Honestly he should have been sacked for that, he should have been waving £50 notes.
Then there's this.
A Tokyo judge on Wednesday handed a former Deutsche Bank salesman a suspended prison sentence for bribing a pension fund official with dinners and golf outings, and said more senior officials at the bank had “tacitly condoned” the practice.
I had the misfortune of attending Edson Mitchell’s notorious Christmas party (98?) in which young women were bussed in “to even up the gender balance”.
Ugh.
Did they lock the doors to prevent you leaving?
I was there with 7/8 friends and we stuck together and ignored the (very attractive) women with little ribbons pinned on their dresses. But I usually leave big events fairly early so probably did then too.
Sorry I gave you a chronic illness, I'm leaving you.
I agree he’s a shit for the way he treated his wife and kids, but that’s a trifle unfair!
That’s the problem with being a shit. You get blamed for anything and everything, however unfairly. Pile on!
I provoked faux outrage last night suggesting that the man doesn't give a fuck about his kids or anyone who isn't him. From the ST piece "He had to wake up their youngest child to tell them that he was moving out".
Their youngest is 8. Mine has just turned 10. I cannot imagine putting them or me in a situation where I'm shaking her awake to tell her that I am leaving her and mummy and the other sibs in the middle of the night because I've been a dumb shit and my "nobody will ever know" tryst is all over the front pages of the newspapers.
I am not that bothered about the affair. People do daft (I haven't but I'm not being a prude). This wasn't daft, this was mindblowingly dumb. How on earth did he think that his "nobody will ever know" affair at work at the department whilst Health Secretary in the midst of a pandemic he personally was in charge of fixing would not get out and end like this.
So for all the people out there who haven't had sex with their bf/gf and haven't seen their loved ones at all or hugged them, for the people who had close friends and relatives die and not be able to do the basics like go to the funeral and console each other. For the Queen. Sat all alone at the funeral of her husband of decades. They obeyed the rules, he didn't. HIS rules. So don't give me this faux outrage bullshit. He thought of himself and himself only.
Would it have been better for the 8 year old to wake up in the morning and find Daddy & all his stuff gone without him saying goodbye?
Moving on from Oxford's very own Pina Colada, do we think 19th July is more or less likely to be Grand Reopening under Javid?
Keeping Hancock would have meant definite reopen imho as there is no way he could have presented a continuation of the measures and not be laughed out of the room.
iirc Javid has been sceptical of the extent of the lockdown?
I long ago knew I had no interest in trying to become an MP - I couldn't defend shit that I can't agree with. Lewis absolutely drew the short straw this morning but is that really the best he could come up with?
To be fair, it isn't as funny as his defence of his boss the Prime Minister. Lewis on record insisting there is no customs birder between GB and NI despite his department and therefore him having the responsibility for its operation.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
I still think we'll lose, but also that Galloway will not break 10%.
Goodness NP - you aren't usually so downbeat about your chances. What on earth do you know? This was one I assumed would be a narrow hold even with the GG effect.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
I know you have your views on this, but do you ever consider that the majority of people in the country broadly agree with how the government has handled the pandemic? Many think we should have locked down sooner, and closed the borders, and instituted proper hotel based quarantine, and better support for self isolation. But the general thrust has widespread support, reflected in the approach of all the political parties. Even now there is support for not unlocking fully until the 19th.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
More victim blaming...and giving villains the ok to do what they do.
The problem with the wife who has known you since way before you were king of the world is that she sees through your facade.
She knows your fears and your insecurities. She knows that, deep down inside, you are not the Master of the Universe you purport to be. And some people don’t like to be reminded of that.
The biggest problem in politicians marriages is the physical separation, with one life in the constituency and another in Westminster or Holyrood, the latter accompanied by young male and female groupies. I am surprised it doesn't happen more often.
There are plenty of other jobs where people work long hours, are separated etc. Having an affair may well be understandable. But it is always a choice.
Sure, many of my colleagues also work in geographically distinct locations only seeing each other at weekends, and often not that due to rotas and large regional rotations. Hospital trusts are not unknown, though I think rarer than they used to be.
I suspect that Vines is correct that the egotism of politicians is a predisposing factor too.
There's also a sense that Parliament and Government departments are closed worlds where everyone is in it together. It's like a summer camp or a teacher training college etc. The number of staff in Parliament I know who end up meeting their spouse at work is pretty high.
