UKH

Looking at today's press conference and Rishi vastly more impressive than Johnson. Future PM?  How secure is Johnson really? This is hardly what he imagined being PM would be 

In reply to MG:

I said exactly that, for someone that until very recently was a junior minister I think he's done a great job, and he's much more erudite than Bojo.

In reply to MG:

Quite possibly...impressive young man

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I can see him as becoming PM quite easily, because at least he's obviously got a brain on his head, and comes across as quite sane and balanced. Unlike the buffoon of our incumbent. We could perhaps be shortly returning to a safer, saner political world, with intelligent, balanced and capable people on both sides, i.e Sunak v. Starmer.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It would be nice. Noticeable that all of a sudden the civil service, judiciary and media are back in favour. And Patel and Cummings less so?? 

In reply to MG:

Easy to impress when you have unlimited money to spend.

Lets see how it goes when he will need to take the country out the huge financial hole left.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Isn’t that basically a non-starter ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

I am sure as usual you will have all the answers. 

In reply to MG:

This, this, this!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Wow, can you imagine! A super bright centre right against a super bright centre left. It's my idea of political heaven.

In reply to MG:

Completely gratuitous sneering comment.

Very poor.

In reply to MG:

'Not by enmity is enmity overcome', from the book Buddhism For Sheep. Baaa

In reply to Tony the Blade:

The same happened with Jacinda Adern in NZ. Junior minister, put in at the deep end and thoroughly flourished into a well respected leader. 

In reply to Timmd:

“Not by numerous sock puppets is respect gained” same source, often overlooked.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Even before this virus, over the last 18months he's done many interviews, r4 today etc... I might not have agreed with everything sunak said, but he's always well briefed, keeps track of his party line and never flounders.

As said above by Gordon a sunak v starmer debate would be a breath of fresh air for UK politics. 

In reply to MG: Aah, good point. I shall delete. 

In reply to RomTheBear:

I don’t think we’re in a position to give a shit about that at the moment. 

In reply to MG:

Haven’t seen enough to make a judgement, but a first impression is that he doesn’t exude utter cnutishness, like Raab for example. 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

True, unfortunately, for now. I wonder if Johnson may detect a change in the political wind towards competence soon however?

There's a great piece by Marina Hyde in the Guardian about the contrast between Bojo and Rishi.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well, I just think we should judge his performance based on results.

Seems to be a clever guy with slick communication skills, but it’s not a guarantee of competence, we will see.

In reply to MG:

Well judging Boris today you couldn't get much worse...

Press person - PM do you consider those not following advice about social isolation immoral and will you be seeing your Mum on Mothers Day?

PM - I don't want to get into discussion about what is immoral or not but I urge everyone to stop all unnecessary social contact as per our advice, I'll be working on Sunday but I hope to see my Mum at some point during the day.

Paraphrased but this sends out mixed messages to me.

In reply to Andy 1902:

It's remarkable. He is a good campaigner but an appalling communicator. And when he tries, campaigning comes out instead. 

In reply to MG:

First Tory in 2 generations I’ve been able to listen to for more than 30 seconds without swearing at the telly.....but he’s still a Tory. He’s the luckiest Tory chancellor ever cos he’s getting to spend unimaginable sums of money; question is what will he be like in more normal times.

In reply to MG:

Sheep know where it's at, they live simply and in the present 'Feeling Irritated? Nah I'll eat some grass'. 

It's why they're tranquil to watch, they're living Buddhas.

In reply to Timmd:

Living Sunday dinners mate. . . . . . . . 😊

In reply to coinneach: Prob best not to send this thread wildly off topic by talking about sheep and Buddhism, when I think about it, though it's an engaging area. 

In reply to Timmd:

Aye, just a tad off topic . . . . 

In reply to Andy 1902:

Not paraphrased at all. Simple fact is he did not say that. He never mentioned when he hoped to see his mum. It was clumsy, yes. He did not however say he would see his mum on mother’s day.

streuth... I can’t believe I’m defending Johnson!! Facts are sacred.

In reply to MG:

"We do not wash our pits in the sacred pool of tears" Master Shifu, Kung Fu Panda

In reply to Darron:

If the press conference is still on line and unedited you will see I'm right.

In reply to Andy 1902:

In reply to MG:

You would think it would be but I can’t find it. No matter. Not really important.

Best wishes to you.

In reply to MG:

Have you any views on Cummins.

My view is that he has pushed BOJO into accepting the science and apparently him and Valence get on really well. Cummins used data science effectively to back BOJO.He is on board with a science based approach.

