Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hollow Men – the sidelining of parliament during the biggest health/economic crisis in modern times

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 10 in General
Hollow Men – the sidelining of parliament during the biggest health/economic crisis in modern times – politicalbetting.com

pic.twitter.com/IRyIyKMtj5

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,319

    Outstanding piece.

    Agreed
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    edited October 10

    Outstanding piece.

    Agreed
    Let's hope it gets some passing around on social media and so on. Whatever your views on lockdowns and so on, Parliament should be debating these issues. Millions are having their livelihoods and liberty taken away without their MP having even a squeak.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021
    Thanks, Cyclefree.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405
    I'm sad to take this thread off topic but this may be useful for Presidential Bettors

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Outstanding piece.

    It is first class. But then I can't remember a poor one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 54,055
    FPT

    F1: surprised how well Verstappen did. Pre-race ramble will be up tomorrow but one thing I'll be checking will be his odds on the win.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 3,543
    Great piece, Cyclefree. Sadly, as you say, an aversion to scrutiny has been one of the dominant themes of Johnson's woeful political career.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    It’s probably as much because Cummings and Johnson can’t deal with criticism, however well founded, as for any other reason.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    edited October 10
    Scott_xP said:

    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...

    If blocks can from danger deliver
    Two places are safe from the French.
    One is the mouth of Thames River-
    The other, the Treasury bench.

    Whig political rhyme, 1805.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    edited October 10
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    It’s probably as much because Cummings and Johnson can’t deal with criticism, however well founded, as for any other reason.
    Possibly. They also find it very difficult to explain the rationale behind their new laws, quite possibly because it is a strain. The evidence of wine with a meal encouraging the spread of Covid, for example, rather passed me by. Any Minister trying to explain the details is going to get lost in them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,867
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...

    If blocks can from danger deliver
    Two places are safe from the French.
    One is the mouth of Thames River-
    The other, the Treasury bench.

    Whig political rhyme, 1805.
    Is that block as in blockhouse, please?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    edited October 10
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    Scott_xP said:
    So did the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (although he wrote to the Home Secretary). It seems to have come out of a rule of law conference that took place this week.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,923
    The oddest feature of the current lack of parliamentary scrutiny is the fact that Labour under Sir Keir seems to have gone AWOL on the key issues. They whinge a bit at the margins but are incoherent and inconsistent. I understand that they don't want to be seen to be undermining efforts to deal with the pandemic, but that's not a reason not to provide constructive criticism and scrutinise decisions made and possible alternatives. Jeremy Hunt seems to be able to get the balance right, why can't Sir Keir, who is, after all, supposed to be the details man who can master a brief and marshal his arguments?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...

    If blocks can from danger deliver
    Two places are safe from the French.
    One is the mouth of Thames River-
    The other, the Treasury bench.

    Whig political rhyme, 1805.
    Is that block as in blockhouse, please?
    It was a reference to a dam built across the mouth of the Thames to protect London from French incursions.

    More information here:

    https://guildhallhistoricalassociation.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/the-napoleonic-wars-1803-1814-the-defences-of-se-england.pdf
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Considering neither the SNP nor the Labour Party chose to vote against the Coronavirus Enabling Act, there's absolutely no chance of Parliament taking back control.

    Which is a shame, as a lack of opposition makes decision making worse. Where is the opposition scrutiny?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106
    A lot to agree with in this, I think what it's shown is that the opposition isn't fit for purpose. The government/executive will do whatever it can to avoid scrutiny, that is a constant for basically all of history. It is up to the opposition and parliament to force scrutiny. The opposition has derelicted it's duty to the people to actually oppose leaving it to backbench Tory MPs to do the job.

    Starmer had the opportunity to force the government back to the drawing board by finding common ground with Brady who had the numbers. He didn't and now we're stuck for another 6 months of scrutiny at the gift of the executive.

    If the government was doing a good job and were on top of everything then I could just about understand Starmer not wanting to rock the boat, but they haven't. It's been shocking and Starmer made Labour abstain from the vote. Dereliction of duty.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    edited October 10

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,796
    eek said:

    I'm sad to take this thread off topic but this may be useful for Presidential Bettors

    Looks like Trump needs an influx of no degree white men.

