politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Number 10’s power-grab is sowing the seeds of its own failure

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Number 10’s power-grab is sowing the seeds of its own failure

Political power is notoriously nebulous. Like fairies, or the value of fiat money, if enough people belief in it, that in itself is enough to call it into being – just as the lack of belief is enough to destroy it.

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

felix

Not a bad piece - except it's gonna be just the ticket for all the whingers to pile in again and vent their spleen. I think though - to parody 'A Man For All Seasons' - all this for Saj! Really.

partypoliticalorphan

Excellent article, better than the opinion pieces in the dead tree press. PB at its best.

Mysticrose

And ... it's another moan

Johnson is rock solid. He did what no Conservative leader has done since Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago: won a thumping majority.

Of course it will ebb. But that's no more clever than saying we're all going to die. Eventually.

I'm sorry my fellow liberals are showing themselves to be so curmudgeonly about it.

MarqueeMark

Most voters won't give a stuff about Sajid Javid standing up to Boris and Dominic Cummings. Very noble, sure, but he has ended his career. Because he - or maybe it was his team of SPADS - wasn't delivering what the top team wanted.

The people who will have noticed are those tucked away in government who have their own agenda, their own way of doing things across governments of different shades. The quiet clique who wield quiet power. The message sent to them was if the occupant of Number 11 can be disposed of, perhaps so can you. Maybe they will have to be more subtle in the way they yield that quiet power. The time of doing what they could to assist Remain has been seen by those actually empowered by the voters. And it ain't going to happen for the next five years. Capiche?

Just in case they weren't listening, expect some very well regarded figures in the civil service to get moved around. The equivalent of a cop being put on traffic duty. It will provoke some noise - and some real horror behind the scenes - but again, most voters won't give a stuff.

Boris will stay popular because he will shamelessly nick popular policies put forward by his opponents. He's like a football manager, buying the best players of his opponents. Imagine five seasons of doing that?

In many ways the current top team reminds me of Brian Clough. Cloughie - as with Boris, the single-name moniker. The Cloughie who was revered - and loathed. But he got results. Much of that was based on the man beside him, Peter Taylor. Taylor knew who Cloughie needed to play the football Cloughie wanted to play. He had an encyclopaedic knowledge of players. In all leagues. He could go into a Scottish league for the right player to fit the gap. Or he could buy the first million-pound player. Whatever it took. And if you didn't deliver, you were gone. Remind you of anyone?

This current government brings to mind this famous quote of Cloughie. On discussing an issue with a player:

”We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right.”

The right man can work miracles. Cloughie won the League twice, the League Cup 4 times and took Nottingham Forest to be Champions of Europe.

Twice.

That's Nottingham Forest.

Imagine if this style of Government does actually deliver that level of result?

AlastairMeeks

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

StuartDickson

MM

A lot of focus there on the Rise. But there was also an unpleasant Fall.

Not sure the Tories want to be likened to Nottingham Forest.

MarqueeMark

StuartDickson said:

MM

A lot of focus there on the Rise. But there was also an unpleasant Fall.

Not sure the Tories want to be likened to Nottingham Forest.

But what a glorious few years....!

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

Yes, if |BoJo really wants to reform the state and break the mould he would decentralise.

Sandpit

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

Yes, if |BoJo really wants to reform the state and break the mould he would decentralise.

If he’s got sense he’ll devolve more functions to local authorities, and let them raise local taxes as he cuts headline income tax.

MarqueeMark

On COVID-19, BBC says:

"According to the latest figures, more than 1,300 people are now known to have died from the virus, the majority in China."

"Latest figures"? - it's 1,526 deaths

"The majority in China"? - all but three have been in mainland China, Beeb. (As well as the death several days ago in Philippines, there has now been a fatality in Hong Kong and another in Japan.)

DecrepiterJohnL

StuartDickson said:

MM

A lot of focus there on the Rise. But there was also an unpleasant Fall.

Not sure the Tories want to be likened to Nottingham Forest.

As Clough and Taylor, so Boris and Dominic Cummings. Or Blair and Mandelson, or Thatcher and Sir Alan Walters. Boris may be ideologically light but Cummings wants to revolutionise Whitehall. It is Cummings who will attract opprobrium of civil servants and ministers, and who will most likely, like Mandelson and Walters, be jettisoned to save their Premier.

