Behind the stupid cartoon persona, Rees Mogg really is a fully paid up fascist, isn’t he?
Watched it last night, it's clear that some of them are getting their version of events firmly onto the record/out into the public. JRM's comments about the politicisation of the judiciary are straight out of RW US politics playbook. What a ****.
His dad literally wrote the book that the whole right wing QA nutjobs started out with
Isn't your dad a committed Tory?
What does that say about you?
What does that say about you?
That I can see the error of my ways and change my opinion when I understood the damage that their policies were doing.
👍
Who's watched the second episode then? Specifically about Johnson. Its even worse than the first
I know that a lot of it is now common knowledge with stuff thats already been reported, but its still shocking to see senior civil servants etc tell exactly whats happened.
It was clear that Johnson had no interest in the day-to-day running of government so essentially outsourced it all to Dominic Cummings, who then started acting like some Fascist Dictator.
Its insane to see how our system of government, by law, is so weak that someone like that can basically tear up all the norms of democracy and pretty much do what they like. And look where its got us
I know that a lot of it is now common knowledge with stuff thats already been reported, but its still shocking to see senior civil servants etc tell exactly whats happened.
I was more shocked at what a silver-spoon mouthed simpleton that foreign office permanent secretary was. Hardly a surprise that someone like Cummings would want to go in and tell all these establishment functionaries where to go. If you want to know why the north doesn't get the investment and attention it deserves, that posh foreign office bloke is a good answer. The whole of government is riddled with them.
You can't just go from one extreme to the other overnight though
I'm more concerned about an unelected advisor ordering the chancellor of the exchequer to sack his entire team of advisors to be replaced by one selected by him and the Prime Minister giving it the nod, because he was too lazy or spineless (more likely both) to stand up to him
I was more shocked at what a silver-spoon mouthed simpleton that foreign office permanent secretary was.
that’s the problem. They are all from the same establishment clique. Same posh schools and universities. It’s been this way for ever eldest son gets the estate, the rest become senior civil servants or military officers depending on how thick they are
If you want to know why the north doesn’t get the investment and attention it deserves, that posh foreign office bloke is a good answer. The whole of government is riddled with them.
Or it tells us you how much you are influenced by class ridden stereotypes.
Dominic Cummings, who then started acting like some Fascist Dictator.
Spot on. At the risk of Godwinising the thread, his actions really are straight out of Hitler’s 1930’s playbook . Get into power & then subvert the (relatively impartial) institutions of state by replacing them with overtly political appointees. It also highlights yet again the delusions of Brexit that anybody attempting to tell the truth is seen as an opponent.
Binners you're a curious one. You spend most of your time on here broadcasting your northern chip on the shoulder and ranting against southern tories, but then take the side of a public school educated chinless wonder who has spent his entire life fine wining and dining in diplomatic circles at the cost of the taxpayer. 🤷♂️
I'm afraid between Cummings and posh Mr Disagreeable I'll take Cummings' side every day.
Or it tells us you how much you are influenced by class ridden stereotypes.
Damn right. I've been a victim of those stereotypes my entire life. Don't ask me to show them any sympathy. They can all burn as far as I'm concerned.
I’m afraid between Cummings and posh Mr Disagreeable I’ll take Cummings’ side every day.
So you're in favour of class-based bigotry over rational decisions? Explains a lot.
I’m afraid between Cummings and posh Mr Disagreeable I’ll take Cummings’ side every day.
The fact that there are quite a lot of people like you is what facilitates the whole shit show.
Why do you have to take sides? Why can't you see that one is just as bad as the other, just in different ways.
I'm not defending Mr Chinless posho. I'm not defending anyone.
I'm saying that having some power-crazed lunatic like Cummings come in and start acting like some Banana Republic tinpot dictator, sacking anyone he doesn't like isn't the answer either.
Who do you think he's going to put in their place? Given that he'd previously done everything in his power to get Boris Johnson elected? He didn't seem to have any issue with that particular chinless posho when it suited him
I’m afraid between Cummings and posh Mr Disagreeable I’ll take Cummings’ side every day.
Good job we had "Dominic Cummings, man of the people" going in there to disrupt them for the benefit of us all. And Truss with her grass roots working class British backers then doubling down on the clear out of "the swamp". Wish I could thank them both.
