The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[sadoldgit]

Lol...

 

The swamps been drained. Did you miss the country sacking Gauke, Soubry, Grievence, Lee, Wollaston, Swinson, Allen, & other assorted pinko remoaners.

 

80 seat majority, read it and weep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I read about what your party gets away with every day and weep.

[Weston Super Saint]

My understanding is that the DWP official worked in her private office, so would have had quite a bit of contact with her (I mention private office roles in my post). Physically they are located outside the minister’s office along with the SPADs. Work involves organising diaries, preparing briefing notes, reviewing submissions and liaising with the rest of the department and other departments. These posts are almost always filled by junior civil servants. The content of the work is pretty straightforward but it’s a nonetheless demanding role as it sits directly between the minister and the rest of the department, so will be a lightening rod for any wider issues and tensions. It’s quite a notch on your CV to show you worked in private office early in your career.

 

Playing Devil's advocate, not the kind of role for someone who had tried to commit suicide over a year before the Minister shouted at her? Perhaps the wider issue is how people within the Civil Service are managed and why a person who has clearly shown themselves to be vulnerable is allowed to continue in a demanding role?

[Wes Tender]

Well, judging by yesterday's budget, austerity is definitely over. Well delivered by Sunak with some good humour.

 

 

Just imagine what a McDonnell budget would have been like. It doesn't bear thinking about.

[shurlock]

Well, judging by yesterday's budget, austerity is definitely over. Well delivered by Sunak with some good humour.

 

 

Just imagine what a McDonnell budget would have been like. It doesn't bear thinking about.

 

You mean it would have looked a bit like Sunak’s pal? Looks like it’s not just Labour that has discovered the magic money tree.

[Wes Tender]

You mean it would have looked a bit like Sunak’s pal? Looks like it’s not just Labour that has discovered the magic money tree.

 

Except that I don't see anything about him proposing to nationalise everything in sight. Perhaps I missed it and you'll be happy to show me the details, Gavyn.

[shurlock]

Except that I don't see anything about him proposing to nationalise everything in sight. Perhaps I missed it and you'll be happy to show me the details, Gavyn.

 

Keep up, Les. I didn’t say it looked exactly like it. And I referred to the borrowing/spending side of the equation - I didn’t refer to ownership/nationalisation (the two are conceptually distinct). It appears that LD is a bit more principled than you.

Edited 12 March, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Keep up, Les. I didn’t say it looked exactly like it. And I referred to the borrowing/spending side of the equation - I didn’t refer to ownership/nationalisation (the two are conceptually distinct). It appears that LD is a bit more principled than you.

 

A typical Gavyn response. I didn't suggest that it was exactly the same as a McDonnell budget either, did I, so keep up yourself.

 

And from the simple statement that "it's not just Labour who have discovered the magic money tree", one is somehow supposed to deduce that you were referring solely to the borrowing/spending side of the equation. This is one of your masterstrokes of obfuscation. Does state nationalisation, not cost anything, Gavyn? It seems that your desire to demonstrate how clever you are by spouting uncalled for economic concepts renders you incapable of simple, rational responses to one or two line posts.

[shurlock]

A typical Gavyn response. I didn't suggest that it was exactly the same as a McDonnell budget either, did I, so keep up yourself.

 

And from the simple statement that "it's not just Labour who have discovered the magic money tree", one is somehow supposed to deduce that you were referring solely to the borrowing/spending side of the equation. This is one of your masterstrokes of obfuscation. Does state nationalisation, not cost anything, Gavyn? It seems that your desire to demonstrate how clever you are by spouting uncalled for economic concepts renders you incapable of simple, rational responses to one or two line posts.

 

Stop getting tied up in knots and your knickers in a twist Les. You can logically have a forest of magic money trees without any commitment to nationalisation of industry. If I meant to say nationalisation, I would have said it. I did not. And obviously I didn't because it didn't feature in yesterday's budget, though lots of spending and borrowing certainly did

 

Jonathan Portes sums it up well. Yesterday’s budget was a combo of the “Brown/Darling approach to a global economic crisis, combined with the Corbyn/McDonnell approach to medium-term spending and borrowing (but more borrowing)”.

