Cummings and goings...

[Garvin]

APontus said:

Captain Raymond Holt said:

It does now feel like he’s just got the hump and is making noise, fewer and fewer people seem to be paying him any attention.

On the contrary, events post his tweets and evidence to the committee appear to give credence to his claims.

He probably is bitter and frustrated (not to mention a hypocrite), but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.

Maybe he is correct in all his assertions but that is not the point. The point being made is that, even if he is 100% correct and it's all credible, his historical porkies and current unhinged approach appear to be having little effect on the populous at large who are not paying him much, if any, attention.

[APontus]

I don't believe direct manipulation of the public is the aim. I think it's the press he's feeding.

[Tuna]

For Cummings, I think it's an intellectual argument he's having and he's determined to win it.

[APontus]

Agreed. I can't stand his politics, but I feel for the frustration at his ex-employer.

[biggbn]

Tuna said:

For Cummings, I think it's an intellectual argument he's having and he's determined to win it.

Agreed, at the risk of repeating myself, he is an intellectual anarchist and the party he used to attempt to burn the house down; that's the anachronistic system not the house literally, was irrelevant to him. Any fool can see what type of a fella Dom is and the dangers of crossing him. Well, not ANY fool seemingly....

[Durzel]

It's not a great look because while he was in the inner circle he wasn't posting these screeds so it is conspicuous that he is doing it now that he's been booted out of the club, so to speak. It's hard not to read it as being sour grapes, even if what he says has some aspects of truth to it.

[biggbn]

Durzel said:

It's not a great look because while he was in the inner circle he wasn't posting these screeds so it is conspicuous that he is doing it now that he's been booted out of the club, so to speak. It's hard not to read it as being sour grapes, even if what he says has some aspects of truth to it.

Of course it is, he was willing to put up with the many and varied incompetencies to further his own agenda, now he is outside the tent looking for another trojan horse; one which will now likely not be available as the game's afoot, he is happy to cause more instability.

[APontus]

Does his motivation matter? It's either truth or not.

In many respects, I wish he hadn't been in government at the beginning of the pandemic. I don't agree with his ultra-lockdown approach or his confidence that without it we'd have been sunk. Equally, I don't like the thought that incompetence in government is rewarded, encouraged almost, and the standard response to being questioned telling a lie.

In other words, I absolutely applaud him opening up the workings of government and highlighting the lies, even though I don't like his politics or his attitude to the powers of government.

I don't like either of them!

[bitchstewie]

Quite.

Rats in a sack and of course Cummings helped put them there and enabled them once there.

But it's hard to argue with much of his recent comment and content.

[Tuna]

biggbn said:

Agreed, at the risk of repeating myself, he is an intellectual anarchist and the party he used to attempt to burn the house down; that's the anachronistic system not the house literally, was irrelevant to him. Any fool can see what type of a fella Dom is and the dangers of crossing him. Well, not ANY fool seemingly....

It's somewhat amusing to see some of the posters who went out of their way trying to discredit Cummings when he was apparently in charge of everything, now having to jump through mental hoops to agree with his assessment of the government.

Unfortunately it says a lot about our current adversarial political environment that some of the useful ideas that he presents will be discarded as people take binary black/white sides.

[Unknown_User]

When Cummings was placed in Gov, I felt he was given an ideological role way above what the electorate voted for (unelected bureaucrats anyone..??!!), therefore we shouldn't forget the decision to appoint Cummings was made by Bozza and his chums.

Cummings appointment then turned sour and that was after Bozza defended the ludicrous Barnard Castle trip fiasco (Bozza even gave Cummings the Downing Street rose garden to pedal his childlike excuses...!!!). The decision to appoint and defend Cummings directly reflects the continued poor choices Bozza and his chums have made throughout Bozzas calamitous premiership and it is utterly delicious to see Cummings turn on the person and Party that initially appointed him to assist their Gov.

Rats in a sack indeed and I hope Cummings continues with his exposé of Bozza's ineptitude (Bozza's handling and mealy mouthed U-turn regarding the Hancock debacle has been splendid viewing...!!!)

[Tuna]

Unknown_User said:

When Cummings was placed in Gov, I felt he was given an ideological role way above what the electorate voted for (unelected bureaucrats anyone..??!!), therefore we shouldn't forget the decision to appoint Cummings was made by Bozza and his chums.

Cummings appointment then turned sour and that was after Bozza defended the ludicrous Barnard Castle trip fiasco (Bozza even gave Cummings the Downing Street rose garden to pedal his childlike excuses...!!!). The decision to appoint and defend Cummings directly reflects the continued poor choices Bozza and his chums have made throughout Bozzas calamitous premiership and it is utterly delicious to see Cummings turn on the person and Party that initially appointed him to assist their Gov.

