Actually, Braverman has given me a shock. This is so far advanced down the road.
Braverman was only stupid enough to say the quiet part loud, the direction of travel has been clear for a long while.
Just to emphasize, a previous PM and Home Secretary deported hundreds of elderly citizens of the UK to their death, her department then made it incredibly difficult for these people to either return to the country or claim the rather paltry compensation on offer. She had been warned that her policies would have this result and she chose to go ahead anyway and then let someone else take the fall.
Outside immigration and human rights; a lot of the other things affecting the UK are the results of austerity catching up with the mass of population as everyone starts to notice the residual effects of institutions being run down.
Given that the current government is committed to governing without actually doing anything material the only thing left to platform are culture war issues.
I expect McVey will pop up every time there's some kind of cultural outrage to promise to look into e.g whether anti-racism has gone 'too far' or whether Muslims exhibit the right levels of enthusiasm for the state and so on.
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
I assume they're demanding we leave the ECHR.
What would be the point of that. It was not the ECHR who blocked the government yesterday.
There wouldn't be any point, but since when have the demands of the tory right had any sort of logical basis?
There is a body of 'thought' that believes we have not had a 'proper' Brexit.
If pressed, they tend not to be able to define what a 'proper' Brexit is. But it seems, broadly, to be a naive belief that we ought to cut any ties or agreements with the EU.
What this would do to the country, God knows. But they don't care, because they are obsessives.
There is a body of 'thought' that believes we have not had a 'proper' Brexit.
If pressed, they tend not to be able to define what a 'proper' Brexit is. But it seems, broadly, to be a naive belief that we ought to cut any ties or agreements with the EU.
What this would do to the country, God knows. But they don't care, because they are obsessives.
Quite so. You're being polite - *swivel-eyed headbangers and loons* describes them more accurately, I think, but, as ever, empty vessels make the most noise...
Not just the EU, but all legal ties, such as ECHR, the UN refugee convention, etc. This would be ultra-radical, and would make UK a pariah. Who cares, if we adhere to purity, or something.
One of the aforementioned swivel-eyed loons is quoted in that article as saying the Tories have "drifted to the left". In what parallel universe?
I suspect that it refers to the hundreds of billions given away in the furlough scheme and the recent payments to help people with gas and electroic bills.
Meanwhile, to appease the increasingly deranged right wing, the increasingly deranged Sushi is determined to change reality by breaking the law (or making a new law):
They are not too bothered about breaking the law when it pleases them. Like people vaping or smoking on a railway station platform when it is against the rules, they believe they will get away with it. They often do.
More embarrassment for the government today - especially for Our Glorious Leader (Failed) who wanted the old people to just die - as the scientists give evidence at the Covid enquiry.
No surprises yet - just confirmation of our worst fears.
Though, of those three only one (high taxes) remotely applies to the current UK government.
Despite historically quite high tax incomes the government has cut public spending to below sustainable levels, to the point where public sector pay is for many below what's realistic to live on (hence, nurses and teachers being among those needing to access food banks or seriously concerned about whether their landlord will raise the rent again because they don't have the ability to pay more) and essential services (from fixing pot holes to life changing medical treatment) can't be provided. It makes you wonder where the government is spending money.
And, in social policies the current UK government has become even more regressive as the years have gone on. The treament of asylum seekers and legal migrants (including the Windrush generation), erosion of rights and active discrimination experienced by many others (including trans people, homosexuals, muslims etc), the failure to address deepseated misogyny and other forms of bigotry within public institutions (including to the point of active police officers assaulting and murdering women). If that's termed "social liberalism" by some people then, please, please, please don't ever allow them the chance of gaining political power or else the government will be back to locking up and forcing medical "treatment" on people for being different, including people I love.
They are not too bothered about breaking the law when it pleases them. Like people vaping or smoking on a railway station platform when it is against the rules, they believe they will get away with it. They often do.
IME, people who break these kinds of rules come in two categories:
1. People who think that the rules are more restrictive than necessary, and that their action is doing no harm, so it doesn't need to be banned. Smoking outdoors in sparsely-populated spaces might fall in this category.