On a different subject despite thinking what Hancock did was a resigning matter I do worry about the release of that footage. MPs are recorded more often than even they realise half the time. Civil servants and staff have to know an awful lot about MPs and like servants MPs have to get used to talking with each other in front of staff. If the discretion needed to sustain this relationship breaks down then the system can't operate and that would make scrutiny even more difficult.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
I know you have your views on this, but do you ever consider that the majority of people in the country broadly agree with how the government has handled the pandemic? Many think we should have locked down sooner, and closed the borders, and instituted proper hotel based quarantine, and better support for self isolation. But the general thrust has widespread support, reflected in the approach of all the political parties. Even now there is support for not unlocking fully until the 19th.
I'm instinctively sympathetic to the argument, but there is also the role of the devolved administrations, if one is looking for support for opponents of the Government from the "lockdown sceptic" wing. If Labour in Wales are generally in tune with English Government policy. If the SNP are generally in tune with English Government policy. Then it looks odd for the major opposition blocks at Westminster to be out of step with English Government policy. So ultimately it's partly driven by wishful thinking and frustration from feelings of impotence.
And it's not clear quite how the Opposition can have major influence on ministerial behaviour (as opposed to policy). That is why we have the Ministerial Code, and why the Prime Minister is supposed to be the arbiter of it.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
Was that not Chamberlain rather than Churchill? On the outbrteak of war? Emergency Powers Act?
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
We do have a poor opposition, but that is the most ridiculous post this morning.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
Duncan Smith supported the Iraq War. Blair supported Maastrict etc etc.
Government opponents on Govt backbenches will always find comfort in blaming the Opposition if they find their views aren't being listened to.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Like you I rarely listen to Any Answers (though as it happens I think Anita Anand is a v.good presenter) but did tune in yesterday. The two most striking answers to my ear was one who said they wanted the Great to be put back in GB but the current imbroglio had made her lose faith that this would happen, and the other who said he was an admirer of Johnson but was greatly disappointed in his reaction to Hancock’s fckup. They seem to me to represent the foundations of project BJ, lose them and…
Support for Scottish independence has slipped in recent months, according to a poll that suggests Yes voters would fall short of a majority if a referendum were held tomorrow.
The findings of a Panelbase poll carried out for The Sunday Times indicates that, excluding “don’t knows”, 48 per cent would back independence, down four points since April when support for breaking up the Union stood at 52 per cent. Support for the Union in today’s poll is 52 per cent, up four points.
Canny Scottish electorate - keep Westminster on their toes by returning SNP administrations, keep Holyrood on its toes by prevaricating over independence. They have both where they want them.
Am I alone in feeling, like some EU people once thought of the U.K, “these people should just bugger off, they are just too disruptive to the rest of us”? I think if there was a U.K. wide vote on ending the union, it would be over.
I dare say that you aren't, but two things:
1. The rest of the UK isn't leaving Scotland, so for most people it's very low down in their consciousness/list of priorities 2. This is a pointless hypothetical, because the rest of the country isn't going to get a say in any of this
Ultimately, as in so many things, we are all just powerless spectators. You can argue that, so long as we're all nominally part of the same country, we shouldn't be - but we are. We're simply obliged to wait for however many years or decades it takes for them to sort their shit out.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
I know you have your views on this, but do you ever consider that the majority of people in the country broadly agree with how the government has handled the pandemic? Many think we should have locked down sooner, and closed the borders, and instituted proper hotel based quarantine, and better support for self isolation. But the general thrust has widespread support, reflected in the approach of all the political parties. Even now there is support for not unlocking fully until the 19th.
The government has strained every sinew to show the public the best side of restrictions. The bogus choice of 'safety' versus the 'risk' of liberty.
Now, with Hancock, we are starting to see a fuller reality.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
Was that not Chamberlain rather than Churchill? On the outbrteak of war? Emergency Powers Act?
Was both, I was thinking specifically of the 1940 version.
The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 extended the 1939 Act for another year, and provided for annual extensions by parliamentary resolution. It significantly extended the government's powers under the Defence Regulations to require persons "to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty."
The Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Act 1940 enabled the creation of special courts to administer criminal justice in war zones, as well as authorizing them to punish offenders for violating the Defence Regulations.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
Got to admit, that would be chutzpah if Boris tried it in PMQs for pretty much any transgression: “Look at what you let us do!”