    Free passports to all Hartlipudlians!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,640
    edited October 10
    FPT.
    @Gallowgate. Yes that has struck me as curious too. The toon seems only slightly less busy during the day than it ever was. Ditto Metro Centre.
    Then seems to empty rapidly as darkness falls to resemble a ghost town of scraggly beggars and drunkards. With a somewhat malevolent air.
    The joyous stag and hen parties and wealthier diners are absent.
    And the students banished.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    The oddest feature of the current lack of parliamentary scrutiny is the fact that Labour under Sir Keir seems to have gone AWOL on the key issues. They whinge a bit at the margins but are incoherent and inconsistent. I understand that they don't want to be seen to be undermining efforts to deal with the pandemic, but that's not a reason not to provide constructive criticism and scrutinise decisions made and possible alternatives. Jeremy Hunt seems to be able to get the balance right, why can't Sir Keir, who is, after all, supposed to be the details man who can master a brief and marshal his arguments?

    Presumably having a position or actually voting for anything would make his hindsight seem less penetrating.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,867
    edited October 10
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...

    If blocks can from danger deliver
    Two places are safe from the French.
    One is the mouth of Thames River-
    The other, the Treasury bench.

    Whig political rhyme, 1805.
    Is that block as in blockhouse, please?
    It was a reference to a dam built across the mouth of the Thames to protect London from French incursions.

    More information here:

    https://guildhallhistoricalassociation.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/the-napoleonic-wars-1803-1814-the-defences-of-se-england.pdf
    Ah! Thank you very much - I am very interested in the Palmerston Forts, Martello Towers and the like, but this is a new one to me ('blockhouse' meaning had seemed very early for 1805, which is why I had asked, as I couldn't make sense of the verse).

    Bit more here - I wonder if the blockage was actually to land movement along the Thames Valley?

    https://leabridge.org.uk/myths/dams-across-the-lea.html
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    The problem was that Parliament wanted to have it's cake and eat it on that topic. They wanted to vote down everything to do with Brexit. But not vote against Brexit. In the hope that some vague legalism somewhere would mean that Brexit would disappear.

    If they had table a vote on the idea of a second referendum, that would have probably got more respect. Even from leavers.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "MPs have a choice. They can behave like Eliot’s Hollow Men, allowing their role to be downgraded, not with a bang but with their whimpers. Or they can grow a spine and, to coin a phrase, take back control."

    Almost.

    Tory MPs have a choice.

    And their best (and easiest) way to take back control would be to pen letters to Sir Graham Brady.

    No sign of that so far...

    If blocks can from danger deliver
    Two places are safe from the French.
    One is the mouth of Thames River-
    The other, the Treasury bench.

    Whig political rhyme, 1805.
    Is that block as in blockhouse, please?
    It was a reference to a dam built across the mouth of the Thames to protect London from French incursions.

    More information here:

    https://guildhallhistoricalassociation.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/the-napoleonic-wars-1803-1814-the-defences-of-se-england.pdf
    How many times have I told you not to mention grandiose construction schemes on the Thames within Johnson's earshot?

    You know where it will lead!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 34,502
    eek said:

    I'm sad to take this thread off topic but this may be useful for Presidential Bettors

    So the four demographics with the biggest swing to Trump are Hispanic Catholics, Hispanic men, Black women, and Black protestants.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 6,867

    Considering neither the SNP nor the Labour Party chose to vote against the Coronavirus Enabling Act, there's absolutely no chance of Parliament taking back control.

    Which is a shame, as a lack of opposition makes decision making worse. Where is the opposition scrutiny?

    Could not that be a matter, for the SNP, of not trespassing on EVEL? (Not sure about this - but it does spring to mind.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,640
    Excellent piece @Cyclefree.
    The Hollow Men can be seen as the journey of spiritually dead, defeated people.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    The problem was that Parliament wanted to have it's cake and eat it on that topic. They wanted to vote down everything to do with Brexit. But not vote against Brexit. In the hope that some vague legalism somewhere would mean that Brexit would disappear.

    If they had table a vote on the idea of a second referendum, that would have probably got more respect. Even from leavers.
    Indeed. Being a lying hypocrite and a coward as so many were is not a great combination.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106

    The oddest feature of the current lack of parliamentary scrutiny is the fact that Labour under Sir Keir seems to have gone AWOL on the key issues. They whinge a bit at the margins but are incoherent and inconsistent. I understand that they don't want to be seen to be undermining efforts to deal with the pandemic, but that's not a reason not to provide constructive criticism and scrutinise decisions made and possible alternatives. Jeremy Hunt seems to be able to get the balance right, why can't Sir Keir, who is, after all, supposed to be the details man who can master a brief and marshal his arguments?

    Yes, Starmer seems scared of opposing anything or even providing reasonable criticism of policy. He's not very good at this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 77,818
    From 2017 to 2019 when we had a hung parliament, parliament effectively ran the country, May was the weakest PM for decades.

