Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Richard Scott]

Are you accusing Johnson of "doing what was right"?!?

No, I didn't agree with any party over restrictions but feel what we had was forced by media and many politicians made decisions on what I believe was popular public opinion and in no way followed any science.

 

[Gloster]

But that is what governments are there to do: to take the correct decisions on the relevant grounds, e.g. scientific ones, even if they are unpopular. The Johnson ministry was in a far stronger position to do this due to the near deification of Johnson by some (well, many) parts of the media and the opportunities for him and his henchmen to explain the thinking. However, as there wasn’t any thinking, only indecision, backstabbing, incompetence, etc., they caused the chaos that they did.

 

[najaB]

No, I didn't agree with any party over restrictions but feel what we had was forced by media and many politicians made decisions on what I believe was popular public opinion and in no way followed any science.

Had they followed the advice from the scientific advisors then far fewer restrictions would have been in place for a lot shorter a time overall.

And tens of billions of pounds wouldn't have been wasted on an ineffective track and trace programme.

 

[43096]

Had they followed the advice from the scientific advisors then far fewer restrictions would have been in place for a lot shorter a time overall.

Really? Because as I recall it, SAGE were all for keeping us all locked up indefinitely. Plenty of gobby opinions from SAGE members appearing in the press at the time, wanting their 15mins of fame. Bet the inquiry doesn’t cover that!

 

[najaB]

Really? Because as I recall it, SAGE were all for keeping us all locked up indefinitely.

We would need to see the actual minutes of the meetings to know for sure, but from what I've seen epidemiologists favoured going early for short periods rather than the "wait and see" approach that ended up in longer periods with restrictions.

More importantly, the discharge of infected patients directly into care homes was in direct opposition to the scientific advice and that probably resulted in more deaths than any other single decision taken by the government.

 

[Richard Scott]

Had they followed the advice from the scientific advisors then far fewer restrictions would have been in place for a lot shorter a time overall.

And tens of billions of pounds wouldn't have been wasted on an ineffective track and trace programme.

Sorry but don't trust the scientific advisors, far too many with self interest and a lot of them didn't agree.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Had they followed the advice from the scientific advisors then far fewer restrictions would have been in place for a lot shorter a time overall.

Maybe with hindsight. But they probably shouldn't be *only* following advice from the scientific advisors because the scientific advisors can only tell them about how different lockdown measures might impact the spread of the virus. The scientific advisors dealing with Covid couldn't advise on the likely wider economic and social impact and how that itself would impact on people's lives. A responsible government has to balance the advice from experts in different fields and make a judgement call based on the competing demands - which may well mean that they end up legitimately going against the advice of the scientific advisors.

 

[Gloster]

Sorry but don't trust the scientific advisors, far too many with self interest and a lot of them didn't agree.

In that sentence you could replace the words ’scientific advisors’ with ‘politicians’ and it would work just as well. And at least scientists know something about the matter.

 

[Richard Scott]

In that sentence you could replace the words ’scientific advisors’ with ‘politicians’ and it would work just as well. And at least scientists know something about the matter.

True but a lot of the so called scientists couldn't agree so not sure they did.

 

[43096]

In that sentence you could replace the words ’scientific advisors’ with ‘politicians’ and it would work just as well. And at least scientists know something about the matter.

Too many of the scientists were playing politics though. All the left-wing swivel-eyed loon scientists soon made themselves known...

Very easy for the scientists to sit there and play the Harry Enfield character "You don't want to do it like that!" Remember they only have part of the expertise - they don't have the full knowledge of the impact on the country. They are also not the ones making the decisions, nor are they accountable - remember what the 'A' in 'SAGE' stands for.

 

[ainsworth74]

Might I suggest taking this topic to the relevant thread?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/remaining-effects-of-covid.243041/

 

[najaB]

Maybe with hindsight.

Indeed, with hindsight. That's the problem - had we known then what we know now and all that.