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
Got to admit, that would be chutzpah if Boris tried it in PMQs for pretty much any transgression: “Look at what you let us do!”
The failure is the media's. Why aren't they asking Rayner and Co well if you are so against the tories, why are you giving them so much f8cking power and for so long? are you going to continue?
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
For anyone thinking that the current incarnation of the Tory party (utterly shameless, no moral compass and the hide of a rhinoceros) is a new thing, the existence of Edwina is a useful corrective.
Can you imagine Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock ever giving The Thatcher government the unhindered power labour has given Johnson, a vastly inferior alternative?
IIRC Kinnock also helped give Thatcher's government the power to detain people and force them to undergo compulsory medical examinations via the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1985.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the media were held to the same level of scrutiny as politicians. id est Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? .... If the media were scrutinised to the same level especially the Dail Mail and the Sun, closely followed by the Guardian and the Teleraph there would be carnage.
And while I am.on the subject , what the hell were the security services doing?
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
Got to admit, that would be chutzpah if Boris tried it in PMQs for pretty much any transgression: “Look at what you let us do!”
The failure is the media's. Why aren't they asking Rayner and Co well if you are so against the tories, why are you giving them so much f8cking power and for so long? are you going to continue?
Because the public supported and still do overwhelmingly support lockdowns and restrictions.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Like you I rarely listen to Any Answers (though as it happens I think Anita Anand is a v.good presenter) but did tune in yesterday. The two most striking answers to my ear was one who said they wanted the Great to be put back in GB but the current imbroglio had made her lose faith that this would happen, and the other who said he was an admirer of Johnson but was greatly disappointed in his reaction to Hancock’s fckup. They seem to me to represent the foundations of project BJ, lose them and…
She is very good indeed. Unflappable, and a very nice line in understated irony.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon we aren't going to be able to say anything.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
Labour's policies are their business. All I am doing is pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of condemning a person for wielding power you yourself endowed.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
It's not about underlying ideologies, is it?
The Labour Party has supported the use of lockdown and other restrictions from the start in order to reduce the spread of Covid and minimise as far as possible the numbers dying from this deadly disease. It's a public health response, not an ideological response. Opposing such restrictions would have meant the LP not caring so much about these aims, which I'm not sure would have been either sensible or popular.
That Opinium poll (pre-Hancock) has some unreported details of interest - e.g. 49% favouring either rejoining the EU or having a closer relationship. Starmer's ratings compared with Johnson's recovering modestly as well.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
It's not about underlying ideologies, is it?
The Labour Party has supported the use of lockdown and other restrictions from the start in order to reduce the spread of Covid and minimise as far as possible the numbers dying from this deadly disease. It's a public health response, not an ideological response. Opposing such restrictions would have meant the LP not caring so much about these aims, which I'm not sure would have been either sensible or popular.
Its extraordinary how much faith some people have in those who represent us, even when faced with the truth of their attitude to the restrictions from Hancock.
Where did Britain get this extraordinarily supine mindset come from? the government knows best bullsh*t?
Sorry I gave you a chronic illness, I'm leaving you.
I agree he’s a shit for the way he treated his wife and kids, but that’s a trifle unfair!
My money is on the affair having gone on for years. The ‘started in May’ line is just a desperate attempt to head off concerns around the appointment.
Mine too.
It would be remarkably passionate if it had been going on for years unless there has been a long Covid related hiatus, which is possible I suppose. This had the smack of new love about it as I think some remarked yesterday.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It is, and I’m fairly sure that he isn’t. Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It is, and I’m fairly sure that he isn’t. Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
Labour's policies are their business. All I am doing is pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of condemning a person for wielding power you yourself endowed.
Your views on this are almost as eccentric as the single Hancock defender who called R4 yesterday to explain that the guy who had written the rules should, obviously, be allowed to bend them himself.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
It was a ridiculous comment by the BBC to be honest. If they have an element of humour in a political programme you are going to get the odd teasing comment, that's the point after all. The acid test would be if they have these disclaimers after the News Quiz or Dead Ringers.
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
Labour's policies are their business. All I am doing is pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of condemning a person for wielding power you yourself endowed.
