Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How in just three months Starmer has changed the political wea

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 29 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How in just three months Starmer has changed the political weather

I am a great fan of the Opinium weekly poll for the Observer. The firm gets its full datasets out at the same time as when the poll is published on a Saturday evening and it has a series of questions in every survey that are always asked with the result that we can compare changes over time.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    edited June 29
    FPT
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,572
    Tis but a scratch to a fit butcher's dog.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.

    Only if it was illegal under domestic law.

    You tried that bollocks on the last thread. Did you really need to repeat it here?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Scott_xP said:

    and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.

    Only if it was illegal under domestic law.

    You tried that bollocks on the last thread. Did you really need to repeat it here?
    In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.

    Because quite often the argument was made that something was illegal under EU law and the government has no power over EU law. The government does have power over UK law. Once we have Brexited international law will be quite narrow in scope as it should be.

    Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.

    Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?

    You think the Government seeking to break International law is an argument for Brexit?

    Why wasn't that on the side of a bus?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Scott_xP said:

    In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.

    Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?

    You think the Government seeking to break International law is an argument for Brexit?

    Why wasn't that on the side of a bus?
    No, I think the Government reclaiming control to change the law was an argument for Brexit - in fact it was the strapline.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Scott_xP said:
    If talks are over by September one way or another (deal or no deal) then why shouldn't he start a new job in October?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,470
    edited June 29
    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.
  • NevaNeva Posts: 14
    edited June 29
    (From the last thread)
    Betfair last matched prices for GOP nominee, moves since yesterday lunchtime:

    Trump 1.09 to 1.13
    Pence 15 to 18
    Haley 70 to 27
    Romney 140 to 100
    Ryan - flat at 240
    Cruz - 310 to 300

    If a vacancy were to arise, Haley would be a sensible pick against Biden.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    I really cannot imagine the French going for something as gauche as an orange jump suit. They are not Americans darling.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,766

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,470
    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    I really cannot imagine the French going for something as gauche as an orange jump suit. They are not Americans darling.
    Lmao ! True . Quite a shock to see him get actual jail time .
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    nico67 said:

    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    I really cannot imagine the French going for something as gauche as an orange jump suit. They are not Americans darling.
    Lmao ! True . Quite a shock to see him get actual jail time .
    Indeed, what is the world coming to when the French take a bit of minor corruption seriously? They will be criticising mistresses next.
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
    Top tip: get a Mezzaluna (two handled knife). Useful in itself, and keeps all little fingers the right side of the blade.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    I really cannot imagine the French going for something as gauche as an orange jump suit. They are not Americans darling.
    Italian designers, though...
    https://journalistinajumpsuit.com/2011/03/14/tess-daly-in-maxmara/
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    Neva said:

    (From the last thread)
    Betfair last matched prices for GOP nominee, moves since yesterday lunchtime:

    Trump 1.09 to 1.13
    Pence 15 to 18
    Haley 70 to 27
    Romney 140 to 100
    Ryan - flat at 240
    Cruz - 310 to 300

    If a vacancy were to arise, Haley would be a sensible pick against Biden.

    Cruz is good value at that price, as long as he keeps out of the barber's.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
    That's terrific, Philip. You can start sending them up the chimney soon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,971
    malcolmg said:

    Did you read it?

    They've made concessions first, so we've followed suit. That's how negotiations work, both parties compromise and that link says they blinked first. Of course we should follow through on that.

    What concessions we make - and what they make - is what matters, not the simple fact that we are making concessions either before or in this case after they did.
    Fancy a bet that they have given away square root of nothing and UK have given everything but the kitchen sink.
    Well the square root of zero is at least real. Unlike many Brexit suggestions, which are as imaginary as the square root of -1.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    I really cannot imagine the French going for something as gauche as an orange jump suit. They are not Americans darling.
    Italian designers, though...
    https://journalistinajumpsuit.com/2011/03/14/tess-daly-in-maxmara/
    I am trying to picture Filon in that... It's not working for me.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,888
    NHS England Hospital data out -

    Headline - 19 - lowest, even for a Monday since March
    7 days - 17
    Yesterday - 6

    As ever, the last 3-5 days are subject to heavy revision later, due to reporting delays and are included only for completeness.

