I’m not a particular fan of this government - they strike me as the sort of people “who did well out of the war”.
I don’t get worked up about the bullying claim. Frankly someone who aspires to be the head of a department (meaning the civil servant) should be robust enough to have fiery discussion with their minister. I’ve not met Patel but I suspect she can be brusque and unpleasant. But if the relationship isn’t working he should have stepped down or moved to another role and not have gone whining to the press.
Bullying is about abuse of a power relationship. If you are head of a department that power relationship doesn’t exist: you are the equal to the minister
With Patel and Sir Alex Allan it read that he quit because he considered his position to be untenable. He found that she broke the ministerial code which ordinarily prompts resignation or a sacking. When the response of Johnson was to ask Allan to tone down his conclusions and when he did not to simply overrule the report, the man quit.
There is a very simple propriety issue - ministers get away with things that in any other government would have forced their removal. Which has significantly damaged the Tories in Scotland when Douglas Ross decided to go after Nippie demanding her resignation - the obvious hypocrisy is laughable. Any other opposition party could have made that attack with credibility, not the Tories.
I have respected many Tory ministers and PMs even if I disagreed with them politically. With very few exceptions the current lot are a disgrace to the party and what it supposedly stands for. And yet people like yourself seem to say nothing and do nothing. This isn't even about the need to stay in power - that's happening anyway.
Wouldn't you prefer a decent and honourable Tory government instead of *this*?
The Ministerial Code is politicised. Ministers should be accountable to the house, the pm and the electorate not to some appointed “ethics officer”.
Morning all! After a 3 day business trip I'm now back home in sunny Aberdeenshire not missing England one little bit.
Great piece from Freedland in the Grauniad this morning - the open corruption in the Tory party is off the scale to previous "Tory sleaze". As for why they get away with it, (1) people have been told that all politicians are as bad (they aren't), and (2) Labour are so inept that the likes of Hancock think that they can award contracts to their family company not declare it and nobody will find out.
We do have PB Tories of course, and your party is going nowhere. In office and likely to remain in office. So this isn't about party politics, this is basic right and wrong. Can PB Tories condemn the openly bent members of their government and call on them to behave? That they are your party makes it more important that their own call it out and get them to reform.
Corruption is wrong even when your side are the ones who are corrupt. Call it out guys. Its your money they are pocketing.
And we in England are not missing you one little bit!
Has there ever been anyone on this site consistently more ill informed or ignorant about anything?
PS why does it take you three days to get your welfare handouts? Can't you sort it out locally in Scotland?
Oh come off it. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what RP is saying today, that prize belongs to Contrarian.
Honourable mentions to Hyufd, Topping, Justin.
Your three "honourable mentions" wouldn't feature on any list of mine. HYUFD in particular, save for his military intervention tendencies, is one of our more informed posters
Save for my awesome Marianne Faithful pun last night, I pride myself on posting unreconstructed and ill-informed b*ll*cks. So my failure to get an "honourable mention" has been taken as a personal insult!
I was thinking of his geographical aberrations. The Ullapool Inverness ferry, and the suggestion that Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could be avoided by going round the Cape of Good Hope.
Plus his persistent refusal to accept he was wrong.
I quite like geographicsl idiosyncrasies. Which is why I particularly like Chesterton's the Rolling English Road. The night we sailed into Ras Tanura passing Good Hope Cape, perhaps?
I’m not a particular fan of this government - they strike me as the sort of people “who did well out of the war”.
I don’t get worked up about the bullying claim. Frankly someone who aspires to be the head of a department (meaning the civil servant) should be robust enough to have fiery discussion with their minister. I’ve not met Patel but I suspect she can be brusque and unpleasant. But if the relationship isn’t working he should have stepped down or moved to another role and not have gone whining to the press.
Bullying is about abuse of a power relationship. If you are head of a department that power relationship doesn’t exist: you are the equal to the minister
With Patel and Sir Alex Allan it read that he quit because he considered his position to be untenable. He found that she broke the ministerial code which ordinarily prompts resignation or a sacking. When the response of Johnson was to ask Allan to tone down his conclusions and when he did not to simply overrule the report, the man quit.
There is a very simple propriety issue - ministers get away with things that in any other government would have forced their removal. Which has significantly damaged the Tories in Scotland when Douglas Ross decided to go after Nippie demanding her resignation - the obvious hypocrisy is laughable. Any other opposition party could have made that attack with credibility, not the Tories.