Your views on this are almost as eccentric as the single Hancock defender who called R4 yesterday to explain that the guy who had written the rules should, obviously, be allowed to bend them himself.
Never mind condemning my views sunshine, what are your f8cking views? lets have them, so that I can drive a bus through them
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It is, and I’m fairly sure that he isn’t. Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
One of Hancock's major flaws is that he is an inveterate liar, and not just to his wife and kids. I wouldn't put too much store on that.
He also, in fairness, had strengths and I think that he did much better in the second half of the crisis than he did in the first. Clearly not a stupid man, he applied himself diligently and got on top of some of the chaos he had caused in the initial panic. But its a bit of a stretch to think he had a lot of spare time to think about Social Care.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon we aren't going to be able to say anything.
They think Agatha Christie will be offended?
More like thinking it's the woman's name that is amusing when the bloke is Mr Hancock.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
The inevitable Johnson - Carrie bust up is really going be quite something. Who will get custody of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
How can you blame the opposition for this? The first person to blame would be Johnson as he gave him the job. I suppose you could try and blame the people for voting him in, not sure about that. Maybe blame the people of Uxbridge or Suffolk Coastal? Going back to 2019 you could say the Conservative MPs are to blame for selecting him, but not all did!
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It is, and I’m fairly sure that he isn’t. Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
Do you mean 50% baked?
“We… will fix the problems in social care once and for all.”
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
He didn’t want Dom to think he had got one over on him by Hancock going, so replaced him with someone DC also dislikes.
How does it work from an expenses perspective? Presumably his constituency house was his primary residence and then he rented a flat in London? But now if he is in London all the time can he claim that Sussex is his principal residence?
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It is, and I’m fairly sure that he isn’t. Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
You are making a different mistake, focusing on why the appointment was made rather than thinking about whether he will be any good at it. I think the Carrie connection has probably helped him but so has being a loyal foot soldier ever since he quit, never joining the awkward squad. Hunt has been a bit more equivocal in his committee role and personal loyalty is very, very important to Boris.
Man, it's been all over Instagram for the last two days. He's such a memeworthy person in general and this has just multiplied it by 100x. On my Instagram cut through index this was definitely number one issue since Dom all the way back in 2020.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
I am surprised that our BP expert linguists have not come up with a bit of fun on the subject of the fair Gina's surname. Surely "cola" is "tail" and "dangelo" is "of an angel"?
and in the photos, Mr Hancock did seem to be rather keen on that part of her anatomy.
I didn’t realise that the incident happened in Hancock’s own personal office. I bet that’ll cause some interesting discussions among ministers - I doubt too many would be aware that they’re being filmed when in their own office.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
How can you blame the opposition for this? The first person to blame would be Johnson as he gave him the job. I suppose you could try and blame the people for voting him in, not sure about that. Maybe blame the people of Uxbridge or Suffolk Coastal? Going back to 2019 you could say the Conservative MPs are to blame for selecting him, but not all did!
In case you weren't paying attention, the opposition sanctioned powers for Hancock undreamt of by any Health secretary ever - in this past this was a middle ranking cabinet position at best and a poisoned challice at worst.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
How can you blame the opposition for this? The first person to blame would be Johnson as he gave him the job. I suppose you could try and blame the people for voting him in, not sure about that. Maybe blame the people of Uxbridge or Suffolk Coastal? Going back to 2019 you could say the Conservative MPs are to blame for selecting him, but not all did!
No, he excludes all - the PM, the Tory majority in the Commons, and the electorate who voted them in - and blames it entirely on the second order problem of a weak and poorly led opposition.
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Hope my husband doesn't start putting me first Matt Hancock style.
It can only be a matter of time before 'Hancock' joins the lexicon of terms to describe...
1.sex at work. ( a quick Hancock) 2.bottom squeezing (a Hancock) 3. being caught on a hidden camera at work (being Hancocked) 4. being fired for any of the above (been Hancocked)
None of them well catered for (at the moment) by the English language
(Jess Phillips for Labour leader-if they can't get Marina Hyde)
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
The inevitable Johnson - Carrie bust up is really going be quite something. Who will get custody of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?
(This) Mrs Johnson, as an RC, doesn't, I assume, believe in divorce, only in annulment.