What's not in that category is the waste of funds on things like our bespoke (and broken) track and trace system, given that everyone who knew anything about it said that it was going to be a waste of money. Nor that spending billions on PPE with suppliers with no track record of providing PPE was only going to result in paying way more than we needed to.

Funny how both Sunak and Johnson both happen to have had problems that resulted in losing all the messages they exchanged in that period.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Back on topic sadly its looking like Sunak looking will get the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill past 2nd reading tomorrow was hoping 2023 might finish with the Tories finally imploding.

 

[najaB]

Back on topic sadly its looking like Sunak looking will get the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill past 2nd reading tomorrow was hoping 2023 might finish with the Tories finally imploding.

Depends on how comfortable the vote is. If it only passes by a small margin then we may have a leadership challenge before the end of January.

 

[edwin_m]

Depends on how comfortable the vote is. If it only passes by a small margin then we may have a leadership challenge before the end of January.

And any Sunak replacement is likely to be far worse for most of us - nominated by the far right MPs and voted for by the far right membership, and wanting to leave the election as long as possible in the hope that they can think of some wacko policies that might appeal to some non-existent voter faction. Hopeless as Sunak is, we should be wishing for him to stay in post.

 

[Howardh]

If Cameron, not even an MP can be drafted into the cabinet in a prominent position, then what, if anything, prevents the Tories bringing in Johnson directly as PM? Not saying that would happen, but is there anything constitutionally to prevent that?

 

[ainsworth74]

If Cameron, not even an MP can be drafted into the cabinet in a prominent position, then what, if anything, prevents the Tories bringing in Johnson directly as PM? Not saying that would happen, but is there anything constitutionally to prevent that?

No, we've had Prime Ministers who have been in the Lords before. Alec Douglas-Home in the early 1960s (though he gave up his peerage and won a by-election to get a seat in the Commons within a short period of time). The last Lord to substantively serve as Prime Minster was Lord Salisbury in the latter parts of the 1800s and into the early 1900s. However there are clear issues such as I'm not it would be electorally wise for the Tories to have a Lord as Prime Minister (not much they can do about that one immediately) and also they need to amend their party Constitution because the Leader of the Tory Party must be drawn from the Commons (admittedly far easier to fix):

PART III

LEADERSHIP

10 There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2.

In order to be Prime Minister one typically has to be leader of a party, or group of parties, which can command a majority in the House of Commons.

 

[Howardh]

No, we've had Prime Ministers who have been in the Lords before. Alec Douglas-Home in the early 1960s (though he gave up his peerage and won a by-election to get a seat in the Commons within a short period of time). The last Lord to substantively serve as Prime Minster was Lord Salisbury in the latter parts of the 1800s and into the early 1900s. However there are clear issues such as I'm not it would be electorally wise for the Tories to have a Lord as Prime Minister (not much they can do about that one immediately) and also they need to amend their Constitution because the Leader must be drawn from the Commons (admittedly far easier to fix):



In order to be Prime Minister one typically has to be leader of a party, or group of parties, which can command a majority in the House of Commons.

Thanks, technically if the Greens held balance of power by one member and insisted they provide the PM as part of the "deal", their leader isn't a sitting MP so would be outside the House and could lead but not vote?

Our constitution is a total mess if it allows someone not even a voted-in MP to rule over us. Could happen with Johnson/Farage the Tories are so morally corrupt.

 

[najaB]

Our constitution is a total mess if it allows someone not even a voted-in MP to rule over us. Could happen with Johnson/Farage the Tories are so morally corrupt.

To quote from someone smarter than me: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

More seriously, while it's technically possible for a non-elected person to be PM, they have to command the confidence of the majority of the house. So they do derive their position through our elected representatives.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks, technically if the Greens held balance of power by one member and insisted they provide the PM as part of the "deal", their leader isn't a sitting MP so would be outside the House and could lead but not vote?