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    25th
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    I'm not suggesting the law is broken!

    Quite the opposite if I'm suggesting the law getting changed as an option.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
    Top tip: get a Mezzaluna (two handled knife). Useful in itself, and keeps all little fingers the right side of the blade.
    We used serrated kids knives for grandkids, you can cut vegetables etc with them but not yourself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    Neva said:

    (From the last thread)
    Betfair last matched prices for GOP nominee, moves since yesterday lunchtime:

    Trump 1.09 to 1.13
    Pence 15 to 18
    Haley 70 to 27
    Romney 140 to 100
    Ryan - flat at 240
    Cruz - 310 to 300

    If a vacancy were to arise, Haley would be a sensible pick against Biden.

    Trump delegates (who will be the vast majority at the convention) would go for Pence over Haley
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    I don't get the hysteria about changing names. Names are changed regularly.

    Should we be changing John Lennon airport back to Speke Airport if changes of names are inappropriate?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,036
    The mayor of Leicester said on Radio 4's lunchtime news that the number of cases may be going up because they're doing more testing.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    Looks like Tory surge in Scotland then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,766
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,036
    HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    The 6% swing from LD to Lab could almost entirely be down to the fact that the LDs don't really have a leader and therefore a media presence at the moment. It's unlikely they would go as low as 6% in a real election.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    LadyG said:


    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    Too late for tourism with the furlough due to end in the autumn.

    From what I know of tourism in Ireland there is massive demand for holiday cottages - in which people can get away from the city but still isolate themselves from most other people.

    I don't know about hotels. Not sure it would be so relaxing to be necessarily around so many potential virus vectors.

    We all laughed at the airbnb rentals that were desperate to find long-term lets earlier in the year - but I think they have a big advantage over hotels and B&Bs in the present circumstances. They add a lot less to the local economy than hotels.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    Bet it is the tip of the iceberg.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no. If no is the default rather than a more complicated response then that is a problem. There may be times when no is appropriate but they should be relatively few and far between not very often.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    nico67 said:

    From French Presidential candidate and former French PM to orange jump suit !

    Francois Fillon jailed for 5 years 3 of which are suspended for the fake job scandal involving his wife.

    To think he was favourite to be French President in late 2016, in the end coming third behind Macron and Le Pen, now facing 2 years in jail.

    However to be fair to him politicians have done much worse than he did and stayed out of jail
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no.

    If ministers often ask for stupid shit they should often say no
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    I agreed with you on Philip's hypothetical but I don't understand why you think that this is, "another degrading of good government in this country". It simply isn't because it hasn't happened (that we know of).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Scott_xP said:

    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no.

    If ministers often ask for stupid shit they should often say no
    No they shouldn't, they should explain the price and consequences of going after said stupid shit.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
    It's a similar, if less charged situation in Devon and Cornwall. The southwest (like Scotland) has basically eliminated the virus. It is not circulating, deaths are around zero.

    So they want to keep it that way and to tell everyone to stay east of Exmoor.

    However, they also reluctantly realise they will be eating grass if the tourism industry dies. So they are grudgingly accepting the reality that travel must happen and people will come, they have the advantage that Boris is allowing it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,684

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
    So they were given (good it sounds) advice and didn't just "know" it.

    This is what we are talking about wrt the civil service.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 969
    edited June 29
    Starmer has done fairly well so far, but there are five caveats:

    - he's done nothing on policy, so there's not much for Boris and allies to attack
    - some, perhaps most, of the government's wounds are self-inflicted, and he can't rely on that continuing
    - he'll run into the law of diminishing returns at some point. Maybe he has already. June was not a successful month for the government, but his lead over Boris barely moved
    - -2 is not a huge deficit, by any stretch of the imagination.
    - he's got four more years to go. Anyone can become stale in that time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    The saying has often been that the civil service is there to advise while ministers decide.