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
How can you blame the opposition for this? The first person to blame would be Johnson as he gave him the job. I suppose you could try and blame the people for voting him in, not sure about that. Maybe blame the people of Uxbridge or Suffolk Coastal? Going back to 2019 you could say the Conservative MPs are to blame for selecting him, but not all did!
In case you weren't paying attention, the opposition sanctioned powers for Hancock undreamt of by any Health secretary ever - in this past this was a middle ranking cabinet position at best and a poisoned challice at worst.
OIC, now I get what you mean. The problem is It's quite difficult to read all of the thread conversations. My answer to your first comment would depend on whether you believe that Hancock/Johnson's rules have gone above and beyond what was originally sanctioned by parliament.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
You are making a different mistake, focusing on why the appointment was made rather than thinking about whether he will be any good at it. I think the Carrie connection has probably helped him but so has being a loyal foot soldier ever since he quit, never joining the awkward squad. Hunt has been a bit more equivocal in his committee role and personal loyalty is very, very important to Boris.
Howard Beckett firmly believes the Saj has been brought in just to sell off the NHS..
Yes he was, doesn’t mean he’d be fantastic as Dr Who. Many names have been put in the frame but whoever gets it unless the scripts improve the ratings will still remain low.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
I am surprised that our BP expert linguists have not come up with a bit of fun on the subject of the fair Gina's surname. Surely "cola" is "tail" and "dangelo" is "of an angel"?
and in the photos, Mr Hancock did seem to be rather keen on that part of her anatomy.
Give it a week and Hancock will be so last year just as Cummings is/was. Cummings will be taken down.one way or another its just a question of time imho. They must have a book of dirt on him ..
Hancock was not an extraordinary man in any way. He is simply what happens when people are given far too much power and when the checks on that power are too weak.
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
You're angry with the Labour Party for not taking the view that liberties trump statism.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
Labour's policies are their business. All I am doing is pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of condemning a person for wielding power you yourself endowed.
Your views on this are almost as eccentric as the single Hancock defender who called R4 yesterday to explain that the guy who had written the rules should, obviously, be allowed to bend them himself.
Maybe that was just Matt trying to put a gloss on things?
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
You are making a different mistake, focusing on why the appointment was made rather than thinking about whether he will be any good at it. I think the Carrie connection has probably helped him but so has being a loyal foot soldier ever since he quit, never joining the awkward squad. Hunt has been a bit more equivocal in his committee role and personal loyalty is very, very important to Boris.
Howard Beckett firmly believes the Saj has been brought in just to sell off the NHS..
O/T - Australia seems to have a real problem. Astra is their main vaccine but nobody wants it. Some of the discussions sound like U.K. April 20 (“Policemen moving people on for sitting on park benches!”). Contact tracing appears to be on the verge of reaching it’s limit (how many “venues of concern” becomes unmanageable?).
They must really hope it hasn’t spread far more than they are picking up.
Obviously they are far better off than almost everywhere is objective terms. But when the entire country has got used to the zero Covid mindset...
That is, just possibly, the sound of the beginning of the end for the Johnson administration. If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers). While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Its a fair bet that these weekends events have certainly not help calm the nerves of Southern Tory MPs facing a LibDem in second place.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
No. The disgust should be with his fellow parliamentarians of all stripes. They gave him his exalted power and allowed him to exercise it without sufficient check and balance.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
I’ve really got to ask, because you’ve been banging on about this for a couple of days now: what particular power did Matt Hancock exercise with her that was granted to him under covid regulations? Shagging around does seem to have been a thing even before covid, I understand. The biggie on the abuse of power was, in my mind, granting an NED to someone he was shagging, but that’s not a use of covid emergency legislation, I understand (any more than Jenrick’s dodgy planning permission thing was under covid emergency legislation. The hypocrisy charge, which also sticks, is that he didn’t abide by the rules his Department had a lead role in making - not that he wrote rules to exempt himself from them.
Hypocrisy: yes. Failing to abide by the rules: yes. Abuse of power to appoint an NED: yes.
But you keep going on about him being granted special exalted power and abusing it, which seems rather disconnected from the entire affair.
