Anyone who thinks I did this for money...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I left this part of the message board because after seven years of repetitive argument over the same topics interspersed with trolling it was clear, and is clearly born out by this thread today, that there is little value in visiting. However, the Oakeshott situation did reveal new information on an old topic and as a Telegraph subscriber I thought I might be able to shed some light on what is actually being reported in the Telegraph.

The Telegraph is going with all guns blazing on the subject of Handcock's Whatsapp messages. About half the online paper is devoted to the subject since the story broke and they have tried to cover all angles. One of the themes emerging is a backlash against Oakeshott for using the whatsapp messages for a purposes other than what she was given them for - but that is more of a sub-plot to the main story. What seems to be emerging is that firstly, the country was much more complicit and comfortable with the idea of lockdown and social distancing measures than the government thought possible. It was the government's experts within the Sage group who were more cautious than the politicians and more insistent on continuing measures when the real data indicated things were not as bad as the forecasts projected. But anyone pointing out mistakes or irregularities in the Sage data were treated as conspiracy theorists or fringe lunatics and their voices shutdown. 

One thing of interest that I learned was that when dealing with major events, the experts normal set up what is known as a red team, whose job is to act as a devil's advocate trying to pick holes in plans as a kind of back stop against going ahead with mistaken ideas. In the case of the pandemic no red team was set up so no one in government was challenging the experts. So for example, the messages indicate no one wanted to bring up the subject of why Sweden were getting the results they did without lockdowns. 

The Whatsapp messages show that Johnson was very sceptical about the need for a second lockdown but by this time Sage had developed a bunker mentality as they tried to deal with the increasing deaths of the second wave.

 

People can make the own conclusions about what really happened in government during the pandemic from the information in these Whatsapp messages. One of the big takeaways for me is the huge reliance placed on what the Sage experts were saying, and shutting out any dissenting opinion. For example, the Lab Leak theory of the source of Covid was dismissed as conspiracy theory when it was first mentioned, but here we are now a lot of weight being given to the possibility that Covid did originate in a Wuhan laboratory. I was employed as an expert by the European Commission for over ten years, and I know for a fact that experts will tell their paymasters exactly what they want to hear. Should we ever be in the same situation in the future, hopefully the government will listen to a wider range of voices than just a small group of internals who all have their own agendas.

I have no problem with genuine mistakes and misunderstandings. For instance, most people I have spoken to thought that the briefings held at the time were better when Van Tamm was the spokesperson. The information would be no different but delivered in a better way and questions answered succinctly and truthfully (it appeared).

But experts deal in facts. Which they present. They do not make decisions.

I fail to see how anyone expected Hancock to handle what was akin to something harder than a war to provide answers and certainly to provide logistics that covered all consequences. The world was competing for everything. Try getting a roofer in  a storm.

Yes we were angry at the time and since. But in reality, it wan't the incompetence. It was the lies and misinformation. Even yesterday, Johnson lied through his teeth and even had the gall to say he had been vindicated. It was all Gray's fault.

Oakshott has told us nothing we didn't know and the book will never be a best seller.

[horsefly 4,287]

21 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And it will. In that scenario its obvious to any reasonable person that parties need the votes of other parties to deliver anything in their manifesto, so nothing can be considered guaranteed.

It's not so black and white as Labour's repeated lies regarding electoral reform and tuition fees over several manifestoes when in majority government last time.

Most of the Labour grass roots want PR now; the Labour leadership are desperately resisting because they know full well that there'll be a massive exodus to the Greens, Lib Dems, and doubtless new options, leaving them a smaller institution; still in the game, but no longer able to have power all to itself. Party before country.

I understand your determination to rubbish PR though seeing as you're obviously highly partisan in favour of the Labour party who depend on it to coerce people from voting for other parties other than Labour and the Conservatives.

You display a complete ignorance of post war European politics. Countries with a voting system based on PR have been just as susceptible to corruption (if not more so) as any other using FPTP. Do you really need me to reel off all the major scandals? I'm in favour of PR. What I'm not, however, is stupid enough to think that PR would prevent corruption in politics. And just how you can hold on the one hand that PR would restore trust in politics while simultaneously claiming that we should expect minor parties to lie about their promises, invites nothing but ridicule. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

PR merely ensures that votes are a reasonably fair reflection of an electorate's wants.  FPTP totally fails in this regard due to tactical voting. The other major upside of PR is that you can't gerrymander. FPTP is terribly vulnerable to it - so in terms of mitigating that form of corruption, PR does largely eradicate it.

