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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
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.
Although no political party is exactly awash with talent right now.
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.
Although no political party is exactly awash with talent right now.
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.
Absolutely spot on. Except that it's not bad enough yet for the opposition party to pounce; it's too early, and too risky. All the things you say about Boris are going to get worse, not better, over the next six months, especially with the end of the transition period to come. Don't interrupt too much while the enemy is tearing itself apart or whatever the saying is.
I stand by my prediction that Labour will not take a significant lead in the polls until April 2021. There's too much impatience by some of those opposed to the government on here.
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.
Perhaps it's Sir Keir rather than Boris that is running scared of scrutiny. As he seems to have few opinions, and even fewer of any substance, he is rarely scrutinised. Sooner or later that will have to change though. As it is, the Covid debate is either between the government and its backbenchers or the government and Labour Mayors in the North. Sir Keir is like the invisible man, especially when it comes to voting in Parliament.
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
........If being impressive means handing his phone number to every newsroom that'll put him on. If only occasionally he had something to say.
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.
Perhaps it's Sir Keir rather than Boris that is running scared of scrutiny. As he seems to have few opinions, and even fewer of any substance, he is rarely scrutinised. Sooner or later that will have to change though. As it is, the Covid debate is either between the government and its backbenchers or the government and Labour Mayors in the North. Sir Keir is like the invisible man, especially when it comes to voting in Parliament.
I remember that was the official Brown line on David Cameron.
I found myself in rare agreement with John McDonnell when he put his head in his hands in despair at James Purnell parroting that line.
It was just before Purnell quit, saying it was a load of rubbish.
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.
Well I think it is getting obsessive and to the detriment of everything else. All for an attempt at something never achieved before - defeating a pandemic .Covid -19 will go away at some point (or we will treat it like we do flu ).It wont be anything to do with what the government are doing in shutting down and messing around with peoples lives and businesses though.
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.
Absolutely spot on. Except that it's not bad enough yet for the opposition party to pounce; it's too early, and too risky. All the things you say about Boris are going to get worse, not better, over the next six months, especially with the end of the transition period to come. Don't interrupt too much while the enemy is tearing itself apart or whatever the saying is.
I stand by my prediction that Labour will not take a significant lead in the polls until April 2021. There's too much impatience by some of those opposed to the government on here.
Its not the case that things can only trend in one direction.
By this time next year if we have a vaccine, the virus is under control, a Brexit deal was reached and went without issue (or no deal came and went without too much disruption) and now the economy is recovering then its entirely possible that Boris could have weathered the storm and become stronger for it.
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
I voted for him in the first Labour leadership which Corbyn won. However I believe he abstained on the conservatives welfare bill, and was way to slow in opposing austerity at the time, which gave Corbyn his opportunity. I disagree he is more impressive than SKS, been leader of the opposition is always a tough job for any Labour leader. The arguments against SKS are similar to the ones against Kinnock during the miners strike.
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.
Well I think it is getting obsessive and to the detriment of everything else. All for an attempt at something never achieved before - defeating a pandemic .Covid -19 will go away at some point (or we will treat it like we do flu ).It wont be anything to do with what the government are doing in shutting down and messing around with peoples lives and businesses though.
What makes you say that pandemics have never been defeated before?
Pandemics have been defeated with lockdowns and masks and other factors in the past. During the Spanish Flu in many places you could be arrested if you didn't wear a mask and lockdowns were common.
Its one thing saying that it is to the detriment of everything else which can be a very convincing argument on its own, but you weaken your argument by making false claims like "you can not defeat a virus" (categorically untrue) or "never achieved before" (categorically untrue). If you keep repeating falsehoods then it makes your argument weaker not stronger.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
I voted for him in the first Labour leadership which Corbyn won. However I believe he abstained on the conservatives welfare bill, and was way to slow in opposing austerity at the time, which gave Corbyn his opportunity. I disagree he is more impressive than SKS, been leader of the opposition is always a tough job for any Labour leader. The arguments against SKS are similar to the ones against Kinnock during the miners strike.