2. People who don't care what effect their actions have on other people.
They are not too bothered about breaking the law when it pleases them. Like people vaping or smoking on a railway station platform when it is against the rules, they believe they will get away with it. They often do.
IME, people who break these kinds of rules come in two categories:
1. People who think that the rules are more restrictive than necessary, and that their action is doing no harm, so it doesn't need to be banned. Smoking outdoors in sparsely-populated spaces might fall in this category.
2. People who don't care what effect their actions have on other people.
That is good but the train platforms are nit sparsely populated. They are often busy
More embarrassment for the government today - especially for Our Glorious Leader (Failed) who wanted the old people to just die - as the scientists give evidence at the Covid enquiry.
No surprises yet - just confirmation of our worst fears.
They got this information from Dominic Cummings apparently.
`
Brexit II, I imagine, would certainly mean leaving the ECHR and, no doubt, the Council of Europe, if those advocating it have ever heard of that body. Brexit III? Blowing up the Channel Tunnel and declsring wsr on the rest of Europe. That'll teach 'em.
`
Brexit II, I imagine, would certainly mean leaving the ECHR and, no doubt, the Council of Europe, if those advocating it have ever heard of that body. Brexit III? Blowing up the Channel Tunnel and declsring wsr on the rest of Europe. That'll teach 'em.
Brexit IV - leave the UN and set about rebuilding the Empire?
`
Brexit II, I imagine, would certainly mean leaving the ECHR and, no doubt, the Council of Europe, if those advocating it have ever heard of that body. Brexit III? Blowing up the Channel Tunnel and declsring wsr on the rest of Europe. That'll teach 'em.
Brexit IV - leave the UN and set about rebuilding the Empire?
More embarrassment for the government today - especially for Our Glorious Leader (Failed) who wanted the old people to just die - as the scientists give evidence at the Covid enquiry.
No surprises yet - just confirmation of our worst fears.
They got this information from Dominic Cummings apparently.
Perhaps, but also from BoJo himself. Here are a couple of extracts from Sir Patrick Vallance's diaries, courtesy of the BBC:
26 August 2020
Sir Patrick notes that Mr Johnson is increasingly convinced the economy needs to be kept open, because it is mainly older people who are being affected by Covid.
He writes: "PM WhatsApp group kicks off because PM has read in FT that the IFR [infection fatality rate] is 0.04%.
"Age-related IFR explained and that overall looks more like 0.4 to 1%.
"He is obsessed with older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy going.
"Quite a bonkers set of exchanges."
25 October 2020
Sir Patrick writes: "PM meeting - begins to argue for letting it all rip. Saying yes there will be more casualties but so be it - 'they have had a good innings'.
"Not persuaded by Edmonds, Ferguson, Farrar [scientists on emergency advisory group].
"PM saying 'the population just has to behave doesn't it!'.
"PM getting very frustrated - throwing papers down. PM back on to 'Most people who die have reached their time anyway'."
More embarrassment for the government today - especially for Our Glorious Leader (Failed) who wanted the old people to just die - as the scientists give evidence at the Covid enquiry.
No surprises yet - just confirmation of our worst fears.
They got this information from Dominic Cummings apparently.
Perhaps, but also from BoJo himself. Here are a couple of extracts from Sir Patrick Vallance's diaries, courtesy of the BBC:
26 August 2020
Sir Patrick notes that Mr Johnson is increasingly convinced the economy needs to be kept open, because it is mainly older people who are being affected by Covid.
He writes: "PM WhatsApp group kicks off because PM has read in FT that the IFR [infection fatality rate] is 0.04%.
"Age-related IFR explained and that overall looks more like 0.4 to 1%.
"He is obsessed with older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy going.
"Quite a bonkers set of exchanges."
25 October 2020
Sir Patrick writes: "PM meeting - begins to argue for letting it all rip. Saying yes there will be more casualties but so be it - 'they have had a good innings'.
"Not persuaded by Edmonds, Ferguson, Farrar [scientists on emergency advisory group].
"PM saying 'the population just has to behave doesn't it!'.
"PM getting very frustrated - throwing papers down. PM back on to 'Most people who die have reached their time anyway'."