Edited 12 March, 2020 by shurlock

[buctootim]

A typical Gavyn response. I didn't suggest that it was exactly the same as a McDonnell budget either, did I, so keep up yourself.

 

And from the simple statement that "it's not just Labour who have discovered the magic money tree", one is somehow supposed to deduce that you were referring solely to the borrowing/spending side of the equation. This is one of your masterstrokes of obfuscation. Does state nationalisation, not cost anything, Gavyn? It seems that your desire to demonstrate how clever you are by spouting uncalled for economic concepts renders you incapable of simple, rational responses to one or two line posts.

 

It was obvious to anyone, although unsurprisingly not to you that Shurlocks post was about taxation and spending. Re nationalisation that would have reduced the budget deficit because the profits of the utilities to be nationalised are higher than the costs of borrowing

Edited 12 March, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Stop getting tied up in knots and your knickers in a twist Les. You can logically have a forest of magic money trees without any commitment to nationalisation of industry. If I meant to say nationalisation, I would have said it. I did not. And obviously I didn't because it didn't feature in yesterday's budget, though lots of spending and borrowing certainly did

 

Jonathan Portes sums it up well. Yesterday’s budget was a combo of the “Brown/Darling approach to a global economic crisis, combined with the Corbyn/McDonnell approach to medium-term spending and borrowing (but more borrowing)”.

 

Again, a response so typical that I really do have to laugh at it, Gavyn. That nationalisation didn't appear in the Sunak budget, was one reason why it wasn't like a McDonnell budget. It's a simple enough point, so I don't know why you're making yourself look ridiculous by labouring it.

[shurlock]

Again, a response so typical that I really do have to laugh at it, Gavyn. That nationalisation didn't appear in the Sunak budget, was one reason why it wasn't like a McDonnell budget. It's a simple enough point, so I don't know why you're making yourself look ridiculous by labouring it.

 

It didn’t feature because from the outset I was making a point about Sunak’s lavish approach to spending and borrowing, though you initially tried to imply otherwise which you now admit was nonsensical. Thanks for proving my point, Les

 

So Sunak has discovered the magic money tree - as my friend Portes says, how McDonnellesque. In your next act of desperation, no doubt, you’ll be telling me that McDonnell’s plans were only ever about nationalisation and never included any hefty spending commitments (public services, infrastructure, R&D, housing etc), so nothing like Sunak’s. Honest gov.

Edited 12 March, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

It didn’t feature because from the outset I was making a point about Sunak’s lavish approach to spending and borrowing, though you initially tried to imply otherwise which you now admit was nonsensical. Thanks for proving my point, Les

 

So Sunak has discovered the magic money tree - as my friend Portes says, how McDonnellesque. In your next act of desperation, no doubt, you’ll be telling me that McDonnell’s plans were only ever about nationalisation and never included any hefty spending commitments (public services, infrastructure, R&D, housing etc), so nothing like Sunak’s. Honest gov.

 

I won't be attempting to say anything beyond what I have already said; that Sunak's budget wasn't like a McDonnell budget would be, because there weren't any proposals to nationalise anything in it. Carry on huffing and puffing in other directions all you like, fill your boots. Carry on Labouring the point to your heart's content, Gavyn. Continue massaging your ego by believing that my reply was nonsensical and that your response has me feeling desperate. Introduce as many opinions of journalists and so-called experts to back up whatever case you think supports your argument against one that you think I'm making, but actually am not.

[shurlock]

I won't be attempting to say anything beyond what I have already said; that Sunak's budget wasn't like a McDonnell budget would be, because there weren't any proposals to nationalise anything in it. Carry on huffing and puffing in other directions all you like, fill your boots. Carry on Labouring the point to your heart's content, Gavyn. Continue massaging your ego by believing that my reply was nonsensical and that your response has me feeling desperate. Introduce as many opinions of journalists and so-called experts to back up whatever case you think supports your argument against one that you think I'm making, but actually am not.