I thought Andy Burnham would make a good leader. But he never quite kicked on as expected.
Had he stayed in Parliament, of course, he would have lost his seat at the last election, so the point is moot.
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
He's not an MP so it's not really relevant in the reality in which we find ourselves.
Why so dimissive and insulting. The arrogance of some people on here is breathtaking.
The problem is that the vast majority of the public put health before wealth
In my case I want to see the balance but it is a very difficult task to achieve
I dont think its an argument about health or wealth . If it is financial v health its more jobs/saving lifeswork in building up businesses versus health but mainly its about wellbeing versus covid-19 obsession. Peoples wellbeing is suffering. Its not even working this lockdown strategy is it? Why did politcians not say this was going to happen back in March (ie a second more or less lockdown) ? Either they thought lockdown would work better or they were not being honest - either way no reason to trust them now
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
iirc Lansley took public health away from councils. Another fine mess Cameron has left us in.
Jennifer Williams is an excellent journalist, articulate and thoughtful both in print and person; well worth following, and has a golden future I suspect. She is a voice for Manchester in particular and the north in general. I don't suppose the government would ever listen to her because sometimes she's a bit hostile, but they probably should - she really gets the levelling-up agenda that the government espouses.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
There are currently 155 cases/100,000 in Bangor, mostly of course due to uni students. Imposing a lockdown is reasonable.
Meirionnydd, nearly an hour’s drive away on the other side of a mountain range and a river, has 18 cases per 100,000. Imposing a lockdown would be silly.
But Drakeford wants a lockdown because he’s a twat.
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.
I might be wrong on this, but I think it's been quite hard for the devolved governments to do anything radically different to England because they don't have the money to do so.
So, for example there's been a big thing in Ireland about whether to impose tighter restrictions, but one stumbling block is not wanting to have tighter restrictions than the North, which has a higher rate of infection anyway, and without funding the government in NI can't provide support to business it might want to shut down temporarily on public health grounds.
Also, you might suppose it would be a good idea to spend money on different tests, or on neighbourhood teams to check people are isolating, but can the Welsh government borrow that money from the Bank of England in the way that Westminster is?
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
........If being impressive means handing his phone number to every newsroom that'll put him on. If only occasionally he had something to say.
A true blue Conservative's idea of the best Labour leader is often one conveniently not in the House of Commons.
The political mood can change quite quickly. A month ago Starmer and Sturgeon were seen as performing very well. Now, as the comments on this thread testify, Starmer is being criticised for being dull and lacklustre and not only by the usual suspects. Sturgeon, and her husband look shifty and evasive (if not worse) on Salmondgate, and her Covid response in Scotland is being increasingly questioned.
As someone once said a week is a long time in politics.
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.
I believe the idea is to kill the last-hour-riot. The issue is whether this has
- killed the last-hour-riot - just bought it forward - transferred it.
Some actual numbers would be nice to have. Police/ambulance calls might give some indication?
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.
I might be wrong on this, but I think it's been quite hard for the devolved governments to do anything radically different to England because they don't have the money to do so.
So, for example there's been a big thing in Ireland about whether to impose tighter restrictions, but one stumbling block is not wanting to have tighter restrictions than the North, which has a higher rate of infection anyway, and without funding the government in NI can't provide support to business it might want to shut down temporarily on public health grounds.
Also, you might suppose it would be a good idea to spend money on different tests, or on neighbourhood teams to check people are isolating, but can the Welsh government borrow that money from the Bank of England in the way that Westminster is?
The mildly amusing aspect of that post is that it implies a century after independence Ireland is still dominated by decisions made in England.
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
In my view had Burnham beaten Corbyn for the Labour leadership in 2015 he might even have beaten May in the 2017 general election, Labour effectively gave themselves another 7 years in opposition when they elected Corbyn.
