Forum menu
You’re really going to have to explain the logic there.
The people who gave him power in No10 and the cabinet office got there thanks to his work for them in 2016 and 2019.
Are you saying he was somehow responsible for their 2019 election victory?
He was involved in daily campaign team meetings, he just did so by phone and kept his name off everything. I think he was key to that campaign... and that his successful involvement in it was the main reason for him being called in to basically run things after the election.
“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
except that one of his plans was to replace ministerial advisors & replace them with his own creatures.. That's why Javid resigned. He was actively trying to control elected ministers & it is not hard to tell whether this was Boris' idea or his alone. Let's face it. He himself admitted that he was considering 'ditching' Johnson within days of the 2019. I'd call that an attempt to undermine democracy by an unelected individual.
He was involved in daily campaign team meetings, he just did so by phone and kept his name off everything. I think he was key to that campaign… and that his successful involvement in it was the main reason for him being called in to basically run things after the election.
Right, so you have no actual evidence, just a boat load of assumption? Gotcha.
except that one of his plans was to replace ministerial advisors & replace them with his own creatures.. That’s why Javid resigned.
yes, but not to replace elected officials. He didn’t believe in the system and wanted new people in rather than traditional people who were also unelected.
The idea is probably completely wrong, replacing experience (but with entrenched thinking) with inexperience and novel thinking. I have no idea how much of Javid’s team he was attempting to supplant with this, but a mix might have worked? Or it might’ve been a disaster - like Truss. I admire Jacks for standing on principal. Whether that was professional or personal principal, I don’t know.
but not to replace elected officials
But it was to control elected officials
All of you seem to think he’s some kind of Voldemort - some form of Machiavellian genius. Do you remember Barnard castle? This was his capability to lie “effectively” and to plot schemes on the fly.
To me, he seems a much simpler problem to solve, but hey, I’m willing to be convinced; Show me evidence?
Show me evidence?
Have you actually seen the programme?
kelvin
Full MemberAgain, circular… his primary job was to get these people into power. He IS responsible for them being there.
So you're concerned that the people who get people elected aren't elected? That's not circular, that's bottomless. What about the person who got the person who gets the person into power into power?
I'm forcing myself to watch the second part, it's a tough watch. All the feelings and anger I had at the time are bubbling back and for that reason I'd suggest that those of you that don't want to watch it should do. I'm not a fan of Laura's reporting at all but this is good and an eye-opener for some people. It may only be confirming what a lot of us thought but it still hits home, especially that we thought it was bad but to have it confirmed to be as bad as we thought is still tough. Normally the truth is not as bad as the rumours you hear but this is the opposite.
I said it to my nephew at the time but it definitely rings true now: we are living (lived) through the time that will be taught in history lessons for the foreseeable future.
All the feelings and anger I had at the time are bubbling back and for that reason I’d suggest that those of you that don’t want to watch it should do.
Absolutely no chance. I don't need to be made angry again to know what our direction of travel ought to be to get some kind of international respectability and internal governance that isn't slave to a pack of lies.
I have no idea how much of Javid’s team he was attempting to supplant with this, but a mix might have worked?
Javid was ordered by Cummings to sack his entire team and have a full set of replacements chosen by himself imposed as replacements.
Remember that this is the Chancellor of the Exchequer we're talking about here, the second most powerful role in government, having some unelected, power-crazed apparatchik demand that he is the one who will select his staff for him. Its Malcolm Tucker made real
Can you imagine anyone with any self-respect who wouldn't have told him to **** right off, and what that would have said about them as a person if they didn't?
Normally the truth is not as bad as the rumours you hear but this is the opposite.
Very much this. In spades!
power-crazed apparatchik demand that he is the one who will select his staff for him.
See also the appointment of Simon Case as the head of the Civil Service which everybody on the programme suggested - or said plainly, that it was clearly a political appointment, and it was a big red flag for the rest of the CS and the way things were going to be run from now on.
All of you seem to think he’s some kind of Voldemort – some form of Machiavellian genius
You arent very good at reading are you?
I havent seen anyone, aside from you to some degree, who is actually rating him as anything other than crap beyond his ability to negative campaign and handle client journalists such as Kuennesberg.
As others have mentioned though he certainly tried to step beyond that with limited success before getting the boot.
I suspect he sees himself more as a Lord Vetinari than Voldemort.
He definitely started to believe his own hype after the success of the Brexit campaign, egged on by a group of Brexiteer MPs too stupid to see his limitations and prepared to forgive him his power-crazed madness after delivering their fantasy for them. The irony of that being that he absolutely despised them all.
Back to the series... it seems to get worse every episode and the last one is about Truss. I genuinely fear that may be unwatchable without kicking the telly in
Back to the series… it seems to get worse every episode
Probably because the people she's interviewing are the mostly inconsequential low-hitters with an axe to grind. Previous 'behind the scenes' documentaries about politics by the likes of Marr or Dimbleby featured ex-PMs and foreign heads of state. All Kuennesberg could muster was Mad Nad and a few anonymous civil servants and ex-spads. I can imagine there were some serious production discussions along the lines of 'is this all we've got?'.
Previous ‘behind the scenes’ documentaries about politics by the likes of Marr or Dimbleby featured ex-PMs and foreign heads of state. All Kuennesberg could muster was Mad Nad and a few anonymous civil servants and ex-spads.
I'm not sure what foreign heads of state can add to a documentary about the Tory party, and exPMs are the focus of the series.
So Mad Nad, and the spads and civil servants involved are the only people who can tell the story.
Were you hoping for fire breathing dragons as well?
I was disappointed by the absence of exploding helicopters
Dummings is now wailing that the Tory party is rotten and must be replaced.
Its rottenness is nothing to do with him, of course. He floats pompously on, a bubble of invincible arrogance and ignorance.
to what extent is the shift in Insider opinion from ‘Westminster basically works’ (2015) to ‘Westminster is broken’ (2023) because a) Insiders are catching up with decades of rot they didn’t want to see (so in at least one way Brexit is working as intended in stripping Insider illusions) or b) most of them have simply shifted from one delusion ‘Westminster basically works’ to another delusion ‘it was working but Brexit broke it’
That passage is from Cumming's blog where he tries to decide what could be the factor between the dates of 2015 and 2023 that has caused most people to reflect that "Westminster" is broken...[Ferris Bueller] Anyone, anyone..?[/Ferris Bueller]