It wouldn't resolve the issues such as we've had with the syphoning of public monies.

[dylanisabaddog 4,869]

22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And it will. In that scenario its obvious to any reasonable person that parties need the votes of other parties to deliver anything in their manifesto, so nothing can be considered guaranteed.

It's not so black and white as Labour's repeated lies regarding electoral reform and tuition fees over several manifestoes when in majority government last time.

Most of the Labour grass roots want PR now; the Labour leadership are desperately resisting because they know full well that there'll be a massive exodus to the Greens, Lib Dems, and doubtless new options, leaving them a smaller institution; still in the game, but no longer able to have power all to itself. Party before country.

I understand your determination to rubbish PR though seeing as you're obviously highly partisan in favour of the Labour party who depend on it to coerce people from voting for other parties other than Labour and the Conservatives.

Very amusing. I'm currently a member of the Labour Party and I can assure you that no one is talking about PR. In fact we've just employed Sue Gray as preparation for what is about to happen. 

Basically we are preparing for Government with the SNP as the official opposition. Try to imagine Norwich v Shrewsbury on a Wednesday night in April at Carrow Road. Norwich need to win to go up and Shrewsbury are already down. Cast your eyes round the stadium. Tucked in the far corner are 100 loyal Shrewsbury fans. 

That's what Parliament is going to look like. Why on earth would we now want PR?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

54 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Very amusing. I'm currently a member of the Labour Party and I can assure you that no one is talking about PR. In fact we've just employed Sue Gray as preparation for what is about to happen. 

Basically we are preparing for Government with the SNP as the official opposition. Try to imagine Norwich v Shrewsbury on a Wednesday night in April at Carrow Road. Norwich need to win to go up and Shrewsbury are already down. Cast your eyes round the stadium. Tucked in the far corner are 100 loyal Shrewsbury fans. 

That's what Parliament is going to look like. Why on earth would we now want PR?

Well there you go. You just joined; you weren't at the last NEC conference where the membership and the unions were talking about it and voted for the motion.

Probably worth you doing a catch-up on what has been going on in the party by the sounds of it. I'm not even a member and I'm more up to speed on it.

Labour are more popular than the Conservatives, but I don't see much evidence of wide public enthusiasm akin to 1997.

I did dabble in the Labour Party myself in the late 90s. I met Glenda Jackson and Frank Dobson who told us that there was nothing to worry about with Air Traffic Control privatisation, although Frank did quietly state in personal conversation afterwards that it was 'a f**king bizarre idea' to quote him, but that's party politics for you.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/

And you're taking for granted a Labour landslide. It's also starting to look like Labour's in danger of taking a landslide for granted; appointing Sue Gray in the manner they have looks a bit presumptuous. Parties that take landslides for granted often fall flat on their face. Ask Kinnock and May.

Without enormous inroads into Scotland, a hung parliament where the Labour party look for pro-reform smaller parties for support is more likely, in which case PR becomes a likelihood.

But even if Labour get elected, without electoral reform you may as well count the days until the next Conservative majority government, which underlines the point that you can't be as against the Conservatives as you pretend if you don't want electoral reform.

I'll restate the point that if Labour had honoured its last manifesto promises on PR instead of lying, in all likelihood we'd never have left the EU. You can thank your precious Labour party for that.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-result-brexit-first-past-post-proportional-representation-centrism-a9251246.html

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/12/12/the-alternative-vote-system-could-have-delivered-a-clearer-signal-on-brexit/

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

 

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That's what Parliament is going to look like. Why on earth would we now want PR?

Because it's best for the country.

Sadly, that's not a priority for Starmer or Labour. It's never been a priority for the Tories.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why are we on about PR and FPTP again? The OP is about something akin to lies, conspiracies and incompetence.

[canarydan23 4,060]

21 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why are we on about PR and FPTP again? The OP is about something akin to lies, conspiracies and incompetence.

Because it is only because of FPTP that a total moron like Hancock could wind up in an office like Health Secretary. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Because it is only because of FPTP that a total moron like Hancock could wind up in an office like Health Secretary. 