Boris, though, might be tolerated for longer if he remains popular with the public and if, like Trump, he pushes through legislation in which he has no personal interest at the behest of the men in grey suits.

Dura_Ace

All this kremlinology is fascinating but what's really important is the economy. As long as that's fine Johnson is fine. When it's not fine there will be a long line of people he has betrayed and demeaned ready to fuck him in his gaping hole.

OldKingCole

Morning everyone. Doesn't look, from the BBC's forecast, as though Dennis is going to be quite the Menace as threatened. Round here, anyway.

On topic, I wonder if the crucial sacking wasn't The Saj, but Julian Smith. After all he'd just banged heads together successfully in N Ireland and survived a very tough time as Chief Whip. I don't think he ever owed Boris anything, but Boris owed him. Imagine if Boris now had to deal with a chaotic N Ireland, descending again into violence.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

StuartDickson said:

MM

A lot of focus there on the Rise. But there was also an unpleasant Fall.

Not sure the Tories want to be likened to Nottingham Forest.

But what a glorious few years....!

....implementing Labour’s most popular policies?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I hope Mr. Herdson is correct.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

Morning everyone. Doesn't look, from the BBC's forecast, as though Dennis is going to be quite the Menace as threatened. Round here, anyway.

On topic, I wonder if the crucial sacking wasn't The Saj, but Julian Smith. After all he'd just banged heads together successfully in N Ireland and survived a very tough time as Chief Whip. I don't think he ever owed Boris anything, but Boris owed him. Imagine if Boris now had to deal with a chaotic N Ireland, descending again into violence.

The BBC radio forecast just said it will be worse

Beibheirli_C

Interesting that David never mentioned the EU which has brought so many Tory PMs low.

Boris has 12 months in which to conclude tricky negotiations, His last deal seems to be fraying at the edges, if not actually unravelling thanks to the NI / UK sea border. The one that, like Schrodinger's Cat, both exists and does not exist depending on the observer.

logical_song

Mysticrose said:

And ... it's another moan

Johnson is rock solid. He did what no Conservative leader has done since Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago: won a thumping majority.

Of course it will ebb. But that's no more clever than saying we're all going to die. Eventually.

I'm sorry my fellow liberals are showing themselves to be so curmudgeonly about it.

The polls seem to show that the main reason Johnson won a large majority is because of Jeremy Corbyn. He was in the right place at the right time.
If you're so keen on Johnson I don't see how you can claim to be on 'the Left', accept it you're now a Tory or at least a Johnsonite ;-)

squareroot2

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

IanB2

On topic, I believe it is correct that Johnson is (was, at the time) the most unpopular PM (in the era of such polling) who has ever won an election.

Whether he was the most unpopular election victor I am not sure, having not seen the stat so presented anywhere.

IanB2

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

It’s reasonably clear from the context, for anyone that didn’t know?

FF43

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

It’s reasonably clear from the context, for anyone that didn’t know?

I did know what it meant, up until @squareroot2 made me doubt it.

ETA accretion has been in the news in the past few days with astronomers changing their minds about how planets are formed. If Shadsy offers prices on the Nobel Prize for physics, lump on Johansen and Stern.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51295365

MarqueeMark

Beibheirli_C said:

Interesting that David never mentioned the EU which has brought so many Tory PMs low.

Boris has 12 months in which to conclude tricky negotiations, His last deal seems to be fraying at the edges, if not actually unravelling thanks to the NI / UK sea border. The one that, like Schrodinger's Cat, both exists and does not exist depending on the observer.

The EU? Whassat?

Selebian

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

[Waves hand like a five year old trying to get picked by the teacher]

But only due to astronomy studies in physics a long time ago.

There are some pretty esoteric words I know from my current work in epidemiology/medical research too, they come on handy when playing scrabble (and sometimes in understanding posts on here!)

Beibheirli_C

MarqueeMark said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Interesting that David never mentioned the EU which has brought so many Tory PMs low.

Boris has 12 months in which to conclude tricky negotiations, His last deal seems to be fraying at the edges, if not actually unravelling thanks to the NI / UK sea border. The one that, like Schrodinger's Cat, both exists and does not exist depending on the observer.

The EU? Whassat?

It is the elephant in Downing Street's room...

malcolmg

logical_song said:

Mysticrose said:

And ... it's another moan

Johnson is rock solid. He did what no Conservative leader has done since Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago: won a thumping majority.