    No surprise now the Tories have a majority of 80 we have a much stronger executive as a result and Boris is more able to deliver firm action
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    It may be unpalatable sometimes for the opposition, but their job is to oppose. Abstaining on fundamental key measures is an abdication if their responsibility. If they support something they should vote for it, if not they should vote against it. We do not send them to Westminster to refuse to take a position out of fear of losing support of part of the electorate.

    That is the only way a Government (even one with a large majority) can be kept on their toes, and forced to justify their actions.

    Fundamentally they have no right to complain that the Govt is ignoring Parliament when they do not do all they can to force them to not do so.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 77,818
    Scott_xP said:
    I doubt Boris will be too bothered he is unpopular with lawyers
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,640
    We are hearing a fair bit from the Labour Metro mayors. Precious little from Houchen and Street. What do they think?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Carnyx said:

    Considering neither the SNP nor the Labour Party chose to vote against the Coronavirus Enabling Act, there's absolutely no chance of Parliament taking back control.

    Which is a shame, as a lack of opposition makes decision making worse. Where is the opposition scrutiny?

    Could not that be a matter, for the SNP, of not trespassing on EVEL? (Not sure about this - but it does spring to mind.)
    Interesting question.

    The Coronavirus Act doesn't just apply to England as far as I'm aware, but you might be right?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,177
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    The problem was that Parliament wanted to have it's cake and eat it on that topic. They wanted to vote down everything to do with Brexit. But not vote against Brexit. In the hope that some vague legalism somewhere would mean that Brexit would disappear.

    If they had table a vote on the idea of a second referendum, that would have probably got more respect. Even from leavers.
    Indeed. Being a lying hypocrite and a coward as so many were is not a great combination.
    The joke was, to me, that if they had managed to lawyer Brexit out, using some variation of the courts, timing various things out or making it impossible to leave, somehow... It would have guaranteed a massive backlash - even larger than they achieved.

    They made it quite clear that they were scared of voting against Brexit and they were scared of an election.

    Th only chance to reverse Brexit was a second referendum.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    The only thing to say in the government’s favour over Covid is that however incompetent they have been, Drakeford’s government of Corbynistas and drunks has been far worse.

    His latest wheeze is a desire to lock down Merioneth due to a surge of cases in Bangor.

    To put that in context, it’s the equivalent of locking down Gairloch because of the number of cases in Inverness.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 77,818
    edited October 10
    eek said:

    I'm sad to take this thread off topic but this may be useful for Presidential Bettors

    It seems Trump is doing worse with white men, white Catholics, rich and suburban voters than he did in 2016 but that Trump is actually doing slightly better than he did in 2016 with Hispanic and Black voters and the poor when you look at the full figures
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    dixiedean said:

    We are hearing a fair bit from the Labour Metro mayors. Precious little from Houchen and Street. What do they think?

    Street is too busy being NIMBY-in-chief.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    HYUFD said:

    From 2017 to 2019 when we had a hung parliament, parliament effectively ran the country, May was the weakest PM for decades.

    No surprise now the Tories have a majority of 80 we have a much stronger executive as a result and Boris is more able to deliver firm action

    The best description of the 2017-19 Parliament arguably comes from Elliot's The Hollow Men:

    Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

    Pretty much sums it up to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862
    HYUFD said:

    From 2017 to 2019 when we had a hung parliament, parliament effectively ran the country, May was the weakest PM for decades.

    No surprise now the Tories have a majority of 80 we have a much stronger executive as a result and Boris is more able to deliver firm action

    Which makes it all the more unforgivable that he dithers, stumbles and generally gives the impression he would be over promoted as a parking attendant in a pedestrianised shopping centre.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,405
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    So basically out of the two issues facing the opposition:-

    1) on Covid what can you sensible oppose. You can ask for more sanity and care in decision making but you can't oppose masks and a lot of other sane measures.
    2) on Brexit, why do anything beyond ensuring your name is nowhere near the end result. SKS's statement of get on with it solves the issue - Brexit is Boris's issue and one he himself needs to achieve and fix for his name will be all over it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    I also expected SKS to be better.

    That does not excuse the government from being crap though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    And the problem is that is, apparently, what we want.

    If every government defat is "chaos", "unstable", "about to be voted out" etc. then Governments will move heaven and earth to make sure it doesn't happen.

    Imagine a world in which the government proposes some legislation. It may or may not go through Parliament. If it doesn't - well, that's democracy. Everyone cheers.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,640

    dixiedean said:

    We are hearing a fair bit from the Labour Metro mayors. Precious little from Houchen and Street. What do they think?

    Street is too busy being NIMBY-in-chief.