I suppose so though I think they'd need to be elevated to the Lords at the very least though perhaps not. The role of Prime Minister is quite nebulous and mostly governed by convention. It seems however extremely unlikely that a PM could withstand being outside Parliament entirely. It also seems highly unlikely that the Greens would get that deal as the other coalition partners would, rightly, argue that as their leader was in the Commons they were a far better fit for Prime Minister.

 

[43096]

To quote from someone smarter than me: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

I think you should give credit where it is due. It was said by Dennis.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks, technically if the Greens held balance of power by one member and insisted they provide the PM as part of the "deal", their leader isn't a sitting MP so would be outside the House and could lead but not vote?

Our constitution is a total mess if it allows someone not even a voted-in MP to rule over us. Could happen with Johnson/Farage the Tories are so morally corrupt.

I think the constitution quoted is that of the Tory party.

 

[renegademaster]

Thanks, technically if the Greens held balance of power by one member and insisted they provide the PM as part of the "deal", their leader isn't a sitting MP so would be outside the House and could lead but not vote?

Our constitution is a total mess if it allows someone not even a voted-in MP to rule over us. Could happen with Johnson/Farage the Tories are so morally corrupt.

In that kind of situation, labour would just try to run a minority government, dare the greens to vote them down ,either they fall in line, it's a Green Tory coalition(lol) or a new election where the minor party would get punished for it's intransigence

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the constitution quoted is that of the Tory party.

Sorry yes to be clear the Constitution in question is that of the Tory Party, I thought it was clear from context but appreciate that perhaps it wasn't as clear as it could be (I've also edited my post).

 

[D6130]

I wonder whether the situation will be affected by the fact that an asylum-seeker has reportedly died today on board the 'Bibby Stockholm' barge at Portland?

 

[najaB]

I wonder whether the situation will be affected by the fact that an asylum-seeker has reportedly died today on board the 'Bibby Stockholm' barge at Portland?

I fear that the most rabid anti-migrant doom-mongers will just see that as a good start...

 

[DarloRich]

While the focus of protest/complaint around the Rwanda bill is that it is disgusting ( and it is - it is simply a "send the burgers back" plan that the 70's /80's NF would have been proud off) the real concern for me is that this bill is a massive attack on the rule of law, judicial independence and the separation of powers. It is outrageous.

it is worrying. Today it is laws protecting dirty immigrants that the government don't like and don't think should apply to them but tomorrow it might be laws dealing with decent chaps like you and me. The Human Rights Act is not to blame for this mess.

I wonder whether the situation will be affected by the fact that an asylum-seeker has reportedly died today on board the 'Bibby Stockholm' barge at Portland?

not in the slightest - the cranks will think this shows deterrence works.

 

[Howardh]

I fear that the most rabid anti-migrant doom-mongers will just see that as a good start...

That's a sad development, when I last saw the news nothing other than that had been released (ie cause).

Back to Rwanda and I'm absolutely laughing my head off hearing that while we would be limited to sending 200 there, they (a) could send back anyone the wanted (b) send us their own including, I believe, serious criminals and (c) we pay for it all.

How can any voter, any Tory, put up with THAT even if it's only partially true??

 

[DarloRich]

How can any voter, any Tory, put up with THAT even if it's only partially true??

because the details don't matter. Stop the boats.

 

[Acfb]

While the focus of protest/complaint around the Rwanda bill is that it is disgusting ( and it is - it is simply a "send the burgers back" plan that the 70's /80's NF would have been proud off) the real concern for me is that this bill is a massive attack on the rule of law, judicial independence and the separation of powers. It is outrageous.

it is worrying. Today it is laws protecting dirty immigrants that the government don't like and don't think should apply to them but tomorrow it might be laws dealing with decent chaps like you and me. The Human Rights Act is not to blame for this mess.



not in the slightest - the cranks will think this shows deterrence works.

The scary thing is that although the Tories are likely to lose next year, the next time they get back into power, be that in 5, 10 or 15 years, Britain will probably withdraw from the ECHR as was the case with Brexit as the idea will slowly become normalised even with so called 'moderates'.