulletins.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
Well, that is for a longer post tomorrow but, just looking at the Gallup poll, 56% of Americans feel they are better off than they were 4 years ago and 49% believe Trump represents their views vs 46% for Biden.
We are all about believing the polls and the data, right?
Why do you believe those polls rather than all the other ones showing Biden a reasonable distance ahead? Is it because you want those ones to be right?
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Great. I'm sure that Newsnight, Channel 4 and many other media outlets will be more than happy to talk to ministers, including the Prime Minister, giving them a platform to talk to the nation they rule. Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
They already do all that, plus have media briefings which have always been done?
What is your problem with the time honoured British tradition of all Prime Ministers media spokespeople giving media briefings?
I'm not sure why putting these things on camera would actually serve a purpose. The moment you put things on camera, you potentially move away from actually useful briefings that allow fairly detailed questioning and sensible answers, and replace them with both sides grandstanding looking for that "Gotcha'" TV moment that will lead on all the bulletins.
Maybe though maybe not. Especially since these are daily rather than weekly and with a journalist spokesperson and not a politician its probably a reasonable metric to get information out because people look more for "Gotchas" with politicians.
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
Why should that matter? If people can be happy in that position then even if it is a backslide it's clearly fine. None of the great European powers are world powers anymore.
Because I used to think that this country did try to lead the world. Instead I see that it is really just a gerontocracy out to perpetuate the self-entitlement to which they had become accustomed whilst trampling on the young and loading them with debt whilst removing opportunities from the youngsters.
I do not care about my position in all this, but I am hopping mad about the way that young people are being treated and the way they get denigrated as wilting snowflakes.
Every day I see less and less to admire about the place. If it falls apart into 3 parts then it will be no less than it deserves.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Two of them are at 50%+ and six out of six are at 49%+
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
The lowest winning percentage in 2016 was 45.54% (Utah), and the highest losing percentage was 47.82% (Florida).
I don't know what these numbers prove, but I find them interesting anyway.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
But hold on, how would @Roger be able to impress his friends in the advertising world if he didn't have his gong?
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
On the face of it good for Biden but on the other hand in only 1 of those key swing states is Biden over 50%, in Wisconsin and even then only just at 51%
Two of them are at 50%+ and six out of six are at 49%+
Given that US Presidential elections never have a 100% two party share, every single one of them would essentially be guaranteed a Biden victory if his share is accurate.
The lowest winning percentage in 2016 was 45.54% (Utah), and the highest losing percentage was 47.82% (Florida).
I don't know what these numbers prove, but I find them interesting anyway.
They prove that 49% is a winning percentage in all 6 of those states.
If Biden gets 49% in all 6 of those states he has won a landslide.
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
A gentle reminder of the mindset of a typical Trump supporter
Good to see you on here, Roger. How's the movie industry doing? I've heard from a friend at one of the major studios that they're running out of catalogue.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
I’m backing Trumpton to win the election. Not sure why that’s unclear?
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
Yes. It's managed to elevate itself from superstitious, sleepy, theocratic provincial backwater. Which is quite an achievement.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Worth noting. Europeans have conceded they're now going to get a smaller quota in British waters in future and are now squabbling amongst themselves as to who takes the hit:
Thank heavens we have never had any thing like this before under any previous governments ....ever!
So? I would be doing the same for Labour, Libs or any other Public Trougher.
Besides, my main issue was the word "Great". With Boris, it should only be used as a prefix in front of "showman" or "big cowardy custard"
You don't get this politics thing do you?
I do get it. I just no longer give a d*mn.
You seem to care quite a bit about it, and all the better for it.
No... I regard politics as a badly written comedy with occasional amusement value. We have Boris the twit, Cummings the Svengali, Corbyn the Idiot, Starmer the Unimpressive, some LD as the Invisible Man and wee Nikki the Shrew. Then there are the detached idiots known as Norn Iron politicians half of whom never turn up and the other half of which do everything a*se backwards.
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
Are there not options between provincial backwater and world power? I presume you think ROI is not either of those options, and so presumably something to shoot for.
The ROI is a provincial backwater. What it has going for it was it has not slid downhill to that position. Unlike the UK.
