it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Also, @Black_Rook the Moderna rollout has started in England as well. I'm not sure why the vaccines minister said it would start in two weeks last week when the first delivery arrived. He must have got the dates mixed up.
I think the over 40s will take 3 weeks to get to 80% completion and then 35-39 year olds will be invited in early May, 30-34 just after the middle of May. I expect everyone under 50 from next week onwards will get Pfizer or Moderna for their first doses and in May we'll add Novavax to the mix.
I don't think we'll use the J&J vaccine at all.
That's interesting - I had thought the use of the one-shot J&J would be good. Any idea why we wouldn't now use it?
We just won't need it and J&J likely carries the same risks as AZ wrt blood clots so may not get approve in under 40s anyway.
I think the government may defer the order into a gen 2 single shot for groups 1-9.
Though they could well get the same thing from AZN.
It's possible that we'll end up donating all of our J&J, and the US their AZN shots ? They are both effective vaccines, and pretty similar, so arguably there isn't much to be gained from introducing yet another vaccine to each country's supply chain (along with the safety monitoring issues).
I think the government may want to change the vector for the booster jab for efficacy reasons and donate the spare AZ doses instead. I've also heard that the government has been looking at Pfizer and Moderna for the gen 2 booster as well as a single dose rather than two doses as there is expected to be enough capacity of them for September and October delivery of the new formulations.
There may be more to this yet but so far the problem with Greensill is that they lent far too much money to Gupta for the Liberty group. AIUI the government has responded by withdrawing their guarantees for those loans since they were not issued in accordance with the scheme. Bad news for Liberty creditors when that group inevitably goes bust, bad news for the Scottish government who guaranteed £500m of those loans but not particularly bad news for the UK taxpayer as a whole.
The suggestion that the "security" for Gupta loans was fake invoices is troubling. It shows a lack of due diligence on the part of Greensill. A non banking group turned out not to be as good as a bank at spotting inconsistencies (although it may be a bit early for the banks to be given a clean bill of health).
It seems inevitable that other loans which were issued with government guarantees will turn out to be bad. But this is part of a wider picture where the government was providing massive "bounce back" loans and guarantees across the economy to stop collapse in a time of lockdown. That seems to have largely worked, the odd retail group apart, we have not seen anything like the consequences that we should for a 5-10% fall in GDP. What we will see over the coming year is a fair number of businesses going bust and such loans going bad. No doubt Rishi will get some flack for this but the consequences of not acting could have been much, much worse. Many will describe these bad loans as a "scandal" and no doubt it will be claimed that there was corruption and cronyism. We shall see and much will depend upon the extent of taxpayer largesse but so far, Greensill apart, the performance of the Treasury has been not much short of incredible.
David I think you are being naive.
I think that Greensill knew *exactly* what they were doing. It wasn’t crappy due diligence. It was fraud (in my view)
What was Greensill actually selling? It sounds from what I have read no more than a glorified factoring service. Was there any more to it? I am not sure I understand what he was offering the NHS staff either.
This is the part that I don’t get.
Why would the govt/nhs need factoring services?
Seems like parasitism to me.
It doesn't. That's why we need to understand what it is now going out for tender for and why.
There’s clearly a lot of tender consciences around right now. Do they count?
Love me tender, love me true All my dreams fulfill
Love me tender, love me, dear Tell me you are mine I'll be yours through all the years 'Til the end of time
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
Mr. Thompson, aye, but age affects people differently.
It also depends how sharp potential replacements are, and whether biding their time or acting more swiftly is in their interests.
The lack of a proper handing over/succession mechanism in the Roman Empire caused significant trouble from early days, and played no small roles in civil wars becoming endemic.
Xi seems to be more Stalin than Khrushchev. I don't think he's going to be ousted.
The succession problems will come after.
That's my thinking too. For both Xi and Putin.
And long-term its very bad news for both China and Russia.
Yes. Dancer is right that the absence of a functioning system for succession is a major failing.
China was unusual for an authoritarian dictatorship in having devised a way of handling the peaceful transfer of power, but ultimately that system wasn't robust enough to protect itself from an egotist like Xi.
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
Blimey she really can't win.
Says nothing: heartless b*tch Says I'm coming: me me me Says I'm not coming: heartless b*tch
There was no need to say anything at all. Her being heavily pregnant is a good reason for non-attendance and nothing more needed saying.
Harry's tribute to his grandfather was a nice one, I thought.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Interesting piece, nonetheless, move along, nothing to see. And by the way LOOK, Boris has now vaccinated over half of Wales!
I suppose the Johnsonian Conservatives, as a defence could quite correctly claim, "not us squire", and that Cameron was part of the corrupt, cozy, post-Thatcherite, Euro-Labour-Liberal- feudal Tory concensus. That element of the Conservative Party, save for Mrs May was purged in 2019, in favour of the righteous, the good and Robert Jenrick.
I think the problem for Welsh Labour in exploiting this one is they don’t want anyone to be talking about corruption in any way, shape, or form. It raises too many awkward questions for them. Even Plaid Cymru aren’t squeaky clean given their links to the infamous Mark James.
The Liberal Democrats may talk about it I suppose, but I doubt if anyone will be listening. Jon Ossoff v David Perdue they ain’t.
That’s the problem when you have widespread corruption scandals across all parties. Nobody dares to weaponise it in case it backfires on them.
Exposure to Gupta's GFG Alliance is ultimately responsible for Greensill Capital's ultimate insolvency.
Have you looked at the Welsh & Scottish politicians who Gupta purchased (e.g., a familiar friend, Carwyn Jones, is there on the global advisory board of the GFG Alliance)?
Because, when you go shopping, you might as well buy the full set of politicians from all parties. They're cheap enough.
And to go back to Welsh Labour, Carwyn deftly batted away criticisms of this a year ago, but he may not find it quite so easy now.
The idea that you "purchase" politicians is naive and offensive.
You *rent* them. If they used to be lawyers, by the hour.
In the US an honest politician is one who stays bought...
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Corbyn wasn't electoral poison against May.
Though Boris also bested Cameron in the EU referendum lets not forget.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
But Bozza isn't going to want to be a lobbyist, surely?
Partly because it's a behind-the-scenes thing, and we know that BoJo loves the limelight.
Also, he does have a genuine talent for writing and talking drivel for large amounts of money.
But this does give the PM an interesting dilemma. Business suggests forming a square round the Camster. If nothing else, there's the risk of any scandal causing trouble for current members of the government. But the pleasure in potentially destroying one's lifetime nemesis...
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
You can only defeat the opposition that is put before you. GE17 nearly saw a stark raving mad socialist elected Prime Minister so lets never take anything for granted please.
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Taiwan isn’t really comparable to Vietnam. There are no friendly countries nearby for the guerillas to hide in and use as a base for resupply, to start with.
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
The rapidity with which 45-year-olds seem to be getting appointments suggests that the supply crunch might have been overstated. That said, it could simply be early bird syndrome, and those that leave the booking until later today will have a longer wait?
I think it was partly expectations management. From the end of April we're going to be adding Pfizer back into the first dose programme and from early May we'll have Novavax (sadly a month later than expected due to the trial data being a bit messier than expected and slower to come in because of crashing incidence in the UK).
It would make sense to overstate the supply crunch, just as it made sense to be overcautious on the possible dates of finishing each stage of the rollout.
There has been sufficient margin to absorb a couple of shocks, and several levels of threat from increasingly noisy threats and assertions of dependency from Ursula and the Goon Show, with no changes.
I think it was probably a good tactical decision to go into Purdah for Prince Philip Week, even though they could have avoided it. By the end the rollout should have continued probably on track, whilst UVDL will be deeper in her own quicksand protesting querulously through higher and higher pitched megaphones with running-down batteries.
