He just made me swear on Facebook ... and make my post there public so everyone can read it rather than just my friends.
I can't be bothered to rant again, so here's what I posted there
"In every respect, he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity" said Boris Johnson in regard to Dominic Cummings.
Excuse the language, but what the f*ck do either of them know about acting responsibly, legally and with integrity?
"The PM said he had concluded Mr Cummings had "no alternative" but to travel to the North East for childcare "when both he and his wife were about to be incapacitated by coronavirus"." NO alternative? Cummings was well enough to drive 250 miles, with a toddler in the car. That's no where near incapacitated. Even if Cummings and his wife had contracted coronavirus the chances of both of them coming down with symptoms severe enough to require hospitalisation were very slim, Cummings had sat through enough SAGE meetings that if he'd been listening he'd have known those odds. Anything less than that isn't incapacitated, and even if they were both hospitalised there would have been people who'd have volunteered to look after the child without needing to risk exposing a vulnerable older couple to the virus.
If he or his wife were able to stagger out of bed to get their child dressed and fed, and left in front of the TV for a few hours while one of the parents was curled up on the sofa then they were not incapable of looking after their child. To suggest otherwise is to insult the thousands of parents for who that is how they deal with being sick, coronavirus or otherwise. It is especially insulting to those parents who have done exactly that over the last couple of months, staying home because that was what was required of them.
Whatever shreds of integrity this government had should have now evaporated. They can no longer make a pretence of working for the benefit of the people of this country, it's clear that they don't care for the people, they just want to work the system for their benefit and the benefit of their friends. If the Conservative Party has any backbone they'd be voting that they have no confidence in Johnson, and looking for a replacement party leader before he can do any more damage to the country and the Party.
I wonder how much civil disobedience - in line with the government's example of 'how to do it' - we'll see tomorrow?
It's a Bank Holiday, so an ideal time to make up your own rules, go out, do what you like, go where you please, and see how many people you can infect...
And, in other news the Ministry of Truth has been closed down after admitting that even they couldn't redefine the meaning of the words "responsible", "legal" and "integrity" so comprehensively as Boris Johnson.
Just tot up how many times that's been said of Trump in the last four years.
It's a fair point but there are some important cultural differences between the two countries (even though I also think the parallels are important too). More importantly, my postulation that it is possible is not based on the egregiousness of the government's behaviour. It is based on the responses from true supporters and natural supporters. It's what they think that matters (sadly).
Trump's appeal to moderates has all but evaporated. His cultism followers are going nowhere.
Quite an achievement on the part of Our Glorious Leader, really.
I know it's a hopeless dream, but wouldn't it be luvverly to see a large number of tories rise up in anger, and throw OGL and his slimy pal under a bus?
The atmosphere on Twitter was of fury, copies of letters sent to MPs pointing out that the person writing had not travelled to be with their dying mother and had driven a 600 + mile round trip to attend her socially diatanced funeral, not staying with the local sister to maintain social distancing, or the person not aytending their parents' golden wedding anniversary tomorrow.
O - it seems that Cummings Has Entered Number 10, which presumably means that the PM is there, too...no doubt we will be treated to a typical Johnsonian Wafflefest later.
Seen it. Prophecy fulfilled. We have been.
What a singularly specious and inadequate performance.
Either this man has something on Mr Johnson which gives him a hold on him, or he's like some addictive drug that has created a dependency. Since we already know so much dirt on Mr Johnson that would have shamed any normal person out of public life years ago, it would have to be so unimaginably awful that I go for the latter.
Meanwhile, a Sky News correspondent speculates that the reason for Labour's reticence over the whole Cummings debacle is that Sir Keir is heeding Napoleon Bonaparte's very sage ( ) advice not to interrupt one's enemy whilst he is making a mistake.
There was quite a good interview after the broadcast with a member of the Labour Shadow Cabinet. I also heard a good one this morning with an outraged former Labour MP from one of the Durham seats who had lost out in the election.
And, in other news the Ministry of Truth has been closed down after admitting that even they couldn't redefine the meaning of the words "responsible", "legal" and "integrity" so comprehensively as Boris Johnson.
Good one, but there's a more serious point that underlies this.