I have some sympathy with Cummings on this. The Saj was not great as Chancellor during his brief spell. I remember a financial statement where he was consistently told off for spending nearly all of his time attacking Labour by the Speaker. It was, frankly, an embarrassingly poor effort. He seemed out of his depth in a way that Rishi simply doesn't, notwithstanding having a similar background in finance.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
You are making the mistake of analysing Johnson's government in conventional terms. Clearly I took this too far yesterday when I declared that Hancock would not go, due to Johnson's debasement of our political culture, but I think a much more important aspect to Javid's return is that Carrie was once one of his special advisors and, since the palace coup that ousted Cummings, a personal connection to Mrs PM is of far greater importance than the trifling details of being on top of his brief, or able to make a decent fist of a statement to the Commons.
You are making a different mistake, focusing on why the appointment was made rather than thinking about whether he will be any good at it. I think the Carrie connection has probably helped him but so has being a loyal foot soldier ever since he quit, never joining the awkward squad. Hunt has been a bit more equivocal in his committee role and personal loyalty is very, very important to Boris.
Howard Beckett firmly believes the Saj has been brought in just to sell off the NHS..
The idea that you can sell off cost centres with no obvious income flows seems to me to have certain flaws. Imagine the pitch:
"Yeah, we are open to all customers every minute of the day and we simply deal with what they throw at us regardless of what it costs".
"Wow, and what do these customers pay for this fabulous service?"
"Well, nothing, it's free at the point of delivery."
"Err... that's a tough sell, even in the current market. Even Uber might make a profit one day."
The taxpayer pays. The contract will have us paying a private company twice what the NHS costs, and they'll charge extra if patients present with more than one symptom.
Re the colorful nature of the current HMG frontbench, reckon this is one of the great unsung success stories in British politics and society. Beyond individual achievement, a success for their families, communities, the Conservative Party and the whole freaking somewhat occasionally United Kingdom.
What bollox, the colour of their skin gives them no special powers to be any better than the other pile of crap we have, they have climbed the same greasy pole.
Now having been infected he moves to a much higher level of protection.
The vaccination allowed him to do that with only minor effects.
Vaccines work
And yet a huge chunk of the zero Covid/scientific elite will use this to insinuate the opposite
I only heard about it because anti vaxx, anti government mates shared it on WhatsApp in a ‘I’ll just leave this here’ style (obviously my mates don’t use those kind of phrases)
O/T - Australia seems to have a real problem. Astra is their main vaccine but nobody wants it. Some of the discussions sound like U.K. April 20 (“Policemen moving people on for sitting on park benches!”). Contact tracing appears to be on the verge of reaching it’s limit (how many “venues of concern” becomes unmanageable?).
They must really hope it hasn’t spread far more than they are picking up.
Obviously they are far better off than almost everywhere is objective terms. But when the entire country has got used to the zero Covid mindset...
The issue is their zero Covid policy has removed any sense of urgency. They clearly thought they could keep doing this kind of thing indefinitely but now the rest of the (Western) world is opening up on a more permanent basis and they're having to enter a full lockdown.
They need not have necessarily changed their border policy, but they should have thrown money at vaccines like we did and encouraged a speedy rollout by warning the public that it's only through vaccination that the threat is properly removed.
John Sergeant just described the Hancock affair as one of the most intriguing he can remember. 'With a background of the pandemic'......"and even the woman's name sounds like an Agatha Christie invention Gina Colandangelo. Somewhere between Gina Lollobigida and Pina Colada" A fun observation typical of Ex Millfield boy John Sergeant's sense of humour.
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
I am surprised that our BP expert linguists have not come up with a bit of fun on the subject of the fair Gina's surname. Surely "cola" is "tail" and "dangelo" is "of an angel"?
and in the photos, Mr Hancock did seem to be rather keen on that part of her anatomy.
Coda is tail, or queue
In Spanish the word is cola. What does cola mean in Italian?
Now having been infected he moves to a much higher level of protection.
The vaccination allowed him to do that with only minor effects.
Vaccines work
Yes, Marr has never been the brightest button but this interaction is extraordinarily thick. He should have been saying “I want to tell you about something absolutely wonderful. I was double jabbed in the spring and as a result, when I had a brush with covid last week, it was akin to a summer cold! And this is me, a 61 year old who has had a stroke and cancer!”
Now having been infected he moves to a much higher level of protection.
The vaccination allowed him to do that with only minor effects.
Vaccines work
Yes, Marr has never been the brightest button but this interaction is extraordinarily thick. He should have been saying “I want to tell you about something absolutely wonderful. I was double jabbed in the spring and as a result, when I had a brush with covid last week, it was akin to a summer cold! And this is me, a 61 year old who has had a stroke and cancer!”
