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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
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.
I never liked Burnham. He embodied everything dislikeable about the last Labour Government.
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.
Max just cannot accept that most people support the SNP and prefer to save people rather than money
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).
It may be a media thing, ie have something to do with journalists' own predilections. Such a bias has been very noticeable in media coverage of Scottish covid restrictions this week - other elements were ignored yet those affect far more people more of the time.
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.
That implies everyone will "realise" that you are right.
Yet some socialists here still don't realise that Brown was genuinely shit and trashed the economy.
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.
That implies everyone will "realise" that you are right.
Yet some socialists here still don't realise that Brown was genuinely shit and trashed the economy.
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.
Hi Ydoethur , was in jail. We are doing not bad at all and Mrs G has been getting better news, so onwards and upwards as long as she does not catch Flu or covid. PB jail I should add.
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.
That implies everyone will "realise" that you are right.
Yet some socialists here still don't realise that Brown was genuinely shit and trashed the economy.
Some are even in denial that Mrs May was shit.
Amazingly there are even some folk in denial about BJ...
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
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 believe 'enemies within' was her favoured term.
It was , any union member was seen as such. Many in the building industry were on secret blacklists in the 1980s making it impossible to find work. It was disgraceful practice for a democratic country.
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.
I understand that but I was just pointing out that it is not only over 80's at risk. Obviously any age with underlying health issues are also at risk. Some people on here are very cavalier re taking precautions as it is only old codgers at risk, whining and whinging because young people cannot go to the pub etc.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
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 believe 'enemies within' was her favoured term.
It was , any union member was seen as such. Many in the building industry were on secret blacklists in the 1980s making it impossible to find work. It was disgraceful practice for a democratic country.
not much democratic then or now about the UK. Money laundering banana republic.
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).
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).
Which is also quite funny, in fairness.
Indeed. I remember the point at which the Tory MPs realised this, about the November before the vote. They were absolutely astounded at the very notion.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
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.
but the virus will spread as soon as you allow any human interaction activity . So are we to stay all the time in our houses forvever? There is unlikely to be a vacinne any time soon . Pubs provide a purpose beyond consuming alcohol , an important one called social mixing . Its not logical to ban them (certainly not to impose a fixed chucking out time of 10pm) .It only makes sense if politicians really believe the best strategy is to try and stop a virus (King Canute like) dead. Are people really going to accept staying in their houses forever more? Becasue by banning pubs etc the government is signalling they do want not stop the virus spreading at all . Trouble is we are then all in jail indefinitely . For an illness with a comparable death rate of flu . Up until last year our flu strategy was the a lighter version of Sweden's covid strategy . SO why the sudden stringent measures this year that are continuing far beyond protecting the NHS (whatever that means) . ? Politicians have lost all sense of proportion over something the world needs to just live with
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
Electoral skills and leadership skills are two very different things. Just look at Tony Blair and Stanley Baldwin, electorally the two most successful politicians of the last hundred years, but weak and ineffective Prime Ministers.
Cummings and Johnson are both good at sloganising and campaigning, partly because they lack the intelligence or the patience to understand complex and difficult problems so see them in simplistic terms that resonate with people. But that, in itself, means they are very bad at governing and are only going to get worse at 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
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
So he's good at winning elections. Every day of every week (except when he was ill) since the election he has gone out, complete with hi-viz cost and demonstrated what a fantastic campaigner he is too.
He has not spent a single hour of a single day attempting to demonstrate that he is even a barely competent Prime Minister.
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.
That implies everyone will "realise" that you are right.
Yet some socialists here still don't realise that Brown was genuinely shit and trashed the economy.
Some are even in denial that Mrs May was shit.
Amazingly there are even some folk in denial about BJ...
BJ denial sounds like a description of married life.
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.
I understand that but I was just pointing out that it is not only over 80's at risk. Obviously any age with underlying health issues are also at risk. Some people on here are very cavalier re taking precautions as it is only old codgers at risk, whining and whinging because young people cannot go to the pub etc.
I wouldn't condone whinging about not going to the pub (I don't drink, fwiw). But I think there is a discussion to be had about the costs of lockdown (economic, and social - the complete destruction of everyday life beyond all recognition), which fall disproportionately on the young - whereas the risks fall mainly on older age groups. The discrepancy between death rates between age groups is quite stark - my parents who are in their sixties were surprised how good their odds were - which I put down to media hype (some may say scaremongering).