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
But Bozza isn't going to want to be a lobbyist, surely?
Partly because it's a behind-the-scenes thing, and we know that BoJo loves the limelight.
Also, he does have a genuine talent for writing and talking drivel for large amounts of money.
But this does give the PM an interesting dilemma. Business suggests forming a square round the Camster. If nothing else, there's the risk of any scandal causing trouble for current members of the government. But the pleasure in potentially destroying one's lifetime nemesis...
He’s going to want to write and talk drivel for those who have lots of money. E.g., by speaking at major corporate events.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
I think this episode demonstrates it is possible to draw rules in such a way that you can penalize previous dodgy dealings, whilst still leaving room for your future self to make plenty of extra cash.
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Taiwan isn’t really comparable to Vietnam. There are no friendly countries nearby for the guerillas to hide in and use as a base for resupply, to start with.
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
The Vietnam precedent was the Chinese invasion in 1979, which lasted about a month, made in retaliation for the Vietnamese defeat of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Victory in a week is decades away. The Taiwanese have been preparing for this for 70+ years. Every beach, street, public building and school is set up to provide as big a kill zone as possible. Every adult male is trained. Short of nuking the island, it can't be taken without vast losses. This is why it hasn't been attempted. I don't expect it soon.
My current GP seems unable to book me a second dose here in Cumbria because he can't get me into the AccuX booking system - the one which sends you a text inviting you to book - despite me being registered with the practice and no longer with my old practice. The NHS helpline won't help as they're just using AZ vaccines and I can't book centrally as it says I'm not eligible having got my first dose through my previous GP in February, despite having transferred to my current GP in January.
Anyway I have now got my old GP in London to put me on the booking system. Got my invitation yesterday to book in London but there are no slots available.
So am checking three times day and have my bag packed for an urgent drive down to London to get my second Pfizer dose. I hope they really do have enough second doses and I'm not going to miss out.
Apparently a nearby surgery is getting a load of Pfizer doses shortly so I'm going to ring them to see if they'll let me have one. Unlikely but worth a shot.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Taiwan isn’t really comparable to Vietnam. There are no friendly countries nearby for the guerillas to hide in and use as a base for resupply, to start with.
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
The Vietnam precedent was the Chinese invasion in 1979, which lasted about a month, made in retaliation for the Vietnamese defeat of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
I see your point. But again, I’m not sure that’s a good precedent. It was a limited war fought for limited goals, the most important of which seems to have been the consolidation of power around Deng. Had they gone for a full scale invasion and occupation, formidable though the Vietnamese resistance undoubtedly would have been I don’t think they would have been able to stop the Chinese occupying the major cities.
Similarly, in Taiwan, which has fewer strategic advantages in Vietnam, I don’t see how they could turn back an invasion. It would need to be forestalled somehow. Not impossible, but I think it would be impossible without allies.
The question therefore is whether the Americans would actually fire on a Chinese flotilla. I am guessing the answer is ‘no.’
Interesting piece, nonetheless, move along, nothing to see. And by the way LOOK, Boris has now vaccinated over half of Wales!
I suppose the Johnsonian Conservatives, as a defence could quite correctly claim, "not us squire", and that Cameron was part of the corrupt, cozy, post-Thatcherite, Euro-Labour-Liberal- feudal Tory concensus. That element of the Conservative Party, save for Mrs May was purged in 2019, in favour of the righteous, the good and Robert Jenrick.
I think the problem for Welsh Labour in exploiting this one is they don’t want anyone to be talking about corruption in any way, shape, or form. It raises too many awkward questions for them. Even Plaid Cymru aren’t squeaky clean given their links to the infamous Mark James.
The Liberal Democrats may talk about it I suppose, but I doubt if anyone will be listening. Jon Ossoff v David Perdue they ain’t.
That’s the problem when you have widespread corruption scandals across all parties. Nobody dares to weaponise it in case it backfires on them.
I suspect, Cameron in his defence was only concerned with the jobs at Liberty Steel ( and perhaps his "small" investment). Cameron, personally has a very positive reputation in the steel industry in general. In Port Talbot for his personal intervention and handling of the Tata crisis a few years ago was viewed as impressive. If you recall he took up the mantle because of Javid being on a jolly on the other side of the world.
I personally have no real issues with Cameron's lobbying crossing the line, in much the same way that I wasn't much bothered with the cash- for- honours scandal. It happens, it shouldn't, but it does. Cameron has at least shown some contrition for his behaviour. I am nonetheless concerned by how this Government behaves in terms of nepotism, patronage and who- knows, maybe even brown envelopes. So I have created something of a dilemma for myself, Cameron/Blair corruption is OK, but Johnsonian corruption is not. I think I would answer that by saying the difference is that the former, as I have said, demonstrated at least some remorse for getting caught. Whereas the latter, Johnson's chums, really don't care. Jenrick personifies this re: Desmond.
That is where historic Welsh ( and I guess, Red Wall Labour) enters the fray. They really didn't care. If they were caught, the culprits would do their bird if convicted, and live out their twilight years in their Villas on the Costa Del Crime. I, like you, would like to see Labour lose power in Wales to cleanse the aroma of corruption.
We agree we would like to see the back of tired Old Labour corruption, money wasted on vanity projects and jobs given to the old-boy/girl network. I would then hope to see a resurgence of liberal dynamism from a revitalised Labour in opposition (not that I have seen much of that on the UK scene). I would like to see the dynamism 'promised' by New Labour, and indeed that can't happen from a position of power, shared or otherwise. However, I do have an enormous problem with a change of power in Wales (sans Labour) in the ample form of Andrew R T Davies and the Welsh Conservatives. I fear, hard I know it is to believe, they will be even more corrupt and contemptible that the current incumbents.
I am a big price horse bettor, like most people I am a long term loser. I normally bet 5 or 10 quid each way. I have a losing account with Ladbrokes. At the weekend I had a 28/1 winner and yesterday had a 20/1 winner, both £5e/w.. I can go weeks without a winner, I just had a bit of luck.
Last night I tried to place a bet on a unraced 2 year old in the 1.35 at Newmarket called Fourshadesofsilver at the advertised price of 33/1. My reasoning for backing it was that it has the same sire (Ardad, who is in his first season) as the 150/1 first time out 2 year old winner yesterday. Ladbrokes refused to take the bet.
What sort of Gambling Industry do we have in this Country when a company with a multi billion pound turnover like Ladbrokes can refuse to take a £5e/w bet on a race at Flat Racings HQ in Newmarket. It s an absolutely ridiculous situation
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
But Bozza isn't going to want to be a lobbyist, surely?
Partly because it's a behind-the-scenes thing, and we know that BoJo loves the limelight.
Also, he does have a genuine talent for writing and talking drivel for large amounts of money.
But this does give the PM an interesting dilemma. Business suggests forming a square round the Camster. If nothing else, there's the risk of any scandal causing trouble for current members of the government. But the pleasure in potentially destroying one's lifetime nemesis...
As you say Boris won't need to follow Cameron's attempts to earn serious money. So it's probably completely risk free in highlighting how bad he's followed his the rules Cameron himself devised.
Mr. Thompson, aye, but age affects people differently.
It also depends how sharp potential replacements are, and whether biding their time or acting more swiftly is in their interests.
The lack of a proper handing over/succession mechanism in the Roman Empire caused significant trouble from early days, and played no small roles in civil wars becoming endemic.
Xi seems to be more Stalin than Khrushchev. I don't think he's going to be ousted.
The succession problems will come after.
That's my thinking too. For both Xi and Putin.
And long-term its very bad news for both China and Russia.
