The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Have you been drinking heavily, Insano? You're saying my whole argument is reliant on a lunatic fringe spurred on by (lots of things) like the Daily Mail, Nadine Dorries and all YOUR usual suspects. There is only you who bought up any of those things. Just to be clear.

Somewhere in the middle (no lunatic fringe on either side), there MIGHT be a good few, who like me read something akin to "Starmer appoints Gray" - fairly bland narrative with no Daily Mail nor Nadine Dorries spin - and MIGHT think, fcuk me she's Labour, how could I possibly believe her report - MAYBE given I was thinking of not voting, MAYBE now I will...

Dumb move for me from Starmer. I don't care whether you agree with this or not.

So I think we've gotten to your view that Starmer appointing Sue Gray will make people like you who weren't voting Tory, vote Tory.

I think that's insane beyond belief and completely illogical. And I'd be happy to bet my house that it simply will not happen. That's very different to 'Labour will win' I'm not arguing that I simply do not think Sue Gray makes a blind bit of difference either way!

More spin than the Daily Mail.

The group I'm talking about is not the group where Arthur Scargill will suddenly votes for Maggie. It's those (as I've said pretty much every response), who might (I've added colour this time to help your eyesight, unless you're colourblind too?) currently be convinced that the Tories weren't worth their vote this time, despite voting for them last time out, because of what occurred through Partygate.

Currently on YouGov polling is the question "Agree or Disagree - Sue Gray working for Labour would undermine the Partygate report." Agree 40%, Disagree 59% - whilst that's a signficant lead for Disagree, there is still a lot agree with the contention. To give some context the same surveys have asked in the last 12 months "Do you think Johnson/Truss/Sunak are doing a good job" and they typically garner a 70%-80% negative...contextually this looks a bit closer.

I'm glad you're not in the medical profession (as short staffed as it is), to give your opinion on where insanity lies.

[BWFC_Insane]

Have you been drinking heavily, Insano? You're saying my whole argument is reliant on a lunatic fringe spurred on by (lots of things) like the Daily Mail, Nadine Dorries and all YOUR usual suspects. There is only you who bought up any of those things. Just to be clear.

Somewhere in the middle (no lunatic fringe on either side), there MIGHT be a good few, who like me read something akin to "Starmer appoints Gray" - fairly bland narrative with no Daily Mail nor Nadine Dorries spin - and MIGHT think, fcuk me she's Labour, how could I possibly believe her report - MAYBE given I was thinking of not voting, MAYBE now I will...

Dumb move for me from Starmer. I don't care whether you agree with this or not.

So I think we've gotten to your view that Starmer appointing Sue Gray will make people like you who weren't voting Tory, vote Tory.

I think that's insane beyond belief and completely illogical. And I'd be happy to bet my house that it simply will not happen. That's very different to 'Labour will win' I'm not arguing that I simply do not think Sue Gray makes a blind bit of difference either way!

More spin than the Daily Mail.

The group I'm talking about is not the group where Arthur Scargill will suddenly votes for Maggie. It's those (as I've said pretty much every response), who might (I've added colour this time to help your eyesight, unless you're colourblind too?) currently be convinced that the Tories weren't worth their vote this time, despite voting for them last time out, because of what occurred through Partygate.

Currently on YouGov polling is the question "Agree or Disagree - Sue Gray working for Labour would undermine the Partygate report." Agree 40%, Disagree 59% - whilst that's a signficant lead for Disagree, there is still a lot agree with the contention. To give some context the same surveys have asked in the last 12 months "Do you think Johnson/Truss/Sunak are doing a good job" and they typically garner a 70%-80% negative...contextually this looks a bit closer.

I'm glad you're not in the medical profession (as short staffed as it is), to give your opinion on where insanity lies.

There are two separate things here.

1) Is it possible some people think Sue Gray joining Labour undermines the report - maybe. But I'm not sure anyone who isn't already decided would or could come to that conclusion. If you think it was all a stitch up - you aren't going to think less that. But rational people who don't think that - what difference does it make? The report was evidence based. Was commissioned by Johnson. And indeed most of the investigation was not even undertaken by SG in the end as it became a police matter. I'm confused as to how rationally any argument can be made that backs this up. And for people already with their mind made up sure - but those people are not going to matter.

