[tomtom]

Its all a bit of a false comparison really - its a bit like getting beaten up in a pub by some meathead and saying "shame I wasn't smashed up by that other bloke instead"....

[SA Chris]

Nigel, you omitted

"Definitely wouldn't have made an exception for people wandering the countryside decimating wildlife with firearms"

"Not sacked a key member of his staff for breaking his own rules"

[TobyD]

With some reluctance...
If we accept that Johnson's party management is awful, so was Corbyns. He had clearly lost control of his main advisors as has Johnson. Corbyns cadre almost managed to sack his deputy leader without his say so. Corbyn spent several years not managing to deal with anti semitism in the party which would have been really easy to sort out. I find it very hard to imagine that any sort of idealogical purity would have made up for his utterly ineffectual leadership. Not that electing a second rate panel show comedian as a PM was any better, mind.

[TobyD]

Nigel, you omitted

"Definitely wouldn't have made an exception for people wandering the countryside decimating wildlife with firearms"

"Not sacked a key member of his staff for breaking his own rules"

I can't see Corbyn would have sacked Milne if he'd been caught out. Or Karie Murphy, or McCluskey...
The hunting thing is bull. It was on a list of many excepted sports including climbing. Don't mix up a personal dislike of those activities with politics.

[Moo]

Toby, I can only really applaud your audacity in trying to argue for the opposite side of the coin here, you have so very little to work with. Bravo for trying though top marks for effort.

[Offwidth]

It's not just about  one bloke beating you up in a pub instead of another one. One bloke was menacing you in the pub beforehand and the other was hardly likely to even be there. It was nigh on impossible on the electoral maths for Corbyn to achieve a majority government. It was why worrying about him in the campaign was so pointless and worrying about Boris was so important. Middle class swing voters in southern and city marginals were just as guilty of being fooled as working class voters in the red wall in producing this incredibly dangerous majority of seats for the biggest buffoon of a leader and the most incompetent, crimnal and inexperienced looking cabinet I have ever witnessed.

[TobyD]

It's not just about  one bloke beating you up in a pub instead of another one. One bloke was menacing you in the pub beforehand and the other was hardly likely to even be there. It was nigh on impossible on the electoral maths for Corbyn to achieve a majority government. It was why worrying about him in the campaign was so pointless and worrying about Boris was so important. Middle class swing voters in southern and city marginals were just as guilty of being fooled as working class voters in the red wall in producing this incredibly dangerous majority of seats for the biggest buffoon of a leader and the most incompetent, crimnal and inexperienced looking cabinet I have ever witnessed.

I agree with all of that, the British people would never have elected Corbyn, and rightly so; however they should never have elected Johnson either, he's a liability, he clearly has no idea what he's doing, doesn't work very hard, and very likely isn't actually terribly intelligent.

[tomtom]

I think picking apart my metaphor is about as useful as playing what if Labour won the election..

:D

[Nigel]

With some reluctance...
.....I find it very hard to imagine that any sort of idealogical purity would have made up for his (Corbyn's) utterly ineffectual leadership.

Given the reluctance I'll be brief - this line of yours quoted above I suppose is why we won't agree on this!

You seem to place the vast majority of weight on "competence", as incidentally does Kier Starmer. My contention is that you can be as competent as you like, but doing the wrong thing, competently, is still a bad idea.

The example of TTI is instructive. Given to private firms Serco / Deloitte / ex-Talk Talk CEO. £12bn spent (£432 per UK household). Results - shambolic: revealed today that pillar 2 (private Serco et al) testing returns 10% of results within 24hrs i.e. pointless. Pillar 1 (NHS labs) returns 88% within 24hrs. Labour 2019 edition would, I guarantee, not have made this incredibly expensive mistake. My point is that the conservative party is hardwired to waste money like this by outsourcing, when it would have been cheaper, more effective, and more accountable to have done TTI by expanding existing provision. No amount of competence from the government will override this basic error.

In summary I'd take a useless Corbyn doing the right things than a useless Johnson doing the wrong ones.

[Oldmanmatt]

Honestly, though, Nigel; you’re missing the point.

He wouldn’t have been “doing” anything, right or wrong (what ever that means).

He would have had at best a slim majority, more likely minority government and a party riven by divisions, behind him (a little like the Senators were “behind” Ceasar).

This is because he was an ineffective leader and compromised, eternally, in the eyes of the public.