[ insert all the winking emoticons ]
Will watch it, but guess it’ll make me even more hacked off at those who voted for this shower of grifters and idiots.
If you haven't yet seen it, don't worry. While an interesting recap, nothing on there will even slightly surprise you.
I’ll take Cummings’ side every day.
I think he's right in that the structure of the civil service and appointment of MPs into Cabinet and Ministerial positions - often for very short periods of time with little to no experience, based largely on whether the PM likes them, needs their support or any other myriad political reasons; needs reform, it's very clearly no longer fit for purpose*.
The problem is that while he identified it, all he then did was try to destroy it, with absolutely no idea and no real enthusiasm for the actual work of how it was to be rebuilt.
In that respect, I'd rather have the toff
* the central theme to Rory Stewart's new book is this subject. In one instance he recounts that May appointed an ex-lawyer to the Health Service and and ex-GP to the Justice Dept.
Why do you have to take sides?
Did you actually just write that!? You are literally the most partisan person on this forum. 😂
I'm not exactly pro-Cummings, but I struggle to disagree with him that the grip on power that apparatchiks such as that FO bloke has needs dismantling. Every problem in this country boils down to politicians and civil servants saying 'we can't do that', when in actual fact they mean 'we won't do that' because it doesn't benefit them or the class of people they belong to. Cummings of course wouldn't have done any better, but what if someone with good intentions was trying to do the same? Would you then be defending Mr Foreign Office or someone like him? Actually that's a moot question, because given your fanatical opposition to anyone proposing to do anything different you'd support the establishment every time.
the central theme to Rory Stewart’s new book is this subject.
Yes Rory Stewart, an MI6 ghoul who no doubt knows Mr Foreign Office very well. I'm not sure I put much credence in whatever he says either.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1703726528687710710?s=20
I'm enjoying it, but as Tom Peck of the Independent writes...
...And then there's the calm voice of Helen MacNamara the ethics advisor later fined for bringing her karaoke machine to a lockdown party
Why do you have to take sides?
Did you actually just write that!? You are literally the most partisan person on this forum.
So why would I take a side in this argument? What benefit is it to me, or anyone like me, who 'wins?'. A bunch of entitled old school ties against a power-crazed psychopath? Thats like asking if you want your huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread? Theres no 'winners' there as far as I, or anyone like me is concerned
For me, it's like watching City play Liverpool. I just watch it hoping for some red cards and injuries.
but what if someone with good intentions was trying to do the same?
Then I'd judge them on their merits like I do with everything else. Its not complicated.
Getting back to the programme (imagine that?), I found it absolutely terrifying the way Dominic Cummings was allowed to ride roughshod over our supposed constitution, pretty much unopposed. At the end of the day the chinless posho's were absolutely powerless to stop him, he effectively sacked the chancellor of the exchequer because he wouldn't do his bidding, he prorogued parliament and he only finally got the chop when he had a tiff with the fly-tipped sofa
Doesn't reflect well on our democracy, does it? Nobody voted for this bloke, remember, but it looks like to all intents and purposes he was making all the big calls about the running of the country, without consulting anybody
The fact that there are quite a lot of people like you
People like me? Last time I looked there weren't many working class lefty liberal anarchists around. Happy to be corrected though.
Indeed. And who then became the de facto Prime Minister herself, in the absence of any interest in the fulfilling the role from the bloke who'd actually (inexplicably) been given the job
I found it absolutely terrifying the way Dominic Cummings was allowed to ride roughshod over our supposed constitution
We don't have a constitution. We have a gentleman's agreement between rich people who went to public school and Oxbridge, and a tiny few people with hereditary titles. If Cummings was trying to dismantle that then fine by me.
Doesn’t reflect well on our democracy, does it?
We don't have a democracy. Glad you're finally waking up to that fact.
We don’t have a constitution
Oh not this again, yes we do, it's just not codified into a document. How else d'you think the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson proroguing of Parliament was illegal?
If Cummings was trying to dismantle that then fine by me.
But Cummings is also "rich people who went to public school and Oxbridge". He's married to a Baron's daughter for goodness sake. He's as Establishment as it's possible to get.
rich people who went to public school and Oxbridge
Like Cummings.
a tiny few people with hereditary titles
Like Cummings' father in law.