Obviously the answer, at the moment is somewhere between business as usual and locking everything down hard and shuttering the economy. I'm not really seeing the nuanced debate. A lot of people seem to be suggesting we can eliminate all Covid related risk, which obviously isn't possible and ignores the secondary affects of lockdown. Which affect both young and old, of course.
"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"
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.
but the virus will spread as soon as you allow any human interaction activity . So are we to stay all the time in our houses forvever? There is unlikely to be a vacinne any time soon . Pubs provide a purpose beyond consuming alcohol , an important one called social mixing . Its not logical to ban them (certainly not to impose a fixed chucking out time of 10pm) .It only makes sense if politicians really believe the best strategy is to try and stop a virus (King Canute like) dead. Are people really going to accept staying in their houses forever more? Becasue by banning pubs etc the government is signalling they do want not stop the virus spreading at all . Trouble is we are then all in jail indefinitely . For an illness with a comparable death rate of flu . Up until last year our flu strategy was the a lighter version of Sweden's covid strategy . SO why the sudden stringent measures this year that are continuing far beyond protecting the NHS (whatever that means) . ? Politicians have lost all sense of proportion over something the world needs to just live with
Always maintained pubs and restaurants should be able to open till 1am, last entry 12 providing the regulations are strictly enforced with establishments regularly visited by police and Marshall’s fines for individuals not complying and enforced shut down for a week for first offence.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
I think Boris was fine as London Mayor - London was built on being slightly chaotic and unplanned . You'd therefore want a Boris type there if only to stop an Abercrombie type taking over. Ken Livingstone was ok as well for more or less the same reason - He is not a typical politician either and had a soul like London .
However Boris as a PM is a disaster as he is not effective enough to let his natural libertarian instinct win the day on issues like Covid -19. He is too lazy to challenge the orthodoxy on this and the groupthink. He also supported brexit which will be a disaster for the UK and especially London.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Erm... the new Routemaster?
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
Beating Ken Livingstone for the London Mayoralty and Corbyn in the last general election is no big deal. Now he's up against Starmer he looks crap - hence his ratings collapse.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Erm... the new Routemaster?
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
Yeah, there are the buses. Though it's fair to say that whilst they look like a million dollars (and cost almost as much), they don't really work in the way intended...
But one of the curiosities of his Premiership is that he really hasn't managed the effective delegation thing.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Erm... the new Routemaster?
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
Keeping investment into transport flowing? One of his first acts as mayor was to cancel a planned river crossing to the east, as a result of which every time something happens in the Blackwall tunnel the whole of SE London gets gridlocked. And then he spaffed tens of millions up the wall on the ultimate luvvie vanity project of the Garden Bridge instead. He was a fucking disastrous mayor.
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
Beating Ken Livingstone for the London Mayoralty and Corbyn in the last general election is no big deal. Now he's up against Starmer he looks crap - hence his ratings collapse.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Erm... the new Routemaster?
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
Keeping investment into transport flowing? One of his first acts as mayor was to cancel a planned river crossing to the east, as a result of which every time something happens in the Blackwall tunnel the whole of SE London gets gridlocked. And then he spaffed tens of millions up the wall on the ultimate luvvie vanity project of the Garden Bridge instead. He was a fucking disastrous mayor.
He could have done better of course. Many poor decisions were made. But Crossrail was protected (I don't think this was a certainty), as well as various tube upgrades.
I mention the Routemaster in an ironic sense, an intrinsically flawed concept given contemporary H&S laws given a funky aesthetic by one of his luvvie designers.
The ceding of power to the Executive from the Legislature has been going on for decades. The Prevention of Terrorism Act gave draconian powers to the Home Secretary and the security services and was part of our journey to a centralised security State which most have accepted for "safety".
This was my objection to the Internal Markets Bill - it gave too much power to Ministers.
Johnson is a centraliser but only inasmuch as it brings more power unto himself and those who owe their position directly to him. The option he is primus inter pares is risible - he was the same in London taking authority for the Police and transport into his own office.
Yet this thread isn't about Johnson as @Cyclefree says but how we are governed and how we want to be governed. At times of national or international crisis, Parliament has been recalled and it has debated the course of action to be taken and some fine speeches have been made both in support and opposed.
