General British politics discussion thread

J Mysterio

breezy1985 wrote: »

Massive over simplification there. The UKs Covid response was shocking and lead the UK to have some of the highest death rates in Europe and for a time were posting some of the highest cases in the world.

Despite this - worst deaths in Europe etc. - the perception on the street seems to be that the UK made a major 'success' of dealing with Covid. In particular with the vaccine rollout, which has of course been erroneously conflated with Brexit as a 'Brexit benefit'.

breezy1985

J Mysterio wrote: »

Despite this - worst deaths in Europe etc. - the perception on the street seems to be that the UK made a major 'success' of dealing with Covid. In particular with the vaccine rollout, which has of course been erroneously conflated with Brexit as a 'Brexit benefit'.

People on the street wont care I agree but that doesnt mean it should be ok the regurgitate the lies on forums

blackwhite

I saw a comment on twitter from Brian Moore (the former rugby player) that summed up why it's likely that the Cummings testimony won't actually do a whole lot to hurt Boris with the electorate.

https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1397666484646821890?s=20

Firstly - there's those who this simply reconfirms that they had already believed about Boris, so it doesn't actually change anything.

Secondly - Cummings showed himself to be a self-serving liar throughout his career to date. Anything he says needs to be viewed through that prism, and with the knowledge that he will still be pushing whatever narrative is best for Cummings and Cummings alone.
Boris fans who want to bury their heads in the sand will simply use that as a reason to discount anything negative that he has to say about Boris (in the same way they find a reason to ignore all the other negatives as well).

rock22

breezy1985 wrote: »

People on the street wont care I agree but that doesnt mean it should be ok the regurgitate the lies on forums

My intention was not to 'regurgitate the lies on forums' but rather to reflect on the 'important points ' as identified by BBC and Guardian. Of course i left out the detail, that's what a summary is.

If Cummings was a more trusted and well regarded source then his views and opinions could hurt Johnson. But to many people, myself included, they are both cast in the same mould and i wouldn't trust either. A previous poster described Cummings as a parasite need a new host and I think it sums it up .

I agree UK were very slow to react and the idea of herd immunity was openly talked about. But they did change their plans. Out ideas here were to ignore Covid and do nothing, for instance not banning travel from the main European hot spot to see a rugby match. And Johnson resisted a second lockdown but do i need to remind you that we continued with opening up for Christmas when it was clear rules were being broken and the virus was spreading.
If the UK public and released from lockdown before most of Europe then the Covid strategy will be seen as a success for Johnson.

No doubt Johnson will meet his political end , and hopefully soon. Brexit will almost certainly unravel and the UK will gradually lose its ' soft power' and influence. But I don't think the musings of a sacked advisor , who himself lied during the first lockdown and breached rules, will ultimately cause him so much damage. If the worst comes to the worst, he might sack Hancock.

If Cummings has shown himself to be a self-serving liar throughout his career, what does that suggest of Boris Johnson's decision to hire him, and also 'go out to bat for him' during the Barnard Castle nonsense?

Tell me how

Just listened to the BBC Podcast 'Newscast' (formerly Brexitcast) where they discussed Cummings appearance at the committee.
Chief Analyst, along with the host was........... Laura Kuenssberg. Unsurprisingly, they didn't mention how her name was referenced in his evidence or the role she played in the communication between Government and the public over the last year.
A couple of things come to mind having listened to this and read other comments about it online over the last couple of days (I didn't see the appearance live or haven't heard any other analysis about it).

Laura didn't necessarily pin blame on either Dominic or Johnson in her analysis of who was at fault for anything that had happened.
Another massive elephant in the room, which unsurprisingly everyone has ignored, is that so much of Cummings work with Vote Leave and the narrative around Brexit was about the influence of unelected people and here is an unelected advisor talking how he basically was trying to run government and declaring whether or not Johnson should be in the job and advising that the Health Secretary should be fired.

Generally speaking, it seems that this will probably not be a fatal blow to this government given that they have such an overwhelming majority. Matt Hancock will probably be sacrificed at some point in order to draw a line under it and as others have said, the review as to what actually happened over the last year will probably be more of a PR exercise rather than a more detailed enquiry.
Mike Ferrari who is a very pro-Tory voice was asking the question this morning 'If it should be time to stop looking backwards' and on that podcast, there wasn't even a hint of this being enough to do serious damage.
I joked at the time of Brexit that in a few months, Johnson might be the head of the UK government and Trump head of the US' and that ultimately came about and then both have been unquestionably shown to have been incapable of performing their roles appropriately at a time of the biggest global health crisis in 100 years and yet so many look at these facts and still insist that they are the right people for the job (Johnson to stay where he is and Trump to get back in in 2024). I find that incredible I must say.