    Build, Build, Build!
    Not near here obviously.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    eek said:

    I'm sad to take this thread off topic but this may be useful for Presidential Bettors

    Before people get sensationally excited by the swing in the black women vote itnis important to remeber in 2016 Blackwomen voted for Cli ton over Trump by 98% to *.

    Literally star, a number so low it could not be measured by Pew

    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,763
    The HoC was emasculated in the eyes of the public for all time by the referendum fiasco because it was portrayed time and time again as the oligarchic enemy of the people whose friend and ally was the government in the battle over enacting therwilloftherpeople. So people will think so what it those stuck up elitists don't get a vote, the last time we remember it having one it tried to frustrate Brexit. Serve it right.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    We are hearing a fair bit from the Labour Metro mayors. Precious little from Houchen and Street. What do they think?

    Street is too busy being NIMBY-in-chief.

    Build, Build, Build!
    Not near here obviously.
    Saying the country is full is racist extremism.

    He's just saying *his* bit is full....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    Really? I think that there are at least a million different agendas in relation to Covid from a let it rip fantasised version of Sweden to a technological dictatorship based on a fantasised version of SK, to keep subsiding everything until the end of time fantasy being promoted by Nicola and countless positions in between. There is probably not even a consensus on the objectives, let alone the means.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    So basically out of the two issues facing the opposition:-

    1) on Covid what can you sensible oppose. You can ask for more sanity and care in decision making but you can't oppose masks and a lot of other sane measures.
    2) on Brexit, why do anything beyond ensuring your name is nowhere near the end result. SKS's statement of get on with it solves the issue - Brexit is Boris's issue and one he himself needs to achieve and fix for his name will be all over it.
    the 10pm curfew for a start. That is arguably even spreading the virus by people milling in large groups at 10 pm .
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Labour are acting as if they have no power. This is fundamentally not true. They may not have a lot of power, but every vote in the House of Commons gives them power on some level. Especially against a not completely united Governing party. If all Opposition MPs are prepared to vote against the Govt then the Govt needs to retain the support of 90% of their own MPs. With someone like Johnson and a Govt that refuses to explain what it is doing, that is by no means certain. If they abstain on everything then life for the Govt is a doddle.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    I also expected SKS to be better.

    That does not excuse the government from being crap though.
    Of course not.
  • If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    So basically out of the two issues facing the opposition:-

    1) on Covid what can you sensible oppose. You can ask for more sanity and care in decision making but you can't oppose masks and a lot of other sane measures.
    2) on Brexit, why do anything beyond ensuring your name is nowhere near the end result. SKS's statement of get on with it solves the issue - Brexit is Boris's issue and one he himself needs to achieve and fix for his name will be all over it.
    the 10pm curfew for a start. That is arguably even spreading the virus by people milling in large groups at 10 pm .
    Was out last night with some work colleagues, in London - we deliberately chose a place away from the centre, but not far from Waterloo.

    Pretty dead - and there didn't seem to be much milling around when everything shut down at 10. I suspect that would be happening in a few small areas - such as Old Compton Street, possibly?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    So basically out of the two issues facing the opposition:-

    1) on Covid what can you sensible oppose. You can ask for more sanity and care in decision making but you can't oppose masks and a lot of other sane measures.
    2) on Brexit, why do anything beyond ensuring your name is nowhere near the end result. SKS's statement of get on with it solves the issue - Brexit is Boris's issue and one he himself needs to achieve and fix for his name will be all over it.
    the 10pm curfew for a start. That is arguably even spreading the virus by people milling in large groups at 10 pm .
    I'm not sure that I see a lot of evidence of that in practice. What seems to be happening is that people are not going out to the pubs at all but staying in and drinking at home. My very strong suspicion is that Covid is much more likely to be spread in these house parties than in very tightly regulated pubs but hey, what do I know?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,890
    MaxPB said:

    The oddest feature of the current lack of parliamentary scrutiny is the fact that Labour under Sir Keir seems to have gone AWOL on the key issues. They whinge a bit at the margins but are incoherent and inconsistent. I understand that they don't want to be seen to be undermining efforts to deal with the pandemic, but that's not a reason not to provide constructive criticism and scrutinise decisions made and possible alternatives. Jeremy Hunt seems to be able to get the balance right, why can't Sir Keir, who is, after all, supposed to be the details man who can master a brief and marshal his arguments?

    Yes, Starmer seems scared of opposing anything or even providing reasonable criticism of policy. He's not very good at this.
    I think he's a prisoner of his past in two respects.

