General British politics discussion thread

j8wk2feszrnpao

golfball37 wrote: »

The reaction to this is quite fascinating. A guy breaks a soft law akin to running a red light at 4am with nobody on the road, all to visit elderly parents and the world wants his head.
I wish we were as good at demanding accountability from our own unelected civil servants but won’t hold my breath

How many times do you need to be told he's not a civil servant?

This is why so many politicians, their ilk and the likes of Cummings do these pathetic statements; there's always gullible people out there who'll buy any sort of excuse.

moon2

golfball37 wrote: »

The reaction to this is quite fascinating. A guy breaks a soft law akin to running a red light at 4am with nobody on the road, all to visit elderly parents and the world wants his head.

Many people were locked at home, much to their detriment, and he continued on as normal doing whatever he felt like.

What do you think would have happened were everyone to have the same selfish "I'll do whatever I feel like" mentality. It's quite easy to understand why people want him gone. It's nothing like running a red light at 4am

fash

moon2 wrote: »

Many people were locked at home, much to their detriment, and he continued on as normal doing whatever he felt like.

What do you think would have happened were everyone to have the same selfish "I'll do whatever I feel like" mentality. It's quite easy to understand why people want him gone. It's nothing like running a red light at 4am

It's the cover up for the clear illegality coupled with the feigned outrage at the much lesser illegality of Dr Ferguson that is the issue.
Had he put his hand up, apologised and paid a fine, there wouldn't be an issue. Instead this is just another opportunity for the UK to walk away from the rule of law - see the UK's attorney general for more outrageous behaviour.
A corrupt and fallen state.

Joe_ Public

Interesting discussion on sarah mcinerney show just there, didnt catch name of guys on, two uk political strategists, but discussion moved on from Cummings future to Johnsons future. I'm not sure we're there yet, but that's where this is going for sure. One more mistake after this, one of them said, and that would be it. One thing for sure, anyone who ever wanted to credit Johnson with a certain level of intelligence needs to think again. Judging the public mood is elementary politics. Johnson doesn't even have a grasp of the basics.

LuckyLloyd

Polling today indicates Johnson has lost 20 points in approval rates over the scandal. 59% of the electorate now believe Cummings should resign, up from 52% before yesterday’s briefing. That includes 46% of Tory voters (46% believe he should stay) and 52% of leave voters.

First rule of PR: do something quickly if you’re going to have to do it eventually.

BonnieSituation

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Polling today indicates Johnson has lost 20 points in approval rates over the scandal. 59% of the electorate now believe Cummings should resign, up from 52% before yesterday’s briefing. That includes 46% of Tory voters (46% believe he should stay) and 52% of leave voters.

First rule of PR: do something quickly if you’re going to have to do it eventually.

Yup!

Any rational observer of this crapshow since Friday has seen every opportunity for salvation just fritter away.

Now he has to deal with it again tomorrow at the liaison committee.

And it's only 1530 on a Tuesday. More left in the day yet.

It's going to have to reach a crescendo and he'll be gone by tomorrow surely?

devnull

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yup!

Any rational observer of this crapshow since Friday has seen every opportunity for salvation just fritter away.

Now he has to deal with it again tomorrow at the liaison committee.

And it's only 1530 on a Tuesday. More left in the day yet.

It's going to have to reach a crescendo and he'll be gone by tomorrow surely?

The Whips are excluding people from the liaison committee now apparently.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

The Whips are excluding people from the liaison committee now apparently.

After their tin pot stunt to appoint Bernard Jenkin as committee chairman last week, there are no depths to which they'll stoop. By my count there are at least 5 tory members of the committee who have publicly called on Cummings to go. This latest stunt could easily backfire.

PommieBast

fash wrote: »

It's the cover up for the clear illegality coupled with the feigned outrage at the much lesser illegality of Dr Ferguson that is the issue.
Had he put his hand up, apologised and paid a fine, there wouldn't be an issue. Instead this is just another opportunity for the UK to walk away from the rule of law - see the UK's attorney general for more outrageous behaviour.
A corrupt and fallen state.

The writing was on the wall with R v Huhne back in 2013. I stopped paying attention to the rot after that.