Rats in a sack indeed and I hope Cummings continues with his exposé of Bozza's ineptitude (Bozza's handling and mealy mouthed U-turn regarding the Hancock debacle has been splendid viewing...!!!)

Unfortunately your persistent use of nicknames makes you sound like a two year old throwing a tantrum.

In many ways I think the combination of Cummings and Johnson was a good one - the two approaches balancing each other out, and reducing the more extreme outcomes. That's what makes the "trolley" attacks by Cummings so effective - Johnson being anything but rigorous in his approach.

[Durzel]

APontus said:

Does his motivation matter? It's either truth or not.

In many respects, I wish he hadn't been in government at the beginning of the pandemic. I don't agree with his ultra-lockdown approach or his confidence that without it we'd have been sunk. Equally, I don't like the thought that incompetence in government is rewarded, encouraged almost, and the standard response to being questioned telling a lie.

In other words, I absolutely applaud him opening up the workings of government and highlighting the lies, even though I don't like his politics or his attitude to the powers of government.

I don't like either of them!

I think it can matter. The problem is that it colours what he's saying. It would be more helpful if people could take these revelations at face value, but the zeal with which he is revealing them now - and particularly not when it mattered, or formally to the committee, etc discredits them to some extent, in my opinion. His sense of disenfranchisement is palpable.

[bitchstewie]

Durzel said:

I think it can matter. The problem is that it colours what he's saying. It would be more helpful if people could take these revelations at face value, but the zeal with which he is revealing them now - and particularly not when it mattered, or formally to the committee, etc discredits them to some extent, in my opinion. His sense of disenfranchisement is palpable.

Agreed.

But I look at what he's been saying recently and whatever your opinions of him my gut reaction is there's a lot more truth in that than anything you'll hear from Johnson or the (now ex-minister) Hancock etc.

[Unknown_User]

Tuna said:

It's somewhat amusing to see some of the posters who went out of their way trying to discredit Cummings when he was apparently in charge of everything, now having to jump through mental hoops to agree with his assessment of the government.

Unfortunately it says a lot about our current adversarial political environment that some of the useful ideas that he presents will be discarded as people take binary black/white sides.

You do understand that being critical of a government ideological appointment can be very different to actually exposing Bozza's inept handling of events, please see the Hancock debacle.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johns...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/28/b...

Unfortunately it says a lot about the unwavering defence of Bozza that seems to attract from some folk as people take binary black/white sides.

[Tuna]

Unknown_User said:

Unfortunately it says a lot about the unwavering defence of Bozza that seems to attract from some folk as people take binary black/white sides.

I'm not sure that's English, but inferring what you're trying to say... outside of turbobloke's enthusiasm for the Tories, I'm not seeing many people defending Boris. Perhaps you should take your blinkers off?

[anonymous-user]

Tuna said:

I'm not sure that's English, but inferring what you're trying to say... outside of turbobloke's enthusiasm for the Tories, I'm not seeing many people defending Boris. Perhaps you should take your blinkers off?

You (and Turbobloke) have slavishly been sticking up for Boris since he became PM.

You must be trolling.

[Unknown_User]

Tuna said:

I'm not sure that's English, but inferring what you're trying to say... outside of turbobloke's enthusiasm for the Tories, I'm not seeing many people defending Boris. Perhaps you should take your blinkers off?

Blinkers?

So what are your thoughts regarding our PM after his Hancock defence/sacking flip flopping? Is this the behaviour befitting of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

And apologies for the structure of my comment, it was appalling!

[Tuna]

El stovey said:

You (and Turbobloke) have slavishly been sticking up for Boris since he became PM.

You must be trolling.

You must be joking.

Tuna said:

Hancock seems to be a walking disaster zone, not sure why anyone should feel the need to defend him. Certainly more than enough want his head on a stick, Why Johnson would want to save him is a mystery to me

Tuna said:

Johnson needs to show some spine and do better than burying his head in the sand. We need a health minister that we can trust at this stage and it's Johnson's job to deliver one.

Yeah, really defending Boris there...

[Tuna]

Unknown_User said:

So what are your thoughts regarding our PM after his Hancock defence/sacking flip flopping? Is this the behaviour befitting of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

I think it was a completely lame comment following very poor handling of the previous week's events.

To be honest though, I think that desperately jumping on a typically mealy mouthed comment rather misses the bigger picture that Johnson failed to take control of the situation, failed to manage Hancock's exit and appeared to select Javid on a whim. I can't really care about a weak attempt at deflection when it's his actions over replacing the health secretary that actually matter.