Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Goldhawk-Road]

They're already wearing most of Corbyn's fiscal clothes...

Yes, on the NHS they are. Not on renationalisation and all the freebies Corbyn offered to get votes. A mansion or land tax may be introduced. This pandemic is the equivalent of funding a major war. It will force extraordinary changes in the policies of the political parties, here and abroad

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

.

Interesting that you are a fan of Keynesian economics (as am I), but, whilst I would dispute your historical analysis, I thought we were discussing the future and would prefer to focus on that. As I pointed out, capitalism doesn't work in a national crisis, and I think that when we emerge from the current situation there might be an appetite for a new attitude towards fiscal policy. More tax and spend, a bigger state, a focus on the people and the organisations that everyone can now see are the most important to society (and yes, there is such a thing). We've had the bankers' crash and we bailed them out at a massive cost to mostly the poorest in society. Surely this time the richest should make the biggest contribution? The Tory party won't do that.

Sorry to be slow to come back to this. Juggled work today with laying some new turf in my garden which was extremely satisfying.

On one hand I don't disagree that this could change attitudes and engender support for more tax and spend. This virus could radically change all sorts of previously held views and beliefs. On the other hand, it's plausible that it could entrench some very different views, especially if the economies which went through austerity can now afford significantly larger stimulus packages and therefore bounce back far more quickly. Who knows?

This is certainly the time that the richest should make the biggest contribution, but that's always been the case, which is why it is welcome that (roughly) half of all income tax is paid by the top 5% of earners.

I also disagree with the assertion that capitalism doesn't work at a time of national crisis.
(a) Capitalism doesn't necessitate no (or even a small) role for the state
(b) All the capital governments are currently spending come from prospering businesses, past, present and future
(c) Multiple businesses are partnering with the government e.g. those engineering ventilators
(d) Govt recognises the ultimate solution to this issue will be a vaccine that will almost certainly come from the private sector

It's an interesting question to think about how this will change the future. I certainly think a lot of businesses will learn that home working is generally a good thing and keep it up etc

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

You must log in or register to see images

How dare they not celebrate the fantastic work of our dear leaders.

 

[kiwiqpr]

You must log in or register to see images

Happy Anzac day

 

[Stroller]

You must log in or register to see images

Ridiculous.

The government has a daily propaganda broadcast and lies through its teeth.

'We have followed the scientific advice at all times'.

 

[Willhoops]

Ridiculous.

The government has a daily propaganda broadcast and lies through its teeth.

'We have followed the scientific advice at all times'.

Dominic ****ing ****ings

it’s another sign of totalitarian though, shout down any media that isn’t pro government, you remember when we all laughed at the Koreans and the Russian media ... well

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

How dare they not celebrate the fantastic work of our dear leaders.

Ridiculous.

The government has a daily propaganda broadcast and lies through its teeth.

'We have followed the scientific advice at all times'.

The cartoon is a response to the latest YouGov poll that finds that 72% of the public don't trust journalists (and presumably media owners like Murdoch)

 

[ELLERS]

The cartoon is a response to the latest YouGov poll that finds that 72% of the public don't trust journalists (and presumably media owners like Murdoch)

And how tw2ts like SkyNews has turned this serious pandemic in Transfer deadline day.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

The cartoon is a response to the latest YouGov poll that finds that 72% of the public don't trust journalists (and presumably media owners like Murdoch)

I saw that and found it interesting. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the usual media cheerleaders aren’t being quite so cheeleadery and the great unwashed suddenly find them less trustworthy.

 

[Stroller]

The cartoon is a response to the latest YouGov poll that finds that 72% of the public don't trust journalists (and presumably media owners like Murdoch)

Well I wouldn't trust Murdoch and his like, but it's a bit hard on ordinary journalists who are just doing their jobs by asking difficult questions of the government. There seems to be an attitude about that anyone who criticises the government is some kind of traitor. The government lies, journalists call them out on these lies, and the public turns on the journos. I don't trust an illogically terrified public to make logical judgments.

 

[Willhoops]

In response to Murdock controlled media? Bbc and itv?

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I saw that and found it interesting. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the usual media cheerleaders aren’t being quite so cheeleadery and the great unwashed suddenly find them less trustworthy.

BBC and SKY took undisguised Remain positions on Brexit, and politically, the BBC is still stuck in the Blair years. Trump dared to say that certain revered publications and news sites were fake news. The public looked at this and found that, in some cases (particularly where owners are using their media outlets to peddle a certain message), it really is fake news

 

[ELLERS]

BBC and SKY took undisguised Remain positions on Brexit, and politically, the BBC is still stuck in the Blair years. Trump dared to say that certain revered publications and news sites were fake news. The public looked at this and found that, in some cases (particularly where owners are using their media outlets to peddle a certain message), it really is fake news

You beat me to it!

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Well I wouldn't trust Murdoch and his like, but it's a bit hard on ordinary journalists who are just doing their jobs by asking difficult questions of the government. There seems to be an attitude about that anyone who criticises the government is some kind of traitor. The government lies, journalists call them out on these lies, and the public turns on the journos. I don't trust an illogically terrified public to make logical judgments.

Yes, agree it is hard on those straightforward journalists who are trying to bring truth to the public and hold government to account

 

[ELLERS]

The government lies, journalists call them out on these lies, and the public turns on the journos.

You only think the government lies because you don't like them. When an anti-government story comes out you support it (like Watford) without knowing the full facts.

A good example was the Guardian story on Dominic Cummings being at the scientific advisory group meetings.
A ludicrous story that was posted by Watford which was trying to say that Cummings was at "secret meetings" (which they are not) and interfering. Without hesitation you commented:

"As I suspected, the government leading the scientists."