BonnieSituation

Joe_ Public wrote: »

After their tin pot stunt to appoint Bernard Jenkin as committee chairman last week, there are no depths to which they'll stoop. By my count there are at least 5 tory members of the committee who have publicly called on Cummings to go. This latest stunt could easily backfire.

Well, given how they've made ALL the right moves thus far...

Headshot

Anyone notice Matt Hancock not giving journalists follow up questions from their 1st question as he doesn't like 1st one

BonnieSituation

Liaison Committee starts at 4pm Wednesday 27th May and you can catch it here:

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8e8e5214-346d-4be8-adf7-addfc839ff6d

---

This means that there will be a whole day done practically before Boris sits down. Should make it interesting anyway.

Seems that the following will be in attendance:
Clive Betts, Greg Clark, Yvette Cooper, Stephen Crabb, Robert Halfon, Meg Hillier, Simon Hoare, Jeremy Hunt, Darren Jones, Huw Merriman, Caroline Nokes, Mel Stride, Stephen Timms, Pete Wishart with Bernard Jenkin chairing

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52808059
Coronavirus: Why did Dominic Cummings say he predicted it?
It seems on the day Cummings returned to work one of his priorities was to edit a blog from a year before to insert a reference to Coronavirus.

I don't see why he would have bothered, or what he hoped to achieve from it.

Joe_ Public

I wonder did anyone check whether he went back and erased the passages where he'd discussed the benefits of herd immunity. As to why he did it, who knows. Did he not imagine people have ways of checking things like this very quickly? A deep great outside the box thinker like him shoulda seen that one coming (no pun intended).

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wonder did anyone check whether he went back and erased the passages where he'd discussed the benefits of herd immunity. As to why he did it, who knows. Did he not imagine people have ways of checking things like this very quickly? A deep great outside the box thinker like him shoulda seen that one coming (no pun intended).

I can only imagine he did it to drop into conversations to "read my blog" " I predicted this a long time ago" - to build his mystique (SNIP. No insults please.) to those he talks with.

He wasn't expecting someone to use the way back machine though - possibly wasn't aware of it.
I'm sure it works better when you are telling people at parties just how great you are - people might go as far as checking your blog - but unlikely to go so far as to check the way back machine. Doing it on national TV was a step too far.
If my hypothesis is accurate, then I suspect he's changed a lot of his blog posts after the fact.

BonnieSituation

So let's say he didn't change the blog posts right.
So is he saying that this was entirely predictable and he did the sweet sum of FA to get ahead of it.

There's no "good" side to this. SNIP. No insults please.

An Ciarraioch

The present situation is rather similar to 1992, in that Labour doesn't have to do anything itself in order to improve in the polls, rather just remain silent and let the Tories implode by themselves. Of course, whether the anger will last is unclear yet, but if trust has been permanently damaged, Starmer could ultimately end up in power by default.

blackwhite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The present situation is rather similar to 1992, in that Labour doesn't have to do anything itself in order to improve in the polls, rather just remain silent and let the Tories implode by themselves. Of course, whether the anger will last is unclear yet, but if trust has been permanently damaged, Starmer could ultimately end up in power by default.

The Tories have the numbers to tough it out for 5 years until they're forced into an election.

Still a long time for the party to see sense and throw BJ aside - although I'm not convinced they've the sense to do so.

Remember that this time 5 years ago the date for the Brexit Referendum hadn't even been announced - 5 years is a long time in politics.

BonnieSituation

blackwhite wrote: »

The Tories have the numbers to tough it out for 5 years until they're forced into an election.

Still a long time for the party to see sense and throw BJ aside - although I'm not convinced they've the sense to do so.

Remember that this time 5 years ago the date for the Brexit Referendum hadn't even been announced - 5 years is a long time in politics.

They really don't.

The majority while large in parliament, is pretty tenuous when it comes to vote differentials.

Add that to the fact that these were "lent" votes to "Get Brexit Done" so they can't rely on that cohort again, you have a situation that the economy is going to be up the creek soon enough, that if the Tories do change leader, then that will be three times in a row they've changed midstream as it were, so an election will naturally follow.