I'd see the Stalin analogy as more appropriate for Putin than Xi. Putin has no one clear successor and actually is useful for many of the oligarchs as it means one faction doesn't win out over the other. Xi's rule seems to be of someone who looks as though they are in supreme power but who is constantly looking over their shoulder to check there is no oncoming threat.
I am a big price horse bettor, like most people I am a long term loser. I normally bet 5 or 10 quid each way. I have a losing account with Ladbrokes. At the weekend I had a 28/1 winner and yesterday had a 20/1 winner, both £5e/w.. I can go weeks without a winner, I just had a bit of luck.
Last night I tried to place a bet on a unraced 2 year old in the 1.35 at Newmarket called Fourshadesofsilver at the advertised price of 33/1. My reasoning for backing it was that it has the same sire (Ardad, who is in his first season) as the 150/1 first time out 2 year old winner yesterday. Ladbrokes refused to take the bet.
What sort of Gambling Industry do we have in this Country when a company with a multi billion pound turnover like Ladbrokes can refuse to take a £5e/w bet on a race at Flat Racings HQ in Newmarket. It s an absolutely ridiculous situation
Welcome to the club.
I’m gubbed from well over 50 bookmakers.
Practical advice: try betfair or smarkets (or their app, “sbk”)
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
I think this episode demonstrates it is possible to draw rules in such a way that you can penalize previous dodgy dealings, whilst still leaving room for your future self to make plenty of extra cash.
It certainly presents an opportunity for the incumbent PM to properly close off these routes - as others have said, he's much more likely to be a rubber chicken circuit guy in retirement, than a hard nosed lobbyist.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
The Ken Livingstone who won the London Mayor election twice?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
I'm perhaps alone in thinking this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Boris took this as an opportunity to settle a few scores with David Cameron. It's a helpful thing to have hanging over the former PM to discourage any criticisms in future?
Given he’s not likely to want to close off his route to a, shall we say, comfortable future, I suspect the answer is no.
But Bozza isn't going to want to be a lobbyist, surely?
Partly because it's a behind-the-scenes thing, and we know that BoJo loves the limelight.
Also, he does have a genuine talent for writing and talking drivel for large amounts of money.
But this does give the PM an interesting dilemma. Business suggests forming a square round the Camster. If nothing else, there's the risk of any scandal causing trouble for current members of the government. But the pleasure in potentially destroying one's lifetime nemesis...
As you say Boris won't need to follow Cameron's attempts to earn serious money. So it's probably completely risk free in highlighting how bad he's followed his the rules Cameron himself devised.
I hadn’t really thought about this before, but the Boris memoirs stand a chance of being the best selling political biography for yonks don’t they? Not only will 2010-202X be a fascinating subject matter, but he’s likely to make it a good read.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
The Ken Livingstone who won the London Mayor election twice?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
The Ken Livingstone who won the London Mayor election twice?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
The Ken Livingstone who won the London Mayor election twice?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
Thatcher had a moral compass and a sense of public service as well as being a better PM.
Wilson was a reasonably effective PM and spent much of his retirement on a not particularly high pension at his modest home on the Scilly Isles, he had little interest in money making, same with Attlee who was also pretty effective even if you disagreed with his policies
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Boris also beat Cameron effectively in 2016 when he was de facto leader of the Leave campaign and Cameron was de facto leader of the Remain campaign
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Yep. Boris Johnson is more asset than liability. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe he keeps passing electoral tests only (or even mainly) because of poor opposition. I want Labour to win enough seats at the next election to put Starmer into number 10 and I'll feel more hopeful of that against any opponent bar Johnson. Unfortunately (although not for my betting) I see little chance of a change of Con leader before the GE.
"@EURACTIV Today from Sofia, Bulgaria: Health Minister Angelov announced that the country’s roll-out of the #AstraZeneca vaccine may be discontinued due to lack of interest. In the last 24 hrs., only 154 doses of the vaccine have been delivered."
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Yep. Boris Johnson is more asset than liability. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe he keeps passing electoral tests only (or even mainly) because of poor opposition. I want Labour to win enough seats at the next election to put Starmer into number 10 and I'll feel more hopeful of that against opponent bar Johnson. Unfortunately (although not for my betting) I see very little chance of a change of Con leader before the GE.
Johnson is the most electorally successful Tory leader since WW2 after Thatcher and Macmillan certainly.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Ken was himself the anti-establishment candidate. And then, of course, he went a bit mad.
And you think there is some kind of special ability in making Jezza look like an idiot (although as @Philip_Thompson has noted, not a no-hoper)?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
The Ken Livingstone who won the London Mayor election twice?
The Ken Livingstone who was originally heavy odds-on favourite to defeat Boris?
The 2008 London Mayoral election is the first one I won money betting on from tips from OGH, but Boris was very much the underdog early on not the overwhelming favourite.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
The trickier question is whether such a thing can exist.
If you take the last couple of winning PMs, Blair and Cameron, they both started projecting that sunny optimism. 1992 Major had a lovely smile. But the sunshine gradually faded as reality hit, compromises were made with reality and the effect of getting things wrong hit home.
The Boris difference is to just ignore all that, so that the sunshine continues. My working assumption thus far has been that nobody can be that hollow indefinitely. And that the fall of Boris will be a sudden shattering rather than an accumulation of dents and scratches. Maybe ten years time, maybe ten minutes.
But maybe Boris has hit on disconnecting his moral compass as a winning formula. There's a hideous logic there, and he's not unique in doing it.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Yep. Boris Johnson is more asset than liability. I think people are kidding themselves if they believe he keeps passing electoral tests only (or even mainly) because of poor opposition. I want Labour to win enough seats at the next election to put Starmer into number 10 and I'll feel more hopeful of that against any opponent bar Johnson. Unfortunately (although not for my betting) I see little chance of a change of Con leader before the GE.
I don't know.
When the fall comes it will be swift and brutal. Whether that comes before the next GE is open for debate. In some respects Johnson having to carry the can for the economic aftermath of his Covid spending, both reasonable and profligate might be poetic justice. I am now expecting a spending led economic boom, before everyone runs out of borrowed money, and the inevitable bust.
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
Blimey she really can't win.
Says nothing: heartless b*tch Says I'm coming: me me me Says I'm not coming: heartless b*tch
Not at all.
I think it was an elegant solution to take doctors advice not to come (I think she should have come to support her husband but that’s up to them).
But not to come because of doctors advice and then brief out a story designed to create a positive news cycle about her is despicable.
And I would never call anyone a bitch.
Amounts to the same thing, Charles. One man's despicable (really - despicable? Of all the things in the world this is despicable?) is another man's b*tch.
And good also to see that you are using the Daily Mirror as your factchecking source. I just had to google MM because I have and had no idea about her various movements and intentions. That you knew shows an unhealthy obsession.
Which is fine. You wouldn't be alone. But then put yourself in the same basket as all those Daily Mirror/Mail reading punters.
As I have said many times previously, either you know the people involved in which case you should STFU or you don't, in which case you should STFU.
When I was at the Palace I knew I could have made £500 every week by divulging some tidbit or other - a nothing story, really - to the press but of course wouldn't have dreamt of doing so.
You position yourself as someone in the know. In which case fucking well behave yourself.
I don’t reveal anything on here that I shouldn’t and I’m certainly not in the “inner circle” of either of the princes - and have no interest in trying to become so - although I’ve met various royals over the years.
It’s just my view based on public information and my read of the situation. Feel free to ignore me if you want to do so, although the fact that you are so defensive suggests I may be reading things right.
I’ve no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not - but I don’t have the time or energy to fact check every story from a mainstream publication.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Is what people who say he is a "winner" forget. I canvassed for him for mayor, god help me, and in many neighbourhoods the conversation went: "Ken Livingstone". Same for the Corbyn GE.