Yes. It's managed to elevate itself from superstitious, sleepy, theocratic provincial backwater. Which is quite an achievement.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
What is the point of Boris Johnson? He's not coming up with policies - he's delegated that to Dominic Cummings. And he's not presenting the policies - he's delegated that to Allegra Stratton. Couldn't we just get rid of the pointless middleman and save a bit of money? It's not like we can afford any passengers at this point.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Thanks Philip. You are obviously one of the fountains of all knowledge and wisdom on here who gets everything right, I bow to your superior knowledge.
Ps why do you have a picture of an alleged wife-beating, coke snorting, total f*ck up of a person as your avatar?
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
Oh, I'm very aware.
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
The media have questions as well as Parliamentarians. Unless you want to abolish the media it is entirely appropriate that there are media briefings as well as Parliamentary ones.
Great. I'm sure that Newsnight, Channel 4 and many other media outlets will be more than happy to talk to ministers, including the Prime Minister, giving them a platform to talk to the nation they rule. Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
They already do all that, plus have media briefings which have always been done?
What is your problem with the time honoured British tradition of all Prime Ministers media spokespeople giving media briefings?
But they don't, do they?
Johnson ducked the uncongenial media stuff in the election campaign. The government keeps ministers away from outlets like Newsnight and Good Morning Britain. It took a pandemic to scupper the boycott of the Today programme, for crying out loud.
And whilst professional explainers have a role in the government-media machine, it's a background job, not the main event. If Boris can't or won't stand up and explain his actions to the public, if he needs or wants someone else to do the bulk of that job for him, he shouldn't be PM.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
By "independent managers reporting directly to government " I take it you mean wealthy mates of Dom or Boris, or hefty donors to the Tory Party, all with zero experience of running transport? Cos that's what you'll get.
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
What is the point of Boris Johnson? He's not coming up with policies - he's delegated that to Dominic Cummings. And he's not presenting the policies - he's delegated that to Allegra Stratton. Couldn't we just get rid of the pointless middleman and save a bit of money? It's not like we can afford any passengers at this point.
His job isn't to be Press Secretary or Advisor, which are positions that have always been delegated to other people. It is to be Prime Minister.
Every modern Prime Minister has always had Advisors and Press Secretaries.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
I’m backing Trumpton to win the election. Not sure why that’s unclear?
I hope I lose my money, big style.
I know you dislike Trump with a passion but it could be read you supported Trump.
Look, I have said plenty of times I could be totally wrong and the consensus on this site is right. There are plenty of people who post on here giving the latest reason why Biden's 16% lead could actually be an underestimate and he is going to win 400+ votes. I like to present the opposite side.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
You forgot highly valued British tradition which borders on sedition to oppose
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Thanks Philip. You are obviously one of the fountains of all knowledge and wisdom on here who gets everything right, I bow to your superior knowledge.
Ps why do you have a picture of an alleged wife-beating, coke snorting, total f*ck up of a person as your avatar?
During the Brexit debates people kept mocking Brexiteers as believing in "libertarian pirate island", using the term as an insult.
So I adopted Jack Sparrow as my avatar because libertarian pirate island sounds quite good to me thanks.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
The problem is that the "Honours" system is a social pyramid thing with HMQ at the top. As long as we have a royal family you will get the social climbing, cronyism and gongs.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
By "independent managers reporting directly to government " I take it you mean wealthy mates of Dom or Boris, or hefty donors to the Tory Party, all with zero experience of running transport? Cos that's what you'll get.
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
A gentle reminder of the mindset of a typical Trump supporters
Why's that Roger? That I think a lollipop lady who does 30 years service in all weather and without complaining is more deserving of a higher award than an extremely highly paid footballer?
I'd said your view is a not so gentle reminder of the mindset of a wealthy elite that looks after its own and cares little about anyone who is poor
If you don't think who someone who has achieved as much for underprivileged children as Rashford has is worthy of an MBE you either over value an MBE or are someone without compassion.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Thanks Philip. You are obviously one of the fountains of all knowledge and wisdom on here who gets everything right, I bow to your superior knowledge.
Ps why do you have a picture of an alleged wife-beating, coke snorting, total f*ck up of a person as your avatar?
During the Brexit debates people kept mocking Brexiteers as believing in "libertarian pirate island", using the term as an insult.