I have respected many Tory ministers and PMs even if I disagreed with them politically. With very few exceptions the current lot are a disgrace to the party and what it supposedly stands for. And yet people like yourself seem to say nothing and do nothing. This isn't even about the need to stay in power - that's happening anyway.
Wouldn't you prefer a decent and honourable Tory government instead of *this*?
The Scottish point is critical. The decline in standards at Westminster removes the ability of unionists to take the high ground with respect to the SNP’s suborning of the civil service.
I’m not a particular fan of this government - they strike me as the sort of people “who did well out of the war”.
I don’t get worked up about the bullying claim. Frankly someone who aspires to be the head of a department (meaning the civil servant) should be robust enough to have fiery discussion with their minister. I’ve not met Patel but I suspect she can be brusque and unpleasant. But if the relationship isn’t working he should have stepped down or moved to another role and not have gone whining to the press.
Bullying is about abuse of a power relationship. If you are head of a department that power relationship doesn’t exist: you are the equal to the minister
With Patel and Sir Alex Allan it read that he quit because he considered his position to be untenable. He found that she broke the ministerial code which ordinarily prompts resignation or a sacking. When the response of Johnson was to ask Allan to tone down his conclusions and when he did not to simply overrule the report, the man quit.
There is a very simple propriety issue - ministers get away with things that in any other government would have forced their removal. Which has significantly damaged the Tories in Scotland when Douglas Ross decided to go after Nippie demanding her resignation - the obvious hypocrisy is laughable. Any other opposition party could have made that attack with credibility, not the Tories.
I have respected many Tory ministers and PMs even if I disagreed with them politically. With very few exceptions the current lot are a disgrace to the party and what it supposedly stands for. And yet people like yourself seem to say nothing and do nothing. This isn't even about the need to stay in power - that's happening anyway.
Wouldn't you prefer a decent and honourable Tory government instead of *this*?
The Ministerial Code is politicised. Ministers should be accountable to the house, the pm and the electorate not to some appointed “ethics officer”.
Patel’s bullying behaviour seemed to follow her from department to department.
When you say she should only be accountable to the house, the pm, and the electorate you effectively deny that public standards have any role in public life.
The best possible outcome in 2024 for Labour is a Hung Parliament. We know that, they know that. They aren’t winning a majority.
So the question then becomes, how does Labour get a Hung Parliament? Well two ways, try and get above 40% again in the right seats. Emphasis on the right seats there.
Second, try and get the Tory vote base to split and return to results more like 2005 to 2015. Labour would probably then not need to go much higher than 40% again in the right seats.
As I’ve said many times, the big problem for Labour right now is how weak the Lib Dems are. Starmer should really be the ideal candidate for them to do well, as I recall he’s very popular with their voters. That should encourage tactical voting and a strong Lib Dem turnout in seats like Guildford, Winchester. Seats in the South that probably only matter at the margins.
Right now Labour seems doomed. But then it seemed doomed after 2019, then it seemed on course to do well just a few months ago. Now it is doomed again.
What I will say is that this isn’t going to be plain sailing for the Tories. Things will go wrong as they already have, some people will get annoyed. The Government will at some point become unpopular. This always happens.
The question is how Starmer capitalises on that. And right now he has not been able to. I think to be fair that’s not his fault, see the focus groups that say he opposes too much despite not really opposing much at all. The next year is going to be crucial for him.
Finally, Labour needs a big idea. A contrast with the Tories that makes people stand up and take notice. Attlee had it, Wilson had it. Blair had it. Does Starmer?
I’m not a particular fan of this government - they strike me as the sort of people “who did well out of the war”.
I don’t get worked up about the bullying claim. Frankly someone who aspires to be the head of a department (meaning the civil servant) should be robust enough to have fiery discussion with their minister. I’ve not met Patel but I suspect she can be brusque and unpleasant. But if the relationship isn’t working he should have stepped down or moved to another role and not have gone whining to the press.
Bullying is about abuse of a power relationship. If you are head of a department that power relationship doesn’t exist: you are the equal to the minister
With Patel and Sir Alex Allan it read that he quit because he considered his position to be untenable. He found that she broke the ministerial code which ordinarily prompts resignation or a sacking. When the response of Johnson was to ask Allan to tone down his conclusions and when he did not to simply overrule the report, the man quit.