Ken Livingstone managed to win in the first place even without the advantage of a party machine behind him. He clearly didn't start out as electoral poison.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
Ken was himself the anti-establishment candidate. And then, of course, he went a bit mad.
You know who else was the anti-establishment candidate before he went a bit mad?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Wow. Far too early to say that on any objective level.
Perhaps but Boris has already achieved more in just under 2 years than many Prime Ministers ever achieve in even longer in office.
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Of my lifetime I'd put Boris as the second-best Prime Minister we've had: Thatcher > Boris > Dave > Blair > Major > Brown (as PM, worst Chancellor of my lifetime) > May.
A year ago I said I was unsure whether Boris would end up ahead of or behind Dave on the list, but now there's little doubt in my mind, barring unforeseen shocks.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
Boris won a majority to defeat Corbyn and get Brexit done, that was the main difference between him and May and that he was prepared to put a border in the Irish Sea and infuriate Unionists in NI to get an agreement with the EU acceptable to hardline Brexiteers and she was not.
On the Covid pandemic his record has been mixed, he probably locked down too late but has got the vaccinations right
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Wow. Far too early to say that on any objective level.
Perhaps but Boris has already achieved more in just under 2 years than many Prime Ministers ever achieve in even longer in office.
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Not really. He's achieved Brexit but that's pretty much it, and it's still far too early to say what the long term consequences of that are.
Blair achieved far more in Labour's first term post 1997 in terms of legislation. Of course Blair didn't have COVID to deal with but that's part and parcel of the job.
Well,knock me down with a feather. Ms Markle, according to the Daily Mirror, isn't coming to the funeral, "because she doesn't want to be the centre of attention". Risible! So speaks someone who has sought to be the centre of attention in everything she does !
She's right though. She would be the centre of attention. And that wouldn't be good.
Yes. But why does she feel the need to say that. She had a plausible excuse. She should have STFU.
But she has chosen to make the story about her instead
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
The public are not quite as daft as this makes out. They (we) have to choose between actual options, not ideal visions. If we wanted an ideal vision we could opt for fascism, communism, the theocratic state, absolute monarchy, libertarianism, being poor but happy, giving away all our power and wealth, pacifism and various other wheezes.
We opt regularly for the system in which we can kick them out when it is time for a change; where that small number of chancers willing to risk all and break the rules are allowed to have a go; where the state does stuff and covers it up, and where relative protection is given to some very risky elites who sometimes deliver and sometimes not etc.
Real change makers and risk takers by and large don't do this for charity or the public good. The state is a huge market and pays its bills. Chancers and risk takers want a stake in it.
The issue, as always, is not whether it is perfect - plainly it isn't. The issue is can we deliver what it delivers better? China anyone? Venezuela? Corbyn?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
I am not so sure, if we had gone to No Deal Brexit then the economy would have been hit hard and there would now be a clear majority in Scotland for independence.
By getting a trade deal with the EU however he has reduced the impact of Brexit on the economy and Scottish independence polls are still about 50% Yes 50% No
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Wow. Far too early to say that on any objective level.
Perhaps but Boris has already achieved more in just under 2 years than many Prime Ministers ever achieve in even longer in office.
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Not really. He's achieved Brexit but that's pretty much it, and it's still far too early to say what the long term consequences of that are.
Blair achieved far more in Labour's first term post 1997 in terms of legislation. Of course Blair didn't have COVID to deal with but that's part and parcel of the job.
Brexit achieved itself though the effluxion of time. Hardly an achievement of Boris.
More to the point, the way he shaped it is little short of catastrophic, with dire long-term, consequences for the economy and the Union. On that basis alone, he'll go down as the worst PM since the war, and that's without even mentioning his mismanagement of Covid-19, which has cost tens of thousands of lives. The vaccine procurement and roll out is the only thing in his favour, albeit quite a big one.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Wow. Far too early to say that on any objective level.
Perhaps but Boris has already achieved more in just under 2 years than many Prime Ministers ever achieve in even longer in office.
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Not really. He's achieved Brexit but that's pretty much it, and it's still far too early to say what the long term consequences of that are.
Blair achieved far more in Labour's first term post 1997 in terms of legislation. Of course Blair didn't have COVID to deal with but that's part and parcel of the job.
I listed Blair with Boris as one of the better PMs though. 🤷♂️
But you speak about it being early but Blair kind of makes the point, Blair had some ideas early on (though many of them were ultimately destructive, like asymmetric devolution which he really f**ked up on). But what did Blair achieve of significant note in his second or third term? Even forgetting Iraq, Blair went from transformative to managerial and doing little other than getting Brown to flash the cash.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
MPs have privileged access to ministers. That is the point of representatives. That courtesy is extended to former PMs.
The good thing is that the civil service and ministers collectively judged - having looked at it - that Cameron was peddling something they didn’t want to buy.
It actually seems to be that the government and ministers behaved properly here. The person who - once again - demonstrates that he simply lacks judgement and didn’t do the hard graft necessary was Cameron.
Er ..... the government did buy some of what Greensill was offering - both the advance payment scheme to pharmacists and, later, becoming accredited under the Covid loans scheme, hence the loans made to Liberty Steel and others, for which the taxpayer is now responsible.
The cost to taxpayers is going to be significant. That is not what was promised and its worth understanding why and making sure the same things are not happening now.
Someone posted that the government cancelled the guarantee on the loans as they were in breach of the scheme rules. Exactly what they should do.
I don’t know about the pharmacist advance payment scheme but that’s pretty marginal (would be surprised if the government needed it although if there was a working capital requirement for the sector it could be easier to do that than to just accelerate payments on the system)
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
Boris has yet to prove himself against an opponent who is not electoral poison - like Livingstone ans Corbyn
Boris also beat Cameron effectively in 2016 when he was de facto leader of the Leave campaign and Cameron was de facto leader of the Remain campaign
Hi there. So I had a skim through last night's PT and what hit me like wet fish across the cheek - except not because this was a pleasant sensation - was that you are on pretty much EXACTLY the same page as me in your analysis of the Hartlepool by-election and (by inference) the remodelled landscape of our politics, as forged by Brexit and its realignment of the electorate. The old shibboleths are no use now. Many bad calls will be made, and much money lost, by those who cling to them.
A new punditry for a new politics. I am no longer alone and I couldn't ask for a better initial companion. Soon there will be many on the train but I will not forget who was sitting next to me as we first pulled out of the station.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
I am not so sure, if we had gone to No Deal Brexit then the economy would have been hit hard and there would now be a clear majority in Scotland for independence.
By getting a trade deal with the EU however he has reduced the impact of Brexit on the economy and Scottish independence polls are still about 50% Yes 50% No
Johnson wins elections. If that is the key metric to measure greatness, he is right up there.
At work (where believe it or not I am now- unproductively on my own in the office) I see the ramifications of Johnson's deal, as we do on the nightly news from South Belfast.
There's always been elements of corruption/cronyism on both sides. However, it's no surprise that more attention is paid when there are allegations about the governing party. On Cameron/Greensill, the fact that the government itself has ordered an inquiry (when it usually just ignores such allegations) suggests that there may be an issue that they can't ignore.
In the medium to long term, I wonder whether Starmer will benefit? He may be dull/boring, but he strikes me as squeaky clean and incorruptible, and with integrity. I may be wrong, of course. After all, he did take the knee, so he's probably being financed by BLM............
I suspect that Cameron leaked the story about Hancock to try and divert blame. The government has launched an inquiry to stop him doing that again
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
Give over, the Union was crashed by Blair's asymmetric devolution, its been an inexorably ratchetting slow-motion car crash ever since.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
I still find it a rather low-wattage matter to be branded a "scandal". Several orders of magnitude less than that which sees Sarkozy wearing a tag for bribing a magistrate.