Starmer of course backed Burnham for the leadership in 2015
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
In my view had Burnham beaten Corbyn for the Labour leadership in 2015 he might even have beaten May in the 2017 general election, Labour effectively gave themselves another 7 years in opposition when they elected Corbyn
If Burnham had been leader there would have been no 2017 election.
All the criticism of SKS. I wonder if he's playing a slightly longer game. After all he has two fronts to consider; he's got to be sure most of the senior people/opinion formers in his own party are with him, not still hankering after Corbyn. Secondly, the CCHQ tweet referred to earlier..... still trying to stop Brexit ...... if anachronistic then will be totally so after Jan 1st. Johnson will have achieved his ambition (the 2019 election result) and Brexit will be done, for good or (probably) ill. It was also exceedingly unlikely that the Government would be brought down in it's first year of office, especially after the purges of this time last year. While I think that SKS hasn't been as good tactically as hindsight suggests, there's an old saying about giving someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
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
Errrmmm try a similar sub section with party polling and you would get rightly challenged on here . Somehow maths doesn't matter when Covid-19 arguments come out though.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
He's not even close to being the worst PM of the last 2 years.
Why so dimissive and insulting. The arrogance of some people on here is breathtaking.
No, he really is a complete moron.
Yup, certified moron. The Tories really should have taken the opportunity to replace him, if the optics wouldn't have been awful.
I sense he might have been picked purely because he is black.
For sure. One thing he has got going for him is his stick on gangs/law and order, but it doesn't really outweigh how bloody useless he is.
I guess they saw the next Mayorals as a lost cause, which it probably was/is. With all the noise around Brexit, I don't imagine London will ever go Tory in the numbers required. Someone actually competent would surely be able to run Sadiq closer though.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
It would be interesting (after this has run its course) to compare the effectiveness of the policies in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland & England (allowing for population density, mean age, etc)
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
There are currently 155 cases/100,000 in Bangor, mostly of course due to uni students. Imposing a lockdown is reasonable.
Meirionnydd, nearly an hour’s drive away on the other side of a mountain range and a river, has 18 cases per 100,000. Imposing a lockdown would be silly.
But Drakeford wants a lockdown because he’s a twat.
I don't dispute your figures.
The stupidest idea of all was the Ll'anelli only lockdown. How does one demark Ll'anelli. The sea to the south, Loughour Bridge to the East, but what about the West? Pwll, Burry Port, Pembrey, Kidwelly, and to the North? Cross Hands, Ammanford. Utterly ridiculous.
Let me give Drakeford a sub 4 out of 10. A fail, but still ten times better than the man in No 10.
"SAGE expert adds to British Medical Association calls to make masks mandatory OUTSIDE: Doctors call for tougher nationwide rules including restricted alcohol sales and limiting the 'rule of six' to two households
SAGE scientist Calum Semple said that people 'should be wearing a mask' even when they are outside BMA chairman Dr Chaand Nagpaul has called for face coverings to be made mandatory outdoors and indoors He attacked the Government's measures to suppress Covid-19 and warned public is 'losing faith' in measures Top medical body also called for restriction of alcohol sales in England and a tightening of the Rule of Six"
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
I voted for him in the first Labour leadership which Corbyn won. However I believe he abstained on the conservatives welfare bill, and was way to slow in opposing austerity at the time, which gave Corbyn his opportunity. I disagree he is more impressive than SKS, been leader of the opposition is always a tough job for any Labour leader. The arguments against SKS are similar to the ones against Kinnock during the miners strike.
I thought Andy Burnham would make a good leader. But he never quite kicked on as expected.
Had he stayed in Parliament, of course, he would have lost his seat at the last election, so the point is moot.
Burnham had a good chance of being leader, but he blew it. Corbyn won in 2015 because Burnham's (and Cooper's) campaign was simply dreadful and failed to inspire Labour members. Rather like the Remain campaign the following year, in fact.
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.