That has nothing to do with FPTP. The PM selects his cabinet.

[canarydan23 4,060]

27 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That has nothing to do with FPTP. The PM selects his cabinet.

Yes, a PM on his own picks a Cabinet of MPs from a party that a quarter of people voted for.

Not under PR they don't. 

[Virtual reality 706]

I agree with this opinion that they should be behind bars. This what’s app exchange is disgraceful. Talk of deploying the new variant and frightening the pants off the public 

Power hungry psychopaths 

Patrick Valance “suck up their miserable interpretations and over deliver”

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Virtual reality

[Herman 9,716]

Sunak's Eat Out scheme is coming under closer scrutiny too.

[dylanisabaddog 4,869]

22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Well there you go. You just joined; you weren't at the last NEC conference where the membership and the unions were talking about it and voted for the motion.

Probably worth you doing a catch-up on what has been going on in the party by the sounds of it. I'm not even a member and I'm more up to speed on it.

Labour are more popular than the Conservatives, but I don't see much evidence of wide public enthusiasm akin to 1997.

I did dabble in the Labour Party myself in the late 90s. I met Glenda Jackson and Frank Dobson who told us that there was nothing to worry about with Air Traffic Control privatisation, although Frank did quietly state in personal conversation afterwards that it was 'a f**king bizarre idea' to quote him, but that's party politics for you.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/

And you're taking for granted a Labour landslide. It's also starting to look like Labour's in danger of taking a landslide for granted; appointing Sue Gray in the manner they have looks a bit presumptuous. Parties that take landslides for granted often fall flat on their face. Ask Kinnock and May.

Without enormous inroads into Scotland, a hung parliament where the Labour party look for pro-reform smaller parties for support is more likely, in which case PR becomes a likelihood.

But even if Labour get elected, without electoral reform you may as well count the days until the next Conservative majority government, which underlines the point that you can't be as against the Conservatives as you pretend if you don't want electoral reform.

I'll restate the point that if Labour had honoured its last manifesto promises on PR instead of lying, in all likelihood we'd never have left the EU. You can thank your precious Labour party for that.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/general-election-result-brexit-first-past-post-proportional-representation-centrism-a9251246.html

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/12/12/the-alternative-vote-system-could-have-delivered-a-clearer-signal-on-brexit/

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-the-2019-election-results-could-have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

 

 

Do you seriously think Starmer is going to take a blind bit of notice what Conference decides? Really?  He'll take as much notice as Blair did. Before you criticise, if Parties took any notice of their members we would still have Truss as Prime Minister. 

As for the EU referendum, you choose your history and I'll choose mine. I choose to think that the writing was on the wall the minute that Clegg got into bed with David Cameron. Or perhaps it was the day when Labour picked the wrong Milliband. It was certainly nothing to do with PR I'm afraid. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

16 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Do you seriously think Starmer is going to take a blind bit of notice what Conference decides? Really?  He'll take as much notice as Blair did. Before you criticise, if Parties took any notice of their members we would still have Truss as Prime Minister. 

As for the EU referendum, you choose your history and I'll choose mine. I choose to think that the writing was on the wall the minute that Clegg got into bed with David Cameron. Or perhaps it was the day when Labour picked the wrong Milliband. It was certainly nothing to do with PR I'm afraid. 

 

You choose your history, by all means; just don't kid yourself it's in any way rational or reasonable.

No coalition would just have meant an earlier repeat general election and an earlier Conservative majority, because no way was Labour winning a rerun.

Edited March 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

there is nothing rational about Keir Starmer, he is a charlatan bully who ignores that Labour once had the largest membership, before he arrived. Another millionaire red Tory who does as he likes and ignores his own unlawfulness.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

8 hours ago, Herman said:

Sunak's Eat Out scheme is coming under closer scrutiny too.

Yes, and about time - it was a stupid idea, as many said at the time and a lot of people sadly discovered in the hardest possible way.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

19 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Yes, a PM on his own picks a Cabinet of MPs from a party that a quarter of people voted for.

Not under PR they don't. 

PR won't alter a PM picking his cabinet. One party would still be the one asked to form a Government.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

27 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

PR won't alter a PM picking his cabinet. One party would still be the one asked to form a Government.