Scotland have Parliamentary elections next May and the Tories are going to get torn asunder there and so pressure will start to mount from then on.

This is all assuming that NOTHING else happens between now and then.

So yeah, this constant talk about having a solid majority to work with between now and 2024 is nonsense.

blackwhite

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They really don't.

The majority while large in parliament, is pretty tenuous when it comes to vote differentials.

Add that to the fact that these were "lent" votes to "Get Brexit Done" so they can't rely on that cohort again, you have a situation that the economy is going to be up the creek soon enough, that if the Tories do change leader, then that will be three times in a row they've changed midstream as it were, so an election will naturally follow.

Scotland have Parliamentary elections next May and the Tories are going to get torn asunder there and so pressure will start to mount from then on.

This is all assuming that NOTHING else happens between now and then.

So yeah, this constant talk about having a solid majority to work with between now and 2024 is nonsense.

They've a 39 seat majority - how they did or didn't win those seats is beside the point until the next election. It's the most seats a governing party in UK has won since Blair's Labour in the 2001 election.

The only way an election happens before 2024 is if there's a huge split in the Tories, or if the Tory leadership see it as politically advantageous to themselves.

Given BJ's bumbling to date, and the strength of Starmer as leader of the opposition, the Tories won't be voting for an early election unless there's massive changes.

Brexit looked like the only thing capable of splitting them, but the last election seems to have *relatively* united the CONs in that regard.

If Starmer is going to win an election, then it won't be until 2024 - the only path to an early election is the Tories thinking that they'll end up in a similar or better position to now, otherwise they'll hang on for as long as they can.



The Scottish elections won't make a significant difference to the Tories - now more than ever they are the party of England - despite what they may say. They got 22% in the last Scottish elections, and 25% in Scotland in December's general election. They'll hover around the 17-22% range in the next Scottish elections.

Galling as it is, and as incompetent as they are, they're in position to tough out the full term if they want to.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They really don't.

The majority while large in parliament, is pretty tenuous when it comes to vote differentials.

Add that to the fact that these were "lent" votes to "Get Brexit Done" so they can't rely on that cohort again, you have a situation that the economy is going to be up the creek soon enough, that if the Tories do change leader, then that will be three times in a row they've changed midstream as it were, so an election will naturally follow.

Scotland have Parliamentary elections next May and the Tories are going to get torn asunder there and so pressure will start to mount from then on.

This is all assuming that NOTHING else happens between now and then.

So yeah, this constant talk about having a solid majority to work with between now and 2024 is nonsense.

Remember when Tony Blair won, it was 'The Son wot dunnit!'

The Tories just need to lose the Tory press and they will not last long. They will lose the local councils, and the devolved assemblies, and the clamour will become deafening.

The House of Lords could also turn against them.

Rjd2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The present situation is rather similar to 1992, in that Labour doesn't have to do anything itself in order to improve in the polls, rather just remain silent and let the Tories implode by themselves. Of course, whether the anger will last is unclear yet, but if trust has been permanently damaged, Starmer could ultimately end up in power by default.

Election won't be for for 4 years unless the tories get bored and decide to call one. This Cummings saga won't matter to Joe Bloggs then, Boris is making a punt that what they achieve will decide their fate and whether they level up the country like they promised.

May only called an election as she felt she needed a bigger majority for Brexit and felt Corbyn was useless, Boris demanded one as he did not have the numbers to do ought and he fancied a go at Jez. Their is no interest in an election in the tory ranks so their won't be one until 2023 at earliest.

L1011

If Johnson goes the Tories could actually tear themselves apart over electing another leader and the potential for there to be leakage to a nuKIP/Brexit Party style situation when its clear that they aren't getting the deal/no deal they were promised.

Lemming

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Tories just need to lose the Tory press and they will not last long. They will lose the local councils, and the devolved assemblies, and the clamour will become deafening.

The local elections aren't all done in one go, so there'll be rounds of elections in between now and the next general election, and at which they will most likely get absolutely mauled given the governments appalling "performance" regards Covid-19. Such local electoral carnage would have an effect on making sitting MPs nervous for their seats, who in turn will start biting at the party leadership out of simple self-preservation if nothing else more commendable.