I might be wrong on this, but I think it's been quite hard for the devolved governments to do anything radically different to England because they don't have the money to do so.
So, for example there's been a big thing in Ireland about whether to impose tighter restrictions, but one stumbling block is not wanting to have tighter restrictions than the North, which has a higher rate of infection anyway, and without funding the government in NI can't provide support to business it might want to shut down temporarily on public health grounds.
Also, you might suppose it would be a good idea to spend money on different tests, or on neighbourhood teams to check people are isolating, but can the Welsh government borrow that money from the Bank of England in the way that Westminster is?
The mildly amusing aspect of that post is that it implies a century after independence Ireland is still dominated by decisions made in England.
Well, that's been obvious due to Brexit, and is the unsurprising (and unamusing) legacy of partition.
It was particularly notable that Johnson phoned the Taoiseach last Sunday evening when it emerged NPHET had advised level 5 restrictions. Seems like FF are willing to be told what to do by London these days.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
It would be interesting (after this has run its course) to compare the effectiveness of the policies in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland & England (allowing for population density, mean age, etc)
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
Donald of course is on a Z-
Why are you rating the egregious Trump so high? I’d put him on an Я-.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
He's not even close to being the worst PM of the last 2 years.
To be fair none of the last 4 PM's have been much good. Cameron was only able to put himself about because Clegg took the sh*t.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
It would be interesting (after this has run its course) to compare the effectiveness of the policies in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland & England (allowing for population density, mean age, etc)
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
Donald of course is on a Z-
Nippy takes the gold medal I would assume. Arlene and Drakeford fighting it out a long way back for silver or bronze. Johnson doesn't make the podium. My prizes by the way are awarded for effort.
Why so dimissive and insulting. The arrogance of some people on here is breathtaking.
No, he really is a complete moron.
Yup, certified moron. The Tories really should have taken the opportunity to replace him, if the optics wouldn't have been awful.
I sense he might have been picked purely because he is black.
For sure. One thing he has got going for him is his stick on gangs/law and order, but it doesn't really outweigh how bloody useless he is.
I guess they saw the next Mayorals as a lost cause, which it probably was/is. With all the noise around Brexit, I don't imagine London will ever go Tory in the numbers required. Someone actually competent would surely be able to run Sadiq closer though.
If Rory Stewart had been the official Tory candidate it would have made for quite an interesting race. Perhaps Bailey will somehow surprise, but I'm not expecting him to.
I think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to call 'Peak SNP.'
I think the pub decision is extremely unpopular, I've not seen much support for it except from real die hards and even that is based on "well England will do it soon as well" rather than the merits of the actual policy.
In 2016 the SNP got 47% on the constituency vote at Holyrood and 41% on the list so the SNP are now doing no better on the list vote than they did last time and only fractionally better on the constituency vote and unionist pacts can help defeat them on the latter
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
He's not even close to being the worst PM of the last 2 years.
Not a member of the Mrs May fan club, however she was a Statesman of titanic proportions compared to the current incumbent of No10.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
I think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to call 'Peak SNP.'
about a I think the pub decision is extremely unpopular, I've not seen much support for it except from real die hards and even that is based on "well England will do it soon as well" rather than the merits of the actual policy.
It must be very striking to a non-drinking outsider how much discussion around covid is about when and in what circumstances alcohol can be bought and consumed. A national obsession. It's like when a Chancellor sticks 50p on a bottle of wine (worth days of anguished rage) vs 5p on a litre of petrol (goes unnoticed).
In 2016 the SNP got 47% on the constituency vote at Holyrood and 41% on the list so the SNP are now doing no better on the list vote than they did last time and only fractionally better on the constituency vote and unionist pacts can help defeat them on the latter
The problem with Unionist pacts is that, for LD's it will be presented as going back to 2010, and by the Johnson and his friends as demonstrating an increase Conservative support.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
Can we forget about Thatcher so soon?