Your reasoning and moral stance, is admirable, but you might as well wish for the perfect benevolent dictator or just go whole hog, rub the lamp and ask for utopia.

[seankenny]

Good intentions =/= good outcomes.

Sure, but can't you agree it's a better start than bad intentions? (BTW I voted Green as well, obvs...)

I think the importance of good intentions is vastly over-stated.

I mean, everyone thinks they have good intentions, yet plenty of people and organisations fuck up. The Tories' "good intention" was to reduce the hit to the economy as much as possible during the pandemic. That's why they were quite happy to abandon dogma with the furlough scheme. But the UK economy is still going to take a massive hit, and whilst part of that is probably due to its structure, part of that is because the government have handled the pandemic poorly. Their intentions counted for nothing.

This is why I believe it's really worth sitting down with a pen and paper and working through the Prisoners' Dilemma. Not because it is an accurate representation of reality, although many of the methods used to overturn (and then re-impose) the standard outcome are indeed used by mobsters and law enforcement, but rather because it presents in a stark little model the idea that intentions count for little when compared to incentives.

Now I'm not saying the issue with the Johnson government messing up the pandemic response is entirely down to incentives. Obviously they are just shit at governing, for reasons we can all agree on: as a leader Johnson is stupid, vain, lazy and incurious. He is over-reliant on flunkies who are not that great either. His cabinet is chosen on ideological purity rather than talent, and he tries to quash those who disagree with him. He prefers giving his core supporters soundbites rather than governing for a majority of the population.

The problem is, all those descriptions were true of Corbyn too. So whilst he would clearly not have given away huge contracts to his mates, he'd probably have done some equally stupid stuff, we just don't know for sure what it would be. But the appeal to good intentions is the bane of left-wing and progressive politics.

[TobyD]

Good intentions =/= good outcomes.

Sure, but can't you agree it's a better start than bad intentions? (BTW I voted Green as well, obvs...)

I think the importance of good intentions is vastly over-stated.
... But the appeal to good intentions is the bane of left-wing and progressive politics.

I agree almost entirely.  Actions, not intentions, matter. Johnson may have intended to have a functioning test and trace system by now, but his actions in appointing a race horse owner and university colleague as its head amongst other things mean its bloody useless.  Corbyn may have intended to fight racism and prejudice,  but when it appeared that a number of his supporters were guilty of these, he did absolutely nothing about it.
The only thing I'd disagree on is the ideological purity of the Johnson cabinet.  I'd actually say most of them don't have any ideology,  in many cases just self interest, much as their boss does. For example,  Jenerick seems to be interested only in screwing the planning system to make a few quid.

[Johnny Brown]

The Tories' "good intention" was to reduce the hit to the economy as much as possible during the pandemic.

Agree with all that you've written. The bad intention I was referring to was the no-deal Brexit that nobody voted for and that landed them with a cabinet full of compliant idiots, as you say. I remain unconvinced that, however incompetent Corbyn may or may not have been, his government would have had such a destructive ideology at their centre.

But the appeal to good intentions is the bane of left-wing and progressive politics.

I'm not sure it's an issue in itself (the alternative would seem to be rather nihilistic) - the issue is the inability to put pragmatism over principles, which is perhaps another side of the same coin but remains the core reason why the Tories, always doing the obverse, have been so successful at hanging on to power while the left confine themselves to opposition. Politics is ultimately about building coalitions and finding compromises.

[TobyD]

I remain unconvinced that, however incompetent Corbyn may or may not have been, his government would have had such a destructive ideology at their centre.

Although you would have had a government run by a man stupid enough to be photographed at a dinner party with 9 people. He should probably lose the whip.
The SNP to their credit seem to have done everything they can about their own member guilty of crass stupidity.  I can't imagine how she's still hanging on,  after her boss called her up and told her she should resign. 

[chris j]

She was apparently among the legion calling for Cumming's head after his excursion so the double standards and sheer effrontery in refusing to resign is quite outstanding.

[tomtom]

She was apparently among the legion calling for Cumming's head after his excursion so the double standards and sheer effrontery in refusing to resign is quite outstanding.

Yup. Saw that. She’s redefining stubborn at the moment...

Not sure Sturgeon can do much more - been suspended from party (could be sacked I guess) - probably easier if she’s charged.

Still - at least she’s admitted she did wrong - it never appeared if Dom felt that...

[TobyD]

She was apparently among the legion calling for Cumming's head after his excursion so the double standards and sheer effrontery in refusing to resign is quite outstanding.