Peregrinus

Cummings is hoist on his own petard.

Suddenly, he's the one accusing others of dishonesty and lack of integrity. He not only needs MPs to believe him about Johnson, Hancock, etc (which, privately at any rate, they will do readily enough); he also needs it to matter that the government and its members lie, lack integrity, lack basic competence.

But these things don't matter any more, in large part because of the political culture that Cummings helped to create. He worked to elimiate any need for truthfulness in politics. And now, when he needs there to be a sense that truthfulness matters, that sense is nowhere to be found.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Cummings is hoist on his own petard.

Suddenly, he's the one accusing others of dishonesty and lack of integrity. He not only needs MPs to believe him about Johnson, Hancock, etc (which, privately at any rate, they will do readily enough); he also needs it to matter that the government and its members lie, lack integrity, lack basic competence.

But these things don't matter any more, in large part because of the political culture that Cummings helped to create. He worked to elimiate any need for truthfulness in politics. And now, when he needs there to be a sense that truthfulness matters, that sense is nowhere to be found.

It is also true of Hancock - Cummins accused him of continuous lying, and Hancock comes out saying he did not lie.

That is the Bart Simpson defence 'I didn't do it, no-one saw me!'

Strazdas

Excellent article in the Guardian today from Marina Hyde where she speaks of Johnson being a cult leader with many millions of disciples for whom he can do no wrong.

It's a dangerous place for Britain to be though. We've seen from history that this nearly always ends badly.

Tell me how

Johnson once again proving to be teflon coated.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1398283721741066241

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1398295539649818627

Meanwhile, today he is entertaining Viktor Orban at Downing Street. David Davis said a few years ago that after Brexit, the first call would not be to the EU but to Berlin. The reality, as we've seen thousands of times, is very different.

Leroy42

As crazy as it sounds to most people I actually believe the line that Johnson simply did not know that a donor had paid for the redecoration.

Johnson would have completely believed that the state would look after it. So why would he even question where the money actually came from, he was never going to pay either way.

It why is is completely believable from Cummins that on a day in the midst of the Covid crisis, Johnson GF was demanding that the Press secretary deal with a story she didn't like about their dog. As far as they are concerned, the state works for them.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

As crazy as it sounds to most people I actually believe the line that Johnson simply did not know that a donor had paid for the redecoration.

Johnson would have completely believed that the state would look after it. So why would he even question where the money actually came from, he was never going to pay either way.

It why is is completely believable from Cummins that on a day in the midst of the Covid crisis, Johnson GF was demanding that the Press secretary deal with a story she didn't like about their dog. As far as they are concerned, the state works for them.

True to a certain extent, but a responsible politician would be on top of the detail.

It's more the case that he is useless, inept, not a details man, vacuous and totally unfit for the job (just as Cummings says). It's definitely fascinating to watch though - the millions of Tory voters and the Tory press have wedded themselves in a slavish fashion to probably the worst PM in history.

I don't think there is any parallel in Irish political history. Haughey was corrupt and greedy but had plenty of ability and was a serious enough politician. Johnson is just a spoofer / liar and winging his way through a job he's not remotely cut out for.

dublin49

its probably true Johnston was unaware how the bill was to be sorted,but not in a benign way,just his inbred sense of entitlement that he could rely on the his rich friends to sort this trifling with nothing asked for or committed in return,wink,wink nod nod

He doesn't own the place and he could be out of the job tomorrow and lose access to it. I don't know why any PM would be expected to pay. Is it budgeted for but this donor added more on top?

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He doesn't own the place and he could be out of the job tomorrow and lose access to it. I don't know why any PM would be expected to pay. Is it budgeted for but this donor added more on top?

He wanted to change it. The place is maintained by the state. Do you expect your landlord to pay to redesign your apartment or office?

The PM is, apparently, unable to understand the difference between available budget and actual costs. It appears he was unable to control his own spending, instead assuming that someone else will pay it.

No idea who or how. They are not the sort of qualities you want in a PM.