These are people who think that if the law isn't clear enough that if they catch you, the police can guarantee a successful prosecution, then that makes it 'legal'. If it's 'legal' well that's all right then. It's not clear that it's illegal. So that means it's OK. So it fits within 'responsible', 'integrity' or, for that matter, if asked, 'honest' and 'honourable'.
For example, as adultery isn't a criminal offence, that makes the Prime Minister's private life and his reputation for good or bad faith OK too.
I'm surprised how angry I am about this. People have made real sacrifices and Boris is effectively saying "more fool you for taking our instructions seriously"
What would the death rate be like now if everybody had had Cummings loose grasp of the rules?
I live in that area. I've literally run out of fury, but if my eyes roll any further back in my skull, I might see my own brain.
I live in that area. I've literally run out of fury, but if my eyes roll any further back in my skull, I might see my own brain.
At least you'll see something there, rather than the vast expanses of Gaping Gill, which I suspect is what those who have been seeking to defend Mr Cummings and the Prime Minister would see if that happened to them.
I think somebody commented earlier that Cummings must know where the bodies are buried for Johnson to support him in the way he does. It's also clear that Cummings' pocket must be the resting place for the Prime Ministers balls.
This could've been Johnson's golden moment. To stand with the nation he was leading, demonstrate his independence, and show that he really did understand the sacrifices people were making. What is it that has made him so cowardly - more than usual? Avarice, fear? I wish I could still believe it would make a difference to his support base.
I'm still left wondering: what can Cummings possibly have on Johnson that's worse than what we already know? Is this about Russian involvement in Brexit again?
I'm still left wondering: what can Cummings possibly have on Johnson that's worse than what we already know? Is this about Russian involvement in Brexit again?
Assuming it is blackmail.
It could just confirm something that we suspect (e.g. an actual e-mail about Accuri)
It could be something that just doesn't make sense to decent people (maybe he once told the truth)
It could be particularly family based
It could show betrayal of his supporters (he's not a real Brexiter)
It could be something so vile, people would just take action (no suggestions)
It could be something that puts his legitimacy in question (no suggestion)
(and probably a few more options)
there are 2 things that concern me about the timings of this revelation (and the subsequent mishadling of it) - ie why are we only hearing about it now ?
- is there something even worse that they thought would require hiding from media/public scrutiny
- coming at a time where many are getting fed up with the lockdown, are they *hoping* people will take the law into their own hands, ignore the rules and gallivant all over the place, infecting each other and causing another peak, just so the govenrment can blame the people for being stupid, and not the people blaming the government ?
I think you all have cabin fever. From this distance this is all too reminiscent of Trump and the pee tape and the Byzantine theories that sprung up to explain Trump's behaviour.
There's no need for some dark dirty secret to explain why Boris won't ditch Cummings. He just thinks Cummings is a "good egg" and "one of us". No further explanation, or justification, is necessary.
there are 2 things that concern me about the timings of this revelation (and the subsequent mishadling of it) - ie why are we only hearing about it now ?
I think that simply reflects proper investigative journalism. One of the reasons why investigative journalism is expensive is that typically it takes a few weeks to run down the details and get confirmation on a complex story. And that's in normal times. I think it's noteworthy that the Guardian/Observer and The Mirror cooperated on this story. I don't know if this unique but I do not remember a previous similar episode. From initial story to full confirmation, I am not sure it could have been done much sooner.
There's no need for some dark dirty secret to explain why Boris won't ditch Cummings. He just thinks Cummings is a "good egg" and "one of us". No further explanation, or justification, is necessary.
I think it's simply a case that Boris needs Cummings. He needs some sort of 'brains' for he lacks vision and communications strategy on his own. The defence of DC by the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been coordinated and pathetic - and clearly desperate.
Exactly. These are very rich very posh chaps who don't think the rules apply to them or that there should be consequences for rule breaking. It is just what it seems. They really do believe it's one rule for them and another for us little people.
I'm still left wondering: what can Cummings possibly have on Johnson that's worse than what we already know? Is this about Russian involvement in Brexit again?
I think a large amount of it is plain insouciance.
Predictive text comes up with some howlers ... 'Benn whipped ...'
Now the late lamented MP for Chesterfield was not one to be whipped when he didn't believe it.
Given the Civil Service have gone rogue on the matter, or at least whoever was operating their twitter this evening, and apparently even the Mail is reporting Tory MP disgruntlement, his time may be limited.
there are 2 things that concern me about the timings of this revelation (and the subsequent mishadling of it) - ie why are we only hearing about it now ?