2) Your assertion that there are people so incensed purely by partygate that they would not vote Tory but now inspite of the evidence and obvious factual reporting would do as they suddenly believe its a stitch up? Again it comes back to the credibility of this sort of thinking.

I'm not buying that. I don't furthermore think party is relevant anyway to people's voting intention now Johnson is not leader. I don't think many people are or will decide based on that.

Perhaps the best question is - do YOU think that this in anyway has undermined the report - but more broadly the investigations and revelations surrounding partygate? And if so do you believe Labour coordinated Sue Gray to write the report - and if that's the case why was the report at the time seen as 'a damp squib' and not some incredibly damning and career ending document? Or was the conspiracy to keep Johnson there to boost their chances? Do you genuinely believe any of that?

[Worthy4England]

I'll go back to where I started. The interim report by MPs came out today. I think most would agree that's got plenty of political capital in it. All the talk should be about that.

To announce that the author of report it's spun off will join Labour, the day prior, for me, shows poor thinking, poor timing and poor judgement. It gives some people more credible opportunity to say "stitch up" when that shouldn't have been any sort of talking point. Dim-witted.

In isolation it won't win or lose him an election.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll go back to where I started. The interim report by MPs came out today. I think most would agree that's got plenty of political capital in it. All the talk should be about that.

To announce that the author of report it's spun off will join Labour, the day prior, for me, shows poor thinking, poor timing and poor judgement. It gives some people more credible opportunity to say "stitch up" when that shouldn't have been any sort of talking point. Dim-witted.

In isolation it won't win or lose him an election.

On that point I still disagree. It gives people ‘credible opportunity’ I mean it really doesn’t. Unless you believe the communications the committee have reviewed from SG and elsewhere are all doctored?

It’s not credible at all to suggest that this appointment discredits the investigation or other investigations. And I haven’t seen a credible person suggest a line of argument that would make a reasonable person think this. I have seen a lot of Trumpian style arguments out of Johnson and his corner though. But those would happen regardless.

It’s not Starmers job to concern himself with that. He’s not there to fight Boris Johnson. That’s not his job.

[Worthy4England]

I'll go back to where I started. The interim report by MPs came out today. I think most would agree that's got plenty of political capital in it. All the talk should be about that.

To announce that the author of report it's spun off will join Labour, the day prior, for me, shows poor thinking, poor timing and poor judgement. It gives some people more credible opportunity to say "stitch up" when that shouldn't have been any sort of talking point. Dim-witted.

In isolation it won't win or lose him an election.

On that point I still disagree. It gives people ‘credible opportunity’ I mean it really doesn’t. Unless you believe the communications the committee have reviewed from SG and elsewhere are all doctored?

It’s not credible at all to suggest that this appointment discredits the investigation or other investigations. And I haven’t seen a credible person suggest a line of argument that would make a reasonable person think this. I have seen a lot of Trumpian style arguments out of Johnson and his corner though. But those would happen regardless.

It’s not Starmers job to concern himself with that. He’s not there to fight Boris Johnson. That’s not his job.

You're welcome to disagree. I think we're past the point where things have to be true to hold sway, so I don't think it's at all incredible to suggest. It is not incredible to suggest that someone now in a political party might have had bias. It might be entirely incorrect, but it's not incredible to suggest.

Whilst this interim report is about Johnson and whether he misled parliament, Labour spent a lot of time much wider than Johnson looking to brand the party as "One rule for them, another for the rest." So I don't think it's all about your limited interpretation that it's somehow Starmer v Johnson.

Edit: Starmer has just released his statement saying just that. Not just Johnson but Sunak was part and parcel..

[BWFC_Insane]

The issue I have is less that someone might think she was biased and more that there is no mechanism for said bias to impact the report or investigation. Unless there is a belief she made the photographic and message evidence ho. And then the police subsequently were in on it too.

I’m happy to agree to disagree but I still don’t really follow any of the logic.