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
It would be interesting (after this has run its course) to compare the effectiveness of the policies in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland & England (allowing for population density, mean age, etc)
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
Donald of course is on a Z-
Nippy takes the gold medal I would assume. Arlene and Drakeford fighting it out a long way back for silver or bronze. Johnson doesn't make the podium. My prizes by the way are awarded for effort.
Not sure about Nippy. I think the stated aim of the zero Covid policy by the leaders of Scotland & N. Ireland over the Summer was a mistake.
I think Merkel's strength is clearly she can assess & challenge what the scientists are telling her, and test the arguments in a way in which no UK leader can because they all lack basic scientific training or practice.
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
Errrmmm try a similar sub section with party polling and you would get rightly challenged on here . Somehow maths doesn't matter when Covid-19 arguments come out though.
What you wittering about you halfwit, I am merely pointing out that counter to the mince posted by some selfish halfwits on here it is not only over 80's are dying , subsample or not.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
Can we forget about Thatcher so soon?
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
The Thatch would be describing the northern Labour mayors and council leaders as 'Moaning Minnies' I guess.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
He's not even close to being the worst PM of the last 2 years.
Boris is sui generis. David Cameron was our worst prime minister since Lord North. Boris is in a class of his own in his contempt for Parliament, Palace and the law. Like Trump, it is hard to compare him with any of his predecessors.
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
Starmer's a lawyer, that's all the evidence you need to know he would have handled Covid-19 better than Boris Johnson.
Pass the sick bucket, he is not named Dross for nothing. Dumb and dumber, and he is scared to contest a seat in Holyrood as he knows he will get stuffed, will do the usual and sneak in the back door as a loser.
Why so dimissive and insulting. The arrogance of some people on here is breathtaking.
No, he really is a complete moron.
Yup, certified moron. The Tories really should have taken the opportunity to replace him, if the optics wouldn't have been awful.
I sense he might have been picked purely because he is black.
For sure. One thing he has got going for him is his stick on gangs/law and order, but it doesn't really outweigh how bloody useless he is.
I guess they saw the next Mayorals as a lost cause, which it probably was/is. With all the noise around Brexit, I don't imagine London will ever go Tory in the numbers required. Someone actually competent would surely be able to run Sadiq closer though.
If Rory Stewart had been the official Tory candidate it would have made for quite an interesting race. Perhaps Bailey will somehow surprise, but I'm not expecting him to.
Yeah, just shows how whacko the Tory party has become under BJ that moderate voices like Stewart who would have had a decent run in London have been forced out the party. Oh well, good luck to them with the populism thing.
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
Errrmmm try a similar sub section with party polling and you would get rightly challenged on here . Somehow maths doesn't matter when Covid-19 arguments come out though.
What you wittering about you halfwit, I am merely pointing out that counter to the mince posted by some selfish halfwits on here it is not only over 80's are dying , subsample or not.
Malcolm, I don't think anyone's saying that. If you look at the stats (rather than a small sample from one day), the risk is clearly weighted towards those 70+ and with existing conditions.
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
Errrmmm try a similar sub section with party polling and you would get rightly challenged on here . Somehow maths doesn't matter when Covid-19 arguments come out though.
What you wittering about you halfwit, I am merely pointing out that counter to the mince posted by some selfish halfwits on here it is not only over 80's are dying , subsample or not.
Truthfully though as the highest risk group is the over-60s and two-thirds of those who died were in the 65+ bracket, it doesn’t suggest anything wildly out of line.
I know there are those on here who go for the line it’s only flu and only affects the decrepit, but I think the majority of us (bearing in mind most of us are pretty bright and well-informed) understand that risk is not the same as certainty.
Hope you and Mrs G are bearing up. Had been wondering where you were.
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
Errrmmm try a similar sub section with party polling and you would get rightly challenged on here . Somehow maths doesn't matter when Covid-19 arguments come out though.