He wanted to change how the state works (and not for the better in my opinion), not which social group it works for. Just another power grab by someone who went to public school and Oxford and married into aristocracy. If as a lefty working class anarchist you're cheering that, you've been had.
We don’t have a constitution. We have a gentleman’s agreement between rich people who went to public school and Oxbridge, and a tiny few people with hereditary titles. If Cummings was trying to dismantle that then fine by me.
Yeah, well that sounds all well and good until you talk to the likes of the people who, for example, supported islamists as they thought they'd help them overthrow their dictatorial leaders? They weren't so hot on that idea once they had succeeded in that, only to find it replaced with a tyranny of murderous jihadists
'Lets just smash everything up' isn't really a formula for a successful system of government, is it? You have to sort of think about what it will be replaced with
We don’t have a constitution.
We do its just spread across a bunch of different documents. Admittedly there are some fairly big gaps in it such as the role of PM which has evolved via convention instead but we do have one.
If Cummings was trying to dismantle that then fine by me.
He was wanting to use it to his advantage. Not dismantle it.
Otherwise step 1 would have been to codify all the conventions.
I have watched the first two. Disappointingly shallow, I was hoping for more on the detail of what went on between the mythical men in grey suits in their smoke filled rooms.
It's surprising how many of you dislike Dominic Cummings since many of you seem to agree with 90% of his beliefs and only disagree with his means of achieving them.
Under representation of the North. Removing UKIP as a factor in UK politics. Removing/reducing immigration as a factor in UK politics. Opposition to extremism. Belief in liberal ideals. Free trade. Opposition to the Euro. Belief that many Tories are idiot and that their lackeys are worse. Total disbelief in established systems especially those which are inefficient and/or corrupt. He didn't believe in Brexit - he was against further integration and believed in some things which could be delivered by Brexit. He's admittedly ruthless in his pursuit, but from the very beginning, you could tie his colours to issues, he never tried to hide it. Almost all of his views were political/scientific, but not party relate, just around policy - his understanding of economics is by all accounts woeful, so would have been willfully ignorant of the economic effects of Brexit, instead focussing only on the political effects.
It's just a shame he can't add - Tories are idiots + tearing down society doesn't a good outcome.
Say what you will - I really hope that ARIA will be a success. We needed this.
many of you seem to agree with 90% of his beliefs
He has far more in common with Jacob Rees-Moog and his "beliefs" as regards sovereign individuals than he does with me (or anyone else that's commented on him so far in this thread I'd wager).
ARIA : "investments" shrouded in secrecy funnelling state funds to private pet projects with no results shown.
At least someone since has had the sense to get us involved in Horizon again... years wasted in science and R&D at the whim of one man.
only disagree with his means of achieving them.
For me that's the issue. He knew what he was against, and he knew what he wanted (sort of, although I'd argue he probably doesn't) , he had zero interest in actually putting down in words how to get from A to B let alone anything after that. I genuinely think he was terrified that if he nailed his colours to a mast he'd have been asked to deliver, and he knows that he's almost entirely incapable of doing the thing he apparently wants.
For someone who's ideals are those that you list, its a bloody bizarre thing to do to hitch your wagon to the Tory party.
His trick was to (correctly) see how totally dysfunctional a Johnson regime would be, in the wake of the Brexit chaos that he was largely responsible for, and allow him to take full advantage of in a mad power grab.
He wanted to smash everything up, but didn't seem to have a clue what to replace it with. He's just another Ayn Rand worshipping bell-end who believe in the ludicrous concept of 'creative chaos'. Well theres no such thing as 'creative chaos', only chaos, as where this country is now is testimony to
Like Cummings.
Like Cummings’ father in law.
Oh FGS I'm not making out like Cummings is some sort of working class hero, of course he isn't. But he was a disruptor, and christ knows this corrupt venal system we have to run the country needs a bit/lot of disruption. It needs to change massively if the needs of working people are ever going to be properly addressed. As has been proven time and again, that change isn't coming from within the system, so maybe it needs a Cummings-like approach to break the seal. I don't really care who does it, and from what background they come from, but it needs to happen.
Yeah, we get it... change is good... even when it makes things worse.
I think Dom Cummings should be a man who shouts about how shit it all is, and he should be listened to as a public commentator Although his blog is mostly impenetrable, he is very obviously pretty smart. He should also be kept very far away from anything even slightly resembling anything organisational above his sock drawers though.