Cameron should have known better, which was known by those currently in Government. They politely listened to the former Prime Minister - and then ignored him.
Is trying to mountainise this molehill, following on from the similar Big Meh of Carrie's furnishings, an admission by the media that they can't get traction on PPE acquisition contracts?
If you look at all the loans guaranteed by the UK and Scottish governments to GFG/Liberty (of which more than half probably went via Greenhill), it will approach £1bn.
When that much taxpayers' money is spent supporting a businessman's luxury lifestyle, one should probably ask questions. When the sums are done, I suspect one will find that maybe half the missing funds went on employing people, and the other half has disappeared.
I don’t quite understand the obsession that government have with funding the steel Industry. But they appear to have (a) colossally fucked up and (b) been taken in by a plausible smooth-talking fraudster
We need a little bit of domestic steel capability for strategic assets like ships, aircraft and critical I-beams and L-beams for construction?
Sure, UK steel will be extremely expensive and uncompetitive but you don't want to be 100% reliant on China.
China is mainly bulk steel not the specialty stuff you reference
Ok, but we need some domestic capacity, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm free market, but I'd be willing to help at least one smelting works ticking over - just for resilience.
It doesn’t hurt - historically I would have been fine relying on Arcelor’s mills in France but that now seems... unwise.
But it does strike me as problematic supporting private companies. I wonder whether there should be a different model with the government retaining the equity but private companies having a long term management contract / profit share.
Can't UKGI or whatever simply "own" significant shareholdings in these companies in the same way they "own" NatWest?
P.S. when is the government going to re-privatise NatWest?
The problem you get, then, is the government starts trying to "protect" the business in question. The biggest problem, in the heyday of nationalised industries was that a subsidy till the next election was often the simplest political option.
There was one steel works, IRRC, where the sensible thing to do was demolish it and build a new one in a better location. To the government this meant demolishing a place of employment in a government constituency. The new one would take years to build, in a firm opposition constituency. And would employ less people when built. So they threw in some more subsidy....
Do Equinor and/or companies owned by the Government Pension Fund of Norway suffer from the same issues?
Norges not particular. Investinor is quite active though.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
Give over, the Union was crashed by Blair's asymmetric devolution, its been an inexorably ratchetting slow-motion car crash ever since.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
Time to go, before your absolute old b******s drives me mad. Work to do!
Mr. Pete, Labour's cackhanded fantasy of Celtic fiefdoms forever led to the 2014 referendum in Scotland and the SNP becoming the dominant party in Scotland. That's no small thing.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
Give over, the Union was crashed by Blair's asymmetric devolution, its been an inexorably ratchetting slow-motion car crash ever since.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
Time to go, before your absolute old bollocks drives me mad. Work to do!
I'm going too.
If anyone here has a working answer to the West Lothian Question then I'd be curious to read it when I get back, but I strongly suspect no this is still in the "too difficult, ignore" pile.
Asymmetric devolution has left the Union unhealthy, unstable and ultimately unviable. Unless a solution is found then quite frankly the Union will never survive and needs to be put out of its misery, but that's been increasingly obvious for the past couple of decades.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
I am not so sure, if we had gone to No Deal Brexit then the economy would have been hit hard and there would now be a clear majority in Scotland for independence.
By getting a trade deal with the EU however he has reduced the impact of Brexit on the economy and Scottish independence polls are still about 50% Yes 50% No
Johnson wins elections. If that is the key metric to measure greatness, he is right up there.
At work (where believe it or not I am now- unproductively on my own in the office) I see the ramifications of Johnson's deal, as we do on the nightly news from South Belfast.
Certainly I would agree on that, there was no rioting in loyalist areas of NI after the May deal but there is after the Boris deal put a border in the Irish Sea.
However that was the price of Boris getting his hard Brexit for GB and his trade deal with the EU
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Taiwan isn’t really comparable to Vietnam. There are no friendly countries nearby for the guerillas to hide in and use as a base for resupply, to start with.
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
An attack across 80 - 120 miles of sea, against a numerous and well-equipped military, defending its homeland, seems an extremely risky venture to me.
Mr. Pete, Labour's cackhanded fantasy of Celtic fiefdoms forever led to the 2014 referendum in Scotland and the SNP becoming the dominant party in Scotland. That's no small thing.
And, almost on topic, Cameron saved the day for a generation in 2014 until Johnson decided it was time to do whatever was needed to become PM, and here we are.
Mr. Password, you may be right. We'll see how things go (if Taiwan gets hot then the outcome there might determine that).
I've no idea of the detail of the military balance in the Taiwan Strait, but I imagine Xi will wait until confident victory can be achieved within a week - presenting a fait accompli to the world.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
Taiwan isn’t really comparable to Vietnam. There are no friendly countries nearby for the guerillas to hide in and use as a base for resupply, to start with.
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
All true, but the most pertinent difference is that China professes, as an article of faith, (though on dubious historical evidence) that Taiwan is part of China.
I am a big price horse bettor, like most people I am a long term loser. I normally bet 5 or 10 quid each way. I have a losing account with Ladbrokes. At the weekend I had a 28/1 winner and yesterday had a 20/1 winner, both £5e/w.. I can go weeks without a winner, I just had a bit of luck.
Last night I tried to place a bet on a unraced 2 year old in the 1.35 at Newmarket called Fourshadesofsilver at the advertised price of 33/1. My reasoning for backing it was that it has the same sire (Ardad, who is in his first season) as the 150/1 first time out 2 year old winner yesterday. Ladbrokes refused to take the bet.
What sort of Gambling Industry do we have in this Country when a company with a multi billion pound turnover like Ladbrokes can refuse to take a £5e/w bet on a race at Flat Racings HQ in Newmarket. It s an absolutely ridiculous situation
Welcome to the club.
I’m gubbed from well over 50 bookmakers.
Practical advice: try betfair or smarkets (or their app, “sbk”)
Yes, I too can only do Exchange and Spreads now. It has benefits, though, in that I used to spend a big chunk of every day on betting (on lots of things) and no longer doing so is quite liberating. I used to grind out a regular income but if expressed as £/hour it would have been less than minimum wage. It became sort of a chore rather than a pleasure.
Prefer what I do now. Very selective punting and with a focus on politics (often aided by info and insight gleaned and refined from the back & forth on here).
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Wow. Far too early to say that on any objective level.
Perhaps but Boris has already achieved more in just under 2 years than many Prime Ministers ever achieve in even longer in office.
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Not really. He's achieved Brexit but that's pretty much it, and it's still far too early to say what the long term consequences of that are.
Blair achieved far more in Labour's first term post 1997 in terms of legislation. Of course Blair didn't have COVID to deal with but that's part and parcel of the job.
It's too early to say. That said, there seems to be an element of wishful thinking on the part of those predicting economic collapse and a return to terrorism.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
The rot was well before Johnson. As soon as you have two politically different landscapes, (and yes Scotland and England are clearly 'different'), then as soon as you got difference governments in both, then it opens up this nationalism as if by design. One side will exploit and heighten those differences, and create the cycle of grievance we see.
It was fine for the 2000s when you had labour and labour, but it was a one way track and rise for the SNP all the way through from 2007 onwards.
This wasn't just a Tory or Johnson problem, it's been coming for a long long time.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
It has worked as England has always got what it wanted since devolution in terms of the UK government ie it voted for Blair, then Cameron, then May and now Boris.
However if in 2024 England votes for Boris but the UK votes for Starmer thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs (which is possible) then the West Lothian question will be back with a vengeance
MPs have privileged access to ministers. That is the point of representatives. That courtesy is extended to former PMs.
The good thing is that the civil service and ministers collectively judged - having looked at it - that Cameron was peddling something they didn’t want to buy.