What is the mathematical problem here? I thought the objection to polling subsamples was that they are not individually weighted, which seems irrelevant to whole population figures. Explain?
edit: and are too small which again doesn't apply.
In 2016 the SNP got 47% on the constituency vote at Holyrood and 41% on the list so the SNP are now doing no better on the list vote than they did last time and only fractionally better on the constituency vote and unionist pacts can help defeat them on the latter
The problem with Unionist pacts is that, for LD's it will be presented as going back to 2010, and by the Johnson and his friends as demonstrating an increase Conservative support.
And for SLab going back to 2014 and the subsequent 2015 implosion. They're not going to touch it with HYUFD's thing let alone their own.
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.
Not one to blow Drakeford's trumpet, and although it has gone a little off the rails of late, the earlier lockdown in Wales with the five mile from home limit worked very well.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
It would be interesting (after this has run its course) to compare the effectiveness of the policies in Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland & England (allowing for population density, mean age, etc)
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
Donald of course is on a Z-
Nippy takes the gold medal I would assume. Arlene and Drakeford fighting it out a long way back for silver or bronze. Johnson doesn't make the podium. My prizes by the way are awarded for effort.
Not sure about Nippy. I think the stated aim of the zero Covid policy by the leaders of Scotland & N. Ireland over the Summer was a mistake.
I think Merkel's strength is clearly she can assess & challenge what the scientists are telling her, and test the arguments in a way in which no UK leader can because they all lack basic scientific training or practice.
I can't disagree with that analysis.
Nippy has sold herself very well during the crisis, contrast that with Johnson who hasn't.
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
Starmer's a lawyer, that's all the evidence you need to know he would have handled Covid-19 better than Boris Johnson.
So, they both have zero scientific training. We saw with Blair and Iraq what a lawyer can do in the absence of any evidence.
The densely populated countries that have done well have scientists in charge or high up in government (Taiwan, Germany).
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.
I might be wrong on this, but I think it's been quite hard for the devolved governments to do anything radically different to England because they don't have the money to do so.
So, for example there's been a big thing in Ireland about whether to impose tighter restrictions, but one stumbling block is not wanting to have tighter restrictions than the North, which has a higher rate of infection anyway, and without funding the government in NI can't provide support to business it might want to shut down temporarily on public health grounds.
Also, you might suppose it would be a good idea to spend money on different tests, or on neighbourhood teams to check people are isolating, but can the Welsh government borrow that money from the Bank of England in the way that Westminster is?
The mildly amusing aspect of that post is that it implies a century after independence Ireland is still dominated by decisions made in England.
Of course, "England" is now also finding its freedom of action constrained by Ireland (over Brexit).
Nate Silver does agree that the state polls do not reflect a 10% Biden lead, which is the current polling average. The model therefore downgrades the Biden lead to 8% nationally.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
Can we forget about Thatcher so soon?
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
The Thatch would be describing the northern Labour mayors and council leaders as 'Moaning Minnies' I guess.
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
Starmer's a lawyer, that's all the evidence you need to know he would have handled Covid-19 better than Boris Johnson.
So, they both have zero scientific training. We saw with Blair and Iraq what a lawyer can do in the absence of any evidence.
The densely populated countries that have done well have scientists in charge or high up in government (Taiwan, Germany).
I have scientific training (well, engineering) and i'll hopefully be a lawyer soon.
I think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to call 'Peak SNP.'
I think the pub decision is extremely unpopular, I've not seen much support for it except from real die hards and even that is based on "well England will do it soon as well" rather than the merits of the actual policy.
The scientific report - which was released at the relevant time - was actually quite cogent on the role played by the hospitality industry in spreading the bug. Indeed, the only reason coffee shops haven't also been closed is to give single folk somewhere to see other human beings.
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.
Keir would obviously do a better job than Johnson. Johnson has been the worst PM of the last 100 years.
He's not even close to being the worst PM of the last 2 years.
Not a member of the Mrs May fan club, however she was a Statesman of titanic proportions compared to the current incumbent of No10.