 

I said parts would be like a McDonnell budget (its literally in the first sentence I wrote)- which is clearly correct unless you don't think a McDonnell budget would seriously ramp up public spending/investment and borrowing.

 

#magicmoneytree

Edited 12 March, 2020 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

I said parts would be like a McDonnell budget (its literally in the first sentence I wrote)- which is clearly correct unless you don't think a McDonnell budget would seriously ramp up public spending/investment and borrowing.

 

#magicmoneytree

 

Gavyn: You mean it would have looked a bit like Sunak’s pal?

 

In the first sentence you wrote, you literally didn't say "parts", you said "a bit like", although I will accept that the meaning is similar, if not the exactly the same. And quite who Sunak's pal is, I don't know. But let's not get petty about it. You can see I'm getting bored with it. You can make up your own mind about what you think I do or don't think, as you usually do. I'm not biting.

[shurlock]

In the first sentence you wrote, you literally didn't say "parts", you said "a bit like", although I will accept that the meaning is similar, if not the exactly the same. And quite who Sunak's pal is, I don't know. But let's not get petty about it. You can see I'm getting bored with it. You can make up your own mind about what you think I do or don't think, as you usually do. I'm not biting.

 

Yes I said “a bit” which, if you used your brain and thought about it, is an even weaker condition to satisfy. Thanks for pointing that pal That is, it’s far easier for me to make the case that the two budgets would be “a bit” similar than showing parts would be similar (though I happily stand by that statement too). Look forward to your refutation how the significant commitment to public spending, investment and borrowing in yesterday’s budget wouldn’t be “a bit” like a McDonnell budget.

Edited 12 March, 2020 by shurlock

[Heisenberg]

In Boris we trust

[Wes Tender]

Yes I said “a bit” which, if you used your brain and thought about it, is an even weaker condition to satisfy. Thanks for pointing that pal That is, it’s far easier for me to make the case that the two budgets would be “a bit” similar than showing parts would be similar (though I happily stand by that statement too). Look forward to your refutation how the significant commitment to public spending, investment and borrowing in yesterday’s budget wouldn’t be “a bit” like a McDonnell budget.

 

You don't listen,do you? Which part of "I'm not biting" didn't you understand? Amuse yourself by making up my refutation for me. You often make assumptions as to what I think, so why change the habit now?

[badgerx16]

Which part of "I'm not biting" didn't you understand?

Why respond ?

[buctootim]

Why respond ?

 

Flannel. His arguments are toothless so not exactly bites, just flannel to distract from more pointless idiocy

[The Kraken]

An excellent example of not biting there Les, well done

[Fan The Flames]

In the first sentence you wrote, you literally didn't say "parts", you said "a bit like", although I will accept that the meaning is similar, if not the exactly the same. And quite who Sunak's pal is, I don't know. But let's not get petty about it. You can see I'm getting bored with it. You can make up your own mind about what you think I do or don't think, as you usually do. I'm not biting.

 

 

So instead of arguing the difference between 'parts' and 'a bit like' ffs. Tell us what you think a McDonnell budget would have looked like, we can then judge for ourselves.

[Tamesaint]

... and Les wonders why I find his posts so amusing.

[Wes Tender]

You're late, Tamesaint. All the other children were in the playground hours ago. Did Gavyn have to PM you?

[Tamesaint]

You're late, Tamesaint. All the other children were in the playground hours ago. Did Gavyn have to PM you?

 

No. I have arrived in a totally different time zone to you ... but your posts are still amusing all over the world.

[Wes Tender]

https://wolvesofwestminster.co.uk/?p=2983

 

Momentum breaking election law in the last GE. Who would have thought it?

[badgerx16]

https://wolvesofwestminster.co.uk/?p=2983

 

Momentum breaking election law in the last GE. Who would have thought it?

 

Oh come on Wes, they lost. Move on.

[Wes Tender]

Oh come on Wes, they lost. Move on.