I think that simply reflects proper investigative journalism. One of the reasons why investigative journalism is expensive is that typically it takes a few weeks to run down the details and get confirmation on a complex story. And that's in normal times. I think it's noteworthy that the Guardian/Observer and The Mirror cooperated on this story. I don't know if this unique but I do not remember a previous similar episode. From initial story to full confirmation, I am not sure it could have been done much sooner ...
Exactamundo. These things take time to do properly.
If Boris Johnson's decision to appear at Sunday's press conference was an attempt to close down the story about Dominic Cummings' behaviour during the lockdown by handling it himself, it failed completely.
and
A small troop of Tory MPs have already said publicly that Mr Cummings broke the rules and should quit, and a few more have gone public since the prime minister spoke, alongside some of the government's scientific advisers.
Several ministers are saying it privately too, who feel deeply uncomfortable with what has happened and Mr Johnson's justification of it. And many of the public may feel it is quite something to watch the prime minister seemingly reinterpret the same public health advice he has credited with saving thousands of lives, to protect one of his team.
Last night Kuenssberg publicly responded to the Mirror’s political editor Pippa Crerar, who had posted the story to her own Twitter profile, appearing to correct facts in the article in accordance with what she had heard from her own unnamed “source”.
And
Conservative party whips were forced to offer apologies to at least two ministers who were persuaded to tweet their support of Dominic Cummings on Saturday, an insider has told the Guardian (link)
Like Eutychus, I don't see the need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain why Boris is standing by his man, and undoubtedly putting pressure on his colleagues to do the same.
It's not exclusively a Conservative thing, most groups and parties will attempt to close ranks when something embarrassing happens and keep those ranks closed until it becomes untenable for them to do so. They will then break ranks and reform around another position claiming that this was the one they were going to occupy in the first place.
It's called Politics.
I'm sure we can all find egregious examples close to our own homes as it were when it comes to party politics or internal organisational politics or church politics ...
I've seen in many times in all sorts of contexts.
That doesn't let Cummings or Boris or the Conservative Party in general off the hook. My experience of Conservatives at a local and regional level is that - like all of us in our different ways - they have whopping big blind-spots and engage in 'herd-behaviour'. There are some notable exceptions, but if they step out of line too far they are mobbed and pecked to death by the rest of the flock (to change the metaphor to an avian one).
Blue on Blue internecine violence is very, very ugly indeed.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think that they are intrinsically savage or evil, which appears to be Arethosemyfeet's default demonising position, but there's something about the way they operate that seems to create this somewhat toxic state of affairs.
I'd also say that I see similar tendencies - expressed in different ways - within certain sectors of the Labour movement. I have no doubt it happens elsewhere. Of course it does. Lib Dem. Green. Independent - or so-called Independent ...
Keir Starmer said that if he was PM he'd sack Cummings. In some ways that's easy to say as he isn't PM and nor is there, as far as I am aware, a Cummings-like figure alongside him.
But I believe he would.
Boris can't and won't. For one thing it would weaken his position further. For another, posh boys stick together, as has been said, and for another he is notoriously bone idle and needs other people to do his work for him.
On one level, I am reluctant to bring in the posh boys versus everyone else trope as it can get too broad-brush, lead to accusations of 'the politics of envy' yadda yadda yadda - and I've opined about that on these boards before. I come from South Wales and find posh people difficult.
But for all that, I think there is something of that going on here, the privileged gang closing ranks to protect themselves. If there's anything that would drive me to equal and opposite levels of enraged mob / herd-instinct behaviour it'd be the sight of Toffs covering one another's backs and getting away with it.
That would have me storming The Bastille or The Winter Palace ...
It's not exclusively a Conservative thing, most groups and parties will attempt to close ranks when something embarrassing happens and keep those ranks closed until it becomes untenable for them to do so.
Indeed.
Now we wait to see when that point arrives. Because it will.
I don't think the evil is intrinsic, I think it is chosen. People from privileged backgrounds can choose to use their privilege to help others, and a great many do. Some, on the other hand, join the Conservative Party.
I don't think the evil is intrinsic, I think it is chosen. People from privileged backgrounds can choose to use their privilege to help others, and a great many do. Some, on the other hand, join the Conservative Party.