For someone who’s ideals are those that you list, its a bloody bizarre thing to do to hitch your wagon to the Tory party.
His trick was to (correctly) see how totally dysfunctional a Johnson regime would be, in the wake of the Brexit chaos that he was largely responsible for, and allow him to take full advantage of in a mad power grab.
He wanted to smash everything up, but didn’t seem to have a clue what to replace it with. He’s just another Ayn Rand worshipping bell-end who believe in the ludicrous concept of ‘creative chaos’. Well theres no such thing as ‘creative chaos’, only chaos, as where this country is now is testimony to
That's kind of my point - he used the Tories to achieve his goals. He never hid anything. I also don't believe he intended it to be creative chaos. He had some things HE wanted to achieve and assumed (or just didn't care) that the rest would be taken car of by the government. Like I said, it's the joined up thinking in pursuit of his goal that was missing.
As for Aria - it's not even off the ground yet. But it's research goals are unique and challenging, not merely sheep following trends. And Horizon was specifically supposed to continue - it was only due to the Tories incompetence that it didn't.
Let's just be clear, I don't support the Tories or DC, what I'm saying is that he explicitly stated, decades before he was fired EXACTLY what he would do if given the chance. He was given that chance and he did it. If you want to blame anyone, it should be BJ, JRM and most especially Gove.
The problem with self proclaimed "disruptors" is that they can fail to solve any existing problems while piling a whole load of fresh ones on top of them, if given a free hand.
And any "Cummings ideas would have been sound if it wasn't for the Tories" line ignores that he was in power only because of people voting for a Tory government. He helped get them in, and him in, by leveraging Brexit as a tool not an aim. It's like saying if only Cummings wasn't doing what he was doing then what he was doing might have been beneficial.
change is good… even when it makes things worse.
Makes things worse for who though? For a large portion of the lower/working classes things can't get much worse. As we saw with brexit and Trump in America, when the upper/middle class establishment ignore that the majority start to make stupid choices when they go to the ballot box.
Makes things worse for who though? For a large portion of the lower/working classes things can’t get much worse.
You realise that the entire Tory party is looking at that statement and saying 'hold my pint châteauneuf du pape....'
For a large portion of the lower/working classes things can’t get much worse.
They are getting worse. Have been for years. You might be isolated from the additional shit brought upon the UK by these people, but many of us are not.
TL:DR Cummings was smarter than the directors of the BEEB and used it to his advantage because he’s a psychopathic scheming sack of shit with no morals.
Pretty good summary, that.
The problem with the BBC is precisely due to the ability of the government to threaten its funding if it feels the Beeb isn’t being subservient enough. I’ve never really paid much attention to Laura Kuennesberg, or any of the political wonks for that matter, so I’ve been immune to whatever she’s been whittering on about, but there really does need to be a national network that doesn’t rely on advertising, but is entirely immune from intimidation and interference from the government of the day. What sort of legal framework would enable that I don’t know, government is quite happy to change laws to get its way, even when the law is supposedly written to be immune from interference.
I’m happy to pay for the BBC just for the sheer quality of its nature and science programmes, and its national radio stations, commercial radio is absolute garbage.
You realise that the entire Tory party is looking at that statement and saying ‘hold my pint châteauneuf du pape….’
Doesn't matter if it can actually get worse, what matters is that people perceive that it can't and then start electing the really dangerous types.
What? Can you tell me who's presently more dangerous than this lot?
You get that the programme we're discussing is detailing 13 years of total chaos, brought to you by a gang of insane right wing headbangers?
And any “Cummings ideas would have been sound if it wasn’t for the Tories” line ignores that he was in power only because of people voting for a Tory government. He helped get them in, and him in, by leveraging Brexit as a tool not an aim.
Who said that? I certainly didn't. I never said they were good ideas. I said others seemed to agree with some of his ideas. I only really agree with the idea of strategic, state funded, fundamental, not necessarily applicable, highly exploratory research, I was simply pointing out that he wasn't a Tory, wasn't a believer and wasn't an intentional chaos maker. He just had some shit he wanted to get done and found a way to do it. Blame those who gave him the chance, not the man to whom the chance was given.