    If the civil service is often saying no then it is deciding.

    Advising against, the classic Sir Humphrey "that would be brave, minister" is not saying "no" even if its code for recommending it.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,905
    Fox news - (Navarro) Trump will run on platform of Jobs, standing up to China and law and order

    Navarro also claims there might be "economic winter of discontent" if Dems win
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Point out problems, point out where the law needs changing, point out consequences. That is the job of the Civil Service. Not to say no.

    You have to say no

    I pity your children

    "The stove is hot, there may be problems if you touch it, there may be consequences, but I can't say no, don't touch it..."
    I pity your children if they're grown adults and don't know that the stove is hot means don't touch it.

    The government is not made of children, its made of adults. Whatever you may childishly imply otherwise from scraping Twitter.
    I'm going with this analogy. At what age and after what incidents or, say, advice, do children "know" that the stove is hot?
    Good question. My children are 4 and 6, we've started teaching the 6 year old to cook (mainly watching for her or stirring a pot at this stage, no using the knife to cut veg yet) and she knows not to touch the stove. The 4 year old isn't allowed near it when its hot. So 5 or 6 perhaps?
    So they were given (good it sounds) advice and didn't just "know" it.

    This is what we are talking about wrt the civil service.
    Indeed the Civil Service should advise, not say no. If the minister says metaphorically "I want to touch the stove" and the civil service advises "its hot and you'll burn your fingers if you do" then the Minister should decide if he still wishes to touch the metaphorical stove or not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    Fishing said:

    Starmer has done fairly well so far, but there are five caveats:

    - he's done nothing on policy, so there's not much for Boris and allies to attack
    - some, perhaps most, of the government's wounds are self-inflicted, and he can't rely on that continuing
    - he'll run into the law of diminishing returns at some point. Maybe he has already. June was not a successful month for the government, but his lead over Boris barely moved
    - -2 is not a huge deficit, by any stretch of the imagination.
    - he's got four more years to go. Anyone can become stale in that time.

    On the last point I think that is especially so if they lack a certain wit. Cameron was effective because he was often genuinely funny and would get a good sound bite as a result. Sir Kneel keeps any sense of humour pretty heavily under wraps. But its more than a pass mark to date, no question.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,619

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no. If no is the default rather than a more complicated response then that is a problem. There may be times when no is appropriate but they should be relatively few and far between not very often.
    There’s also a difference between say, the intricate legal aspects of a planning decision, as Ms Cyclefree refers, and the senior CS simply saying no to a major chunk of the elected government’s manifesto.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,905
    Andy_JS said:

    The mayor of Leicester said on Radio 4's lunchtime news that the number of cases may be going up because they're doing more testing.

    I think I heard that before from Trump - and it was derided.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 340
    DavidL said:

    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.

    Did you see Miliband on the Andrew Marr show yesterday? I thought he was excellent. Such a contrast to when he was leader, when it seems he made a straightjacket for himself.

    I agree that he was a poor leader. So much triangulation - the immigration mug was the emblem of this, but also on the economy - giving the impression that he had no principles, which I don't think is true. But what makes you say that he was a terrible minister?
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,905
    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.

    Did you see Miliband on the Andrew Marr show yesterday? I thought he was excellent. Such a contrast to when he was leader, when it seems he made a straightjacket for himself.

    I agree that he was a poor leader. So much triangulation - the immigration mug was the emblem of this, but also on the economy - giving the impression that he had no principles, which I don't think is true. But what makes you say that he was a terrible minister?
    I saw him and he was indeed much improved.

    The reduction in pressure on him may be a factor.

    Is it me or has his voice changed (for the better) too?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 2,781
    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The mayor of Leicester said on Radio 4's lunchtime news that the number of cases may be going up because they're doing more testing.