I can just about buy the ‘optics’ argument but then those aren’t optics that Starmer has to worry about. The image of labour attracting top talent is his concern. Not how the Tory media will try and spin it.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Daily Express…not known for championing…well much beyond Diana and the Tories have this inside scoop…

https://t.co/Nv3vSzYX4H

Doesn’t sound to me much like anything other than an opportunistic swoop to get someone who was being shafted in their job by their boss.

[Worthy4England]

Lemmie try a different way as I've said a few times that it sort of doesn't matter whether the report was biased or not, or you could possibly do a re-watch of Yes Minister.

It's wider than the report she wrote and whether it's right of wrong and has little to do with Johnson other than optically it was poor timing. It is very connected with the points Hobes and Pru raised around political appointments for key roles held by Civil Servants - certainly in CabO. These people are in role whatever the colour of the Govt. Ideally, as a voter, you probably want them factual and impartial (some don't) and provide where necessary checks and balances (be it the Sue Gray report or any other day to day work). Down the years, collectively, they've produced lots of advice, reports and data which are inconvenient to the Government in power (be it right or left). I'm equally as sure they say things like "Sorry, you can't do that Minister, that's not what your legislation lets you do" which is why people like Sue Gray are badged as "the most powerful person you've never heard of." and Ministers like Raab, Williamson, Patel etc. despair when they can't just do what they want. "Actually Minister, you're on legally shaky ground sending planes to Rwanda" that sort of thing.

The argument on the right, when they don't get advice like "Royal Navy sinking the boat before it reaches the beach? Sure you can - look here, it gives us the right to fight an invasion" is that's because it's full of lefties. Starmer for me had added unnecessary fuel to that fire. I'm not against him appointing Sue Gray, but his timing was piss poor for me.

[BWFC_Insane]

Right but again I come back to the point that it’s not Starmers job to protect the reputation of the civil service. And the utter loons who think they are a leftist plot are also not his responsibility. I mean that’s more a Sue Gray thing. She is the civil servant.

Regardless I suspect more damage has been done to the civil service by its heads text messages mocking people going into quarantine hotels than by Sue Gray leaving it.

As it turns out none of this would have happened if Case wasn’t such a d1ck.

[TANGODANCER]

"YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS, A KISS IS STILL A KISS, A SIGH IS STILL A SIGH"

So singeth the song. And this is political headline media fodder ? Three things:

If Hancock did kiss his aide, good luck to him.
How is it political?
It's actually none of my business.

Of far more newsworthy.."Senior Doctors want up to £262 per hour to cover strike. Saving lives is priceless, but does the Hypocratic oath cover billionaire lifestyles? Just wondering.

[Worthy4England]

Right but again I come back to the point that it’s not Starmers job to protect the reputation of the civil service. And the utter loons who think they are a leftist plot are also not his responsibility. I mean that’s more a Sue Gray thing. She is the civil servant.

Regardless I suspect more damage has been done to the civil service by its heads text messages mocking people going into quarantine hotels than by Sue Gray leaving it.

As it turns out none of this would have happened if Case wasn’t such a d1ck.

It's not Starmers job to protect the Civil Service. Yet he wants the job where he determines the policies it enacts and how it's structured from his Government? Err. OK.

I do wonder how Case is still there, TBH.

[Worthy4England]

On a side note, I do so want Oakeshott to take whatever nuclear option(s) she's vaguely referencing. Surely they'd be in the public interest too - I mean it sounds like she's only leaked half a story...unless of course the other half happened to be nowt to do with COVID and she'd been offered Hancock's output on his hard drive and not a USB stick...

[BWFC_Insane]

Right but again I come back to the point that it’s not Starmers job to protect the reputation of the civil service. And the utter loons who think they are a leftist plot are also not his responsibility. I mean that’s more a Sue Gray thing. She is the civil servant.

Regardless I suspect more damage has been done to the civil service by its heads text messages mocking people going into quarantine hotels than by Sue Gray leaving it.

As it turns out none of this would have happened if Case wasn’t such a d1ck.

It's not Starmers job to protect the Civil Service. Yet he wants the job where he determines the policies it enacts and how it's structured from his Government? Err. OK.