You might be isolated from the additional shit brought upon the UK by these people, but many of us are not.
Eh? So now you've suffered at the hands of the tories, you want to keep everything the same? You do realise labour are (probably*) not coming to the rescue don't you? Look at the bigger picture, the reason anyone who can call themselves working class has suffered over the past 40 years is not the result of one political party, but the system of government and the people who sustain it. Labour are as complicit in that as the tories.
*If you believe what Starmer and Reeves tell us.
What? Can you tell me who’s presently more dangerous than this lot?
The people you call insane rightwing headbangers were the same people who paid millions of people's wages and propped up the entire economy during covid. When the chips were down they did as any other sensible goverment or political party would. That's not deserving of much credit, but it illustrates the point that they could have been much, much worse. You have a lack of imagination.
I was simply pointing out that he wasn’t a Tory
He is "of the right" though. Every single one of his forays into local or national politics has been in opposition to left wing ideas and he's consistently and continually worked with the Right. I think he dislikes the sort of "gentlemen amateur arts degree politician " that certain parts of the Tory establishment produce, although arguably; that's exactly what he is himself.
He is “of the right” though. Every single one of his forays into local or national politics has been in opposition to left wing ideas and he’s consistently and continually worked with the Right.
Are you talking about Keir Starmer here or Dominic Cummings?
Boom and possibly Tish
Blame those who gave him the chance, not the man to whom the chance was given.
But that's so circular... he helped put those people in power, and he knew how shit they would be once there.
paid millions of people’s wages and propped up the entire economy during covid. When the chips were down they did as any other sensible goverment or political party would.
A good point. But they didn't pay Binners, so perhaps don't rub it in...😉
It’s surprising how many of you dislike Dominic Cummings since many of you seem to agree with 90% of his beliefs and only disagree with his means of achieving them.
I am not sure I agree with that high percentage of his beliefs but even if I did the "means of achieving" is a rather important difference. Its also unclear how much he believed in,for example, helping the north vs using it as a way of achieving his aims. Certainly he did very little to actually help beyond campaign slogans and if anything undermined it by the antidevolution campaigns.
It’s just a shame he can’t add – Tories are idiots + tearing down society doesn’t a good outcome.
Because his views, in general, aligned with the tories although more of the Sunak pretend techno bro variety than one nation. Whilst he was more about using the tories rather than being a loyal party member he was still very much politically aligned with them.
He just had some shit he wanted to get done and found a way to do it. Blame those who gave him the chance, not the man to whom the chance was given.
Eh? Why not hold both accountable.
If I got made PM then those who gave me the chance should definitely be blamed for being morons.
However I should also be blamed for being deluded enough to think I could do the job.
With regards to the research it sums him up really. A half arsed knock off of the US DARPA moulded through simplistic silicon valley view of technology will solve everything without thinking about the larger picture or understanding when technology fails us.
Guys the policy is the problem.
We are being fed a looney-bin economic system stated as 'fact' that endless growth will deliver the things that we want when it's the exact opposite way around. You can't make a case for small state and somehow growth springs up - like Truss believes, or many of the Tories. State has to come first - any party ignoring this is doomed to failure. This has been the way since 1979 not 13 years ago. The stripping of the state gave us the growth between. That's eroded now.
Harping on about Tory behaviour solves nothing. It's a rotten distraction. Well behaved neoliberals like Starmer are not rewriting the narrative. Tories control the narrative and we seem to be stuck in this reactionary world.
We need a new way of prioritising things. And stronger political will. Either pay now for Climate Change or pay when it's too late by way of example.
Oh change the record, please!
Truth hurts!
Its also unclear how much he believed in,for example, helping the north vs using it as a way of achieving his aims. Certainly he did very little to actually help beyond campaign slogans and if anything undermined it by the antidevolution campaigns.
I never said he believed in the North, nor that he wanted to help them. He believed that the North was under represented and taken for granted and tried to tell people. Had Labour actually listened, properly listened to what he was saying almost 10 years before Brexit, we might not be here now. Instead, he used what he knew and what he'd actually stated to win the referendum, an election and a chance to enact change. He might well have believed his grand goals would help by eliminating migration as an issue, stabilising British politics, etc, but only he would know and who would believe what he said if now asked about it? Again, not defending DC, just saying that people keep attributing things (desire to help the North) to statements (under representation of the North) and then complaining that he misled them. It's all there in black and white. The Tories used him to eliminate UKIP (truly their only real goal, right?) via winning Brexit via targeting the disenfranchised areas of British politics. He tried to use the Tories to get into the halls of power and break apart what he saw as non-functional systems or hindering issues which he believed were the major (only?) drag on British politics. My stand is that he was blithely/willfully ignorant to the incompetence of the Tories, despite having worked with Gove for almost 10 years.