Also prior to the crises,Cummins enforced a very disciplined party,cabinet and adviser approach. We have had no counter briefings leaked. This is impressive for a govt having to lock down on leaks.

I am not a big fan,but possibly in the current situation Cummins is a god send.

Rishi .  Very impressive. 
 

And Labour in all this. Struggling.corbyn must be wishing that another person was in charge.

In reply to neilh:

Well re Labour  - you really do have to be the loyal opposition at times like this - can get into too much point scoring - glad they are keeping the oaf burgon off the screen

In reply to neilh:

Calling the people Cummings listens to « scientists » is a big slap in the face of science.

I’ve been reading from him, he’s a big fans of all the bullshiters pseudo scientists of our age, the types who go on Quillete to promote eugenics. 
He’s the type who listen to anything he wants to hear as long as it is made to look scientific.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I do not doubt that.  On the other hand he has told Bojo that the govt needed to spend more money in research ( thus the proposals in the budget) and he wants to get more scientists into the top level of govt. the civil service agrees with this.

in wider context Cummins is right, even though we hold a low opinion of the messenger. 
 

In reply to neilh:

On tbe the narrow point of science maybe. However he is against the civil service, news media, independent judiciary etc. so overall not helpful 

In reply to Timmd:

I think they're more into llamas.

In reply to MG:

 I suspect he has had a bit of a jolt and haswoken up to a bit of harsh reality . If he is bright enough ( which he clearly is) then humble pie and eating it is the best course.

have you read  the Fifth State? Trump also will be waking up to reality.

In reply to neilh:

I'm going to need to see some evidence for that one!

In reply to neilh:

The problem is that the « scientists » he brought in to advise government are mostly of this kind : https://twitter.com/historylvrsclub/status/1228018464868225026?s=21

In reply to Jack:

Very good.

In reply to colinakmc:

When Labour bailed out our economy all they got was a reputation of being irresponsible with money. When the Tories do it it's "War-time goverment saving the country".

In reply to neilh:

Much as I dislike D. Cummings's other contributions to national life, I think there's no doubt that he genuinely respects and values science and scientists.  Vallance wasn't his appointment as GCSA, but I too have heard they get on very well.  I've met Cummings a couple of times myself in the last few months; in those meetings he listened, he asked probing and informed questions, and he drew out different views from the people round the table.

The problems in the current situation, though, are that (a) science doesn't provide a definite answer, because so much about the disease and the way people react to it aren't yet known (though much is being learned, at speed, from what's happened in China and Italy), and (b) deciding what to do involves tradeoffs that are essentially political rather than scientific - balancing likely loss of life vs economic impact vs views about the importance of personal freedom. 

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Labour landed that reputation for being profligate before the crisis hit, leaving us with a humungous deficit when things got tight. It's nothing to do with the terms of the bailout, although they and the Tories also copped for that by rescuing banks before anyone else, albeit for very good reasons that are not as well appreciated as they would now be if, instead, they had been allowed to fail, wiping out everyone's money, destroying every business and plunging the country into utter chaos.

In reply to BnB:

In 2007 the national debt was lower than it was when Labour took office in 1997, so can you explain how Labour were "recklessly extravagant or wasteful" to the point of having a "humungous deficit" before the global financial crisis? 

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Look up the difference between debt and deficit and then note that I said the deficit revealed itself when things got tight, ie after the crash, and only then led to the accusation

in your mitigation, I can see how my wording could be read differently, ie that the reputation emerged before the crash but that wasn’t what I was trying to convey.

In reply to BnB:

I understand the difference between a budget deficit and national debt. To say that they had a large deficit is a joke, Labour had been running the country with a surplus for more than 3 years, when they did begin borrowing it was net considerably lower than the Conservatives in the years before Labour's terms. Before the global financial crisis they were borrowing less than the Tories and had reduced the national debt, so again - please explain to me how Labour deserve a reputation for being irresponsible with money? 

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I honestly think there are more important discussions right now and we’re not going to agree, so let’s drop it, eh?  

In reply to BnB:

It's not really an agree/disagree topic. Labour have been tarred with the brush of recklessly bankrupting the country by the Tories for a decade now, and people like you further the myth. The numbers are remarkably easy to understand, and unless you think Gordon Brown shouldn't have bailed out the banks then either you agree that Labour are at least as financially responsible as the Conservatives or you disagree with the facts. 

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the data to suggest Labour was particularly prolifigate before the crisis. They did increase spending a bit but really, nothing out of the ordinary and would have made virtually zero difference whatsoever if they had not.