Of course it will ebb. But that's no more clever than saying we're all going to die. Eventually.

I'm sorry my fellow liberals are showing themselves to be so curmudgeonly about it.

The polls seem to show that the main reason Johnson won a large majority is because of Jeremy Corbyn. He was in the right place at the right time.
If you're so keen on Johnson I don't see how you can claim to be on 'the Left', accept it you're now a Tory or at least a Johnsonite ;-)

Or a windbag

Beibheirli_C

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I was not aware that anyone would struggle with it. Accretion is a well known process.

MarqueeMark

Beibheirli_C said:

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I was not aware that anyone would struggle with it. Accretion is a well known process.

Of course.

But how long do you have to have lived in Crete for it to happen?

DecrepiterJohnL

FF43 said:

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

Look to Mayor Boris. Ideologically light; grabbed power from the government by ousting the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; lied about closing fire stations (or as with the Irish Sea border, did not actually realise that was what he would do because he'd not read the papers). The Mayor also ran with a lot of Ken Livingstone's policies, while his own grand visions for bridges and airports withered. Oh, and he also ran away from questions.

RochdalePioneers

A late change to the GDPR rules regarding Labour members data. As candidates have apparently found the extra cash now being demanded membership data can only legally be released to candidates whose names begin with R who represent Salford and Leeds seats.

Selebian

On topic, Johnson has another firewall in the membership, where he does seem very popular (partly due to being sufficiently toxic to some members that they've resigned membership).

Any would be Brutus will have to bear in mind that the membership are unlikely to reward the wielder of the knife, unless Johnson has lost the membership by then, most likely to happen if he cuts a sensible deal on with the EU?

Gallowgate

Morning everyone. I must admit I’m really very hungover but here’s my report back on seeing Keir speak last night.

Headline, he was better than I expected. I expected boring and he wasn’t boring. He was funny and dynamic and acknowledged the up-hill battle facing Labour.

He was a bit light on detail when it came to strategy but other than that, nothing to criticise. He will definitely be a handful for Boris at the dispatch box.

IshmaelZ

Beibheirli_C said:

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I was not aware that anyone would struggle with it. Accretion is a well known process.

You don't seem to have noticed that the word is misused, he means "cause to accrete."

felix

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

StuartDickson said:

MM

A lot of focus there on the Rise. But there was also an unpleasant Fall.

Not sure the Tories want to be likened to Nottingham Forest.

But what a glorious few years....!

....implementing Labour’s most popular policies?

If so you should be happy no ?

FF43

IanB2 said:

On topic, I believe it is correct that Johnson is (was, at the time) the most unpopular PM (in the era of such polling) who has ever won an election.

Whether he was the most unpopular election victor I am not sure, having not seen the stat so presented anywhere.

Johnson is popular with the people he needs to be popular with: those that voted Leave in the 2016 referendum. As long as the opposition is divided he will win on a plurality. In fact that principle also applies to his own party as well as the electorate at large.

MarqueeMark

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FF43 said:

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

Look to Mayor Boris. Ideologically light; grabbed power from the government by ousting the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; lied about closing fire stations (or as with the Irish Sea border, did not actually realise that was what he would do because he'd not read the papers). The Mayor also ran with a lot of Ken Livingstone's policies, while his own grand visions for bridges and airports withered. Oh, and he also ran away from questions.

And yet, look at Prime Minster Boris. Majority of 80.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FF43 said:

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

Look to Mayor Boris. Ideologically light; grabbed power from the government by ousting the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; lied about closing fire stations (or as with the Irish Sea border, did not actually realise that was what he would do because he'd not read the papers). The Mayor also ran with a lot of Ken Livingstone's policies, while his own grand visions for bridges and airports withered. Oh, and he also ran away from questions.

And yet, look at Prime Minster Boris. Majority of 80.

One beat a tarnished Livingstone and the other a tarnished Corbyn. Low bars, for such high offices.

DecrepiterJohnL

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FF43 said:

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

Look to Mayor Boris. Ideologically light; grabbed power from the government by ousting the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; lied about closing fire stations (or as with the Irish Sea border, did not actually realise that was what he would do because he'd not read the papers). The Mayor also ran with a lot of Ken Livingstone's policies, while his own grand visions for bridges and airports withered. Oh, and he also ran away from questions.

