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?
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]