Headshot

Just watched the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons meeting where BJ was asked numerous questions on Cummings

BJ was destroyed, he waffled so much.

L1011

Lemming wrote: »

The local elections aren't all done in one go, so there'll be rounds of elections in between now and the next general election, and at which they will most likely get absolutely mauled given the governments appalling "performance" regards Covid-19. Such local electoral carnage would have an effect on making sitting MPs nervous for their seats, who in turn will start biting at the party leadership out of simple self-preservation if nothing else more commendable.

There was meant to be a round three weeks ago today. Obviously didn't happen.

This creates a mega-election in May 2021

kowloon

I thought Cummings was the visionary who understood the web, yet he didn't know people could see an edit?

BonnieSituation

blackwhite wrote: »

They've a 39 seat majority - how they did or didn't win those seats is beside the point until the next election. It's the most seats a governing party in UK has won since Blair's Labour in the 2001 election.

It absolutely does matter how they have those seats. It means that MPs in those seats (Red Wall etc) will be quite nervous over gaffes such as this week's brainfart which are inevitable with a talentless crowd in charge.

Support from those backbenchers will be very cagey for contentious votes.

The only way an election happens before 2024 is if there's a huge split in the Tories, or if the Tory leadership see it as politically advantageous to themselves.

Not at all. This govt was NEVER getting to an election in 2024. I'll be shocked if there's not one by the end of 2022 at the latest.

Given BJ's bumbling to date, and the strength of Starmer as leader of the opposition, the Tories won't be voting for an early election unless there's massive changes.

As we saw with how the last GE came about, the FTP Act is as good as useless. An election will happen when it happens because it will be too hard to ignore the clamour. It was ever thus.

Brexit looked like the only thing capable of splitting them, but the last election seems to have *relatively* united the CONs in that regard.

They aren't at all united and could never hope to be. Watch as the Brexit pressure ramps up over the next few weeks as the deadline comes shuttering into view.

If Starmer is going to win an election, then it won't be until 2024 - the only path to an early election is the Tories thinking that they'll end up in a similar or better position to now, otherwise they'll hang on for as long as they can.

Starmer will win the next GE. No question. It will be before 2024.

The Scottish elections won't make a significant difference to the Tories - now more than ever they are the party of England - despite what they may say. They got 22% in the last Scottish elections, and 25% in Scotland in December's general election. They'll hover around the 17-22% range in the next Scottish elections.

The Scottish Elections like all the English locals next year merely add pressure. On their own they don't mean much to the Tories, but they show a trend and the tories are going to get walloped all over the place next May.

Galling as it is, and as incompetent as they are, they're in position to tough out the full term if they want to.

They aren't.

BonnieSituation

Rjd2 wrote: »

Election won't be for for 4 years unless the tories get bored and decide to call one. This Cummings saga won't matter to Joe Bloggs then, Boris is making a punt that what they achieve will decide their fate and whether they level up the country like they promised.

Sagas like this one just open sores that fester. The next time there's something that happens where the govt look out of touch, it will be added to the "Cummings-pile". And we all know that this government is very capable of having more crises like this.

May only called an election as she felt she needed a bigger majority for Brexit and felt Corbyn was useless, Boris demanded one as he did not have the numbers to do ought and he fancied a go at Jez. Their is no interest in an election in the tory ranks so their won't be one until 2023 at earliest.

Of course there is no interest from a Tory POV, but events dear boy, events.

Lemming

L1011 wrote: »

There was meant to be a round three weeks ago today. Obviously didn't happen.

This creates a mega-election in May 2021

It varies by city & region; as does the number of seats for a given area. For example, Sheffield city council's last round of elections was last year, and given there were no unexpected issues regarding seats (e.g. death, retirement, stepping down for whatever reason, etc.), there were no planned elections (that I am aware of at least) that have had to be cancelled with the next election for the city region being 2021 more than likely. But yes, for those cities or regions where elections have been halted due to Covid-19, it'll all get rolled up to create a monster set of local elections, adding more pressure on the government.