So I adopted Jack Sparrow as my avatar because libertarian pirate island sounds quite good to me thanks.
Well that is a fair enough and I admire you for your views. I don't agree with your views but you argue them well.
Piece of advice though - please don't call anyone a mug on an outcome on which you don't know how it will play out, or at least not in writing. You may be 100% right and I am a mug. But it's not a good look if you are wrong.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
There are plenty of wealthy voters in Florida or suburban Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016 even if they did not tell pollsters they would do so
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
What is the point of Boris Johnson? He's not coming up with policies - he's delegated that to Dominic Cummings. And he's not presenting the policies - he's delegated that to Allegra Stratton. Couldn't we just get rid of the pointless middleman and save a bit of money? It's not like we can afford any passengers at this point.
His job isn't to be Press Secretary or Advisor, which are positions that have always been delegated to other people. It is to be Prime Minister.
Every modern Prime Minister has always had Advisors and Press Secretaries.
But his advisor has more power to dictate policy and run the government than any of his predecessors. And his press Secretary will be the public face of the government in a way that none of her predecessors has. If Johnson is neither running things behind the scenes nor presenting the government's case what is he actually doing? It's not like he's not costing us money. It's a repeat of his time at City Hall, he's a fucking waste of space.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
So you have finally backed him?
Yes
Did you just cover the win or an EV range?
EV range. So I had problems with my Betfair account so have just done Ladbrokes for now but in a range of 270-349 with a weighting towards the lower ned. When my BF account gets sorted, I will probably go for more finessed bets. The one I did go big on was Trump at 220.5+ EC votes which was at 10/11
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
You forgot highly valued British tradition which borders on sedition to oppose
I put my Irish hat on when opposing the royal family. That way it is not sedition as I am a forriner
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
The problem is that the "Honours" system is a social pyramid thing with HMQ at the top. As long as we have a royal family you will get the social climbing, cronyism and gongs.
I think I covered that in my joke post.
And of course, yes, no republics have orders, decorations or medals...
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
A gentle reminder of the mindset of a typical Trump supporters
Why's that Roger? That I think a lollipop lady who does 30 years service in all weather and without complaining is more deserving of a higher award than an extremely highly paid footballer?
I'd said your view is a not so gentle reminder of the mindset of a wealthy elite that looks after its own and cares little about anyone who is poor
If you don't think who someone who has achieved as much for underprivileged children as Rashford has is worthy of an MBE you either over value an MBE or are someone without compassion.
In brief a Trump fan
Ah, the mindset of the Twitterati. Send a few tweets, use your profile to force a change and you are suddenly Superman / Superwoman. Far more deserving of a higher award than someone who gets up years on end, in all weathers and does their job (or charity) dutifully, well and with dignity, and gets a low recognition.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Allegra Stratton should have refused to become the new Downing Street press secretary. I have three big reasons for saying this, and none of them has anything to do with party politics, or my views about the Conservatives or Boris Johnson, or even my liking for Stratton herself.
Likelihood is that she will remain tainted by taking this position long after Bozo becomes just a bad memory.
I don't see how this role is that much different to what spin doctors / press secretary used to get up to, over than this job is to do it on the record. And of course one which is pretty much always filled by a somebody with a journalist background, from Bernard to Bad Al to Coulson.
Yes, Martin Kettle's Guardian article (an opinion piece) neglects to mention Alastair Campbell, which is an oversight. But even Campbell kept a relatively low profile, as did, for example, Bernard Ingham (who is very critical of the daily briefing idea).
So the key point about the article is the intention that Stratton should lead daily press briefings on behalf of the government, and that this in itself is yet another step to undermine the role of parliament and create a more presidential system of government. The expectation is that the trend to announcing government policies or thinking via the media rather than via parliament will increase. In this respect, Kettle has a point - a further move away from parliamentary democracy.
Is it is all well and good saying that, but we know all these previous individuals regularly briefed the media well ahead of announcements in parliament e.g For years we had the whole of budgets pre-announced through the media and we know what Boris is going to announce on Monday.
And every day we get the PM spoke person said x, the lobby were briefed y.
I honestly don't see that much of a difference.
Precisely.
In fact it will be harder to anonymously brief something if it's then going to be quoted and asked about on live TV later on.