The second part's true; in a coalition you have negotiation of cabinet slots as well. The alternative is minority government where the largest party sets the program itself and deals with different opposition parties on a confidence and supply basis, but that tends to be trickier than multiple parties negotiating a programme reflective of their respective agendas.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The second part's true; in a coalition you have negotiation of cabinet slots as well. The alternative is minority government where the largest party sets the program itself and deals with different opposition parties on a confidence and supply basis, but that tends to be trickier than multiple parties negotiating a programme reflective of their respective agendas.

And you could end like NZ where Jacinda Ardern had give Winston Peters, an anathema to Labour, the Deputy Leader job just to get power.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

48 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And you could end like NZ where Jacinda Ardern had give Winston Peters, an anathema to Labour, the Deputy Leader job just to get power.

It's called compromise and negotiation between different outlooks; it's what democracy and diplomacy is supposed to be all about.

Edited March 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's called compromise and negotiation between different outlooks; it's what democracy and diplomacy is supposed to be all about.

In this case, it had to be desperation. He had already caused havoc in 1996 by allowing the conservative National Party to form a Government by becoming DP with them.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

And you could end like NZ where Jacinda Ardern had give Winston Peters, an anathema to Labour, the Deputy Leader job just to get power.

What, you mean a broader section of voters represented in senior positions of government? How awful.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

32 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

In this case, it had to be desperation. He had already caused havoc in 1996 by allowing the conservative National Party to form a Government by becoming DP with them.

Sure, but when all's said and done, New Zealand has had decent government with that tricky compromise between proportionally elected representatives broadly representing public sentiment while ours has been a sh1t show with one party doing whatever is the product of its own infighting, all put there by a minority of voters.

You've said yourself you'd rather support the greens than Labour. Why wouldn't you want to have Greens in parliament arguing and negotiating from a point of view you more closely endorse instead of choosing between two duplicitous organisations that effectively run four to five year dictatorships where they frequently don't deliver their commitments and where you have no influence over the internal ideological wrestling matches that influence what they do deliver?

I know which approach I prefer.

Edited March 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

What, you mean a broader section of voters represented in senior positions of government? How awful.

When you have a system that relies on a broader coalition than just two parties and to govern you have to invite a politician who is totally against any of your policies but to persuade him to get you into government you have to offer him one of the top jobs then that is not democracy. Its politics. That politician can then advertise his own policies rather than the coalitions at home and abroad knowing you can do nothing about it is abuse of power.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

On 02/03/2023 at 16:53, littleyellowbirdie said:

They didn't blow it. The cuts the coalition oversaw were less than those in the 2010 Labour manifesto and they introduced a whole raft of successful and popular policies in coalition. If Labour had had the sense to give them credit where it was due instead of indulging in their usual pantomime bullsh1t, the Lib Dems might have done better at the next election instead of the Conservatives getting the boost from the credit for those successes and being rewarded with a majority in 2015.

And then you wouldn't still be moaning day after day about the referendum.

Hilarious b*ll****. Clegg promised to do away with tuition fees over and over again and made it front and centre of the Liberals election campaign. The moment he saw a chance to get his grubby hands on just a little bit of power he ditched his principles faster than you can say 'Jack Robinson'. Then he willingly acquisced in trebling the very tuition fees which he had solemnly declared he was going to get rid of. 

At the next election the British electorate saw right through this unprincipled shyster and the Lib Dems went from having around 60 seats to about 8! 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

5 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Hilarious b*ll****. Clegg promised to do away with tuition fees over and over again and made it front and centre of the Liberals election campaign. The moment he saw a chance to get his grubby hands on just a little bit of power he ditched his principles faster than you can say 'Jack Robinson'. Then he willingly acquisced in trebling the very tuition fees which he had solemnly declared he was going to get rid of. 

At the next election the British electorate saw right through this unprincipled shyster and the Lib Dems went from having around 60 seats to about 8! 

Maybe you can answer the question that Horsefly didn't. How does a party with about 50 MPs scrap tuition fees without either Labour or Conservative MPs willing to add their votes?

Again, Labour lied several times over tuition fees in majority government, yet people are okay with putting them back in government? How are they not unprincipled shysters if the Lib Dems are?