@Philip_Thompson will be the last person to realise that Johnson is genuinely shit at being PM. Such a level of naivety is probably quite quaint really. I think even HYUFD (who strikes me as quite a decent sort of chap) has realised Johnson is pretty useless.
I can't see even a shred of evidence that Sir Keir would have handled Covid better than Boris. There's plenty of evidence Thatcher would have handled the crisis better.
Starmer's a lawyer, that's all the evidence you need to know he would have handled Covid-19 better than Boris Johnson.
So, they both have zero scientific training. We saw with Blair and Iraq what a lawyer can do in the absence of any evidence.
The densely populated countries that have done well have scientists in charge or high up in government (Taiwan, Germany).
I have scientific training and i'll hopefully be a lawyer soon.
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
Andy Burnham is far more impressive than Keir Starmer
I voted for him in the first Labour leadership which Corbyn won. However I believe he abstained on the conservatives welfare bill, and was way to slow in opposing austerity at the time, which gave Corbyn his opportunity. I disagree he is more impressive than SKS, been leader of the opposition is always a tough job for any Labour leader. The arguments against SKS are similar to the ones against Kinnock during the miners strike.
I thought Andy Burnham would make a good leader. But he never quite kicked on as expected.
Had he stayed in Parliament, of course, he would have lost his seat at the last election, so the point is moot.
No he wouldn't. Burnham was a popular local MP. Joanne Platt wasn't. Burnham would have kept Leigh. On a smaller majority for sure.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ShaunBaileyUK/status/1314860771315273730
Rachel Reeves is labour's go to shadow
I stand by my prediction that Labour will not take a significant lead in the polls until April 2021. There's too much impatience by some of those opposed to the government on here.
It is Boris Johnson who has stopped fans going back into stadia.
I found myself in rare agreement with John McDonnell when he put his head in his hands in despair at James Purnell parroting that line.
It was just before Purnell quit, saying it was a load of rubbish.
In my case I want to see the balance but it is a very difficult task to achieve
By this time next year if we have a vaccine, the virus is under control, a Brexit deal was reached and went without issue (or no deal came and went without too much disruption) and now the economy is recovering then its entirely possible that Boris could have weathered the storm and become stronger for it.
However I believe he abstained on the conservatives welfare bill, and was way to slow in opposing austerity at the time, which gave Corbyn his opportunity.
I disagree he is more impressive than SKS, been leader of the opposition is always a tough job for any Labour leader.
The arguments against SKS are similar to the ones against Kinnock during the miners strike.
Pandemics have been defeated with lockdowns and masks and other factors in the past. During the Spanish Flu in many places you could be arrested if you didn't wear a mask and lockdowns were common.
Its one thing saying that it is to the detriment of everything else which can be a very convincing argument on its own, but you weaken your argument by making false claims like "you can not defeat a virus" (categorically untrue) or "never achieved before" (categorically untrue). If you keep repeating falsehoods then it makes your argument weaker not stronger.
The County by County scheme currently in operation is somewhat haphazard. I live in the Western Vale. I am allowed to go to Barry and Penarth, some fifteen to twenty miles away but not Bridgend which is just six miles away. That said Llantwit Major Post Office was closed today through Covid. However, I work all over the place and no one has stopped me going anywhere either in Wales or over the Bridge.
Yes it isn't great here, but for all his manifold faults Drakeford has retained some credibility, certainly over the Westminster Government for at least having a plan. It may not be a very good plan, but at least they have made an effort- much like Scotland.
Had he stayed in Parliament, of course, he would have lost his seat at the last election, so the point is moot.
Meirionnydd, nearly an hour’s drive away on the other side of a mountain range and a river, has 18 cases per 100,000. Imposing a lockdown would be silly.
But Drakeford wants a lockdown because he’s a twat.