Thanks for that. I was under the impression that Johnson made these remarks early in 2020
What is curious and quite interesting about this, is that it is legitimate and rational administration that those involved should consider all options, analyse them, balance their likely consequences etc. including that one - right though it eventually was to reject that one because of the implications for a large sector of the population that is as entitled to be considered as any other.
What is really disturbing isn't that this might have been considered dispassionately and rejected, but that the evidence show that that isn't how decisions were taken, what they reveal as to the quality of debate - or absence of it , the callousness, the complete lack of integrity and leadership qualities of the man at the top and the team he chose to surround himself with.
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
Let's not pretend that had there not been a lockdown there would have been no social or economic consequences. The consequences are primarily a result of a massive global pandemic. Without government support there would simply have been a chaotic mess where (e.g) individual headteachers and local authorities had to decide whether they had enough staff to keep schools open, and there would have been a lot more dead people, not all of them old or with life-shortening conditions either. How many more kids would have lost one or both parents? What do you imagine would have been the social impact of that?
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a time to be alive.
Why would people who still proudly proclaim themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher, and have had two other female PMs since then, object to a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I mean, I know the Tories aren't feminist in the sense of wanting the state to do anything actively promoting gender equality, but I'm not quite buying that they believe certain cabinet positions should be off-limits to women.
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a time to be alive.
That assumes that Reeves would still be in that position.
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a time to be alive.
Why would people who still proudly proclaim themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher, and have had two other female PMs since then, object to a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I mean, I know the Tories aren't feminist in the sense of wanting the state to do anything actively promoting gender equality, but I'm not quite buying that they believe certain cabinet positions should be off-limits to women.
Rachel Reeves is the Labour shadow (although as has since been pointed out, that doesn't mean she will definitely get to do the actual job) - contra to your post, this would be the Tories moving Hunt out, to move a woman in, so that a Labour woman doesn't get to be first... Given the timing of an election, they wouldn't be actually able to do much as Chancellor, but it would be literally a spoiler, and for no other conceivable reason.
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a time to be alive.
Why would people who still proudly proclaim themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher, and have had two other female PMs since then, object to a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I mean, I know the Tories aren't feminist in the sense of wanting the state to do anything actively promoting gender equality, but I'm not quite buying that they believe certain cabinet positions should be off-limits to women.
Rachel Reeves is the Labour shadow (although as has since been pointed out, that doesn't mean she will definitely get to do the actual job) - contra to your post, this would be the Tories moving Hunt out, to move a woman in, so that a Labour woman doesn't get to be first... Given the timing of an election, they wouldn't be actually able to do much as Chancellor, but it would be literally a spoiler, and for no other conceivable reason.
Oh, okay, so it's that they specifically don't want a Labour appointee to have the honour of being the first female Chancellor.
Heard a rumour on the radio a few hours ago that the government are considering moving Jeremy Hunt just before the election just to ensure that Rachel Reeves doesn't get to be the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
What a time to be alive.
Why would people who still proudly proclaim themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher, and have had two other female PMs since then, object to a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I mean, I know the Tories aren't feminist in the sense of wanting the state to do anything actively promoting gender equality, but I'm not quite buying that they believe certain cabinet positions should be off-limits to women.
Rachel Reeves is the Labour shadow (although as has since been pointed out, that doesn't mean she will definitely get to do the actual job) - contra to your post, this would be the Tories moving Hunt out, to move a woman in, so that a Labour woman doesn't get to be first... Given the timing of an election, they wouldn't be actually able to do much as Chancellor, but it would be literally a spoiler, and for no other conceivable reason.
Oh, okay, so it's that they specifically don't want a Labour appointee to have the honour of being the first female Chancellor.
It’s not even about the ‘honour’ I think it’s more that there’s a faction of the Tory party (expecting to lose the election) that thinks it would be just ‘funny’ to troll the likely incoming party.
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
O dear.
I apologise for not dying during the pandemic - I hate to think of depriving young(er) people of whatever it is they desire.
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
O dear.
I apologise for not dying during the pandemic - I hate to think of depriving young(er) people of whatever it is they desire.