    I think I heard that before from Trump - and it was derided.
    Would make sense though? Previously, if I had contracted covid I would have stayed at home and wouldn`t have become "visible" unless hospitalised. Now I would have to inform NHS immediately I have symptoms and would quickly be tested and so would show on the stats whether hospitalised or not.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    Fishing said:

    Starmer has done fairly well so far, but there are five caveats:

    - he's done nothing on policy, so there's not much for Boris and allies to attack
    - some, perhaps most, of the government's wounds are self-inflicted, and he can't rely on that continuing
    - he'll run into the law of diminishing returns at some point. Maybe he has already. June was not a successful month for the government, but his lead over Boris barely moved
    - -2 is not a huge deficit, by any stretch of the imagination.
    - he's got four more years to go. Anyone can become stale in that time.

    I'd agree with that. One way of looking at it is that there's no such thing as momentum in politics. To continue moving the political situation in your direction you have to continue to take successful actions to win people over.

    Since those later actions might need to be of a different character to any previously successful actions (e.g. developing new policy within a coherent framework that can be sold with a simple slogan compared to not being Corbyn and having an eye for detail) then previous success is not necessarily a good guide to the future.

    But he has started well on what is a big job.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    LadyG said:

    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
    It's a similar, if less charged situation in Devon and Cornwall. The southwest (like Scotland) has basically eliminated the virus. It is not circulating, deaths are around zero.

    So they want to keep it that way and to tell everyone to stay east of Exmoor.

    However, they also reluctantly realise they will be eating grass if the tourism industry dies. So they are grudgingly accepting the reality that travel must happen and people will come, they have the advantage that Boris is allowing it.
    The problem is that a lot of people who have retired to these idyllic spot don't care. They are immune from the local economy and resistant to any developments which threaten what they think they paid for. In my limited experience people like that are much more of an issue than locals wondering where their kids are going to work.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 10,948
    HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    3 Cons, 1 Labour and no Lib Dems in Scotland in that map. Which would be .... interesting,
  • DavidL said:

    Fishing said:

    Starmer has done fairly well so far, but there are five caveats:

    - he's done nothing on policy, so there's not much for Boris and allies to attack
    - some, perhaps most, of the government's wounds are self-inflicted, and he can't rely on that continuing
    - he'll run into the law of diminishing returns at some point. Maybe he has already. June was not a successful month for the government, but his lead over Boris barely moved
    - -2 is not a huge deficit, by any stretch of the imagination.
    - he's got four more years to go. Anyone can become stale in that time.

    On the last point I think that is especially so if they lack a certain wit. Cameron was effective because he was often genuinely funny and would get a good sound bite as a result. Sir Kneel keeps any sense of humour pretty heavily under wraps. But its more than a pass mark to date, no question.
    Though there are signs that SKS is loosening up a bit, perhaps as he gains confidence. Both the "dodge the question or dodgy answers" and the "No more witnesses, I rest my case" lines last week at PMQs were clearly prepared, but showed a wit that he hadn't before. Especially the second, since it skewered a line that Boris has been trying against him.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    Scott_xP said:

    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no.

    If ministers often ask for stupid shit they should often say no
    Yes it is a pretty straight question , either it is legal or it is not. they cannot just make it up, sure they have to provide a reason why they are saying No.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,572
    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    If his old self was a bloated, puffy scarecrow, fair enough.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Considering he has only put in a couple of days work since elected it is easy to understand why he is rested.
  • HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    It is amazing though, how Starmer has made so much progress in such a short period of time.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 1,934
    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Indeed. The revival of his form and humour will be a great disappointment to those who have so assiduously concern-trolled his health in recent months: 'Ooh, he's a bit out of breath isn't he? Getting a bit tired by the end of the press conference, isn't he? Oooh...'.

    Not any more. A revivified Boris with 4 clear years of power will be a delightful sight to behold :smile:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,177
    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.

    Did you see Miliband on the Andrew Marr show yesterday? I thought he was excellent. Such a contrast to when he was leader, when it seems he made a straightjacket for himself.