But it sets the tone. No CS or ministers can now be held to account for overspending. Sure they simply didn't understand the budget and didn't realise the real costs and the taxpayer will pay regardless!

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

As crazy as it sounds to most people I actually believe the line that Johnson simply did not know that a donor had paid for the redecoration.

Johnson would have completely believed that the state would look after it. So why would he even question where the money actually came from, he was never going to pay either way.

It why is is completely believable from Cummins that on a day in the midst of the Covid crisis, Johnson GF was demanding that the Press secretary deal with a story she didn't like about their dog. As far as they are concerned, the state works for them.

That may be believable but how then does one random Tory donor suddenly receive the full bill details from the suppliers of the refurbishment.

It's nonsense. He knows full well how stuff works and has many wheels greased. Believing this is buying into his cultivated personality of being a silly loveable rogue.

This lad knew who was paying and why, the same way he knows who paid for his holiday which still hasn't fully come out.


It's all cash for favours folks.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He doesn't own the place and he could be out of the job tomorrow and lose access to it. I don't know why any PM would be expected to pay. Is it budgeted for but this donor added more on top?

There's an allowance of £30,000 annually for the flat's upkeep which would seem generous enough to most people, I'd suggest. And the inverse is also valid, why the need to spend so lavishly on a space you could be removed from any day? At one stage they were reportedly seeking to establish a charity so that members of the public could contribute to the cost. I imagine the wealthy patron stepped forward at that point and the whole thing was "looked after". It's good to be the king, as the saying goes.

Cal4567

Certainly does seem it is a cash for favours culture and a blatant disregard for riding roughshod over systems in place to redecorate rooms for new incumbents of office.

The loveable rogue persona is wearing a bit thin now for Johnson. He is still milking it though and knows it still works with a weak opposition. It probably has some legs in it though.

If he is so poor, people should be looking beyond what Guardian columnists are writing, and try and ascertain why the Tories have a solid voting cohort.

Leroy42

Cal4567 wrote: »

Certainly does seem it is a cash for favours culture and a blatant disregard for riding roughshod over systems in place to redecorate rooms for new incumbents of office.

The loveable rogue persona is wearing a bit thin now for Johnson. He is still milking it though and knows it still works with a weak opposition. It probably has some legs in it though.

If he is so poor, people should be looking beyond what Guardian columnists are writing, and try and ascertain why the Tories have a solid voting cohort.

We know why. A very solid backing from the media is a key component. FPTP voting system is another. Weak opposition is another, although that only exacerbates the gap rather than creates it.

Uniformed, and largely uninterested or apathetic, voters help seal the deal.

Ellian

Mark Blyth made an interesting point the other day. Basically that at least as far as UK politics goes, in very broad strokes of the brush the Tory Party has more options available to it in terms of surviving and staying in power. They have strategies while the Left tends to be more principled - at least in the sense of having political beliefs. Right now, the Tories have adopted or are promising to adopt quite a lot of lefty politics. Huge amounts of borrowing for the furlough scheme, promising huge amounts of investment in the north of the country. If they follow through (or at least give the appearance of doing so) and fiscally go left, while at the same time culturally staying to the right ( on things like the so called cancel culture and immigration) then Labour have nowhere to go. They are boxed in.

ancapailldorcha

Ellian wrote: »

Mark Blyth made an interesting point the other day. Basically that at least as far as UK politics goes, in very broad strokes of the brush the Tory Party has more options available to it in terms of surviving and staying in power. They have strategies while the Left tends to be more principled - at least in the sense of having political beliefs. Right now, the Tories have adopted or are promising to adopt quite a lot of lefty politics. Huge amounts of borrowing for the furlough scheme, promising huge amounts of investment in the north of the country. If they follow through (or at least give the appearance of doing so) and fiscally go left, while at the same time culturally staying to the right ( on things like the so called cancel culture and immigration) then Labour have nowhere to go. They are boxed in.

Labour do have one avenue to expand in, the southeast. They made some surprising gains there recently. Should the Tories pivot too far to the left economically then it opens an avenue for expansion there with voters who may feel that the Tories are splurging too much as they were warned that Corbyn's Labour would. This has been done before with Blair so it is not unthinkable.