 

Best to deal with it now surely, so that it doesn't become an issue in future elections. Mind you, there probably won't be a GE for at least another four years, local elections are something that most can't be bothered with, and who knows, Labour might actually get around to purging itself of Momentum at some stage. Although of course, I'm quite happy that they remain strong in the Labour Party, unless they go about gaining seats by illegal means.

[badgerx16]

Best to deal with it now surely, so that it doesn't become an issue in future elections. Mind you, there probably won't be a GE for at least another four years, local elections are something that most can't be bothered with, and who knows, Labour might actually get around to purging itself of Momentum at some stage. Although of course, I'm quite happy that they remain strong in the Labour Party, unless they go about gaining seats by illegal means.

Don't forget the Tories were fined in 2017 for breaking the rules on campaign spending.

[Weston Super Saint]

Oh come on Wes, they lost. Move on.

 

Don't forget the Tories were fined in 2017 for breaking the rules on campaign spending.

 

Are you advocating that Momentum shouldn't be fined because they lost?

[Wes Tender]

Don't forget the Tories were fined in 2017 for breaking the rules on campaign spending.

 

All the more reason for the perpetrators to be prosecuted here then, eh? Sometime between now and the next GE, I also hope that Boris will tighten up the rules on postal voting, so that it is only available to those who aren't physically able to get to the polling stations for one reason or another.

[badgerx16]

Are you advocating that Momentum shouldn't be fined because they lost?

Not at all; the first post was suggesting that Wes might still be fighting the election, despite repeatedly advising Labour voters that they 'lost, get over it'. The second merely balancing the point that such skullduggery is found in all corners of the political landscape.

[sadoldgit]

Just a thought. From memory we didn’t call Cameron David or May Theresa, so why does everybody call Johnson Boris?

[hypochondriac]

Just a thought. From memory we didn’t call Cameron David or May Theresa, so why does everybody call Johnson Boris?

 

Why do you care?

[Shroppie]

Just a thought. From memory we didn’t call Cameron David or May Theresa, so why does everybody call Johnson Boris?

It's what he wants as part of his jokey, pally man of the people image.

 

Which is why I refer to him only as Johnson. (Well, I call him plenty of other things. But that's another story)

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

It's what he wants as part of his jokey, pally man of the people image.

 

Which is why I refer to him only as Johnson. (Well, I call him plenty of other things. But that's another story)

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

Well that showed him. Fight the good fight.

[CB Fry]

Just a thought. From memory we didn’t call Cameron David or May Theresa, so why does everybody call Johnson Boris?

You are a walking case study of why schools should never be shut.

[Wes Tender]

Just a thought. From memory we didn’t call Cameron David or May Theresa, so why does everybody call Johnson Boris?

 

Maybe for the same reason that they called Churchill and Thatcher "Winnie" and "Maggie perhaps?

[sadoldgit]

You are a walking case study of why schools should never be shut.

 

You are only happy when you are slagging someone off.

[sadoldgit]

Maybe for the same reason that they called Churchill and Thatcher "Winnie" and "Maggie perhaps?

 

And that reason is?

[Wes Tender]

And that reason is?

 

You're the one who was questioning it, Soggy, so how about you trying to figure out why? I guess that the use of such nicknames was due to an affection and easy familiarity to those personalities sometimes among the general public, but particularly from party supporters. Cameron asked for people to call him Dave, but nobody did. The vicar's daughter didn't exactly inspire familiarity. There are some Labour politicians who did, like Nye, Sunny Jim and Tony perhaps.

 

But I'm surprised that you have the time to consider such idiosyncrasies when there are more important things on your mind, like why every educational establishment in the country has not been closed, regardless of whether there are any incidents of child or teacher infection in them. Also that the closure of schools would mean that mostly their mothers would have to leave their jobs to look after them, when many of them work in the NHS which needs them more. Perhaps the children could be looked after in large creches. Oh. That would be like a class at school, wouldn't it?

[Jonnyboy]

In Boris we trust

 

We f*ckin don't.