About 3% of Covid deaths have been people under 50, some but not all would have had serious underlying health conditions. In the UK that would equate to about 6000 people of working age who would otherwise have decades of being economically active ahead of them. Over one million people with long covid (many of them younger, those who were healthy and resisted the virus) who, to varying extents, are less able to work. And, that's with an attempt to lock down and protect people - if there'd been no lock down and the pandemic was simply left to rip through the country then there would be many more dead and disabled. Even if you're a hard hearted Tory looking only at the bottom line then you'd need to worry about the hit on the economy of taking 100,000 people out of being able to work would be massive.
It does make it easier than trying to fit in a budget before parliament is dissolved.
Edited to add - although I think councils will lobby hard for May, rather than have the costs of 2 separate elections to cover, especially given the state of many budgets.
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
O dear.
I apologise for not dying during the pandemic - I hate to think of depriving young(er) people of whatever it is they desire.
About 3% of Covid deaths have been people under 50, some but not all would have had serious underlying health conditions. In the UK that would equate to about 6000 people of working age who would otherwise have decades of being economically active ahead of them. Over one million people with long covid (many of them younger, those who were healthy and resisted the virus) who, to varying extents, are less able to work. And, that's with an attempt to lock down and protect people - if there'd been no lock down and the pandemic was simply left to rip through the country then there would be many more dead and disabled. Even if you're a hard hearted Tory looking only at the bottom line then you'd need to worry about the hit on the economy of taking 100,000 people out of being able to work would be massive.
Don't worry, the former health secretary turned chancellor will just declare that they are able to work. Job. Done.
It does make it easier than trying to fit in a budget before parliament is dissolved.
Edited to add - although I think councils will lobby hard for May, rather than have the costs of 2 separate elections to cover, especially given the state of many budgets.
Assuming councils have the resources to run two different elections at the same time. Most election offices have very small numbers of staff (2 or 3 people - organising elections and maintaining electoral register, and other similar tasks). The people who staff polling places and counts are temporarily reassigned from other departments. Running two elections simultaneously will seriously stretch election offices, and will need more people at polling stations and in some cases new polling places if places usually used aren't large enough. Counting will take longer (I doubt those who stay up until 3am, or later, counting the general election will be happy to come in at 9am to start counting council elections). Then there are issues where rules around voter eligibility or voting method varies for different elections. Or other rules (such as whether id is required). I'd be surprised if councils would have the resources to run two elections simultaneously, even if there are marginal cost savings. I'd expect most to prefer to have time between to allow one election to be concluded (including return of spending returns, typically one month after the election) and the start of the next (announcing the election and accepting nominations, typically 1-2 months before the election).
Also, most parties don't like to fight multiple elections at the same time. It splits effort, and muddles messaging - if there's a general election and local election what are you talking about, the economy or are the bins emptied often enough? Plus, you may be standing the same people and it's a problem if they then get elected for both positions - local councillors are part time posts, but an MP is a full time appointment without the time to also represent a council ward (or, write for newspapers or sit on company boards).
So, with local elections fixed for 2nd May that would make a general election within one month of that date unfavoured. So, an early date in the first half of March, or a late spring election in second half of June - or after the summer in September or October - become the real options. The May elections are probably the strongest argument against a spring general election and for an autumn one. Though that hasn't stopped having both local and national elections scheduled close together on previous occasions (eg: 2017).
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
I too would like to apologise for Mr F's failure to die, despite being highly vulnerable. Being a scientist of international repute, still contributing to his discipline, is no excuse. Clearly no one over 50 is of any use in the world, and we should all FOAD.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
I too would like to apologise for Mr F's failure to die, despite being highly vulnerable. Being a scientist of international repute, still contributing to his discipline, is no excuse. Clearly no one over 50 is of any use in the world, and we should all FOAD.
I have even less excuse, being a vulnerable septuagenarian of no particular ability, intellectual or physical. If the tories win the next election, I will FOAD.