And yet, look at Prime Minster Boris. Majority of 80.

Why "and yet"? Boris won a second term as Mayor. I am not saying he failed as Mayor but that how he succeeded might be the most reliable guide to his premiership. Careless of detail; grabbing power; taking his opponents' policies as his own; ducking scrutiny; proposing grand infrastructure projects.

Philip_Thompson

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FF43 said:

Look to Berlusconi, not Trump, for Johnson's prototype. Berlusconi was a long drawn out disaster for Italy, but a very successful politician. Like Johnson, he was very good at telling the necessary people what they like to hear.

As long as Brexit is merely crap (and Brexit is as much a metaphor as an actual process) and not obviously catastrophic. he will likely do all right.

Look to Mayor Boris. Ideologically light; grabbed power from the government by ousting the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; lied about closing fire stations (or as with the Irish Sea border, did not actually realise that was what he would do because he'd not read the papers). The Mayor also ran with a lot of Ken Livingstone's policies, while his own grand visions for bridges and airports withered. Oh, and he also ran away from questions.

And yet, look at Prime Minster Boris. Majority of 80.

One beat a tarnished Livingstone and the other a tarnished Corbyn. Low bars, for such high offices.

You can only beat the opposition put in front of you.

Plus Johnson beat May and "next Prime Minister Jo Swinson" [remember her?]

Fysics_Teacher

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I knew it from the astronomical context.

squareroot2

Beibheirli_C said:

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I was not aware that anyone would struggle with it. Accretion is a well known process.

Ok then .. If you were to ask 100 members of the public what the word accrete or accretion means, how many do you think would get it right?

I would guess a max of 15% in the general population.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If Parliament changes the law then that's not "political interference", that's a new law taking place that supercedes any predecessor law.

The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.

Parliament sets the law, the courts enforce it.

Absolutely. If the government decides it wants to make itself more powerful and less accountable for its actions it can do so. And, no doubt, many people who once claimed to be in favour of liberty and the rights of the individual, and opposed to an all-powerful state, will applaud that.

Exactly this. Parliament can pretty much do as it likes, but that doesnt mean anything they want to do is a good idea.

A key question will be if Boris himself would be happy with the opposition, if in power, to have the lack of checks he wants for himself. Sometimes you have to check yourself as a guard against the future.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, quite so, but the PM isn't one for foresight.

SouthamObserver

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If Parliament changes the law then that's not "political interference", that's a new law taking place that supercedes any predecessor law.

The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.

Parliament sets the law, the courts enforce it.

Absolutely. If the government decides it wants to make itself more powerful and less accountable for its actions it can do so. And, no doubt, many people who once claimed to be in favour of liberty and the rights of the individual, and opposed to an all-powerful state, will applaud that.

Exactly this. Parliament can pretty much do as it likes, but that doesnt mean anything they want to do is a good idea.

A key question will be if Boris himself would be happy with the opposition, if in power, to have the lack of checks he wants for himself. Sometimes you have to check yourself as a guard against the future.

I don’t think either Johnson or Cummings thinks like that, unfortunately.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If Parliament changes the law then that's not "political interference", that's a new law taking place that supercedes any predecessor law.

The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.

Parliament sets the law, the courts enforce it.

Absolutely. If the government decides it wants to make itself more powerful and less accountable for its actions it can do so. And, no doubt, many people who once claimed to be in favour of liberty and the rights of the individual, and opposed to an all-powerful state, will applaud that.

Exactly this. Parliament can pretty much do as it likes, but that doesnt mean anything they want to do is a good idea.

A key question will be if Boris himself would be happy with the opposition, if in power, to have the lack of checks he wants for himself. Sometimes you have to check yourself as a guard against the future.

I don’t think either Johnson or Cummings thinks like that, unfortunately.

You and MD are absolutely right. And that's my main issue with them. They might have plenty of good ideas, or which provide short term gains, but dont consider consequences. Sowing the seeds indeed.

Banterman

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

Nigelb

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

I was not aware that anyone would struggle with it. Accretion is a well known process.

You don't seem to have noticed that the word is misused, he means "cause to accrete."

No, its use to describe a personal action, as here, is perfectly permissible. It is still wrong, however, as it describes a steady and gradual process (building a stamp collection, for instance).
This was a power grab. Appropriate might have been more appropriate.