A pandemic is a different kind of crisis but the technological means existed if the political will had existed to have that debate about the path to be taken. There are some fundamental issues at work here and it's not as simple or simplistic as health vs wealth or whether the R number is more important than Services PMI.
Just as Brexit asks us some tricky questions about our place in the world and what we want that to be, so Covid-19 has posed us the question of how we value life and where our lives and the values we place on our lives conflicts with the values other people place on theirs.
I'm sure there are plenty of MPs with valuable insights to offer and it's a series of inter-connected and complex issues but that debate hasn't and isn't being had (apart from in places like this I suppose).
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?
She may not have been likeable to many, but she most definitely a leader. Bozo the Clown may likeable to many, but anyone can see he has zero leadership qualities.
He's infinitely a better leader than May was. Hence why he was able to lead the Party in a General Election and able to lead the UK out of the EU.
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Your rose tinted spectacles really suit you!
Johnson has fought 4 elections and won them all, including not just the landslide General Election but he led the Leave campaign too. The idea he lacks leadership qualities is absurd. He's one of the most successful politicians of his generation.
But what's he actually done with all those wins? He was London Mayor for 8 years. What's the thing that was his idea (which rules out the bikes and the Olympics) that he carried through on and bequeathed to a grateful city?
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Erm... the new Routemaster?
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
Keeping investment into transport flowing? One of his first acts as mayor was to cancel a planned river crossing to the east, as a result of which every time something happens in the Blackwall tunnel the whole of SE London gets gridlocked. And then he spaffed tens of millions up the wall on the ultimate luvvie vanity project of the Garden Bridge instead. He was a fucking disastrous mayor.
And another way in which Khan has shown himself to be manifestly superior to Johnson:
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So the Tories are still winning most of their rural seats in Scotland, it is Labour who desperately need Tory tactical votes to win back seats in the central belt
If you search for the "Great Barrington Declaration" on Google, you get lots of links but not the official page for the declaration itself. On other search engines, like Yahoo, the first or second link is for the official page.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So if he does resign, is pardoned, and is then prosecuted, the irony would be delicious.
Hence the suggestion in the Tweet about the NY Prosecutor dismissing charges. (Presumably if they were dismissed with prejudice, them they would not be able to be refiled.)
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So the Tories are still winning most of their rural seats in Scotland, it is Labour who desperately need Tory tactical votes to win back seats in the central belt
So if he does resign, is pardoned, and is then prosecuted, the irony would be delicious.
Hence the suggestion in the Tweet about the NY Prosecutor dismissing charges. (Presumably if they were dismissed with prejudice, them they would not be able to be refiled.)
Nobody would trust him enough to drop it in advance of him resigning.
And if he resigned, there wouldn’t be much he could do if they reneged on their side of the bargain. You can’t unresign the Presidency.
So I cry bullshit. If he’s considering this seriously, he’s lost it completely.
So if he does resign, is pardoned, and is then prosecuted, the irony would be delicious.
Hence the suggestion in the Tweet about the NY Prosecutor dismissing charges. (Presumably if they were dismissed with prejudice, them they would not be able to be refiled.)
Nobody would trust him enough to drop it in advance of him resigning.
And if he resigned, there wouldn’t be much he could do if they reneged on their side of the bargain. You can’t unresign the Preisdency.
So I cry bullshit. If he’s considering this seriously, he’s lost it completely.
Well his lawyers might have told him this, and therefore he won’t be resigning?
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So the Tories are still winning most of their rural seats in Scotland, it is Labour who desperately need Tory tactical votes to win back seats in the central belt
Tactical voting is pointless in list seats.
In constituency seats it certainly is not, SLab lost 12 constituencies at Holyrood 2016, many with the SNP under 50% of the vote, Tory and LD tactical voting would win them back and likely deliver a Unionist majority in the process
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
There's a little clue there about what the Scottish border areas think about separation from England. The seats on the English side of the border are equally blue.
Would such a pardon be enforceable? Even if this story is true, which seems a bit unlikely.
Why wouldnt it be valid for federal crimes? Even a self pardon might be enforceable. AIUI state crimes would still be open so exile might be his best option.
So if he does resign, is pardoned, and is then prosecuted, the irony would be delicious.
