Fantasy Government What would you do ?

[local]

As it appears we have some hindsight experts on just about everything on here could we now have in advance for a change what "disaster" you think we should plan and more importantly pay for now ?

Don't forget to mention what we cut from the budget to pay for it.

[Hamble]

A Labour Government.

[sandGroundZero]

We're staggering under a fivefold disaster, now!

1. Brexit
2. Johnson
3. SARS-CoV-2
4. US President Trump (— a global calamity on its own)
5. impending climate related chaos

…an asteroid strike would put us out of …

[gazaprop]

We're staggering under a fivefold disaster, now!

1. Brexit
2. Johnson
3. SARS-CoV-2
4. US President Trump (— a global calamity on its own)
5. impending climate related chaos

…an asteroid strike would put us out of …

Well only one of your five satisfies the criteria - that being number 3. The others are opinion, nothing more. Just in case you're minded to indignantly get out of your pram about my comment - yes, you're entitled to your opinion.

One good thing to come from Bo Jo today - during PMQ's he was able to tell Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative if you like, to just shut the f*** up!

[silver fox]

Well only one of your five satisfies the criteria - that being number 3. The others are opinion, nothing more. Just in case you're minded to indignantly get out of your pram about my comment - yes, you're entitled to your opinion.

One good thing to come from Bo Jo today - during PMQ's he was able to tell Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative if you like, to just shut the f*** up!

You mean lost his rag under a bit of pressure, like so many others can’t differentiate between reasoned questioning and plain criticism, seems to think everyone should accept everything he says or does without question.

Note his lack of response from when Starmer offered co-operation and consensus, eventually claiming to phone Starmer, but only to tell him what decisions had been made, no involvement or consensus there.

[Toodles McGinty]

You mean lost his rag under a bit of pressure, like so many others can’t differentiate between reasoned questioning and plain criticism, seems to think everyone should accept everything he says or does without question.

Note his lack of response from when Starmer offered co-operation and consensus, eventually claiming to phone Starmer, but only to tell him what decisions had been made, no involvement or consensus there.

One good thing to come from Bo Jo today - during PMQ's he was able to tell Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative if you like, to just shut the f*** up!

Somebody should tell him never to lose your temper when being questioned by a barrister. The barrister will just become calmer and you lose the jury completely.

Johnson floundered over several issues. Ranting about cross party cooperation: "Prime Minister, I sent you a confidential letter two weeks ago, but now I'll put it in the public domain and let the public decide how cooperative Labour is being."

Johnson: "I really do not see the point of his endless attacks on public trust and confidence."
Starmer: "The Prime Minister is confusing scrutiny for attacks".

Fat Al basically stood up shouting 'stop picking on me'. Starmer did his job. He's the leader of the Opposition, not a cheerleader for Poundshop Churchill.

Even Theresa May had a pop.

Whoever is whispering down Johnson's earpiece is doing a terrible job. More bluster and 'er..er...er' as he waited for the voice from the next room. Explains the hair, though.

And now he's going to take control over the Coronavirus situation? Two questions there. First is who the hell has been in control since February. Second is could this be a hint that Hancock is going to be the scapegoat for this? Patel hurled him under the bus twice in her speech just now.

[sandGroundZero]

gazaprop's post #4: "…Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative" — that's rich,

…juxtaposed as it (implicitly) is with Prime Minister A B deP Johnson!

One good thing to come from Bo Jo today - during PMQ's he was able to tell Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative if you like, to just shut the f*** up!

…as good as it gets for the PM at the dispatch box?

[Toodles McGinty]

We're staggering under a fivefold disaster, now!

1. Brexit
2. Johnson
3. SARS-CoV-2
4. US President Trump (— a global calamity on its own)
5. impending climate related chaos

…an asteroid strike would put us out of …

Couldn't agree more.

I suppose you could add the impending economic catastrophe, but I guess numbers 1, 2 & 3 cover that.

As for the last one, the tin foil hat nuts might add the mysterious Planet X / Nibiru is fast approaching. Which will sort out all 5 problems...