It actually seems to be that the government and ministers behaved properly here. The person who - once again - demonstrates that he simply lacks judgement and didn’t do the hard graft necessary was Cameron.
Er ..... the government did buy some of what Greensill was offering - both the advance payment scheme to pharmacists and, later, becoming accredited under the Covid loans scheme, hence the loans made to Liberty Steel and others, for which the taxpayer is now responsible.
The cost to taxpayers is going to be significant. That is not what was promised and its worth understanding why and making sure the same things are not happening now.
Someone posted that the government cancelled the guarantee on the loans as they were in breach of the scheme rules. Exactly what they should do.
I don’t know about the pharmacist advance payment scheme but that’s pretty marginal (would be surprised if the government needed it although if there was a working capital requirement for the sector it could be easier to do that than to just accelerate payments on the system)
Yes - they did. But it raises the question - so far unanswered - as to why they were allowed to join in the scheme in the first place.
Re the pharmacists scheme, there seems to have been no real need for it other than to allow Greensill to get something which, like you, I expect they would have leveraged into something else, likely something dodgy. And that's why it is so important for government to take care when giving its imprimatur to third parties.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
I am not so sure, if we had gone to No Deal Brexit then the economy would have been hit hard and there would now be a clear majority in Scotland for independence.
By getting a trade deal with the EU however he has reduced the impact of Brexit on the economy and Scottish independence polls are still about 50% Yes 50% No
Johnson wins elections. If that is the key metric to measure greatness, he is right up there.
At work (where believe it or not I am now- unproductively on my own in the office) I see the ramifications of Johnson's deal, as we do on the nightly news from South Belfast.
Certainly I would agree on that, there was no rioting in loyalist areas of NI after the May deal but there is after the Boris deal put a border in the Irish Sea.
However that was the price of Boris getting his hard Brexit for GB and his trade deal with the EU
Absolutely spot on HYUFD. But clearly Philip considers that to be a mark of Johnson's genius, whereas I don't think it was very clever at all. Must dash.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
I am a big price horse bettor, like most people I am a long term loser. I normally bet 5 or 10 quid each way. I have a losing account with Ladbrokes. At the weekend I had a 28/1 winner and yesterday had a 20/1 winner, both £5e/w.. I can go weeks without a winner, I just had a bit of luck.
Last night I tried to place a bet on a unraced 2 year old in the 1.35 at Newmarket called Fourshadesofsilver at the advertised price of 33/1. My reasoning for backing it was that it has the same sire (Ardad, who is in his first season) as the 150/1 first time out 2 year old winner yesterday. Ladbrokes refused to take the bet.
What sort of Gambling Industry do we have in this Country when a company with a multi billion pound turnover like Ladbrokes can refuse to take a £5e/w bet on a race at Flat Racings HQ in Newmarket. It s an absolutely ridiculous situation
Welcome to the club.
I’m gubbed from well over 50 bookmakers.
Practical advice: try betfair or smarkets (or their app, “sbk”)
Yes, I too can only do Exchange and Spreads now. It has benefits, though, in that I used to spend a big chunk of every day on betting (on lots of things) and no longer doing so is quite liberating. I used to grind out a regular income but if expressed as £/hour it would have been less than minimum wage. It became sort of a chore rather than a pleasure.
Prefer what I do now. Very selective punting and with a focus on politics (often aided by info and insight gleaned and refined from the back & forth on here).
I'm not surprised to be limited to nominal sums on political bets at a fair few betmakers.
I am surprised their limit is a blanket one and prevented me from more than £3 e/w on the Grand National. They're supposed to be these technology-driven beings.
Plus, PP limits me way more than BF Sportsbook, despite them sharing a back-end.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
Give over, the Union was crashed by Blair's asymmetric devolution, its been an inexorably ratchetting slow-motion car crash ever since.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
Time to go, before your absolute old bollocks drives me mad. Work to do!
I'm going too.
If anyone here has a working answer to the West Lothian Question then I'd be curious to read it when I get back, but I strongly suspect no this is still in the "too difficult, ignore" pile.
Asymmetric devolution has left the Union unhealthy, unstable and ultimately unviable. Unless a solution is found then quite frankly the Union will never survive and needs to be put out of its misery, but that's been increasingly obvious for the past couple of decades.
There is another way in which devolution has been asymmetric. It is treated just as the EU was treated until Brexit: only one direction is allowed. This means that the separatists only have to win once and unionists have to win every time.
There was, is and will be a strong case for one national parliament only for Britain and this should be as much on the agenda as separatism. England should be in the debate and in the vote as to whether or not the present extent of devolved government is too much and too asymmetric.
Exemplary of this has been the pompous differentiation of four nations having complex, prolix and detailed but different regulation and guidance about Covid rules. Outrageous in regard to this has been Scottish free tuition but only for Scots, and paid for as much by the rest of us.
Clearly, this is all your own collective fault. If you'd adopted my strategy of making losing bets more frequently then you wouldn't have restricted stakes.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
The rot was well before Johnson. As soon as you have two politically different landscapes, (and yes Scotland and England are clearly 'different'), then as soon as you got difference governments in both, then it opens up this nationalism as if by design. One side will exploit and heighten those differences, and create the cycle of grievance we see.
It was fine for the 2000s when you had labour and labour, but it was a one way track and rise for the SNP all the way through from 2007 onwards.
This wasn't just a Tory or Johnson problem, it's been coming for a long long time.
It didn't have to be this way.
I agree with all that but I think it did have to be this way.
Other federal structures work because no individual "state" within the federation can dominate on its own.
Simply England is too big and too important not to dominate the UK. So either Scotland etc are integrated as part of one United Kingdom and the difference between Scotland and England is relatively erased (pre-devolution), or simply Scotland etc are forced to accept themselves as junior partners of the union playing second-fiddle to England.
And Scotland, quite rightly, is too big and too proud to play second-fiddle.
If there was another way for it to be, why hasn't anyone come up with the answer by now? Dalyell warned about what would happen before many of this site including myself were even born and still there's a vacuum in solutions. Because it has to be this way. Because it is this way.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously.
But what if a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously?
An attack across 80 - 120 miles of sea, against a numerous and well-equipped military, defending its homeland, seems an extremely risky venture to me.
The Chinese strategy isn't invasion. It's gradual encirclement; through the 'The Great Wall of Sand' across the Spratlys and Paracels. One island at a time knowing the "West", in as much as that means anything anymore, won't do anything beyond harsh tweets. They'll do this while ferociously stoking internal dissent in Taiwan until sooner or later a tipping point will be reached.
This is true, as far as it goes (apart from anything else, most of the reduction was before the vaccinations really kicked in).
Not very relevant going forward though - the reason that cases and particularly hospitalisations and deaths haven't started going up as we've eased restrictions is the key thing. And it's not the easing of restrictions that is keeping those down.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
"Boris" and "better Prime Ministers" doesn't work in your sentence. I think you should have used "than" rather than the dash. It still doesn't quite work, but it does make much more sense.
Boris is one of the best Prime Ministers we've had.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
He will certainly transform the UK, but not in the ways you anticipate. Johnson will inevitably now crash the Union and the Economy. If those are positives, he'll be the best ever PM.
Give over, the Union was crashed by Blair's asymmetric devolution, its been an inexorably ratchetting slow-motion car crash ever since.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
Time to go, before your absolute old bollocks drives me mad. Work to do!
I'm going too.
If anyone here has a working answer to the West Lothian Question then I'd be curious to read it when I get back, but I strongly suspect no this is still in the "too difficult, ignore" pile.
Asymmetric devolution has left the Union unhealthy, unstable and ultimately unviable. Unless a solution is found then quite frankly the Union will never survive and needs to be put out of its misery, but that's been increasingly obvious for the past couple of decades.