Hence the suggestion in the Tweet about the NY Prosecutor dismissing charges. (Presumably if they were dismissed with prejudice, them they would not be able to be refiled.)
Nobody would trust him enough to drop it in advance of him resigning.
And if he resigned, there wouldn’t be much he could do if they reneged on their side of the bargain. You can’t unresign the Preisdency.
So I cry bullshit. If he’s considering this seriously, he’s lost it completely.
Well his lawyers might have told him this, and therefore he won’t be resigning?
Would such a pardon be enforceable? Even if this story is true, which seems a bit unlikely.
Why wouldnt it be valid for federal crimes? Even a self pardon might be enforceable. AIUI state crimes would still be open so exile might be his best option.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
There's a little clue there about what the Scottish border areas think about separation from England. The seats on the English side of the border are equally blue.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So the Tories are still winning most of their rural seats in Scotland, it is Labour who desperately need Tory tactical votes to win back seats in the central belt
Tactical voting is pointless in list seats.
In constituency seats it certainly is not, SLab lost 12 constituencies at Holyrood 2016, many with the SNP under 50% of the vote, Tory and LD tactical voting would win them back and likely deliver a Unionist majority in the process
Trouble is that the list seat winning requirements then adjust to counterbalance that, to some degree.
And if I were a Tory, would I want to vote for Richard Leonard? A real live trade unionist? [I personally have no objection to TUs - but your mob utterly hate them, beyond all sanity.]
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
There's a little clue there about what the Scottish border areas think about separation from England. The seats on the English side of the border are equally blue.
Would such a pardon be enforceable? Even if this story is true, which seems a bit unlikely.
Why wouldnt it be valid for federal crimes? Even a self pardon might be enforceable. AIUI state crimes would still be open so exile might be his best option.
Is it enforceable as part of what amounts to a plea bargain? That’s my question.
It might well be. After all, American ‘justice’ is a relative term.
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.
SLab currently have exactly 3 Holyrood constituency seats, even fewer than the 7 the Tories have and the 4 the LDs have.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
The DRoss-SKS pincer movement better start pincering.
So the Tories are still winning most of their rural seats in Scotland, it is Labour who desperately need Tory tactical votes to win back seats in the central belt
Tactical voting is pointless in list seats.
In constituency seats it certainly is not, SLab lost 12 constituencies at Holyrood 2016, many with the SNP under 50% of the vote, Tory and LD tactical voting would win them back and likely deliver a Unionist majority in the process
Trouble is that the list seat winning requirements then adjust to counterbalance that, to some degree.
And if I were a Tory, would I want to vote for Richard Leonard? A real live trade unionist? [I personally have no objection to TUs - but your mob utterly hate them, beyond all sanity.]
Only to a limited extent, if the SNP lost say 6 constituency seats to SLab and SLab held all their other constituency seats and the SNP also lost 1 or 2 seats like Moray to the Tories then they would likely only pick up 1 or 2 seats on the list at most as it would not be enough to stop the SNP comfortably winning a majority of constituency seats and reducing any list compensation but could be enough for a narrow Unionist majority on the combined total of constituency and list MSPs.
I suspect given what I have been hearing from some SCons they may even hold their nose and vote for SLab if they live in the central belt and Tory on the list this time such is their loathing for the SNP
Comments
So no chance then.
Yet some socialists here still don't realise that Brown was genuinely shit and trashed the economy.
Some are even in denial that Mrs May was shit.
PB jail I should add.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54493246
But you're so besotten by the EU that you can't accept any variance.
Many in the building industry were on secret blacklists in the 1980s making it impossible to find work. It was disgraceful practice for a democratic country.
Thankfully we hold all the cards.
Obviously any age with underlying health issues are also at risk. Some people on here are very cavalier re taking precautions as it is only old codgers at risk, whining and whinging because young people cannot go to the pub etc.
Unfortunately he’s the Joker.
Up until last year our flu strategy was the a lighter version of Sweden's covid strategy . SO why the sudden stringent measures this year that are continuing far beyond protecting the NHS (whatever that means) . ? Politicians have lost all sense of proportion over something the world needs to just live with
Yes that's an apt description.
Cummings and Johnson are both good at sloganising and campaigning, partly because they lack the intelligence or the patience to understand complex and difficult problems so see them in simplistic terms that resonate with people. But that, in itself, means they are very bad at governing and are only going to get worse at it.