Dummings is a stupid person's clever person. He's never actually done anything of note in his miserable life, just smashed things up. He name-drops shameless from all the books he's read, about things he couldn't begin to create or even properly understand.
The Oxford humanities education consists largely of training people to bullshit volubly and fairly convincingly about things they don't understand, based on a shallow reading of authoritative sources. It's pretty much the human equivalent of ChatGPT. When such people stray into areas that you actually have direct knowledge, their shallowness is immediately apparent, but most of the time, for most of the audience, that doesn't really happen much and their voluble bullshit appears authoritative and convincing.
He believed that the North was under represented and taken for granted and tried to tell people
Did he? Then why did he campaign against the attempts to better represent the north?
Cummings entry into politics was a campaign against (Prescotts baby) the northern devolution which would have resulted in better representation for the north. The campaign was pretty much a carbon copy of all his future ones. Filled with lies and claims about giving money to the NHS.
He also did the same bunch of lies against the AV referendum. Once again resulting in the north being underrepresented.
My stand is that he was blithely/willfully ignorant to the incompetence of the Tories
Nope. He was blithely and willfully ignorant of the fact that his own ideas were a bunch of half baked ted talks on steroids and unwilling to accept that whilst he is probably skilled* at negative campaigning he has absolutely no talent or skills at leading and inspiring people.
* I say probably skilled because I dont think he has ever gone against the right wing rags and hence been tested without having serious support. Just like Cameron up until the brexit referendum so it may be he would fall apart without that support.
that’s the problem. They are all from the same establishment clique
You'd be surprised how many top civil servants aren't from that background, but don't let facts get in the way....
The comparison between Cummings sneaking into power and the Rise of tbe Nazis series on tbe Beeb was uncanny, and very obvious.
And while many of his criticisms of the government and civil service are valid, simoly smashing it while having nothing lined up to replace seemed very similar to the way we ****ed up Iraq after Saddam
Sorry this is a long thread I cannot be bothered to read but has it put to bed the "yeah but Corbyns worse" argument?
dazh
People like me? Last time I looked there weren’t many working class lefty liberal anarchists around. Happy to be corrected though.
There's at least two of us.
You’d be surprised how many top civil servants aren’t from that background, but don’t let facts get in the way…
True, but the culture is very pervasive. My daughter is a civil servant and she showed me a report she had written (publicly available). I commended her on how well she had picked up civil service language. She replied "Oh they grind it into you".
There's no way I'm going to watch this.
All that will happen is that it will confirm what anyone with 2+ brain cells knew anyway - and make me cross all over again.
And to have it paraded in my face by someone who was instrumental in some of it just so she can get all frisky at the thought of all that jolly interesting chaos.
No thanks - tellys are expensive and I don't want to have to replace mine when I've kicked it in.
Again (and for the last time) you’re conflating identification of an issue with wanting to help solve it. And again you’re conflating policies with people.
Many people on here seem remarkably familiar with ALL of Westminster and the people that staff it and are intimately familiar with DC and his strengths and weakness and are able to fairly judge. It’s uncanny.
you’re conflating identification of an issue with wanting to help solve it
If you mean that Cummings has the knack of identifying issues that can resonate with people to garner their votes... history proves you right on that. Few would dare disagree with you. That doesn't mean we agree that he had any interest in, or the ability to, improve things for us or those around us. Most of us ascertained that to be the case based on his track record well before he was running no 10.
As someone else said... on the outside pointing out the failures.. great. On the insides adding to the failures... never going to cheer him on for that. I absolutely would stand with any civil servant whose expertise, experience and professionalism was simply scratched out because they chose not to blow smoke up Cummings' arse and questioned his approach as some kind of all seeing all knowing renaissance man who thought he always knew better than those with more than a surface understanding of their brief.