    I agree that he was a poor leader. So much triangulation - the immigration mug was the emblem of this, but also on the economy - giving the impression that he had no principles, which I don't think is true. But what makes you say that he was a terrible minister?
    His time as SoS for Energy and Climate change seemed to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of securing our energy production, did quite a lot to encourage the off-shoring of manufacturing and generally seemed to make it more difficult to make things in the UK.

    But he has some interesting ideas, as the government has shown by pinching several of them!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no. If no is the default rather than a more complicated response then that is a problem. There may be times when no is appropriate but they should be relatively few and far between not very often.
    There’s also a difference between say, the intricate legal aspects of a planning decision, as Ms Cyclefree refers, and the senior CS simply saying no to a major chunk of the elected government’s manifesto.
    Bollox , there is no way they can just say no to minister's.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 5,547
    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
    It's a similar, if less charged situation in Devon and Cornwall. The southwest (like Scotland) has basically eliminated the virus. It is not circulating, deaths are around zero.

    So they want to keep it that way and to tell everyone to stay east of Exmoor.

    However, they also reluctantly realise they will be eating grass if the tourism industry dies. So they are grudgingly accepting the reality that travel must happen and people will come, they have the advantage that Boris is allowing it.
    The problem is that a lot of people who have retired to these idyllic spot don't care. They are immune from the local economy and resistant to any developments which threaten what they think they paid for. In my limited experience people like that are much more of an issue than locals wondering where their kids are going to work.
    Hang on, as someone pointed out, the furlough scheme ends in October anyway which is when tourism shuts down considerably anyway. And if the virus is allowed back in then there won't be any tourism anyway.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    DavidL said:

    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.

    Did you see Miliband on the Andrew Marr show yesterday? I thought he was excellent. Such a contrast to when he was leader, when it seems he made a straightjacket for himself.

    I agree that he was a poor leader. So much triangulation - the immigration mug was the emblem of this, but also on the economy - giving the impression that he had no principles, which I don't think is true. But what makes you say that he was a terrible minister?
    His time as SoS for Energy and Climate change seemed to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of securing our energy production, did quite a lot to encourage the off-shoring of manufacturing and generally seemed to make it more difficult to make things in the UK.

    But he has some interesting ideas, as the government has shown by pinching several of them!
    Indeed. Look at what this government has done to reduce our climate emissions and contrast with the abysmal failure of what the Labour government did and the contrast is shocking.

    Remarkable statistic - when you account for off-shored energy our emissions went up not down under Labour.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,684
    edited June 29
    Boris looks like he just swallowed Michael Fabricant.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
    It's a similar, if less charged situation in Devon and Cornwall. The southwest (like Scotland) has basically eliminated the virus. It is not circulating, deaths are around zero.

    So they want to keep it that way and to tell everyone to stay east of Exmoor.

    However, they also reluctantly realise they will be eating grass if the tourism industry dies. So they are grudgingly accepting the reality that travel must happen and people will come, they have the advantage that Boris is allowing it.
    The problem is that a lot of people who have retired to these idyllic spot don't care. They are immune from the local economy and resistant to any developments which threaten what they think they paid for. In my limited experience people like that are much more of an issue than locals wondering where their kids are going to work.
    Yes, spot on. I think of a place like, say, Restronguet in Cornwall - beautiful, Edenic, extremely expensive, and full of rich non-Cornish retirees living in £2m houses

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-81125296.html


    They will be adamant that the Tamar must be fortified and NO ONE allowed in. And yet that area is full of pubs, hotels, sports clubs, renters of kayaks and paddleboards, artisanal pasty makers, all staffed by working class Cornish and they will be DESPERATE for the tourists to come.

    Quite a division.

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 268

    Scott_xP said:

    and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.

    Only if it was illegal under domestic law.

    You tried that bollocks on the last thread. Did you really need to repeat it here?
    In case you missed it that was an argument for Brexit.

    Because quite often the argument was made that something was illegal under EU law and the government has no power over EU law. The government does have power over UK law. Once we have Brexited international law will be quite narrow in scope as it should be.