MarqueeMark

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Nigelb

A splendid article, David.
The only other quibble I have is with your conclusion, as I don’t see the process playing out quite so quickly.

Nigelb

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

DecrepiterJohnL

Boris, Trump and the courts. And 538 and Amy Klobuchar.

Amy's favourite statistic is how often Trump loses. Maybe that is why Boris wants to rein in Judicial Review. Be you ever so high, Number 10 is above you.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-amy-klobuchars-favorite-statistic/

MarqueeMark

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

There might be some, er, cultural issues along the way, yes.....

But by God, it's cheap and fast. Should put a rocket up HS2's new management. I wonder if it is just Dominic Cummings getting on the blower to Beijing whilst he meets the new delivery team.....

Nigelb

MarqueeMark said:

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

There might be some, er, cultural issues along the way, yes.....

But by God, it's cheap and fast. Should put a rocket up HS2's new management. I wonder if it is just Dominic Cummings getting on the blower to Beijing whilst he meets the new delivery team.....

It would also, of course, mean altering the specification, which is arguably quite sensible anyway.
And I would treat that headline figure with a large pinch of salt.

Cyclefree

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

matt

People who don’t like Johnson et al explain how marvellous and prescient the article is and vice versa. Well, there’s a shock.

kle4

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

Yes, but that is not 'all that matters'. For winning elections, sure, it is. But it is in the public interest for other things to matter, even if the public are not interested in it.

SandyRentool

Another very well written piece by Mr Herdson. A pleasure to read.

Nigelb

matt said:

People who don’t like Johnson et al explain how marvellous and prescient the article is and vice versa. Well, there’s a shock.

No, I admired the article without agreeing with its conclusion.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Yes, but that is not 'all that matters'. For winning elections, sure, it is. But it is in the public interest for other things to matter, even if the public are not interested in it.

All that matters for blunt electoral purposes.
Of course what the public are interested in changes all the time - and they have a tendency to bank successes and then forget about them.

eek

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

I suspect long term, Julian will look back on Thursday as a blessing rather than a curse.

As for David's article my only comment would be timeframe - people can hang around for a long time when there is nothing pressing to force you out. May lasted 7 months including 2 immovable deadlines, I can easily see Boris lasting to 2024 or beyond without any critical mass appearing.

malcolmg

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

Get the Chinese in and get it built quickly, at lower cost and it is likely to function

algarkirk

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Yes, but that is not 'all that matters'. For winning elections, sure, it is. But it is in the public interest for other things to matter, even if the public are not interested in it.

All that matters for blunt electoral purposes.
Of course what the public are interested in changes all the time - and they have a tendency to bank successes and then forget about them.

Which is why we need leaders who are, at least to a small degree, responsible on our behalf. Leadership surely means more than just giving us exactly what we want without thought. Boris has surprised me positively in the past, and I hope he will again. I won't blame Cummings if it goes wrong - even if he's providing impetus for any moves, the buck stops with Boris.

malcolmg

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

Count Scotland out, we will soon be gone

viewcode

squareroot2 said:

Morning all .Hands up those who have read DH's article and full AND knew for certain what the word accrete meant without looking it up.

(puts hand up)

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

There might be some, er, cultural issues along the way, yes.....

But by God, it's cheap and fast. Should put a rocket up HS2's new management. I wonder if it is just Dominic Cummings getting on the blower to Beijing whilst he meets the new delivery team.....

Back in the good old days, didn't we build railways in China, rather than vice versa?

SouthamObserver

Gallowgate said:

Morning everyone. I must admit I’m really very hungover but here’s my report back on seeing Keir speak last night.

Headline, he was better than I expected. I expected boring and he wasn’t boring. He was funny and dynamic and acknowledged the up-hill battle facing Labour.

He was a bit light on detail when it came to strategy but other than that, nothing to criticise. He will definitely be a handful for Boris at the dispatch box.

If that is the case, we can expect Parliament to sit much less frequently. Once the judiciary has been neutered, Cummings will be able to close it down as he pleases.

Nigelb

eek said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

I suspect long term, Julian will look back on Thursday as a blessing rather than a curse.