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
Those who are pension age now have contributed to the economy, they have been through not just wars but the aftermath. They have seen their families living standards get worse. They have been free child care so their kids can work. They are regular voters. I think they deserve to be looked after
I can't help but feel a certain sympathy for Johnson's views. The social and economic impacts of lockdown will be felt by the young for years - even decades - to come, while those who it was primarily intended to protect will be dead and gone in a fraction of that time - indeed, many already are.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
Those who are pension age now have contributed to the economy, they have been through not just wars but the aftermath.
Comments
Braverman was only stupid enough to say the quiet part loud, the direction of travel has been clear for a long while.
Just to emphasize, a previous PM and Home Secretary deported hundreds of elderly citizens of the UK to their death, her department then made it incredibly difficult for these people to either return to the country or claim the rather paltry compensation on offer. She had been warned that her policies would have this result and she chose to go ahead anyway and then let someone else take the fall.
Outside immigration and human rights; a lot of the other things affecting the UK are the results of austerity catching up with the mass of population as everyone starts to notice the residual effects of institutions being run down.
Given that the current government is committed to governing without actually doing anything material the only thing left to platform are culture war issues.
I expect McVey will pop up every time there's some kind of cultural outrage to promise to look into e.g whether anti-racism has gone 'too far' or whether Muslims exhibit the right levels of enthusiasm for the state and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Raqk9tHFbF0
There wouldn't be any point, but since when have the demands of the tory right had any sort of logical basis?
If it means we get to leave Brexit I'm all for it.
It's one way to prevent disappointing results at Eurovision.
If pressed, they tend not to be able to define what a 'proper' Brexit is. But it seems, broadly, to be a naive belief that we ought to cut any ties or agreements with the EU.
What this would do to the country, God knows. But they don't care, because they are obsessives.
Quite so. You're being polite - *swivel-eyed headbangers and loons* describes them more accurately, I think, but, as ever, empty vessels make the most noise...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/19/reform-uk-goes-back-to-brexit-as-it-looks-to-seize-on-tory-troubles
Be afraid. Be very afraid...
I suspect that it refers to the hundreds of billions given away in the furlough scheme and the recent payments to help people with gas and electroic bills.
Meanwhile, to appease the increasingly deranged right wing, the increasingly deranged Sushi is determined to change reality by breaking the law (or making a new law):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/rishi-sunak-could-block-key-human-rights-law-force-through-rwanda-asylum-plan
One where high taxes, high public spending, and social liberalism are seen as left-wing, presumably.
No surprises yet - just confirmation of our worst fears.
Though, of those three only one (high taxes) remotely applies to the current UK government.
Despite historically quite high tax incomes the government has cut public spending to below sustainable levels, to the point where public sector pay is for many below what's realistic to live on (hence, nurses and teachers being among those needing to access food banks or seriously concerned about whether their landlord will raise the rent again because they don't have the ability to pay more) and essential services (from fixing pot holes to life changing medical treatment) can't be provided. It makes you wonder where the government is spending money.
And, in social policies the current UK government has become even more regressive as the years have gone on. The treament of asylum seekers and legal migrants (including the Windrush generation), erosion of rights and active discrimination experienced by many others (including trans people, homosexuals, muslims etc), the failure to address deepseated misogyny and other forms of bigotry within public institutions (including to the point of active police officers assaulting and murdering women). If that's termed "social liberalism" by some people then, please, please, please don't ever allow them the chance of gaining political power or else the government will be back to locking up and forcing medical "treatment" on people for being different, including people I love.
IME, people who break these kinds of rules come in two categories:
1. People who think that the rules are more restrictive than necessary, and that their action is doing no harm, so it doesn't need to be banned. Smoking outdoors in sparsely-populated spaces might fall in this category.
2. People who don't care what effect their actions have on other people.
That is good but the train platforms are nit sparsely populated. They are often busy
They got this information from Dominic Cummings apparently.
Brexit II, I imagine, would certainly mean leaving the ECHR and, no doubt, the Council of Europe, if those advocating it have ever heard of that body. Brexit III? Blowing up the Channel Tunnel and declsring wsr on the rest of Europe. That'll teach 'em.
Brexit IV - leave the UN and set about rebuilding the Empire?
In SPACE!