    Again the argument was that the Civil Service "often" has to say "no". How "often" do you think the government seeks to break international laws?
    This one.... most of the time, I would think.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    LadyG said:

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
    That is the glassy stare of a dunderheid
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,561
    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    3 Cons, 1 Labour and no Lib Dems in Scotland in that map. Which would be .... interesting,
    Don't worry, HYUFD will be along shortly to cherry pick whichever of the 2015, 2017 or 2019 GE results in Scotland show that the Scottish Tories are doing well.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,758

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    No, if a Minister proposes something that is illegal for instance the correct advice would be to say that an Act of Parliament would be required to change the law to permit it.

    Assuming it was only illegal domestically.

    There remain many, many occasions when No is the only right answer.
    No, because we can leave international organisations too. We can even leave the UN if we wanted to.

    The government may determine changing the law is not a price it wants to pay for the action it wants, but that should be its decision to make. The role of the Civil Service isn't to say No - it is to say How even if How is uncomfortable.
    You are wrong. If a government lawyer is asked by a Minister whether X is contrary to the law - and it is - the answer is to say that it is contrary to the law and therefore the Minister should not do it.

    It is not to advise him on how he can get away with breaking the law.

    I have been in exactly this position. It was in relation to a very high profile planning decision. The Minister was proposing to take a decision which was unlawful. I told him so. He did not like the answer. Too bad.

    He had to go away and rethink the decision in light of the advice given. He then made a lawful decision. I had no concern with the decision’s substance, on which I gave no advice.

    The role of the civil service and government lawyers is not to obey orders regardless of any concerns for the law. It really isn’t. A state where that happens is, literally a lawless state.

    That this view seems to come from those who claim to be conservative, whether in a small “c” or big “c” sense, is as absurd as it is frightening.
    I never said that orders must be obeyed. I don't believe in that.

    I said that if the government wants to do something and the Civil Service says it is illegal then it should say so and that it would take an Act of Parliament to change the law.

    If the government doesn't want to change the law then that is its prerogative and it is a no. If the government is prepared to change the law though, then that is also its prerogative subject to Parliament agreeing to do so - and if the law is changed the act is no longer illegal.
    You simply have no idea of the range of decisions taken every single day which require legal advice beyond the frankly trite statement that you can change the law if you want to.

    The question “Is it legal for me to do this today?” requires a yes or no answer. Postponing an action may also be unlawful in some circumstances.

    Ministers who ignore the law get themselves into terrible trouble. Generally they try to avoid this. But in a government headed by a man who thinks the rules should not apply to him they get away with it.

    Why anyone should think this a good thing beats me. It is another degrading of good government in this country. We will all be worse off if this continues.

    What continues @Cyclefree ? This started off as a hypothetical between yourself and Philip that seems to have grown arms and legs. Is there any evidence that the government is ignoring legal advice not to proceed with anything? I am not aware of it (although I do wonder what advice Jenrick got before his first decision; presumably not as robust as the advice he got when he quashed it).
    I was dealing with @Philip_Thompson’s claim on the previous thread that civil servants should never say no and pointing out that there are lots of examples when no is exactly the right answer. I gave him an example from my own experience as a government lawyer and civil service.

    Why this should be controversial I don’t know but with some of this government’s supporters it is. Apparently.

    On Jenrick, according to reports, he was advised not to proceed with the decision. He ignored that which is why he had to later accept that his decision was unlawful and agree that it should be quashed.
    I didn't say they should never say no. Never say never.

    I said they should not be "often" saying no. If no is the default rather than a more complicated response then that is a problem. There may be times when no is appropriate but they should be relatively few and far between not very often.
    Unless they are asked to do things that are either unethical or so ill conceived as to be impossible within existing resources or highly damaging if somehow executed - in which case the best response is No. Takes guts and integrity to say no but it's in the national interest. People in Washington have had to do some of this with Trump and the only shame is that it hasn't happened more often.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 7,769

    I don't get the hysteria about changing names. Names are changed regularly.