As for David's article my only comment would be timeframe - people can hang around for a long time when there is nothing pressing to force you out. May lasted 7 months including 2 immovable deadlines, I can easily see Boris lasting to 2024 or beyond without any critical mass appearing.

Smith has the look of a lean and hungry man. Of all those Johnson has knifed, I suspect this might be the one he ends up regretting.

SouthamObserver

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

algarkirk

Interesting article. I think Boris will last longer than that, though undoubtedly when the wheels come off it will be quite a good fireworks display.

Boris is not as lacking in ideology as is suggested. He is mostly a centrist one nation Tory with populist touches, much in common with Heseltine (bar Brexit of course). But at a deep level both Brexit and Remain are/were different routes to the common desired outcome: a free trade and partnership route to continuing success as a trading and wealthy nation.

What Boris lacks in ideology is made up for by Dominic. What happens when his wheels come off?

The cloud on the horizon is that suddenly no-one at all cares about balanced budgets, bringing debt levels down, fiscal rectitude and all that. Every time that happens in the end there is an 'unforeseeable' crisis which forces our hand. Does anyone know what happens if interest rates rise to 5% for example? Those are the issues most likely to topple this set up.

SandyRentool

The rain has reached Airedale. I hope the towns down the road in Calderdale don't get it as badly as last week. Poor buggers.

TGOHF666

Sorry David but this header is just another Tory wet remainer moan.

Reshuffles are for the bubble. The budget will set the tone for Boris’s fortunes.

Cyclefree

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

Goodbye all those other trade deals then. No country is going to sign a deal with a country headed by a leader whose signature on an agreement is worthless.

TGOHF666

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1228608902910160897?s=21

Luckyguy1983

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

TGOHF666

MarqueeMark said:

Nigelb said:

MarqueeMark said:

Banterman said:

All that really matters are the outcomes Boris delivers. That's all the general public care about. Outside of the bubble, the public have no idea of how government or the legal system work.

All they really want is better healthcare, schools, roads, trains, less taxes and more money in their pockets. Boris delivers, he wins.

On that, this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51512831

Does that tentative bid include forcibly moving residents without compensation ?

There might be some, er, cultural issues along the way, yes.....

But by God, it's cheap and fast. Should put a rocket up HS2's new management. I wonder if it is just Dominic Cummings getting on the blower to Beijing whilst he meets the new delivery team.....

Easy to go fast if you cut corners like er points..


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/25/chinese-rail-crash-cover-up-claims

Foxy

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

Yes, the plan is simply to renege, and dare Ireland to put up border posts.

A pretty short lived Trumpian strategy I would say, but what enforcement procedures are there in the WDA?

Luckyguy1983

Kier Starmer is Theresa May really isn't he. Lengthy career in a law-focused role, no achievements beyond survival, inoffensive to most, no charisma.

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Boris, Trump and the courts. And 538 and Amy Klobuchar.

Amy's favourite statistic is how often Trump loses. Maybe that is why Boris wants to rein in Judicial Review. Be you ever so high, Number 10 is above you.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-amy-klobuchars-favorite-statistic/

Amy is looking good to me. She has the momentum. Nevada should be interesting to see if she can sustain it.

kle4

TGOHF666 said:

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1228608902910160897?s=21

If she thinks one might fight the establishment and he is part of that then for one why did Corbyn let him serve in his shadow cabinet, and for two I assume that means RLB would not choose to serve under such a leader even if asked, so that's a shadow cabinet job out for her, unless she, like most people, doesn't really mean anything when using the term 'establishment'. It's an equivalent of metropolitan elite in that regard - there's a fragile basis for the term, but generally just used to mean 'people I oppose'.

ydoethur

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

We can steel their technology...

DavidL

In short:

Nothin' lasts forever
And we both know hearts can change
And it's hard to hold a candle
In the cold November rain

But, as St Augustine said, not yet. I think that Boris will survive longer than David does. I see him serving a full term and standing down in the next. The Conservative Party will be a very different beast by then.

MarqueeMark

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

Count Scotland out, we will soon be gone

Asteroid strike?

Only way it is happening while Boris is PM....

Luckyguy1983

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

We can steel their technology...

Girder load of that pun.

TGOHF666

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Boris, Trump and the courts. And 538 and Amy Klobuchar.