It's a simple extension of the principle 'the king can do no wrong' to cover a faction rather than an individual.
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, along with out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect, that is the essence of conservatism. Some people go along with this in the hope that they can remain one of the in-groups.
A couple of interesting snippets from today's Guardian coverage of Cummingsgate:
1. DC may be investigated by the Police regarding his little trip to Barnard's Castle, following a formal complaint made to them by a Durham resident;
2. Several Anglican bishops (led by Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds) have expressed anger and disquiet at Johnson's response and behaviour, and one bishop has even (*shock* *horror*) said that the C of E might no longer find it possible to work with the government over the pandemic issues...
Dread Cthulhu himself is to make a Public Statement later today, which should be...umm...interesting, if probably untruthful.
Interesting. I've known plenty of non-privileged Conservatives in my time. My Grandad grew up in a two-up/two-down back-to-back as one of 12 children in grinding poverty. He used to wear one of his sisters' cast off clothing until he went to school and was given a pauper's outfit by the parish. There were other infants lost in childbirth, one died at 16 another at 32 and one was a living Saint with severe cerebral palsy. Yet he voted Conservative all his life, apart from one occasion when he voted for the Communist candidate in a local election because he considered him to have the most personal integrity.
I've also known an instance of a non-privileged individual with a husband with a particular condition - which some could consider a disability - who, to my surprise, joined the Conservatives and became a councillor until the day where she sat in a meeting as the others scoffed and joked about those less fortunate than themselves. She left the meeting and never returned.
It's no accident that Tony Grimes one of the original line up of The Clash called himself Tory Crimes. Mind you, he soon abandoned all the agit-prop stuff and went on to enjoy a conventional middle-class career ... but then The Clash were hardly from the wrong side of the tracks ...
I digress.
In-groups and out-groups seem inherent to a large extent - they seem to exist or be set-up every where and anywhere - right, left and centre. Dismantling them is the work of centuries.
In many respects, the Conservative and Unionist Party is like one of those cults with degrees of arcane knowledge.
At the lower tiers, you can all just sit around, drink with friends and chat about how ludicrous the lefties are wanting to change things for the better.
At the upper tiers, you do all those things, but are admitted to the secret knowledge that you're also changing things, but for your own benefit.
At the highest tier, you do all those things, but are told the terrible truth that you could only do the other things because the elder gods demand human sacrifices.
And it turns out you're okay with that, because you're getting what you want and you're not the one being sacrificed. Then you get made an MP in a safe seat, and the cycle continues.
2. Several Anglican bishops (led by Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds) have expressed anger and disquiet at Johnson's response and behaviour, and one bishop has even (*shock* *horror*) said that the C of E might no longer find it possible to work with the government over the pandemic issues...
Dread Cthulhu himself is to make a Public Statement later today, which should be...umm...interesting, if probably untruthful.
Interesting that the gutter press, who usually respond with howls of outrage when the bishops express their opinions on anything remotely connected to politics, have chosen to join in the demands for Gollum to go.
(I prefer to think of him as Gollum, though Gollum is slightly better looking)
In many respects, the Conservative and Unionist Party is like one of those cults with degrees of arcane knowledge.
At the lower tiers, you can all just sit around, drink with friends and chat about how ludicrous the lefties are wanting to change things for the better.
At the upper tiers, you do all those things, but are admitted to the secret knowledge that you're also changing things, but for your own benefit.
At the highest tier, you do all those things, but are told the terrible truth that you could only do the other things because the elder gods demand human sacrifices.
And it turns out you're okay with that, because you're getting what you want and you're not the one being sacrificed. Then you get made an MP in a safe seat, and the cycle continues.
Worrying thought: are there any organisations that aren't like this?
The lower tiers are all about socialising with like-minded people and shit-talking the outside groups. And that's pretty much fine, whether it's a political party, an athletics club, football fans or traction engine enthusiasts.
And it's also where it stops for most groups. Yes, if I was a Toon supporter, I might wish success for my own club at the expense of Sunderland, or that I might agitate with my running club for laws that allow the easier closure of roads for races, but there's nothing particularly malevolent about that.