    Firstly, Corbyn's instinct was to reflexively oppose anything Tory on principle of it being suggested by a Tory. Starmer's starting point is to differentiate himself from Corbyn, and the special circumstances of Covid are those where you would expect more concord between government and opposition. But he has taken this too far for too long.

    Secondly, he seems scared of defeating the government. Normally it is so rare for an opposition to defeat a government in Parliamentary votes that the opposition hungers for it, and attempts every stratagem to bring it about. But the opposition fairly gorged on government defeats 2017-9, and the only lasting legacy was the largest Tory election victory for 32 years. Starmer fears the consequences of defeating the government.

    I suspect that, as with Brexit, the opposition have no superior strategy for dealing with Covid - aside from doing things "better". And so they fear finding themselves in the position they were in with Brexit - able to defeat the government, but not able to provide an alternative approach.

    However weak the government becomes the opposition is too timid to take advantage.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    edited October 10

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    So basically out of the two issues facing the opposition:-

    1) on Covid what can you sensible oppose. You can ask for more sanity and care in decision making but you can't oppose masks and a lot of other sane measures.
    2) on Brexit, why do anything beyond ensuring your name is nowhere near the end result. SKS's statement of get on with it solves the issue - Brexit is Boris's issue and one he himself needs to achieve and fix for his name will be all over it.
    the 10pm curfew for a start. That is arguably even spreading the virus by people milling in large groups at 10 pm .
    Was out last night with some work colleagues, in London - we deliberately chose a place away from the centre, but not far from Waterloo.

    Pretty dead - and there didn't seem to be much milling around when everything shut down at 10. I suspect that would be happening in a few small areas - such as Old Compton Street, possibly?
    Whats the logic of supporting it ? Genuinely can't see one.

    Also the area around Waterloo is always pretty dead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    ydoethur said:
    It is a joke. Mocking the way Trump keeps going on TV and doing long rants against Hillary Clinton.

    Trump is doing everything he can to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn't win the 2020 election. So this is joke is an extension of that, though now I've explained its probably lost its humour.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 587
    An excellent header. I would only add that all the things mentioned, and others (e.g. the Bar Council letter above, attacks on judicial review, dodgy contracts etc.), are happening because Johnson/Cummings know that the great British public are just not interested in such matters as they don't affect everyday life, or are too complex or arcane. No votes will be lost by announcing stuff in the press rather than in parliament, for example. And, of course, the cavalier approach to parliamentary democracy is hidden behind the overwhelming concerns of Covid and Brexit over the last couple of years. So it really is up to the 'elite', including parliamentarians, to curb the excesses of the executive, and there's no great effort to do this yet. Maybe the judges will again come to the rescue.

    On Starmer, I agree he's over-cautious, but I can see why. He knows the government will misrepresent any criticism he makes as undermining the core policy. For example, as soon as Labour objected to the Internal Market Bill, largely on the grounds that it broke international law, CCHQ tweeted out that Labour was "trying to stop Brexit" again. Absurd, but effective. Similarly, any opposition vote against any aspect of Covid restrictions will be sold by CCHQ as "Labour puts lives at risk by opposing and undermining government policy at a time of national crisis". This is why Starmer's main focus has been on incompetent delivery rather than voting against measures. If the government were to adopt, say, the anti-lockdown demands of some, I'm sure Labour would start opposing the policy. But they won't.
  • ydoethur said:

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
    I think he should oppose but I can absolutely see why he has not up to now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    ydoethur said:
    It is a joke. Mocking the way Trump keeps going on TV and doing long rants against Hillary Clinton.

    Trump is doing everything he can to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn't win the 2020 election. So this is joke is an extension of that, though now I've explained its probably lost its humour.
    Oh, I see.

    American politics is so batshit crazy right now I thought he was serious.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,177
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He doesn't need to oppose them, he can vote for the measures if he back them.

    Simply requiring measures to be voted in Parliament doesn't mean that the Opposition has to instinctively vote against, they can vote for measures that are appropriate and show the country these are cross-party measures that everyone needs to follow.

    It is simply not having votes at all that is remarkable. He has ensured he can't scrutinise the Government. Incredible, I can't think of anything comparable before.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    The Hollow Men is also the title of the Australian TV show version of Yes Minister/TTOI

    It's fabulous.

    Available on DVD (it was on Youtube for a bit)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    ydoethur said:

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
    I think he should oppose but I can absolutely see why he has not up to now.
    I can also see why. I’m just not convinced it will ultimately prove the wisest course of action.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:
    It is a joke. Mocking the way Trump keeps going on TV and doing long rants against Hillary Clinton.

    Trump is doing everything he can to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn't win the 2020 election. So this is joke is an extension of that, though now I've explained its probably lost its humour.
    Oh, I see.