Amy's favourite statistic is how often Trump loses. Maybe that is why Boris wants to rein in Judicial Review. Be you ever so high, Number 10 is above you.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-amy-klobuchars-favorite-statistic/

Amy is looking good to me. She has the momentum. Nevada should be interesting to see if she can sustain it.

I’m big green on Amy .

kle4

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

We can steel their technology...

I don't wish to slag anyone off, but encouraging thievery is wrong.

Nigelb

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

That wouldn’t make the problem go away though.

Luckyguy1983

DavidL said:

In short:

Nothin' lasts forever
And we both know hearts can change
And it's hard to hold a candle
In the cold November rain

But, as St Augustine said, not yet. I think that Boris will survive longer than David does. I see him serving a full term and standing down in the next. The Conservative Party will be a very different beast by then.

? What's going to happen to David?

Foxy

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

We can steel their technology...

We can let them iron out any problems.

squareroot2

TGOHF666 said:

Meanwhile

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1228608902910160897?s=21

That is not a flattering picture, her mouth/lipstick are sub optimal

SouthamObserver

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

Goodbye all those other trade deals then. No country is going to sign a deal with a country headed by a leader whose signature on an agreement is worthless.

The only way the Johnson voting coalition of traditional Labour and Tory voters holds together is via conflict. Without enemies - internal and external - it will rapidly fall apart, as there is no way to reconcile the two halves otherwise. The Cummings years will be ones of constant confrontation - with rebel MPs, the judiciary, the BBC, academia, the ECHR, Ireland, immigrants, the EU, etc, etc, etc. Reneging on the WA is part of that.

Luckyguy1983

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

Yes, the plan is simply to renege, and dare Ireland to put up border posts.

A pretty short lived Trumpian strategy I would say, but what enforcement procedures are there in the WDA?

Nonsense. The Government came up with a grumbly but generally ok fudge on the Huawei issue, the same will happen here.

HYUFD

Boris won't be replaced as he is by far the best vote winner the Tories have got.

If they replaced him in 2022 or 2023 it would be an act of desperation with a Labour led Government almost certain based on the polling at the forthcoming general election anyway

TGOHF666

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

Count Scotland out, we will soon be gone

Asteroid strike?

Only way it is happening while Boris is PM....

With Eck and Deek potentially having shared accommodations in the future is there a danger that Scotch prisons become a hotbed of anti Yoon radicalisation ?

SouthamObserver

The Attorney-General ...
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1228090287395876864?s=21

MarqueeMark

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps if the Chinese build HS2, we can spy on their railway building techniques and get some tips.

We can steel their technology...

We can let them iron out any problems.

Let's nickel their ideas.....

HYUFD

Luckyguy1983 said:

Kier Starmer is Theresa May really isn't he. Lengthy career in a law-focused role, no achievements beyond survival, inoffensive to most, no charisma.

May was not a lawyer, she worked for the Bank of England

TGOHF666

Cyclefree said:

SouthamObserver said:

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

David’s outline is possible. It looks more likely to me, however, that Britain is in for years of poor government caused by bad decision-making through over-centralisation, with the failures being blamed on outside forces. Because loyalty is prized more than competence and any signs that a minister is building an independent power base or understands his subject will be summarily dealt with, Boris Johnson will retain effective power even as the country weakens.

The government has achieved two things so far: the resumption of power-sharing at Stormont and the WA. The fact that the person responsible for the former, Julian Smith, who in his short tenure as NI impressed politicians on both sides of the divide in NI and in the Republic (no mean feat), was sacked tells other Ministers that if they are too successful or stand up for their briefs they are for the chop.

This is not the way to get good governance. Or, indeed, long-term loyalty.

Still, Julian is best out of it. Imagine having to be in charge when Boris’s lies about the border hit reality.

A rational, and just about thinkable, conclusion from the Irish border stuff, and the apparent impossibility of squaring the circle of agreements and rhetoric, is that the government has quietly decided that the price of a practicable Brexit is Irish reunification. Personally I think that would be an excellent outcome, as a union of E, W and S makes much more sense than the current UK configuration. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong!?!........

I think a much more obvious explanation is that Cummings intends to renege on the WA. Braverman will sign the legal opinion put in front of her and the reining in of the courts will do the rest.

Goodbye all those other trade deals then. No country is going to sign a deal with a country headed by a leader whose signature on an agreement is worthless.

The remainery left have a poor prediction record when it comes to Boris and the EU.