[gazaprop]

You mean lost his rag under a bit of pressure, like so many others can’t differentiate between reasoned questioning and plain criticism, seems to think everyone should accept everything he says or does without question.

Note his lack of response from when Starmer offered co-operation and consensus, eventually claiming to phone Starmer, but only to tell him what decisions had been made, no involvement or consensus there.

In my opinion someone needed to lose their rag with the oily oik. I've yet to hear much of substance from Lord Smarmy, or his team, that hasn't been based on 'let's see what happens/benefit of hindsight' sniping.
Of course HMG can't be given a free ride but, and I'm open to being corrected on this, I haven't heard much that hasn't been retrospective criticism of actions already carried out.
It's the politics of cowardice to offer nothing, wait and see how things pan out, then pounce.

Even the chief cheerleaders for the left, the BBC, couldn't elicit a clear policy or alternative direction from the shadow something or other this morning.
She was repeatedly pressed on 'what would Labour do or have done differently' on a number of occasions. Her response was to trot out the usual platitudes about keeping safe, getting the public's confidence - nothing concrete.
It's as if the shadow front bench have strict instructions to criticise but, under no circumstances, state anything that can be closely examined.

I have one thing to say to those who honestly believe the Opposition's behaviour is not playing politics -
I have these five lovely beans which I'll give to you in exchange for your house - well if you're that naive it has to be worth a shot.

[sandGroundZero]

Regarding gazaprop's post #9:

…Even the chief cheerleaders for the left, the BBC, couldn't elicit a clear policy or alternative direction from the shadow something or other this morning.
…I have one thing to say to those who honestly believe the Opposition's behaviour is not playing politics …

That is precisely the way politics is "played" in our too much esteemed system! When has an Opposition — Labour or Conservative — ever played otherwise?

[silver fox]

In my opinion someone needed to lose their rag with the oily oik. I've yet to hear much of substance from Lord Smarmy, or his team, that hasn't been based on 'let's see what happens/benefit of hindsight' sniping.
Of course HMG can't be given a free ride but, and I'm open to being corrected on this, I haven't heard much that hasn't been retrospective criticism of actions already carried out.
It's the politics of cowardice to offer nothing, wait and see how things pan out, then pounce.

Even the chief cheerleaders for the left, the BBC, couldn't elicit a clear policy or alternative direction from the shadow something or other this morning.
She was repeatedly pressed on 'what would Labour do or have done differently' on a number of occasions. Her response was to trot out the usual platitudes about keeping safe, getting the public's confidence - nothing concrete.
It's as if the shadow front bench have strict instructions to criticise but, under no circumstances, state anything that can be closely examined.

I have one thing to say to those who honestly believe the Opposition's behaviour is not playing politics -
I have these five lovely beans which I'll give to you in exchange for your house - well if you're that naive it has to be worth a shot.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, as am I.

[local]

As it appears we have some hindsight experts on just about everything on here could we now have in advance for a change what "disaster" you think we should plan and more importantly pay for now ?

Don't forget to mention what we cut from the budget to pay for it.

Just thought I would ask if anyone has any on topic answers ?

[The PNP]

Just thought I would ask if anyone has any on topic answers ?

Heatwave coming.....Stockpile portable air-conditioning units, for distribution to the aged.

Also, this crisis has shown the need for far better cycle provision. I'd roll out a national scheme for the creation of a fully integrated network of cycleways....Funding it? No need for tax hikes - just shift enough spend from existing roads budget.

[Toodles McGinty]

In my opinion someone needed to lose their rag with the oily oik. I've yet to hear much of substance from Lord Smarmy, or his team, that hasn't been based on 'let's see what happens/benefit of hindsight' sniping.
Of course HMG can't be given a free ride but, and I'm open to being corrected on this, I haven't heard much that hasn't been retrospective criticism of actions already carried out.
It's the politics of cowardice to offer nothing, wait and see how things pan out, then pounce.