Comments
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1408862878501773312
Keeping Hancock would have meant definite reopen imho as there is no way he could have presented a continuation of the measures and not be laughed out of the room.
iirc Javid has been sceptical of the extent of the lockdown?
To be fair, it isn't as funny as his defence of his boss the Prime Minister. Lewis on record insisting there is no customs birder between GB and NI despite his department and therefore him having the responsibility for its operation.
https://twitter.com/roseunwin/status/1409068967315087361?s=21
Who gave Hancock that power? the electorate? No. The Prime Minister? no. The Queen? again no.
Ask Steve Baker. Chiefly, it was the labour party.
Baker has commented on how difficult it is to check government power when the opposition is on side. When the opposition is prepared to countenance Hancock again and again showing contempt for parliamentary democracy in our country.
Labour are Hancock's facilitators. They should be exposed as such.
https://twitter.com/mac_puck/status/1408706881837752320?s=21
If Hancock had immediately been sacked, the whole thing would have rapidly been forgotten. The attempt to brazen it out and hang on to him triggered a level of public disgust I don’t think we’ve seen in years (it was one of the very few times I’ve not regretted listening to Any Answers).
While most of that reaction was directed at Hancock, and it was very definitely the rules hypocrisy rather than the affair which triggered it, as the sordid details are raked over by the press, while his colleagues continue to defend the indefensible, I wonder if this government is rapidly running down its supply of goodwill and credibility.
As was pointed out upthread, you can make a case for many of the government’s questionable decisions over the pandemic, but it does require giving them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some, perhaps quite a large number of voters, who might previously have done so, who now won’t.
Even now there is support for not unlocking fully until the 19th.
On a different subject despite thinking what Hancock did was a resigning matter I do worry about the release of that footage. MPs are recorded more often than even they realise half the time. Civil servants and staff have to know an awful lot about MPs and like servants MPs have to get used to talking with each other in front of staff. If the discretion needed to sustain this relationship breaks down then the system can't operate and that would make scrutiny even more difficult.
And wait until you hear about the powers Clement Attlee gave Churchill.
And it's not clear quite how the Opposition can have major influence on ministerial behaviour (as opposed to policy). That is why we have the Ministerial Code, and why the Prime Minister is supposed to be the arbiter of it.
Government opponents on Govt backbenches will always find comfort in blaming the Opposition if they find their views aren't being listened to.
1. The rest of the UK isn't leaving Scotland, so for most people it's very low down in their consciousness/list of priorities
2. This is a pointless hypothetical, because the rest of the country isn't going to get a say in any of this
Ultimately, as in so many things, we are all just powerless spectators. You can argue that, so long as we're all nominally part of the same country, we shouldn't be - but we are. We're simply obliged to wait for however many years or decades it takes for them to sort their shit out.
Now, with Hancock, we are starting to see a fuller reality.
The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 extended the 1939 Act for another year, and provided for annual extensions by parliamentary resolution. It significantly extended the government's powers under the Defence Regulations to require persons "to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty."
The Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Act 1940 enabled the creation of special courts to administer criminal justice in war zones, as well as authorizing them to punish offenders for violating the Defence Regulations.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdPtT6eK/
It's really come to something when you squeeze you own wife's arse and she tells you off for being too Hancockian.
There must be a strand of decent, perhaps rather old fashioned, Toryism that is disgusted by Hancock's attempt to have one rule for himself and Pina Colada and another for everyone else (including incredibly the Queen).
....
If the media were scrutinised to the same level especially the Dail Mail and the Sun, closely followed by the Guardian and the Teleraph there would be carnage.
And while I am.on the subject , what the hell were the security services doing?
But as the program was finishing the BBC apologised for any offense it might have caused. I'm all for PC but i'm starting to worry that soon nothing will be acceptable.
Unflappable, and a very nice line in understated irony.
@jessphillips
·
1h
Hope my husband doesn't start putting me first Matt Hancock style.
However cross you are with the CP, the LP would have been worse surely? Expecting the Opposition to automatically oppose so as to maintain checks and balances is neither realistic nor in line with underlying ideologies.
I believe Hancock discredits our entire political class. Let's face it. The chief sentiment towards Hancock amongst his peers was envy.