Perhaps, but also from BoJo himself. Here are a couple of extracts from Sir Patrick Vallance's diaries, courtesy of the BBC:
26 August 2020
Sir Patrick notes that Mr Johnson is increasingly convinced the economy needs to be kept open, because it is mainly older people who are being affected by Covid.
He writes: "PM WhatsApp group kicks off because PM has read in FT that the IFR [infection fatality rate] is 0.04%.
"Age-related IFR explained and that overall looks more like 0.4 to 1%.
"He is obsessed with older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy going.
"Quite a bonkers set of exchanges."
25 October 2020
Sir Patrick writes: "PM meeting - begins to argue for letting it all rip. Saying yes there will be more casualties but so be it - 'they have had a good innings'.
"Not persuaded by Edmonds, Ferguson, Farrar [scientists on emergency advisory group].
"PM saying 'the population just has to behave doesn't it!'.
"PM getting very frustrated - throwing papers down. PM back on to 'Most people who die have reached their time anyway'."
Thanks for that. I was under the impression that Johnson made these remarks early in 2020
What is really disturbing isn't that this might have been considered dispassionately and rejected, but that the evidence show that that isn't how decisions were taken, what they reveal as to the quality of debate - or absence of it , the callousness, the complete lack of integrity and leadership qualities of the man at the top and the team he chose to surround himself with.
But it was ever thus. The young are always expected to make sacrifices for the benefit of the old. At least this time round they weren't being sent off to make that sacrifice in some god-forsaken trench.
What a time to be alive.
Why would people who still proudly proclaim themselves the heirs to Margaret Thatcher, and have had two other female PMs since then, object to a woman as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I mean, I know the Tories aren't feminist in the sense of wanting the state to do anything actively promoting gender equality, but I'm not quite buying that they believe certain cabinet positions should be off-limits to women.
Rachel Reeves is the Labour shadow (although as has since been pointed out, that doesn't mean she will definitely get to do the actual job) - contra to your post, this would be the Tories moving Hunt out, to move a woman in, so that a Labour woman doesn't get to be first... Given the timing of an election, they wouldn't be actually able to do much as Chancellor, but it would be literally a spoiler, and for no other conceivable reason.
Oh, okay, so it's that they specifically don't want a Labour appointee to have the honour of being the first female Chancellor.
It’s not even about the ‘honour’ I think it’s more that there’s a faction of the Tory party (expecting to lose the election) that thinks it would be just ‘funny’ to troll the likely incoming party.
As I said, what a time to be alive
O dear.
I apologise for not dying during the pandemic - I hate to think of depriving young(er) people of whatever it is they desire.
Election in March.
You heard it here first...
Let’s just get it over with
It does make it easier than trying to fit in a budget before parliament is dissolved.
Edited to add - although I think councils will lobby hard for May, rather than have the costs of 2 separate elections to cover, especially given the state of many budgets.
Don't worry, the former health secretary turned chancellor will just declare that they are able to work. Job. Done.
Also, most parties don't like to fight multiple elections at the same time. It splits effort, and muddles messaging - if there's a general election and local election what are you talking about, the economy or are the bins emptied often enough? Plus, you may be standing the same people and it's a problem if they then get elected for both positions - local councillors are part time posts, but an MP is a full time appointment without the time to also represent a council ward (or, write for newspapers or sit on company boards).
So, with local elections fixed for 2nd May that would make a general election within one month of that date unfavoured. So, an early date in the first half of March, or a late spring election in second half of June - or after the summer in September or October - become the real options. The May elections are probably the strongest argument against a spring general election and for an autumn one. Though that hasn't stopped having both local and national elections scheduled close together on previous occasions (eg: 2017).
I too would like to apologise for Mr F's failure to die, despite being highly vulnerable. Being a scientist of international repute, still contributing to his discipline, is no excuse. Clearly no one over 50 is of any use in the world, and we should all FOAD.
It's an ill wind...
I have even less excuse, being a vulnerable septuagenarian of no particular ability, intellectual or physical. If the tories win the next election, I will FOAD.
Those who are pension age now have contributed to the economy, they have been through not just wars but the aftermath. They have seen their families living standards get worse. They have been free child care so their kids can work. They are regular voters. I think they deserve to be looked after