    Should we be changing John Lennon airport back to Speke Airport if changes of names are inappropriate?

    Yes. Airports named after people are sh*t.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,157
    Starmer is 57. If he achieves a result close to that achieved by Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (i.e. Tories close to a majority and still in power), does Starmer remain Leader of the Labour Party until the election after that?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,935
    edited June 29
    I see Australia is having a bit of another covid outbreak. Still low numbers compared to Europe, but been ramping up the past week.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 10,948
    DavidL said:

    LadyG said:

    FPT DavidL

    "There's a large leisure and tourism industry absolutely desperate for business in Scotland. Many Brits are looking at what is now called a staycation (which used to be just staying at home) holidaying in the UK. There is a chance here to save tens of thousands of jobs in areas like the Highlands with little else.

    And not being satisfied with giving their competitors in the Lake District or the South West a two week start we have this kind of crap? It's just infuriating. Economic vandalism is too kind a description."


    *****



    I know quite a few hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like in Scotland, esp the Highlands and Islands.

    I was planning a professional trip to Skye this summer as lockdown eases, but the locals are adamant that no one must come to Skye, for many months, to keep the virus out. They're not especially keen on Glaswegians, let alone the English. And they really mean it, they won't cooperate. Or so I am told.

    All the people employed directly in tourism are tearing their hair out, they know how much tourism means to the Skye economy: it is hugely important. Without it, Skye basically goes bust.

    I guess when furlough ends and the jobs go with it, that might focus minds.

    A good friend of mine is the principal shareholder of a business with a number of hotels in and around Inverness. If they don't open soon they don't open at all. The Scottish schools are already out and many Scots go on holiday as soon as that happens before the Sassenachs drive up the prices!
    I think there's a trend away from hotels to self-catering that the CV19 epidemic accelerates. There's a role for business travel, which itself will be suppressed in the next year or so, and for wedding venues. The concept of hotels as a leisure destination is on the way out, unfortunately.

    Notwithstanding the necessity of working out a smart form of semi-lockdown, which will be our way of life for the medium term.
  • IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    Don't dare to besmirch Lady Gaga like that. Like the PM she's a national treasure.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,453
    LadyG said:

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
    Mischievous glint? What have you been drinking?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    Don't dare to besmirch Lady Gaga like that. Like the PM she's a national treasure.
    Like the PM, his self regard runs well ahead of his capability.
  • NevaNeva Posts: 14
    edited June 29
    HYUFD said:

    Neva said:

    (From the last thread)
    Betfair last matched prices for GOP nominee, moves since yesterday lunchtime:

    Trump 1.09 to 1.13
    Pence 15 to 18
    Haley 70 to 27
    Romney 140 to 100
    Ryan - flat at 240
    Cruz - 310 to 300

    If a vacancy were to arise, Haley would be a sensible pick against Biden.

    Trump delegates (who will be the vast majority at the convention) would go for Pence over Haley
    It's so complicated. If the choice were Pence vs Haley, Pence might or might not already be president and Trump might or might not endorse a candidate (or care a fig for who led the country, assuming the pardon situation was to his liking). And how would "Trump delegates" respond if he were to push the envelope, say by recommending Tom Cotton? (Or someone from his family, although I think that's unlikely.)

    There may be fun and games involving the GOP's Standing Committee on Rules and its Rules Committee. As I understand it, all ~2000 delegates have a vote on the nomination, but only those ~300 who are physically present in Charlotte will have a vote on other matters.

    The effort that the Lincoln Project is putting into its work suggests there is time for the GOP to stop Trump one way or another.

    The last matched price for Romney for the nomination is now 55.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857

    FF43 said:

    HYUFD said:

    In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.