He's clearly not stupid and we can only hope that he has learned from that experience but social care in particular is going to need a much more conciliatory approach since any long term solution will ideally be cross party. I am not sure on the basis of his previous experience that that is his style.
Personally, I would rather have had Hunt back if he had been willing to do it. He probably has a better grip of these issues than anyone in government and has kept on top of them with his select committee role. Zahawi would have been another possibility. What Boris clearly wanted was someone who would slot in with no other reshuffle at this point and the Saj does achieve that. I hope I am wrong in this but Health and Social Care Secretary is going to be at least the third most important job in the government after PM and Chancellor over the next couple of years. I am not completely convinced Javid is the man for that.
It will not have been much fun for the children to find that mummy or daddy won't live there any more but single-parent families are hardly unknown.
From ONS:
There were 2.9 million lone parent families in 2019, which is 14.9% of families in the UK; London has the highest proportion (19.1%), while the South West of England (10.9%) has the lowest.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2019
The Labour Party has supported the use of lockdown and other restrictions from the start in order to reduce the spread of Covid and minimise as far as possible the numbers dying from this deadly disease. It's a public health response, not an ideological response. Opposing such restrictions would have meant the LP not caring so much about these aims, which I'm not sure would have been either sensible or popular.
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Opinium-Political-Report-25th-June-2021.pdf
Where did Britain get this extraordinarily supine mindset come from? the government knows best bullsh*t?
Hunt would have been a far better appointment if only because he has more than a faint clue if what the job entails.
That said, I’m looking forward to the social care plan which the Hancock resignation letter assured us was not only oven ready, but almost full baked…
https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/status/1409062797858770946?s=21
He also, in fairness, had strengths and I think that he did much better in the second half of the crisis than he did in the first. Clearly not a stupid man, he applied himself diligently and got on top of some of the chaos he had caused in the initial panic. But its a bit of a stretch to think he had a lot of spare time to think about Social Care.
and in the photos, Mr Hancock did seem to be rather keen on that part of her anatomy.
https://www.nme.com/news/tv/olly-alexander-set-to-be-announced-as-next-doctor-who-reports-claim-2979210
https://twitter.com/thesun/status/1409073788038361090?s=21
1.sex at work. ( a quick Hancock)
2.bottom squeezing (a Hancock)
3. being caught on a hidden camera at work (being Hancocked)
4. being fired for any of the above (been Hancocked)
None of them well catered for (at the moment) by the English language
(Jess Phillips for Labour leader-if they can't get Marina Hyde)
It is not 100% effective, no vaccine is, but the evidence is that jabs are working. Irrespective of what happened to some BBC hack.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/gps-fear-astrazeneca-vaccines-could-go-to-waste-20210625-p584b5.html
https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1408864261477130247
Now having been infected he moves to a much higher level of protection.
The vaccination allowed him to do that with only minor effects.
"Yeah, we are open to all customers every minute of the day and we simply deal with what they throw at us regardless of what it costs".
"Wow, and what do these customers pay for this fabulous service?"
"Well, nothing, it's free at the point of delivery."
"Err... that's a tough sell, even in the current market. Even Uber might make a profit one day."
(It has taken me 24 hours to come up with that.)
They must really hope it hasn’t spread far more than they are picking up.
Obviously they are far better off than almost everywhere is objective terms. But when the entire country has got used to the zero Covid mindset...
Shagging around does seem to have been a thing even before covid, I understand.
The biggie on the abuse of power was, in my mind, granting an NED to someone he was shagging, but that’s not a use of covid emergency legislation, I understand (any more than Jenrick’s dodgy planning permission thing was under covid emergency legislation.
The hypocrisy charge, which also sticks, is that he didn’t abide by the rules his Department had a lead role in making - not that he wrote rules to exempt himself from them.
Hypocrisy: yes.
Failing to abide by the rules: yes.
Abuse of power to appoint an NED: yes.
But you keep going on about him being granted special exalted power and abusing it, which seems rather disconnected from the entire affair.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/WDjVTWllNU5rXnk6TunogMsuGwc/appointments
I think that verifies it?
They need not have necessarily changed their border policy, but they should have thrown money at vaccines like we did and encouraged a speedy rollout by warning the public that it's only through vaccination that the threat is properly removed.