    American politics is so batshit crazy right now I thought he was serious.
    You obviously dont' have much faith in the morals of Michael Dukarkis as well!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 30,061
    Bad day in Scotland re covid deaths but given on here we always hear that it is only over 80's that are at risk , these seem strange.
    The location of the 6 new deaths today are:

    - 2 in East Ayrshire
    - 1 in East Renfrewshire
    - 2 in Glasgow
    - 1 in North Lanarkshire

    and the ages are:

    - 1 in the 25-44 range
    - 1 in the 45-64 range
    - 2 in the 65-74 range
    - 2 in the 75-84 range
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742
    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    I doubt it would have got much support on here - would have been decried as "playing politics" as @CorrectHorseBattery points out - but Corbyn Labour would probably be giving the government a harder time on Covid. Not Corbyn himself, Starmer is far more effective at PMQs etc, but in terms of the votes and the rhetoric.

    Thanks for excellent header @Cyclefree.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 2,551
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    Really? I think that there are at least a million different agendas in relation to Covid from a let it rip fantasised version of Sweden to a technological dictatorship based on a fantasised version of SK, to keep subsiding everything until the end of time fantasy being promoted by Nicola and countless positions in between. There is probably not even a consensus on the objectives, let alone the means.
    Doesn't it come down the the fact that you just cannot defeat a virus ? Politicians need to read the King Canute story again
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
    I think he should oppose but I can absolutely see why he has not up to now.
    I can also see why. I’m just not convinced it will ultimately prove the wisest course of action.
    Do you believe he should have opposed from day one, in which case can you not see that opposing say the lockdown wouldn’t have been a good idea?

    I think in the last month, opposition should have increased but not prior to that.

    What do you think he should be opposing now?

    I would oppose the 10PM curfew but I’m in favour of closing all pubs and restaurants after lunch.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:
    It is a joke. Mocking the way Trump keeps going on TV and doing long rants against Hillary Clinton.

    Trump is doing everything he can to ensure Hillary Clinton doesn't win the 2020 election. So this is joke is an extension of that, though now I've explained its probably lost its humour.
    Oh, I see.

    American politics is so batshit crazy right now I thought he was serious.
    You obviously dont' have much faith in the morals of Michael Dukarkis as well!
    He has unfortunate history when it comes to embarrassing photos.

    His entire campaign tanked because of one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 31,862

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
    I think he should oppose but I can absolutely see why he has not up to now.
    I can also see why. I’m just not convinced it will ultimately prove the wisest course of action.
    Do you believe he should have opposed from day one, in which case can you not see that opposing say the lockdown wouldn’t have been a good idea?

    I think in the last month, opposition should have increased but not prior to that.

    What do you think he should be opposing now?

    I would oppose the 10PM curfew but I’m in favour of closing all pubs and restaurants after lunch.
    He did oppose quite effectively at the start, actually, with his constructive criticism approach.

    Right now he should be opposing the government ruling by diktat and imposing laws it doesn’t understand, cannot explain and which its own senior members don’t follow.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,811
    I’m on the Metro-North commuter train back to Sleepy Hollow after only my second foray into New York City since the pandemic began, heading down to the “English bodega” (as my sister-in-law calls it) in the West Village to get some Cumberland sausages and proper back bacon.

    Metro-North inbound and Grand Central Terminal were about as quiet as they can get, more like a winter Sunday than a pleasant autumn Saturday. I had to make a detour to 45th and Madison to Fedex a package and Midtown was dead. But then it always is at the weekend, although it felt more like a Sunday than a Saturday.

    Subway downtown was pretty quiet too. The West Village was pretty busy though. The weather today is nice enough to make outdoor dining in NYC still an attractive proposition, and the cafés and restaurants on my way from the subway were doing a decent brunch trade it seemed.

    Coming back the subway uptown and Metro-North outbound seem at normal Saturday levels.

    Mask-wearing is pretty ubiquitous. and even the cops seem to have got the memo now. There was almost no sign that we’re leas than a month from a General Election except for, @MrEd will be heartened to learn, a fly-posted “Latinos for Trump 2020” sticker in a subway car.


  • Labour is pro tax rises again but not now.

    In the long term we absolutely need to raise taxes.