    All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined

    3 Cons, 1 Labour and no Lib Dems in Scotland in that map. Which would be .... interesting,
    Don't worry, HYUFD will be along shortly to cherry pick whichever of the 2015, 2017 or 2019 GE results in Scotland show that the Scottish Tories are doing well.
    Surprised they think Tories will get 3
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 313
    nichomar said:

    LadyG said:

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
    Mischievous glint? What have you been drinking?
    I accept there are some on here whose visceral dislike of the PM would lead them to believe he is ginger haired, eight foot tall, of Amerindian descent, and is entirely infertile, if it confirmed their dislike of him, but to my studiedly neutral eye, he looks like a healthy man again. With his old charm returned (even if the charm only works on some).

    We are free to disagree, but I am entirely right.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,619

    DavidL said:

    kicorse said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said on the last thread he is doing well. A vigorous response to the anti-Semitism report and he will have complete control of the party machinery, more than Corbyn managed for a very long time, if ever.

    He needs to think of ideas and plans but he is right to focus on sorting out the stains on Labour's reputation first. I think its interesting that Ed Miliband is back in a more prominent role. He was a poor leader and a terrible Minister but he was always a good ideas man who could write a coherent proposal.

    The Tories will need to up their game. That is what a good opposition gives to the country. We've missed it.

    Did you see Miliband on the Andrew Marr show yesterday? I thought he was excellent. Such a contrast to when he was leader, when it seems he made a straightjacket for himself.

    I agree that he was a poor leader. So much triangulation - the immigration mug was the emblem of this, but also on the economy - giving the impression that he had no principles, which I don't think is true. But what makes you say that he was a terrible minister?
    His time as SoS for Energy and Climate change seemed to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of securing our energy production, did quite a lot to encourage the off-shoring of manufacturing and generally seemed to make it more difficult to make things in the UK.

    But he has some interesting ideas, as the government has shown by pinching several of them!
    Indeed. Look at what this government has done to reduce our climate emissions and contrast with the abysmal failure of what the Labour government did and the contrast is shocking.

    Remarkable statistic - when you account for off-shored energy our emissions went up not down under Labour.
    There's a good opportunity to reduce emissions further if they can incentivise companies to embrace work-from-home, after this year's somewhat involuntary experiment.


  • As the cranky mob hate this, it must mean it's a great thing to have said
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,453
    LadyG said:

    nichomar said:

    LadyG said:

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
    Mischievous glint? What have you been drinking?
    I accept there are some on here whose visceral dislike of the PM would lead them to believe he is ginger haired, eight foot tall, of Amerindian descent, and is entirely infertile, if it confirmed their dislike of him, but to my studiedly neutral eye, he looks like a healthy man again. With his old charm returned (even if the charm only works on some).

    We are free to disagree, but I am entirely right.
    Of course you are right there is no room for self doubt.
  • NevaNeva Posts: 14
    edited June 29

    I don't get the hysteria about changing names. Names are changed regularly.

    Yes, agreed. It's the same with statues - some people think history means the past, or that moving a statue from street to museum is "denying" something. Names of many airports and cities have been changed and will be changed in the future.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    LadyG said:

    nichomar said:

    LadyG said:

    IanB2 said:

    LadyG said:

    This is encouraging (even if you hate Boris, he is our PM).

    Bojo looks completely returned to his old self. Relaxed, witty, healthy, a sparkle in the eye: entirely healthy and rested (especially rested, given that he is the 56 year old dad of a newborn)

    This fits with the profile of Covid sufferers. It hits you for quite a while - but you nearly always DO get better in the end.

    Puff.
    But, it's true. He has that mischievous glint in his eye, which is always a sign he is on form.

    It's been notably absent of late, to the extent I wondered if it would ever return and he might retire very soon.
    Mischievous glint? What have you been drinking?
    I accept there are some on here whose visceral dislike of the PM would lead them to believe he is ginger haired, eight foot tall, of Amerindian descent, and is entirely infertile, if it confirmed their dislike of him, but to my studiedly neutral eye, he looks like a healthy man again. With his old charm returned (even if the charm only works on some).

    We are free to disagree, but I am entirely right.
    That would be a first.
Sign In or Register to comment.