There is another way in which devolution has been asymmetric. It is treated just as the EU was treated until Brexit: only one direction is allowed. This means that the separatists only have to win once and unionists have to win every time.
There was, is and will be a strong case for one national parliament only for Britain and this should be as much on the agenda as separatism. England should be in the debate and in the vote as to whether or not the present extent of devolved government is too much and too asymmetric.
Exemplary of this has been the pompous differentiation of four nations having complex, prolix and detailed but different regulation and guidance about Covid rules. Outrageous in regard to this has been Scottish free tuition but only for Scots, and paid for as much by the rest of us.
It's pointless even discussing such a policy because it has almost zero public support in both Wales and Scotland, even amongst Conservatives.
This is true, as far as it goes (apart from anything else, most of the reduction was before the vaccinations really kicked in).
Not very relevant going forward though - the reason that cases and particularly hospitalisations and deaths haven't started going up as we've eased restrictions is the key thing. And it's not the easing of restrictions that is keeping those down.
It's stupid messaging though. Idiotic. Lots of people will click on that and think, "okay, so why bother with a vaccination?"
Comments
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
This might see it end up endlessly deferred, but I think the potential for miscalculation, and a Chinese military defeat, is low. Though there is the Vietnam precedent.
All my dreams fulfill
Love me tender, love me, dear
Tell me you are mine
I'll be yours through all the years
'Til the end of time
China was unusual for an authoritarian dictatorship in having devised a way of handling the peaceful transfer of power, but ultimately that system wasn't robust enough to protect itself from an egotist like Xi.
Harry's tribute to his grandfather was a nice one, I thought. I wrote it. Came to me in a flash at about 1:30 am this morning when I was writing the article. I write all my own headlines.
Though Boris also bested Cameron in the EU referendum lets not forget.
Partly because it's a behind-the-scenes thing, and we know that BoJo loves the limelight.
Also, he does have a genuine talent for writing and talking drivel for large amounts of money.
But this does give the PM an interesting dilemma. Business suggests forming a square round the Camster. If nothing else, there's the risk of any scandal causing trouble for current members of the government. But the pleasure in potentially destroying one's lifetime nemesis...
And even though Vietnam was a US defeat, it was a defeat purchased at a truly shattering cost to Vietnam. Between three and four million dead, 700,000 acres of agricultural land destroyed, thousands of cancers and foetal deformities, 20% of tropical rainforests defoliated and left desolate, maybe as much as 40% of mangrove forests, most settlements destroyed, 800,000 tons of unexploded ordnance left even today.
I don’t think Taiwan would go for that kind of strategy even though with its forested mountains a resistance would be theoretically possible.
A bigger concern for China might be that if it didn’t occupy the island quickly fighting would be likely to damage or destroy much of its infrastructure, especially of course israel technical sector.
There has been sufficient margin to absorb a couple of shocks, and several levels of threat from increasingly noisy threats and assertions of dependency from Ursula and the Goon Show, with no changes.
I think it was probably a good tactical decision to go into Purdah for Prince Philip Week, even though they could have avoided it. By the end the rollout should have continued probably on track, whilst UVDL will be deeper in her own quicksand protesting querulously through higher and higher pitched megaphones with running-down batteries.
Perhaps Johnson's electoral strength is such that he makes his opponents look like complete no-hopers?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
The Taiwanese have been preparing for this for 70+ years. Every beach, street, public building and school is set up to provide as big a kill zone as possible. Every adult male is trained.
Short of nuking the island, it can't be taken without vast losses.
This is why it hasn't been attempted. I don't expect it soon.
My current GP seems unable to book me a second dose here in Cumbria because he can't get me into the AccuX booking system - the one which sends you a text inviting you to book - despite me being registered with the practice and no longer with my old practice. The NHS helpline won't help as they're just using AZ vaccines and I can't book centrally as it says I'm not eligible having got my first dose through my previous GP in February, despite having transferred to my current GP in January.
Anyway I have now got my old GP in London to put me on the booking system. Got my invitation yesterday to book in London but there are no slots available.
So am checking three times day and have my bag packed for an urgent drive down to London to get my second Pfizer dose. I hope they really do have enough second doses and I'm not going to miss out.
Apparently a nearby surgery is getting a load of Pfizer doses shortly so I'm going to ring them to see if they'll let me have one. Unlikely but worth a shot.
It's all a teensy bit worrying......
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Similarly, in Taiwan, which has fewer strategic advantages in Vietnam, I don’t see how they could turn back an invasion. It would need to be forestalled somehow. Not impossible, but I think it would be impossible without allies.
The question therefore is whether the Americans would actually fire on a Chinese flotilla. I am guessing the answer is ‘no.’
I personally have no real issues with Cameron's lobbying crossing the line, in much the same way that I wasn't much bothered with the cash- for- honours scandal. It happens, it shouldn't, but it does. Cameron has at least shown some contrition for his behaviour. I am nonetheless concerned by how this Government behaves in terms of nepotism, patronage and who- knows, maybe even brown envelopes. So I have created something of a dilemma for myself, Cameron/Blair corruption is OK, but Johnsonian corruption is not. I think I would answer that by saying the difference is that the former, as I have said, demonstrated at least some remorse for getting caught. Whereas the latter, Johnson's chums, really don't care. Jenrick personifies this re: Desmond.
That is where historic Welsh ( and I guess, Red Wall Labour) enters the fray. They really didn't care. If they were caught, the culprits would do their bird if convicted, and live out their twilight years in their Villas on the Costa Del Crime. I, like you, would like to see Labour lose power in Wales to cleanse the aroma of corruption.
We agree we would like to see the back of tired Old Labour corruption, money wasted on vanity projects and jobs given to the old-boy/girl network. I would then hope to see a resurgence of liberal dynamism from a revitalised Labour in opposition (not that I have seen much of that on the UK scene). I would like to see the dynamism 'promised' by New Labour, and indeed that can't happen from a position of power, shared or otherwise. However, I do have an enormous problem with a change of power in Wales (sans Labour) in the ample form of Andrew R T Davies and the Welsh Conservatives. I fear, hard I know it is to believe, they will be even more corrupt and contemptible that the current incumbents.
I am a big price horse bettor, like most people I am a long term loser. I normally bet 5 or 10 quid each way. I have a losing account with Ladbrokes. At the weekend I had a 28/1 winner and yesterday had a 20/1 winner, both £5e/w.. I can go weeks without a winner, I just had a bit of luck.
Last night I tried to place a bet on a unraced 2 year old in the 1.35 at Newmarket called Fourshadesofsilver at the advertised price of 33/1. My reasoning for backing it was that it has the same sire (Ardad, who is in his first season) as the 150/1 first time out 2 year old winner yesterday. Ladbrokes refused to take the bet.
What sort of Gambling Industry do we have in this Country when a company with a multi billion pound turnover like Ladbrokes can refuse to take a £5e/w bet on a race at Flat Racings HQ in Newmarket. It s an absolutely ridiculous situation
I’m gubbed from well over 50 bookmakers.
Practical advice: try betfair or smarkets (or their app, “sbk”)
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
Wilson was a reasonably effective PM and spent much of his retirement on a not particularly high pension at his modest home on the Scilly Isles, he had little interest in money making, same with Attlee who was also pretty effective even if you disagreed with his policies
Today from Sofia, Bulgaria: Health Minister Angelov announced that the country’s roll-out of the #AstraZeneca vaccine may be discontinued due to lack of interest. In the last 24 hrs., only 154 doses of the vaccine have been delivered."
https://twitter.com/EURACTIV/status/1381910071991472132
And you think there is some kind of special ability in making Jezza look like an idiot (although as @Philip_Thompson has noted, not a no-hoper)?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/03/politicalnews.london
The 2008 London Mayoral election is the first one I won money betting on from tips from OGH, but Boris was very much the underdog early on not the overwhelming favourite.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/11/why-lynton-crosby-will-encourage-me-to-bet-on-boris/
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/03/01/is-boris-about-to-become-favourite-for-mayor/
Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage.
Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are.
Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
If you take the last couple of winning PMs, Blair and Cameron, they both started projecting that sunny optimism. 1992 Major had a lovely smile. But the sunshine gradually faded as reality hit, compromises were made with reality and the effect of getting things wrong hit home.
The Boris difference is to just ignore all that, so that the sunshine continues. My working assumption thus far has been that nobody can be that hollow indefinitely. And that the fall of Boris will be a sudden shattering rather than an accumulation of dents and scratches. Maybe ten years time, maybe ten minutes.
But maybe Boris has hit on disconnecting his moral compass as a winning formula. There's a hideous logic there, and he's not unique in doing it.
When the fall comes it will be swift and brutal. Whether that comes before the next GE is open for debate. In some respects Johnson having to carry the can for the economic aftermath of his Covid spending, both reasonable and profligate might be poetic justice. I am now expecting a spending led economic boom, before everyone runs out of borrowed money, and the inevitable bust.
It’s just my view based on public information and my read of the situation. Feel free to ignore me if you want to do so, although the fact that you are so defensive suggests I may be reading things right.
I’ve no idea whether the Mirror story is correct or not - but I don’t have the time or energy to fact check every story from a mainstream publication.
Compare the incoherence and incompetence we had under Theresa May when it came to dealing with Europe and prior Prime Ministers before her too. Whether you like or loathe what Boris has achieved, there's little doubt that he has got stuff done in a way that previous Prime Ministers failed to do so.
The 2017-19 Parliament especially was chronically awful. Boris has put that behind us with aplomb and achieved the goals he set out to achieve. You may dislike his goals, but he got them done.
When all is said and done I think Boris will be in the Top 3 post-war Prime Ministers for transforming the country after Thatcher and Attlee (I'm excluding Churchill as his achievements were more during the war than post-war).
Boris may ultimately have an "Iraq moment" that tarnishes his legacy, but there's surely little doubt that Boris has already earned his spot in the history books.
Of my lifetime I'd put Boris as the second-best Prime Minister we've had: Thatcher > Boris > Dave > Blair > Major > Brown (as PM, worst Chancellor of my lifetime) > May.
A year ago I said I was unsure whether Boris would end up ahead of or behind Dave on the list, but now there's little doubt in my mind, barring unforeseen shocks.
On the Covid pandemic his record has been mixed, he probably locked down too late but has got the vaccinations right
Blair achieved far more in Labour's first term post 1997 in terms of legislation. Of course Blair didn't have COVID to deal with but that's part and parcel of the job.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-stayed-as-doesnt-23900436
We opt regularly for the system in which we can kick them out when it is time for a change; where that small number of chancers willing to risk all and break the rules are allowed to have a go; where the state does stuff and covers it up, and where relative protection is given to some very risky elites who sometimes deliver and sometimes not etc.
Real change makers and risk takers by and large don't do this for charity or the public good. The state is a huge market and pays its bills. Chancers and risk takers want a stake in it.
The issue, as always, is not whether it is perfect - plainly it isn't. The issue is can we deliver what it delivers better? China anyone? Venezuela? Corbyn?
By getting a trade deal with the EU however he has reduced the impact of Brexit on the economy and Scottish independence polls are still about 50% Yes 50% No
More to the point, the way he shaped it is little short of catastrophic, with dire long-term, consequences for the economy and the Union. On that basis alone, he'll go down as the worst PM since the war, and that's without even mentioning his mismanagement of Covid-19, which has cost tens of thousands of lives. The vaccine procurement and roll out is the only thing in his favour, albeit quite a big one.
But you speak about it being early but Blair kind of makes the point, Blair had some ideas early on (though many of them were ultimately destructive, like asymmetric devolution which he really f**ked up on). But what did Blair achieve of significant note in his second or third term? Even forgetting Iraq, Blair went from transformative to managerial and doing little other than getting Brown to flash the cash.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
I don’t know about the pharmacist advance payment scheme but that’s pretty marginal (would be surprised if the government needed it although if there was a working capital requirement for the sector it could be easier to do that than to just accelerate payments on the system)
A new punditry for a new politics. I am no longer alone and I couldn't ask for a better initial companion. Soon there will be many on the train but I will not forget who was sitting next to me as we first pulled out of the station.
Choo choo!
The Domestic Abuse Bill may be a good start.
At work (where believe it or not I am now- unproductively on my own in the office) I see the ramifications of Johnson's deal, as we do on the nightly news from South Belfast.
Fifty years on still nobody has an answer to the West Lothian Question. Blair destroyed the Union, its on life-support but unless some serious answers are thought of, soon, Boris is just a bit player in that story. There are no answers that reconcile the conflicting priorities of asymmetric devolution, which Tam Dalyell warned everyone about half a century ago.
If anyone here has a working answer to the West Lothian Question then I'd be curious to read it when I get back, but I strongly suspect no this is still in the "too difficult, ignore" pile.
Asymmetric devolution has left the Union unhealthy, unstable and ultimately unviable. Unless a solution is found then quite frankly the Union will never survive and needs to be put out of its misery, but that's been increasingly obvious for the past couple of decades.
However that was the price of Boris getting his hard Brexit for GB and his trade deal with the EU
Prefer what I do now. Very selective punting and with a focus on politics (often aided by info and insight gleaned and refined from the back & forth on here).
It was fine for the 2000s when you had labour and labour, but it was a one way track and rise for the SNP all the way through from 2007 onwards.
This wasn't just a Tory or Johnson problem, it's been coming for a long long time.
It didn't have to be this way.
However if in 2024 England votes for Boris but the UK votes for Starmer thanks to SNP and Welsh Labour MPs (which is possible) then the West Lothian question will be back with a vengeance
Re the pharmacists scheme, there seems to have been no real need for it other than to allow Greensill to get something which, like you, I expect they would have leveraged into something else, likely something dodgy. And that's why it is so important for government to take care when giving its imprimatur to third parties.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
I am surprised their limit is a blanket one and prevented me from more than £3 e/w on the Grand National. They're supposed to be these technology-driven beings.
Plus, PP limits me way more than BF Sportsbook, despite them sharing a back-end.
There was, is and will be a strong case for one national parliament only for Britain and this should be as much on the agenda as separatism. England should be in the debate and in the vote as to whether or not the present extent of devolved government is too much and too asymmetric.
Exemplary of this has been the pompous differentiation of four nations having complex, prolix and detailed but different regulation and guidance about Covid rules. Outrageous in regard to this has been Scottish free tuition but only for Scots, and paid for as much by the rest of us.
Clearly, this is all your own collective fault. If you'd adopted my strategy of making losing bets more frequently then you wouldn't have restricted stakes.
Other federal structures work because no individual "state" within the federation can dominate on its own.
Simply England is too big and too important not to dominate the UK. So either Scotland etc are integrated as part of one United Kingdom and the difference between Scotland and England is relatively erased (pre-devolution), or simply Scotland etc are forced to accept themselves as junior partners of the union playing second-fiddle to England.
And Scotland, quite rightly, is too big and too proud to play second-fiddle.
If there was another way for it to be, why hasn't anyone come up with the answer by now? Dalyell warned about what would happen before many of this site including myself were even born and still there's a vacuum in solutions. Because it has to be this way. Because it is this way.
But what if a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously?
Not very relevant going forward though - the reason that cases and particularly hospitalisations and deaths haven't started going up as we've eased restrictions is the key thing. And it's not the easing of restrictions that is keeping those down.