    But how we get out of the current hole needs a massive programme of investment in the hundreds of billions. Why is Labour not arguing for this?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428
    @rpjs Trump to win New York confirmed. Bet accordingly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106
    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    That 80 seat majority is extremely brittle. Boris is loathed by a large part of the parliamentary party, he's made loads of unnecessary enemies over keeping the c*** in place and now his high handed way of ruling over the party has riled up northern MPs. Even Tory party support is a mile wide and an inch deep at the moment. A better opposition party would be trouncing Boris, all of the supplementals are dire, the heading in the right/wrong direction is horrific for the party.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    Not if it's governing badly.
    I don't know. My default assumption is that governments of all stripes will make lots of mistakes. Its what governments do. The minimum that we have a right to expect is that they also makes lots of decisions but under May we didn't even have that. Sometimes any direction is better than none. The 2017-2019 Parliament and government were a disgrace and I remain thankful that so many of its more prominent members are no longer MPs.
    Different issue, I think every MP has a fairly similar aim with the virus, to minimise economic damage and also "save the NHS" whatever that means now. With brexit there were a million different agendas, that's not really the case now. The government are just fucking it up.
    Really? I think that there are at least a million different agendas in relation to Covid from a let it rip fantasised version of Sweden to a technological dictatorship based on a fantasised version of SK, to keep subsiding everything until the end of time fantasy being promoted by Nicola and countless positions in between. There is probably not even a consensus on the objectives, let alone the means.
    Doesn't it come down the the fact that you just cannot defeat a virus ? Politicians need to read the King Canute story again
    You can defeat a virus.

    Whether we will is another question, but it is possible.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 10,806
    edited October 10
  • MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    That 80 seat majority is extremely brittle. Boris is loathed by a large part of the parliamentary party, he's made loads of unnecessary enemies over keeping the c*** in place and now his high handed way of ruling over the party has riled up northern MPs. Even Tory party support is a mile wide and an inch deep at the moment. A better opposition party would be trouncing Boris, all of the supplementals are dire, the heading in the right/wrong direction is horrific for the party.
    I genuinely don’t think anyone else in Labour would be doing any better
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 10,428

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    That 80 seat majority is extremely brittle. Boris is loathed by a large part of the parliamentary party, he's made loads of unnecessary enemies over keeping the c*** in place and now his high handed way of ruling over the party has riled up northern MPs. Even Tory party support is a mile wide and an inch deep at the moment. A better opposition party would be trouncing Boris, all of the supplementals are dire, the heading in the right/wrong direction is horrific for the party.
    I genuinely don’t think anyone else in Labour would be doing any better
    Perhaps Andy Burnham
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    That 80 seat majority is extremely brittle. Boris is loathed by a large part of the parliamentary party, he's made loads of unnecessary enemies over keeping the c*** in place and now his high handed way of ruling over the party has riled up northern MPs. Even Tory party support is a mile wide and an inch deep at the moment. A better opposition party would be trouncing Boris, all of the supplementals are dire, the heading in the right/wrong direction is horrific for the party.
    I genuinely don’t think anyone else in Labour would be doing any better
    Than Boris? I agree.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505


    iirc Lansley took public health away from councils. Another fine mess Cameron has left us in.

  • malcolmg said:

    Bad day in Scotland re covid deaths but given on here we always hear that it is only over 80's that are at risk , these seem strange.
    The location of the 6 new deaths today are:

    - 2 in East Ayrshire
    - 1 in East Renfrewshire
    - 2 in Glasgow
    - 1 in North Lanarkshire

    and the ages are:

    - 1 in the 25-44 range
    - 1 in the 45-64 range
    - 2 in the 65-74 range
    - 2 in the 75-84 range

    Sorry to hear that Malc

    The central belt seems to be bearing the brunt of it just now

    Keep safe
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,336



    I suspect that, as with Brexit, the opposition have no superior strategy for dealing with Covid - aside from doing things "better". And so they fear finding themselves in the position they were in with Brexit - able to defeat the government, but not able to provide an alternative approach.

    If Labour has a superior strategy on Covid, then it could implement it in the country in which it is in power.

    The header seems to concentrate exclusively on England. My impression is that the devolved Parliaments have not managed very much better in holding the executive to account either.

    The Welsh Senedd -- never very lively anyhow and suffering from a lack of talent on both Government and Opposition benches -- seems to have slunk into a dull fog of unthinking acquiescence.

    The Senedd has been repeatedly sidelined by Drakeford announcing his policies by press briefing or to the BBC.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    That 80 seat majority is extremely brittle. Boris is loathed by a large part of the parliamentary party, he's made loads of unnecessary enemies over keeping the c*** in place and now his high handed way of ruling over the party has riled up northern MPs. Even Tory party support is a mile wide and an inch deep at the moment. A better opposition party would be trouncing Boris, all of the supplementals are dire, the heading in the right/wrong direction is horrific for the party.
    I genuinely don’t think anyone else in Labour would be doing any better
    No, but that's an indictment of the talent in the party.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    Yorkcity said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Outstanding piece.