So, for example there's been a big thing in Ireland about whether to impose tighter restrictions, but one stumbling block is not wanting to have tighter restrictions than the North, which has a higher rate of infection anyway, and without funding the government in NI can't provide support to business it might want to shut down temporarily on public health grounds.
Also, you might suppose it would be a good idea to spend money on different tests, or on neighbourhood teams to check people are isolating, but can the Welsh government borrow that money from the Bank of England in the way that Westminster is?
As someone once said a week is a long time in politics.
- killed the last-hour-riot
- just bought it forward
- transferred it.
Some actual numbers would be nice to have. Police/ambulance calls might give some indication?
Starmer of course backed Burnham for the leadership in 2015
Secondly, the CCHQ tweet referred to earlier..... still trying to stop Brexit ...... if anachronistic then will be totally so after Jan 1st. Johnson will have achieved his ambition (the 2019 election result) and Brexit will be done, for good or (probably) ill. It was also exceedingly unlikely that the Government would be brought down in it's first year of office, especially after the purges of this time last year.
While I think that SKS hasn't been as good tactically as hindsight suggests, there's an old saying about giving someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
I guess they saw the next Mayorals as a lost cause, which it probably was/is. With all the noise around Brexit, I don't imagine London will ever go Tory in the numbers required. Someone actually competent would surely be able to run Sadiq closer though.
Wrong way around. He took it away from the NHS and gave it to Councils.
But did set up Public Health England, which retained on oversight role.
But, on a scale in which Angela Merkel gets say B+, I don't think any UK leader will get much better than a C.
Donald of course is on a Z-
The stupidest idea of all was the Ll'anelli only lockdown. How does one demark Ll'anelli. The sea to the south, Loughour Bridge to the East, but what about the West? Pwll, Burry Port, Pembrey, Kidwelly, and to the North? Cross Hands, Ammanford. Utterly ridiculous.
Let me give Drakeford a sub 4 out of 10. A fail, but still ten times better than the man in No 10.
SAGE scientist Calum Semple said that people 'should be wearing a mask' even when they are outside
BMA chairman Dr Chaand Nagpaul has called for face coverings to be made mandatory outdoors and indoors
He attacked the Government's measures to suppress Covid-19 and warned public is 'losing faith' in measures
Top medical body also called for restriction of alcohol sales in England and a tightening of the Rule of Six"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8825843/Coronavirus-UK-Doctors-say-masks-mandatory-inside-outside.html
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1314960538665918465
It was particularly notable that Johnson phoned the Taoiseach last Sunday evening when it emerged NPHET had advised level 5 restrictions. Seems like FF are willing to be told what to do by London these days.
I think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to call 'Peak SNP.'
I also find it interesting that according to their model, Biden has almost double the chance of winning Texas than Trump does of winning the election.
They also talk about the difference between 2016 and 2020 and their model. It's very interesting.
Bit like various holiday places, where in normal times, all the idiotic behaviour happens in extremely small areas.
I mean, true, Nicola will have cancelled Christmas a day earlier but will have done it with more empathy.
I think Merkel's strength is clearly she can assess & challenge what the scientists are telling her, and test the arguments in a way in which no UK leader can because they all lack basic scientific training or practice.
See how well the UK dealt with the AIDS crisis as the template.
I know there are those on here who go for the line it’s only flu and only affects the decrepit, but I think the majority of us (bearing in mind most of us are pretty bright and well-informed) understand that risk is not the same as certainty.
Hope you and Mrs G are bearing up. Had been wondering where you were.
edit: and are too small which again doesn't apply.
Which presumably stopped people getting out of their front doors and therefore having casual sex...
Nippy has sold herself very well during the crisis, contrast that with Johnson who hasn't.
The densely populated countries that have done well have scientists in charge or high up in government (Taiwan, Germany).
While scientists were looking for peer reviewed articles on the efficacy of face masks, engineers were wrappings rags round their face.
Joanne Platt wasn't. Burnham would have kept Leigh. On a smaller majority for sure.