Incidentally, trebling of tuition fees followed the recommendation of the report commissioned by Gordon Brown, which Labour would likely have implemented based on their records on tuition fees from 1997 to 2010.

Edited March 5, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe you can answer the question that Horsefly didn't. How does a party with about 50 MPs scrap tuition fees without either Labour or Conservative MPs willing to add their votes?

Again, Labour lied several times over tuition fees in majority government, yet people are okay with putting them back in government? How are they not unprincipled shysters if the Lib Dems are?

Incidentally, trebling of tuition fees followed the recommendation of the report commissioned by Gordon Brown, which Labour would likely have implemented based on their records on tuition fees from 1997 to 2010.

Happy to be able to educate you on this point. 28 Lib Dem MPs voted to treble tuition fees. Not one single Labour MP voted to! 

The rest who voted to treble them were Tories.  

But you know what they say "Scratch a Liberal and you'll find a Tory underneath" - a suspicion given weight by your slavish devotion to trying to defend Matt Hancock. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

When you have a system that relies on a broader coalition than just two parties and to govern you have to invite a politician who is totally against any of your policies but to persuade him to get you into government you have to offer him one of the top jobs then that is not democracy. Its politics. That politician can then advertise his own policies rather than the coalitions at home and abroad knowing you can do nothing about it is abuse of power.

Sucks for the politician compromising, but not for the electorate. People get too partisan with politics and fool themselves into believing one party has all the answers. In reality, all parties are right about some things and wrong about others. Coalitions can get more of the right into policy and mitigate against some of the worst parts of their coalition partners' ideals.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

9 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Happy to be able to educate you on this point. 28 Lib Dem MPs voted to treble tuition fees. Not one single Labour MP voted to! 

The rest who voted to treble them were Tories.  

But you know what they say "Scratch a Liberal and you'll find a Tory underneath" - a suspicion given weight by your slavish devotion to trying to defend Matt Hancock. 

Let me educate you in return. Before Labour came to power in 1997, tuition fees paid by students were zero. Over 400 Labour MPs signed up to commitments not to introduce them in the first place and then voted to introduce them; hundreds of Labour MPs lied to students in government over 13 years, putting a greater burden on students.

Given those facts, I guess it would also be fair to say that 'if you scratch a Labour MP, you'll find a Tory underneath' by your logic as well. But Labour voters kept them in power anyway, even with the lies over Iraq as well and the damage that did to our reputation, because Labour's lies on PR made sure that there was no choice but to vote Labour or Conservative in the eyes of the electorate.

In fact, the truth is that many voters will have voted both Labour and Conservative in their lifetime, because the electoral system encourages many to believe those are the only options.

Incidentally, yes I was a Conservative voter up until 2010, and I'm not embarrassed to say so either. Ken Clarke, Gillian Shephard and John Major are my favourite UK politicians of my lifetime, but they represent the moderate side of the Conservative party.

I started supporting the Lib Dems in 2015 when it was clear that were going to be punished unfairly for doing something you rarely see Labour or the Conservatives doing, which was putting tribal sentiment aside and putting country before party.

One final lesson for you. In 1997, the Conservatives were reduced so much that many crowed that the Conservatives would never govern again. They did govern again though, because the Labour party's repeated betrayal of its voters and many cases of corruption within the party over its 13 years convinced enough of the public that  Labour were too crap to be allowed to continue to govern and Labour hadn't made their pomised reforms to give people more choice at the ballot box.

At rock bottom, I loathe tribalism in politics; Labour is a bunch of utter thugs on that score, bullying smaller left of centre parties with the failings of our electoral system that they keep in place for that purpose.

And Labour is the party that's supposed to restore trust in politics... 'they say'. 🤪

Edited March 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Sucks for the politician compromising, but not for the electorate. People get too partisan with politics and fool themselves into believing one party has all the answers. In reality, all parties are right about some things and wrong about others. Coalitions can get more of the right into policy and mitigate against some of the worst parts of their coalition partners' ideals.

You might be happy with coalitions but I am not. Cameron was the weakest PM we have had. I don't count Truss. May was terrible but she took on Brexit not walked away from it. And Cameron's stupid coalition with Clegg was bizarre at best and damaging at worst. Neither of them could say no.

Maybe in 50 years time if we have had forty years of coalitions, we might get used to it. But for me, they are not the way to govern.