Joe_ Public

The one aspect of Cummings' testimony that could be damaging is the care home situation which everyone knows was a fiasco from the beginning. A public inquiry would almost certainly throw up a litany of shocking neglect and decision making and it may prove tough for them to keep delaying it. Anytime over the next 2 years would spell trouble for them. It's also connected to the wider social care problem which terrifies them because they know they can't keep putting it off and addressing it means abandoning their perennial no income tax rises pledge as well as cuts in other areas too. That's the one single area I'd be concentrating on if i were in starmers shoes. Social care is what cost May a majority in 2017, it affects tory voters more than any other cohort. If they have an achilles heel, that is it.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It's also connected to the wider social care problem which terrifies them because they know they can't keep putting it off and addressing it means abandoning their perennial no income tax rises pledge as well as cuts in other areas too. That's the one single area I'd be concentrating on if i were in starmers shoes. Social care is what cost May a majority in 2017, it affects tory voters more than any other cohort. If they have an achilles heel, that is it.

It's not even that they'd have to abandon core principles to do that. All they'd have to do is take up their One Nation policies and stop being the Nasty Party.

It's crazy when the ERG / Right Wing / Me Feinners have such a hold on the party that moving back to where they were seems unthinkable.

Cal4567

Leroy42 wrote: »

We know why. A very solid backing from the media is a key component. FPTP voting system is another. Weak opposition is another, although that only exacerbates the gap rather than creates it.

Uniformed, and largely uninterested or apathetic, voters help seal the deal.

Your last point could be used here as well, and could well be at our next election.

Leroy42

Cal4567 wrote: »

Your last point could be used here as well, and could well be at our next election.

Absolutely, it is a problem in every democracy. However, FPTP makes it worse as in many cases people see that their vote means nothing. At least under PR, your vote can count for something.

And that lack of ownership suits the Tories perfectly. Its why they are bringing in the voter id, anyone not particularly engaged won't be bothered and that completely rules them out

dublin49

What Labour need first and foremost is a charismatic leader that the public like the look and sound of to pick up the low lying fruit who has the political nous to straddle both sides of the party and hold them together or apart until they take power.The Tories during peak Blair appeared just as unelectable as Labour appear now but with Cameron they found the leader who just about cobbled together an uneasy peace albeit at a terrible price of Brexit. i wonder would David Miliband have changed their luck or perhaps Andy Burnham in the future.

breezy1985

SNIP

But seriously I don't think it's the uninterested voter is the biggest problem it's more the single issue voter. The Tories from what I have seen have so many more "I don't like them but ..." voters. The people who without even checking are sure that Tories are better for their job, tax or morgage

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Absolutely, it is a problem in every democracy. However, FPTP makes it worse as in many cases people see that their vote means nothing. At least under PR, your vote can count for something.

And that lack of ownership suits the Tories perfectly. Its why they are bringing in the voter id, anyone not particularly engaged won't be bothered and that completely rules them out

I would guess they are the least politically sophisticated electorate in Europe (thanks in no part to the utterly failed two party system and the Tories being in power for over 11 years).

I remember one of the French presidential debates had an average of 10m viewers on TF1 in 2017. A previous debate in 2012 had 17m viewers. Can you imagine 10m English people tuning in to watch a political debate?

devnull

So I see that Boris Johnson has probably married Carrie Symonds.

Fancy having to use your own wedding as a dead cat.

BlitzKrieg

dublin49 wrote: »

What Labour need first and foremost is a charismatic leader that the public like the look and sound of to pick up the low lying fruit who has the political nous to straddle both sides of the party and hold them together or apart until they take power.

Honestly it feels like every labour leader feels like that initially and then gets grinded to a pulp by media scrutiny very quickly.

The Tories during peak Blair appeared just as unelectable as Labour appear now but with Cameron they found the leader who just about cobbled together an uneasy peace albeit at a terrible price of Brexit. i wonder would David Miliband have changed their luck or perhaps Andy Burnham in the future.

To be fair it was more Gordon Brown was under a lot of fire from the media going into 2010 and the 2010 campaign had moments like that mic slip where he called a woman a bigot.


The worst is I always see some post on UK reddit or twitter a year or so after each labour leader has left and people go "Why did we drop Gordon Brown/Ed Miliband" or a "Corbyn was right" post.

It is specifically how aggressive the media reporting hits labour leaders, and how much it just runs of the conservatives. And I dont just mean Boris Johnson. Cameron and May had plenty of bad press, but it wasnt what sunk either of them.