That doesn’t mean we agree that he had any interest in, or the ability to, improve things for us or those around us. Most of us ascertained that to be the case based on his track record well before he was running no 10.
Wow. It’s somehow me vs. the rest of you 😂
I don’t disagree that he lacked experience and was quick to dismiss established experience based on prejudice, but let’s face it, he’s not unique in that regard.
I also don’t ascribe to the idea that he’s incapable of leading/inspiring. He seemed quite capable of doing both for many years before directly joining government.
Arrogant, self centred, lacking morals, driven, committed, self assured. Take your pick.
As someone else said earlier. I think it’s a shame people ignored him for ages and will likely do so again, but equally, it’s a shame that some of the changes he wanted to enact weren’t given more structure/thought.
Oh change the record, please!
Truth hurts!
My comment was aimed at Rone who was about to bang the MMT drum again
My comment was aimed at Rone who was about to bang the MMT drum again
Yeah I know. 😂
Rone isn't the only one who recognises that the govt's finances are not the same as a households. See my comment earlier about politicians and civil servants pretending they can't do stuff when in reality it's because they don't want to because money spent for the good of working people doesn't benefit the people they associate with. The lies they tell us about how money works and what the govt can spend is one of the things that needs busting apart.
My daughter is a civil servant and she showed me a report she had written (publicly available). I commended her on how well she had picked up civil service language. She replied “Oh they grind it into you”.
Replace "civil servant" with "engineer.
Most careers are like that.
Rone isn’t the only one who recognises that the govt’s finances are not the same as a households.
Of course they aren't. But... every... single... post. In every thread?!
And, sorry, but this...
Harping on about Tory behaviour solves nothing. It’s a rotten distraction.
...is part of the problem. We absolutely need to look at how the Tories govern, and persuade others to help get rid of them. Those of us that thought that having Labour or Tories in power makes little difference have been shown to be utterly wrong by a string of Tory administrations that have been an utter embarrassment to all of us as voters.
We can't let the Tories off the hook... we need to be rid of them. Shine a bright light on them.
Again (and for the last time) you’re conflating identification of an issue with wanting to help solve it.
No I am not. You made a very specific claim about Cummings " tried to tell people". I pointed out he didnt try to tell people instead he campaigned against those who had identified it and were trying to fix it.
Unless you can provide those list of times when he was trying to "tell people" as opposed to simply using it as an attack vector for the length of a campaign.
Whilst you are at it you could also provide some of those times he was a leader before joining government? In anything other than working as a negative campaigner and think tanker?
Rone isn’t the only one who recognises that the govt’s finances are not the same as a households
Agreed....doesnt make MMT the answer tho.
Nothing to do with economic theory but I'd recommend Ian Dunt's How Parliament Works and Why It Doesn't
For the occasional thread watcher: MMT?
Edit: got it thanks.
TBH the whole Cummings thing is partly about the myth of the man. I like the idea of a super clever person with outsider ideas coming in and disrupting cozy politics and getting **** done. It's just that Cummings wasn't that, he just managed to give a reasonable impression of it for a while, in an incredibly low-expectations political environment.
I like the idea of a super clever person with outsider ideas coming in and disrupting cozy politics and getting **** done.
Except that a: He wasn't elected
& b: To get where he was he cynically chose to tell a complete pack of lies.
"wasn't elected" is a nonissue imo, the problem isn't whether he was elected or not, it's the elected people that were responsible for using his ideas or not. Same as any advisor or civil servant or nominee- I don't worry that Chris Whitty isn't elected either.
it’s the elected people that were responsible for using his ideas or not
Again, circular... his primary job was to get these people into power. He IS responsible for them being there.
Again, circular… his primary job was to get these people into power. He IS responsible for them being there.
You’re really going to have to explain the logic there. He ran BFS and NFF (both Britain centric) LONG before the referendum neither of which had close association with the Tories. His “job” wasn’t to get them into power - they were already in power. He wanted to get rid of UKIP (and stop further integration) and so did the Tories. They used him and he used them.
Are you saying he was somehow responsible for their 2019 election victory? UKIP collapse and Brexit delivery (bravado/bullsh1t) delivered 2019. So, I suppose, by killing UKIP for good, his goal, he did, but it’s not like he enacted policy between 2016 and 2019 that kept them in power now, is it?