There is a very simple propriety issue - ministers get away with things that in any other government would have forced their removal. Which has significantly damaged the Tories in Scotland when Douglas Ross decided to go after Nippie demanding her resignation - the obvious hypocrisy is laughable. Any other opposition party could have made that attack with credibility, not the Tories.
I have respected many Tory ministers and PMs even if I disagreed with them politically. With very few exceptions the current lot are a disgrace to the party and what it supposedly stands for. And yet people like yourself seem to say nothing and do nothing. This isn't even about the need to stay in power - that's happening anyway.
Wouldn't you prefer a decent and honourable Tory government instead of *this*?
I am with you. I will call out Labour brown envelopes and Len's lavish grace and favour lifestyle every day of the week, but this current Government and Boris Johnson in particular are a breed apart. Corruption, incompetence, or simple profligacy, call it what you will. Our money is their money and they can do what they like with it. I haven't been a ratepayer in London since 1986, so it is none of my business, but the Garden Bridge is still my favourite.
The best possible outcome in 2024 for Labour is a Hung Parliament. We know that, they know that. They aren’t winning a majority.
So the question then becomes, how does Labour get a Hung Parliament? Well two ways, try and get above 40% again in the right seats. Emphasis on the right seats there.
Second, try and get the Tory vote base to split and return to results more like 2005 to 2015. Labour would probably then not need to go much higher than 40% again in the right seats.
As I’ve said many times, the big problem for Labour right now is how weak the Lib Dems are. Starmer should really be the ideal candidate for them to do well, as I recall he’s very popular with their voters. That should encourage tactical voting and a strong Lib Dem turnout in seats like Guildford, Winchester. Seats in the South that probably only matter at the margins.
Right now Labour seems doomed. But then it seemed doomed after 2019, then it seemed on course to do well just a few months ago. Now it is doomed again.
What I will say is that this isn’t going to be plain sailing for the Tories. Things will go wrong as they already have, some people will get annoyed. The Government will at some point become unpopular. This always happens.
The question is how Starmer capitalises on that. And right now he has not been able to. I think to be fair that’s not his fault, see the focus groups that say he opposes too much despite not really opposing much at all. The next year is going to be crucial for him.
Finally, Labour needs a big idea. A contrast with the Tories that makes people stand up and take notice. Attlee had it, Wilson had it. Blair had it. Does Starmer?
The most likely best outcome is a hung parliament, but don't underestimate Johnson and his chums when it comes to their doing something that renders them wildly unelectable.
That said. Starmer needs to up his game and clear out the Augean stable of a shadow Cabinet.
Comments
F1: interesting video on practice so far:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIArL3DPbrs
NEW THREAD
The decline in standards at Westminster removes the ability of unionists to take the high ground with respect to the SNP’s suborning of the civil service.
When you say she should only be accountable to the house, the pm, and the electorate you effectively deny that public standards have any role in public life.
So the question then becomes, how does Labour get a Hung Parliament? Well two ways, try and get above 40% again in the right seats. Emphasis on the right seats there.
Second, try and get the Tory vote base to split and return to results more like 2005 to 2015. Labour would probably then not need to go much higher than 40% again in the right seats.
As I’ve said many times, the big problem for Labour right now is how weak the Lib Dems are. Starmer should really be the ideal candidate for them to do well, as I recall he’s very popular with their voters. That should encourage tactical voting and a strong Lib Dem turnout in seats like Guildford, Winchester. Seats in the South that probably only matter at the margins.
Right now Labour seems doomed. But then it seemed doomed after 2019, then it seemed on course to do well just a few months ago. Now it is doomed again.
What I will say is that this isn’t going to be plain sailing for the Tories. Things will go wrong as they already have, some people will get annoyed. The Government will at some point become unpopular. This always happens.
The question is how Starmer capitalises on that. And right now he has not been able to. I think to be fair that’s not his fault, see the focus groups that say he opposes too much despite not really opposing much at all. The next year is going to be crucial for him.
Finally, Labour needs a big idea. A contrast with the Tories that makes people stand up and take notice. Attlee had it, Wilson had it. Blair had it. Does Starmer?
That said. Starmer needs to up his game and clear out the Augean stable of a shadow Cabinet.
New cases/Million
0 China
168 India
9 Africa
245 Europe
172 North America
332 South America
0.00 China
0.96 India
0.22 Africa
4.99 Europe
2.44 North America
9.83 South America
China 0
India 1,059.32
Africa 70.88
Europe 5,362.23
North America 2,960.32
South America 857.36
Countries/continents listed in decreasing order of population.