He has not spent a single hour of a single day attempting to demonstrate that he is even a barely competent Prime Minister.
Obviously the answer, at the moment is somewhere between business as usual and locking everything down hard and shuttering the economy. I'm not really seeing the nuanced debate. A lot of people seem to be suggesting we can eliminate all Covid related risk, which obviously isn't possible and ignores the secondary affects of lockdown. Which affect both young and old, of course.
Because without that, why is he bothering to get his name on the honours board?
Johnson is definitely on the debit side of the Ledger at the moment.
However Boris as a PM is a disaster as he is not effective enough to let his natural libertarian instinct win the day on issues like Covid -19. He is too lazy to challenge the orthodoxy on this and the groupthink. He also supported brexit which will be a disaster for the UK and especially London.
I guess the one thing you can say about his premiership is he kept the show on the road, shielding London through the worst of austerity, delivering the Olympics and keeping investment into transport flowing. This was through keeping decent relations with the Government (being in the same party helped massively) and effective delegation.
Many cuts to Fire, Policing, and TfL have come on Sadiq's watch, some self enforced (fare cut), some which were out of his control (loss of TfL gmt grant). However overdue and necessary they might be, it doesn't look great for a Labour mayor.
We're sitting at the other end of the board, wondering why you think that a card bluff will help you win this game of chess we're playing.
"Boris Johnson watches Emmanuel as deadline looms"
Philip - you are priceless! Pure comedy gold!!
But one of the curiosities of his Premiership is that he really hasn't managed the effective delegation thing.
Twice.
It doesn't seem to be student connected as with other cities.
If SLab are going to win back any more Holyrood constituencies from the SNP they will need Tory and LD tactical votes
I mention the Routemaster in an ironic sense, an intrinsically flawed concept given contemporary H&S laws given a funky aesthetic by one of his luvvie designers.
The ceding of power to the Executive from the Legislature has been going on for decades. The Prevention of Terrorism Act gave draconian powers to the Home Secretary and the security services and was part of our journey to a centralised security State which most have accepted for "safety".
This was my objection to the Internal Markets Bill - it gave too much power to Ministers.
Johnson is a centraliser but only inasmuch as it brings more power unto himself and those who owe their position directly to him. The option he is primus inter pares is risible - he was the same in London taking authority for the Police and transport into his own office.
Yet this thread isn't about Johnson as @Cyclefree says but how we are governed and how we want to be governed. At times of national or international crisis, Parliament has been recalled and it has debated the course of action to be taken and some fine speeches have been made both in support and opposed.
A pandemic is a different kind of crisis but the technological means existed if the political will had existed to have that debate about the path to be taken. There are some fundamental issues at work here and it's not as simple or simplistic as health vs wealth or whether the R number is more important than Services PMI.
Just as Brexit asks us some tricky questions about our place in the world and what we want that to be, so Covid-19 has posed us the question of how we value life and where our lives and the values we place on our lives conflicts with the values other people place on theirs.
I'm sure there are plenty of MPs with valuable insights to offer and it's a series of inter-connected and complex issues but that debate hasn't and isn't being had (apart from in places like this I suppose).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/03/dramatic-plunge-in-london-air-pollution-since-2016-report-finds
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1314975310945964032?s=20
Wow. Wow. Wow.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
So if he does resign, is pardoned, and is then prosecuted, the irony would be delicious.
Know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em.
And if he resigned, there wouldn’t be much he could do if they reneged on their side of the bargain. You can’t unresign the Presidency.
So I cry bullshit. If he’s considering this seriously, he’s lost it completely.
Thats if this meeting even happened of course.
1) Chris Witty
2) Dom Cummings
3) Somebody else? If so, who?
https://twitter.com/bobscartoons/status/1314984255160713217
But I am guessing Whitty.
And if I were a Tory, would I want to vote for Richard Leonard? A real live trade unionist? [I personally have no objection to TUs - but your mob utterly hate them, beyond all sanity.]
Chants 'four more years'
It might well be. After all, American ‘justice’ is a relative term.
I suspect given what I have been hearing from some SCons they may even hold their nose and vote for SLab if they live in the central belt and Tory on the list this time such is their loathing for the SNP