[sadoldgit]

As you have turned this into a Covid-19 discussion, I will ask the same question. How is it countries in Europe and now New York City have managed to close their schools but still operate their hospitals and other services? They can cope with school closures, so why do you think we cannot? On the news last night they reported that many head teachers are worried about how they are going to keep there schools open anyway as a number have teachers who are self isolating. Instead of using this to have a dig at me, perhaps you should be asking yourself why we are not doing what others are doing to try and combat this virus, especially given the possible projected mortality rate. It is highly likely that the schools will have to close eventually, it is just a matter of time. Given your scenario then the country will grind to a complete halt and nothing will get done because everyone will be at home looking after their kids.

[Shroppie]

As you have turned this into a Covid-19 discussion, I will ask the same question. How is it countries in Europe and now New York City have managed to close their schools but still operate their hospitals and other services? They can cope with school closures, so why do you think we cannot? On the news last night they reported that many head teachers are worried about how they are going to keep there schools open anyway as a number have teachers who are self isolating. Instead of using this to have a dig at me, perhaps you should be asking yourself why we are not doing what others are doing to try and combat this virus, especially given the possible projected mortality rate. It is highly likely that the schools will have to close eventually, it is just a matter of time. Given your scenario then the country will grind to a complete halt and nothing will get done because everyone will be at home looking after their kids.

But it's just plain barmy to stop large gatherings whilst forcing millions of children, teachers and other staff in schools to gather in large groups at close quarters every day.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

Every year we close schools down for 6 weeks in the summer yet somehow we manage to muddle through.

[sadoldgit]

But it's just plain barmy to stop large gatherings whilst forcing millions of children, teachers and other staff in schools to gather in large groups at close quarters every day.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

You would think so wouldn’t you? Yet somehow, if you point out that this is no different to any other large gathering and should be subject to the same considerations, you get singled out for derision. Go figure.

[badgerx16]

But it's just plain barmy to stop large gatherings whilst forcing millions of children, teachers and other staff in schools to gather in large groups at close quarters every day.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

And parents, particularly at primary schools, waiting at the gates to collect their children after school.

[sadoldgit]

And parents, particularly at primary schools, waiting at the gates to collect their children after school.

 

As I have mentioned in the Coronavirus thread. Saw my GP this morning who is the surgery specialist in heart/respiratory conditions. He thought it was madness to let the schools back after half term. He and his wife also have childcare issues so he isn’t being selfish.

[Weston Super Saint]

Every year we close schools down for 6 weeks in the summer yet somehow we manage to muddle through.

 

Jesus wept!

 

Have you ignored everything that everyone wrote yesterday?

 

The six weeks (and more) when the schools are shut are PLANNED. People know in advance when this is going to happen and guess what, they book their own holidays around that to cover the child care. They also utilise the services of grandparents to help out, something which is not an option right now!

 

Conversely, the current situation is UNPLANNED. Nobody has booked their holiday for the three weeks leading up to Easter in case an epidemic arrives, so childcare is a very real issue for a lot of people. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean it is not a worry for millions of other people!

[egg]

SOG has been like a dog with a bone on this but he has a good point.

 

My little one is still in school. She is in contact with countless kids and adults. She may well bring this disease into our home. My work necessitates me coming into contact with people - my little one going to school exposes those people as well as my family. Of course it'd be a pain if school shuts but we'd find a way, and frankly the bigger picture is best served by her being at home imo.

 

My 18 year old is on her a level year. She wants her studies to finish, exams done so that she can plan for uni. She's in a state of flux. If exams are ditched and uni has to be put off it'd be **** for her and thousands of others, but tough, this is a crisis.

 

It's obvious that we need to stop the spread, and it's obvious that if we continue to adopt the keep calm and carry on attitude, that we won't slow it down. Sure, essential service providers have kids in school but the need for them to have daytime child care is not the only consideration here.

[Fan The Flames]

Sure, essential service providers have kids in school but the need for them to have daytime child care is not the only consideration here.

 

FFS It's not the need for them to have child care it's the need for us as a society that they have child care. This isn't about not inconveniencing people it about allowing essential process to continue for the good of all.