Is there any reason to think that the under-the-counter stuff won't continue to happen as well?
In the meantime, the Daily Allegra Show looks at risk of two flaws:
First is the problem we saw with some of the episodes of the Covid Briefing Show towards the end of Series 1. Most days, if things are going well, there's not much to talk about.
Second, Allegra is going to need to know the PMs mind on everything to a public display standard. Working out what that is might be a useful exercise for the PM, but it will be a hefty time sink. And most PMs (You know, competent diligent ones) won't want to subcontract talking to the people to someone else. Can you imagine any previous PM thinking that wasn't a core part of their job?
Firstly that's not such a problem. Daily briefings already happen despite that, the only difference is now they'll be on camera. Plus I believe some of the TV stations have already said they don't intend to screen the briefings live daily unless they're expecting major news from them. But if there is some news in them they'll be on camera for clips later.
Secondly this shouldn't be a problem. Actually there should be no shame in a spokesperson saying "that is a good question, I will have to ask the Prime Minister and get back to you". That's what the White House Press Spokesman does quite often and I expect its what already happens in many lobby briefings. Furthermore all PMs have always had a spokesperson speaking to the media, this happening is not new, the only new element is it being on camera.
So let's get this straight.
Most days, this will be a non-event that's going to cost a non trivial amount.
If the government wants to put something on the record, they have the House of Commons for that.
Apart from the fact that the PM is turning into the Wizard of Oz, what's the point of this? Because if you really think that this will put an end to off-the-record briefings, I have an exclusive story to tell you.
Once again are you not aware that these briefings have been a feature of British politics for a very, very, very long time already.
The only difference now is that they are finally being put on camera, which is greater transparency. Daily briefings are not being "introduced" they have always been there.
What is the point of Boris Johnson? He's not coming up with policies - he's delegated that to Dominic Cummings. And he's not presenting the policies - he's delegated that to Allegra Stratton. Couldn't we just get rid of the pointless middleman and save a bit of money? It's not like we can afford any passengers at this point.
His job isn't to be Press Secretary or Advisor, which are positions that have always been delegated to other people. It is to be Prime Minister.
Every modern Prime Minister has always had Advisors and Press Secretaries.
But his advisor has more power to dictate policy and run the government than any of his predecessors. And his press Secretary will be the public face of the government in a way that none of her predecessors has. If Johnson is neither running things behind the scenes nor presenting the government's case what is he actually doing? It's not like he's not costing us money. It's a repeat of his time at City Hall, he's a fucking waste of space.
That his advisor is helping is smart politics, he's still just an advisor though.
As for his Press Secretary being a public face that has been a long time coming and was inevitable to happen sooner rather than later in our 24/7 TV and Internet media age rather than where "the lobby" wrote for newspapers the next day as our main form of news. It is bringing the Press Secretary's job into the 21st century.
Comments
But have you ever seen a magician at work? The art is to cover what's actually going on with a load of patter and business.
Unless you really think this is a replacement for the dark arts, the Allegra Show is just patter and business.
And if the government really wants to be open, ministers can say stuff in Parliament. Can't they?
I mean, what is there to care about? The UK has accelerated its long decline from world power to provincial backwater. There is nothing I can do about it and I will be d*mned if I am going to take sides either. None of them are worth it.
I was rather hoping for something a little more off the wall...
MPs and journalists have a great deal in common though, not least a high opinion of their own importance.
Apparently I might make a good Prison Governor based on my results. Or a Royal Marine Officer, which given my physical state and cowardice strikes me as unwise. In fairness it did also say Environmental Health Officer.
We had one of these job finder things when I was at school. No matter what you picked an armed forces job would be in the top results.