    Hear hear, but then Cyclefree’s headers are always outstanding.

    Sadly though, none of what she outlines is in any way surprising. Parliaments have been becoming more and more supine over the last seventy years, and the empty suits left behind are the logical culmination of the lobby fodder tendency.
    And that point rather undermines the force of @Cyclefree's clarion cry for freedom, liberty and the rule of law. If Parliament is given a vote what are they likely to do with it? This is not the dog days of the May fiasco where the government had no kind of a grip over Parliament and could not get its way. Boris has a majority of 80. He has enough lick spittle, greasy poll climbers to win. Some want to make a noise but it will be a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    Which actually makes it all the more remarkable that Boris and Hancock have not had the votes really. Labour would probably abstain under SKS's dynamic leadership and any minor revolt would be readily put down.
    Part of the problem is the idea that the government must always win. Failure is actually good for organisations.

    What banking needs, for example, is more bank failures. If you screw up, your bank goes bust. The Bank of England calls everyone in, and the rescue is divided up. Instead we have mega banks that cannot possibly fail.

    We were discussing audit the other day - if something dodgy in the accounts is presented in public, it;'s a disaster. So minor problems are carpeted over until the day the shit hits the fan - and everyones get covered.

    In parliament, a single defeat is The End of The Government. So, not surprisingly, great efforts are made to ensure that the lobby fodder behaves. All the time. So, you end up with the optimum state for a government - a large number of employees.
    I understand the theory but the chaos of the do nothing remainer Parliament is a dark shadow of despair and indecision. Having a government that can actually govern still has a novelty factor to it.
    I agree the voters wanted a government that could govern and get Brexit done.
    They in their wisdom thought that that was the main priority over any other policy.
    Any government with an 80 to 100 majority in essence is an elected dictatorship in this country.
    Agreed but a constructive and engaged opposition can still make a difference and sharpen the thinking of those in office. Not much chance of that under Corbyn of course but I honestly expected SKS to be better.
    Hard to make a difference when the government has just obtained a 80 seat majority and a world wide pandemic is ongoing .Then the new PM gets very ill with the virus, in its honeymoon period.
    However I would argue SKS has done a good job in opposition taking initial steps to get voters to take another look at them under new leadership.From where they were in the polls to now is encouraging.
    There has undoubtedly been progress. Osborne was quoted the other day saying for the first time in a long time Labour had a leader who looks like he could walk into Number 10. He has been strong on the anti-Semitism and some of the internal party stuff (Scotland being a sad exception). His style at PMQs doesn't always work but is generally much more competent and coherent than Corbyn ever was.

    But I think there is a lot to do. His Shadow Chancellor either has to grow a lot in the roll or be shipped out. Some of those who chose to be on the back benches when the party was under Corbyn needs to be enticed back as does some of the talent that left Parliament in despair such as Khan and Burnham, the latter especially. This is a very weak cabinet but it still looks stronger than the shadow cabinet as a whole.

    I think he needs to find a more distinctive voice. He needs to show he can make decisions and choices. Its not that difficult when they are not even going to be implemented.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If Keir opposed the Tories people here would be calling it playing politics

    He has a difficult balancing act to perform, but at the moment he isn’t getting it quite right. While gesture politics wouldn’t help, he needs to be consistently putting Johnson’s measures to the vote if only to force MPs with marginal seats to declare their support for a government that is likely to become unpopular.

    I think he does have a slight lawyer’s tendency to not waste effort on what he sees as hopeless cases. Admirable in a defence attorney, but I’d like to see a touch more street fighting (which Corbyn, with all his many and appalling faults, was quite good at).
    I think he should oppose but I can absolutely see why he has not up to now.
    I can also see why. I’m just not convinced it will ultimately prove the wisest course of action.
    Do you believe he should have opposed from day one, in which case can you not see that opposing say the lockdown wouldn’t have been a good idea?

    I think in the last month, opposition should have increased but not prior to that.

    What do you think he should be opposing now?

    I would oppose the 10PM curfew but I’m in favour of closing all pubs and restaurants after lunch.
    No he shouldn't oppose for oppositions sake.

    If a measure the Government is introducing is a good measure he should vote for it (not abstain) and Labour should be Tweeting etc to their followers etc that they have voted for this law and how important it is and why.

    If a measure the Government is introducing is a bad measure he should be able to hold the Government to account and/or make suggestions on how it could be amended to be better.

    That is constructive opposition. Not simply abstaining and walking away then sniping in hindsight.
Sign In or Register to comment.