I do wonder how Case is still there, TBH.

Yet he’s preparing for that by appointing the supposed best civil service operator around.

It’s just I don’t think it’s currently his job to defend the civil service for the Trumpian tactics of certain parts of politics. Certainly not to the extent he can’t appoint a chief of staff for fear of what some nutters will say.

But we can agree to disagree.

[Worthy4England]

He'd have had the supposed best operator anyhow if he was PM. He's opened up a line of narrative that didn't need to be there right now. Whatevs.

[Harry Genshaw]

If Hancock did kiss his aide, good luck to him.
How is it political?
It's actually none of my business.

The bloke was effectively in charge of the pandemic rules at the time. You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

[Worthy4England]

If Hancock did kiss his aide, good luck to him.
How is it political?
It's actually none of my business.

The bloke was effectively in charge of the pandemic rules at the time. You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

Quite. They had a pi$$ up, the night before the Queen had to sit in Westminster Abbey on her jack, to bury her husband...it's not one thing and Hancock who struggles to keep his dick in his keks, set the rules. On social distancing...

[jimbo]

Of far more newsworthy.."Senior Doctors want up to £262 per hour to cover strike. Saving lives is priceless, but does the Hypocratic oath cover billionaire lifestyles? Just wondering.

I’ll bite. The headline figure sounds a lot doesn’t it? It’s been used to try and put the public against doctors. The NHS though has long undervalued its professionals hence why staff are leaving in droves to private roles.

Just think how much it would cost to hire the services of an equivalently experienced and trained accountant or solicitor overnight?

Pay has been eroded in real terms by around 30% since I qualified 11 years ago. Student debt has also increased by about 2.5 times in that time. Colleagues know they can earn far more in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or leaving clinical work altogether. It’s a case of pay doctors a market rate for their skills or watch the NHS crumble.

[jimbo]

Of far more newsworthy.."Senior Doctors want up to £262 per hour to cover strike. Saving lives is priceless, but does the Hypocratic oath cover billionaire lifestyles? Just wondering.

I’ll bite. The headline figure sounds a lot doesn’t it? It’s been used to try and put the public against doctors. The NHS though has long undervalued its professionals hence why staff are leaving in droves to private roles.

Just think how much it would cost to hire the services of an equivalently experienced and trained accountant or solicitor overnight?

Pay has been eroded in real terms by around 30% since I qualified 11 years ago. Student debt has also increased by about 2.5 times in that time. Colleagues know they can earn far more in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or leaving clinical work altogether. It’s a case of pay staff a market rate for their skills or watch the NHS crumble.

[BWFC_Insane]

Of far more newsworthy.."Senior Doctors want up to £262 per hour to cover strike. Saving lives is priceless, but does the Hypocratic oath cover billionaire lifestyles? Just wondering.

I’ll bite. The headline figure sounds a lot doesn’t it? It’s been used to try and put the public against doctors. The NHS though has long undervalued its professionals hence why staff are leaving in droves to private roles.

Just think how much it would cost to hire the services of an equivalently experienced and trained accountant or solicitor overnight?

Pay has been eroded in real terms by around 30% since I qualified 11 years ago. Student debt has also increased by about 2.5 times in that time. Colleagues know they can earn far more in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or leaving clinical work altogether. It’s a case of pay doctors a market rate for their skills or watch the NHS crumble.

Indeed. Headlines like this suck in the gullible. It’s scandalous how our media is able to distort so heavily.

People expect the best doctors and treatment yet then baulk when it turns out that people who have the longest and highest levels of training, competence and ongoing professional assurances are going to be paid proportionately for that level of experience and skill.

[TANGODANCER]

You know, when us normal folk were restricted from attending funerals, nursing homes etc and had to stay 2m away from people outside of our bubble? He, and his colleagues were demonstrating that the rules weren't applicable to them. It was most definitely yours, and our business.

[/quote]

I was actually referring to relationships, not behaviour, by my remark, but okay, I take your point. Being without sin and casting the first stone doesn't seem to apply to politicians. There'll be a long queue of camels waiting to try getting through the eye of that needle one day.