As it pans out the story is a non-starter and was rubbished very quickly after.

One reporter who has no love for the Tories said she was "baffled by this story" and "it makes sense that the PM's adviser would be in the room able to challenge the evidence but also make sure the questions the PM want's asked, are asked and that things are being presented in a way that the PM and senior ministers will be able to digest. Translating between scientific evidence and the way politicians think and understand is a really important role. There is no evidence that Mr Cummings and his colleague were in fact overruling or interfering or behaving badly in those meetings. The fact that they attended strikes me as not anywhere near as controversial as it is communicated in this story".

Another reporter said "I'm amazed at the ingenuity of the Guardian to be able to write headlines which means I don't like Dominic Cummings in so many different forms and ways over the weeks/months he has been involved in government. it's inevitable a Prime Minister will have a political advisor attending such meetings. They are not secret. Of course, there should be someone there from number !0 who represents the Prime Ministers' views, who is close to the PM and is able to understand what the PM wants out of those meetings... that's his job I don't see the point of stories like this in the Guardian. They just don't like the man. If that is what they mean they should just come out and be honest. Print 'We Don't like Dominic Cummings' and see who cares."

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

You only think the government lies because you don't like them. When an anti-government story comes out you support it (like Watford) without knowing the full facts.

A good example was the Guardian story on Dominic Cummings being at the scientific advisory group meetings.
A ludicrous story that was posted by Watford which was trying to say that Cummings was at "secret meetings" (which they are not) and interfering. Without hesitation you commented:

"As I suspected, the government leading the scientists."

As it pans out the story is a non-starter and was rubbished very quickly after.

One reporter who has no love for the Tories said she was "baffled by this story" and "it makes sense that the PM's adviser would be in the room able to challenge the evidence but also make sure the questions the PM want's asked, are asked and that things are being presented in a way that the PM and senior ministers will be able to digest. Translating between scientific evidence and the way politicians think and understand is a really important role. There is no evidence that Mr Cummings and his colleague were in fact overruling or interfering or behaving badly in those meetings. The fact that they attended strikes me as not anywhere near as controversial as it is communicated in this story".

Another reporter said "I'm amazed at the ingenuity of the Guardian to be able to write headlines which means I don't like Dominic Cummings in so many different forms and ways over the weeks/months he has been involved in government. it's inevitable a Prime Minister will have a political advisor attending such meetings. They are not secret. Of course, there should be someone there from number !0 who represents the Prime Ministers' views, who is close to the PM and is able to understand what the PM wants out of those meetings... that's his job I don't see the point of stories like this in the Guardian. They just don't like the man. If that is what they mean they should just come out and be honest. Print 'We Don't like Dominic Cummings' and see who cares."

We’d know the full facts if they were open about them. They aren’t so we don’t. You have to admit it’s a bit fishy to claim we “follow the science” as a mantra every day and find out there’s a eugenicist and extremely close ally of the Prime Minister in the room asking questions.

 

[ELLERS]

We’d know the full facts if they were open about them. They aren’t so we don’t. You have to admit it’s a bit fishy to claim we “follow the science” as a mantra every day and find out there’s a eugenicist and extremely close ally of the Prime Minister in the room asking questions.

Reporters are rubbishing this story. Cummings didn't interfere. Maybe you should eat some humble pie mate because the story is b2222222's

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Reporters are rubbishing this story. Cummings didn't interfere. Maybe you should eat some humble pie mate because the story is b2222222's

If he’s in the room asking questions and then has the ear of the Prime Minister arguably more than anyone else then he’s interfering. He’s not a scientist. He’s not even a behavioural scientist.

 

[Stroller]

You only think the government lies because you don't like them. When an anti-government story comes out you support it (like Watford) without knowing the full facts.

A good example was the Guardian story on Dominic Cummings being at the scientific advisory group meetings.
A ludicrous story that was posted by Watford which was trying to say that Cummings was at "secret meetings" (which they are not) and interfering. Without hesitation you commented:

"As I suspected, the government leading the scientists."

As it pans out the story is a non-starter and was rubbished very quickly after.

One reporter who has no love for the Tories said she was "baffled by this story" and "it makes sense that the PM's adviser would be in the room able to challenge the evidence but also make sure the questions the PM want's asked, are asked and that things are being presented in a way that the PM and senior ministers will be able to digest. Translating between scientific evidence and the way politicians think and understand is a really important role. There is no evidence that Mr Cummings and his colleague were in fact overruling or interfering or behaving badly in those meetings. The fact that they attended strikes me as not anywhere near as controversial as it is communicated in this story".

Another reporter said "I'm amazed at the ingenuity of the Guardian to be able to write headlines which means I don't like Dominic Cummings in so many different forms and ways over the weeks/months he has been involved in government. it's inevitable a Prime Minister will have a political advisor attending such meetings. They are not secret. Of course, there should be someone there from number !0 who represents the Prime Ministers' views, who is close to the PM and is able to understand what the PM wants out of those meetings... that's his job I don't see the point of stories like this in the Guardian. They just don't like the man. If that is what they mean they should just come out and be honest. Print 'We Don't like Dominic Cummings' and see who cares."

The story is a non-starter for someone who slavishly follows the government line on everything.

I saw a previous CMO, from the Blair years, on Newsnight and he said that there should never be political advisers at these meetings and that there never would have been in his time. It should be down down to the CMO to report back to the government and it's plain that Whitty was uncomfortable with Cummings's presence and influence. Do you believe that the initial herd immunity approach was not influenced by Cummings?