Vs RCP {FL-08, PA-08, WI-08, FL-12, PA-12, WI-12}
Obama {+2, +3.5, +3.4, +2.4, +1.8, +2.6} Avg +2.6
McCain/Romney {+1, +0.5, +0.5, -0.3, -0.6, +1} Avg +0.35
2008
Florida
RCP Average 10/27 - 11/3 -- -- 47.2 49.0 Obama +1.8 (Actual Obama +2.8/51.0 %)
PA
RCP Average 10/27 - 11/3 -- -- 43.7 51.0 Obama +7.3 (Actual Obama +10.3/54.5%)
WI
Final Results -- -- -- 42.3 56.2 Obama +13.9
RCP Average 10/21 - 10/29 -- -- 41.8 52.8 Obama +11.0
2012 - WI
Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 52.8 45.9 Obama +6.9
RCP Average 10/25 - 11/3 -- -- 50.4 46.2 Obama +4.2
2012 - FL
Final Results -- -- -- 50.0 49.1 Obama +0.9
RCP Average 10/30 - 11/5 -- -- 48.2 49.7 Romney +1.5
2012 - PA
Final Results -- -- -- 52.0 46.6 Obama +5.4
RCP Average 10/23 - 11/4 -- -- 49.4 45.6 Obama +3.8
"I predict we will see a majority unite against him [Trump] in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential election. I have never been more certain of something in my life."
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-2020-polls-proves-democrats-need-start-planning-biden-ncna1242631
Wow. No messing with this prediction.
Let it go.
When Trump backed Brexit and interfered with May, we never got any outrage at all, why not?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54468492
But if some don't then we can discount their opinions and let only those who do give a shit have a say.
Your results
What you told us
Your answers show that:
you are sociable and find it easy to understand people
you are a creative person and enjoy coming up with new ways of doing things
you like dealing with complicated problems or working with numbers
The following job categories are based on the answers you have given. You can choose to view more results at the bottom of the page.
10 job categories that might suit you
Been there, done that, several T-Shirts...
https://m.slashdot.org/story/376802
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/321650/gallup-election-2020-coverage.aspx
I'm going quids in on DJT
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
What a joke.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
Unless they're not up to it, or they're frit, and they need someone to do it for them.
I dont know what you mean by "interfered with May".
The UK's slide from superpower to 'provincial backwater' as you put it was because of the loss of the British Empire, nothing to do with Brexit.
Ireland never had an Empire so was never a superpower, it is and always has been only a small power but it is part of a potential superpower as part of the EU but then with the loss of some independence that comes with that eg on its corporation tax rates
I'd said your view is a not so gentle reminder of the mindset of a wealthy elite that looks after its own and cares little about anyone who is poor
What is your problem with the time honoured British tradition of all Prime Ministers media spokespeople giving media briefings?
We are all about believing the polls and the data, right?
There, that should covery most of the bases.
I do not care about my position in all this, but I am hopping mad about the way that young people are being treated and the way they get denigrated as wilting snowflakes.
Every day I see less and less to admire about the place. If it falls apart into 3 parts then it will be no less than it deserves.
I don't know what these numbers prove, but I find them interesting anyway.
If Biden gets 49% in all 6 of those states he has won a landslide.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
I hope I lose my money, big style.
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Ps why do you have a picture of an alleged wife-beating, coke snorting, total f*ck up of a person as your avatar?
Johnson ducked the uncongenial media stuff in the election campaign. The government keeps ministers away from outlets like Newsnight and Good Morning Britain. It took a pandemic to scupper the boycott of the Today programme, for crying out loud.
And whilst professional explainers have a role in the government-media machine, it's a background job, not the main event. If Boris can't or won't stand up and explain his actions to the public, if he needs or wants someone else to do the bulk of that job for him, he shouldn't be PM.
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
Cos that's what you'll get.
Every modern Prime Minister has always had Advisors and Press Secretaries.
Look, I have said plenty of times I could be totally wrong and the consensus on this site is right. There are plenty of people who post on here giving the latest reason why Biden's 16% lead could actually be an underestimate and he is going to win 400+ votes. I like to present the opposite side.
So I adopted Jack Sparrow as my avatar because libertarian pirate island sounds quite good to me thanks.
In brief a Trump fan
Piece of advice though - please don't call anyone a mug on an outcome on which you don't know how it will play out, or at least not in writing. You may be 100% right and I am a mug. But it's not a good look if you are wrong.
And of course, yes, no republics have orders, decorations or medals...
In brief, a snob.
As for his Press Secretary being a public face that has been a long time coming and was inevitable to happen sooner rather than later in our 24/7 TV and Internet media age rather than where "the lobby" wrote for newspapers the next day as our main form of news. It is bringing the Press Secretary's job into the 21st century.