Even the chief cheerleaders for the left, the BBC, couldn't elicit a clear policy or alternative direction from the shadow something or other this morning.
She was repeatedly pressed on 'what would Labour do or have done differently' on a number of occasions. Her response was to trot out the usual platitudes about keeping safe, getting the public's confidence - nothing concrete.
It's as if the shadow front bench have strict instructions to criticise but, under no circumstances, state anything that can be closely examined.

I have one thing to say to those who honestly believe the Opposition's behaviour is not playing politics -
I have these five lovely beans which I'll give to you in exchange for your house - well if you're that naive it has to be worth a shot.

I'm surprised. I had you down as one of those with a more open mind on politics, rather than the 'cult' bunch on here.

I'm not really sure what you want Starmer to do. For a start, he's only been in the job since early April, barely 8 weeks. The lockdown has been around longer, so a manifesto or even a statement of intent hasn't been formulated.

All he can do is hold the government up to scrutiny, which is his job. And support them in ways beneficial to the public. In the first PMQs he asked Raab to supply the proper facts and figures. With Johnson he's done the same. He's there to call out the lies and bluster that is Johnson's hallmark. He's a long history of it, we all know that.

I've seen a lot of MPs from Labour and other parties stating they want to support the government in this situation. In interviews, on Question Time. Economically, even I'll stand up and say Sunak has done a good job during the pandemic. Opposition leaders offered a coalition at the start of this to manage the pandemic. They were refused.

Starmer makes Johnson look like the clown he is in the Commons. It's a barrister against a second class classics student. There's little Johnson can do about that, apart from cram so many Tory MPs in there that they drown Starmer out with shouts. Expect a lot of that.

Starmer is basically doing what he's supposed to do. There aren't enough Opposition MPs to influence votes, unless Tory MPs revolt. He can only hold Johnson to account for the terrible job he's doing. And with all due respect, if you think he's doing a good job, I'd keep those beans.

[gazaprop]

I'm surprised. I had you down as one of those with a more open mind on politics, rather than the 'cult' bunch on here.

I'm not really sure what you want Starmer to do. For a start, he's only been in the job since early April, barely 8 weeks. The lockdown has been around longer, so a manifesto or even a statement of intent hasn't been formulated.

All he can do is hold the government up to scrutiny, which is his job. And support them in ways beneficial to the public. In the first PMQs he asked Raab to supply the proper facts and figures. With Johnson he's done the same. He's there to call out the lies and bluster that is Johnson's hallmark. He's a long history of it, we all know that.

I've seen a lot of MPs from Labour and other parties stating they want to support the government in this situation. In interviews, on Question Time. Economically, even I'll stand up and say Sunak has done a good job during the pandemic. Opposition leaders offered a coalition at the start of this to manage the pandemic. They were refused.

Starmer makes Johnson look like the clown he is in the Commons. It's a barrister against a second class classics student. There's little Johnson can do about that, apart from cram so many Tory MPs in there that they drown Starmer out with shouts. Expect a lot of that.

Starmer is basically doing what he's supposed to do. There aren't enough Opposition MPs to influence votes, unless Tory MPs revolt. He can only hold Johnson to account for the terrible job he's doing. And with all due respect, if you think he's doing a good job, I'd keep those beans.

Toodles, I'd be the same were the shoes on the other feet.

The time for inquiry and holding feet to fires is when we've got on top of this situation. I agree with Johnson that Starmer is only serving to undermine public confidence, as did Cummins' with the Durham Dash.
The time in post argument just won't wash I'm afraid because no one has had the benefit of a preparation period.
HMG has always said they've followed scientific advice so, if Starmer were running the show, presumably he wouldn't be going Tonto on the job and doing his own thing.

Attacking without alternative, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, helps no one and is not the role of the opposition in times of crisis. I see it as political posturing for political gain.

I could only see one outcome from any coalition committee, and that is one or other party walking out in a huff, meaning time wasted when that isn't a luxury we can afford. This would be a case of too many cooks.

On the cult comment - Toodles, people in glass houses comes to mind - I'm not going to fall out with you on this but a choice between a scruffy chancer and a shyster lawyer is a toughie for me.