Not sure Sturgeon can do much more - been suspended from party (could be sacked I guess) - probably easier if she’s charged.

Nicola Sturgeon cannot sack her. The SNP have removed the whip which is as much as they can do.

[mrjonathanr]

Constituents can ballot for a byeelection if she’s censured by Parliamentary Standards or convicted.

[TobyD]

How is Margaret Ferrier still in her job? After she had developed symptoms,  had a test she went to church,  and to a leisure centre,  hairdresser, and parliament on the train...

[Nigel]

For anyone who may have concerns that Covid provides a good cover for sneaking dodgy law through unnoticed while you have an 80 seat majority, keep an eye on the progress of the following three bills:

Internal Market Bill
Overseas Operations Bill
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

In short, all of the above put the UK state and / or its agents outside the law, both international and domestic.

Internal Market Bill - I would guess most who read this thread already know about this one breaking international law, as the government itself has admitted that it does. It also has the effect of undermining devolved parliaments.

Overseas Operations Bill - Intention: limit vexatious claims against UK service personnel.
Effect: puts a "statute of limitations" of 5 years on UK war crimes (including torture and murder), probably in contravention of Geneva conventions. As such opens up UK services to prosecution by the ICC. Also works in the other direction as it puts a "statute of limitations" of 6 years on claims from servicemen against the MOD (e.g. for lack of training, inadequate equipment), with a provision in this case for the government to opt out of any ECHR provisions under which a claim could be brought.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill - Intention: to allow various UK gov agencies to commit crimes in order to a) protect national security, b) prevent crime and disorder, c) secure the economic well-being of the UK.
Effect: Authorises crimes within the UK for purposes of a, b, c above with no express exception (i.e. anything at all - even the US prohibits murder and torture, this doesn't) by MI5, the armed forces, the police, National Crime agency, Serious Fraud Office, HMRC, Department of Health, Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority, Food Standards Agency, and the Gambling Commision. Quite a list.

None of the above are currently passed into law yet (first is in Lords, other two still in the commons), so they may yet be amended to have a bit less of a "rogue state" flavour. But as initially proposed they give an indication of the tendencies of the current administration to go beyond certain norms.

[TobyD]

For anyone who may have concerns that Covid provides a good cover for sneaking dodgy law through unnoticed
... But as initially proposed they give an indication of the tendencies of the current administration to go beyond certain norms.

You missed the dodgy trade policy that will definitely threaten British agriculture a bit more than leaving the EU does already, for the benefit of allowing the government to justify leaving in the first place. I'm not so worried about chlorinated chicken per se, but the safety of animal welfare and the financial viability of any British agriculture is unlikely to survive if US imports are available more cheaply at the supermarket.
If anyone has a Conservative MP, and is concerned about this petition them (its being promoted by Jamie Oliver etc) to maintain food standards in any future trade deals.

[Nigel]

Which bill is that Toby? Not surprised to miss stuff, they seem to be pushing a tsunami of shady stuff at the minute. Petitioning for an agriculture bill to protect food standards may do very little anyway, if as per the covert bill the Food Standards Agency can break any law to "safeguard the economic well-being" of the UK.

[TobyD]

Which bill is that Toby? Not surprised to miss stuff, they seem to be pushing a tsunami of shady stuff at the minute. Petitioning for an agriculture bill to protect food standards may do very little anyway, if as per the covert bill the Food Standards Agency can break any law to "safeguard the economic well-being" of the UK.

I'm  not sure if it's a new bill, or an amendment to older legislation but I would have thought that if the likes of  Jamie Oliver get enough public interest it would  soon go the way of Marcus Rashford's campaign  and force a u turn. One advantage to an incompetent, indecisive government is that they seem to change tack given a significant amount of public opinion

[TobyD]

The new system of tiers may be easier to communicate, but the cause of the initial confusion, that the government itself is confused about what to do, remains in place.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/10/new-covid-19-tier-system-doesn-t-fix-government-s-real-problem

I just tried to say this on the lockdown thread but not as consicely. They really don't know whether to listen to the scientific advisors, or to the likes of Graham Brady and the Daily Telegraph do they?

[ali k]

Am I being overly sceptical in thinking that calling out special forces to do a dramatic night time raid on a boat with a few stowaways on board is a bit over the top?

Is this standard procedure? (OMM?) Or a successful attempt to get migrants back into the headlines?