But the mindset that we can creep into that this is a group for our benefit, and not for yours. The cost to 'yours' goes up incrementally as the benefit for 'ours' increases, until at the end, yes, you're literally sacrificing people not in the in-group, not because you're a bad person or anything, but because means that your position, your power, your wealth, you security, stays safe. The rules are, as @chrisstiles says, to bind other people while leaving your own hands free.
Being a vehement denier of conspiracy theories, naturally I have to side with it being a coincidence that Cummings happened to be spotted in the vicinity of GSK HQ at the time that this piece of (surely very commendable!) business was going forward.
Seriously, I really don't care what Cummings did, in terms of his own personal transgressions. It's the Prime Minister who should be held to account here, for his lack of solidarity with the people he claims to be leading.
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] @Anselmina, your link doesn't seem to work! [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
Interesting. I've known plenty of non-privileged Conservatives in my time.
As have I, and the common theme is that they generally want to law-and-order someone else.
Not in my Granddad's case. These things are less reductionist than your posts imply.
His innate Conservatism remains a mystery to me some 30 odd years after he died. He always thought I was a Communist ...
I'll say this, though, he had a lot more working class credentials than many Labourites I come across ... although I'm generally not one for stereotyping who should or shouldn't be Labour or Tory or whatever else.
Another observation from my own experience in local politics is that the Conservatives tend to have a lot of respect from Labour voters and candidates who are horny-handed sons of toil living in terraced houses but can't seem to get their heads around anyone voting Labour who lives in a nice detached house or semi.
Of course, I am generalising to make a point but it is something I've noticed - particularly among those from more rural wards.
Comments
I can't be bothered to rant again, so here's what I posted there
Just tot up how many times that's been said of Trump in the last four years.
It's a Bank Holiday, so an ideal time to make up your own rules, go out, do what you like, go where you please, and see how many people you can infect...
(Seriously, please don't).
It's a fair point but there are some important cultural differences between the two countries (even though I also think the parallels are important too). More importantly, my postulation that it is possible is not based on the egregiousness of the government's behaviour. It is based on the responses from true supporters and natural supporters. It's what they think that matters (sadly).
Trump's appeal to moderates has all but evaporated. His cultism followers are going nowhere.
AFZ
I know it's a hopeless dream, but wouldn't it be luvverly to see a large number of tories rise up in anger, and throw OGL and his slimy pal under a bus?
What a singularly specious and inadequate performance.
Either this man has something on Mr Johnson which gives him a hold on him, or he's like some addictive drug that has created a dependency. Since we already know so much dirt on Mr Johnson that would have shamed any normal person out of public life years ago, it would have to be so unimaginably awful that I go for the latter. There was quite a good interview after the broadcast with a member of the Labour Shadow Cabinet. I also heard a good one this morning with an outraged former Labour MP from one of the Durham seats who had lost out in the election.
@Boogie I think a major part of his problem is that he's too clever by half but thinks that means he's twice as clever as everyone else.
The myth of his cleverness, by the way, is a delusion. If you try to read his celebrated blogs, they're aerated claptrap.
@Alan Cresswell Good one, but there's a more serious point that underlies this.
These are people who think that if the law isn't clear enough that if they catch you, the police can guarantee a successful prosecution, then that makes it 'legal'. If it's 'legal' well that's all right then. It's not clear that it's illegal. So that means it's OK. So it fits within 'responsible', 'integrity' or, for that matter, if asked, 'honest' and 'honourable'.
For example, as adultery isn't a criminal offence, that makes the Prime Minister's private life and his reputation for good or bad faith OK too.
I live in that area. I've literally run out of fury, but if my eyes roll any further back in my skull, I might see my own brain.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1264532041380638725?s=19
Moreover, I see that Starmer has tweeted about Johnson's press conference.
AFZ
Both.
This could've been Johnson's golden moment. To stand with the nation he was leading, demonstrate his independence, and show that he really did understand the sacrifices people were making. What is it that has made him so cowardly - more than usual? Avarice, fear? I wish I could still believe it would make a difference to his support base.
Assuming it is blackmail.
It could just confirm something that we suspect (e.g. an actual e-mail about Accuri)
It could be something that just doesn't make sense to decent people (maybe he once told the truth)
It could be particularly family based
It could show betrayal of his supporters (he's not a real Brexiter)
It could be something so vile, people would just take action (no suggestions)
It could be something that puts his legitimacy in question (no suggestion)
(and probably a few more options)
I don't think there's any way to be sure.
DT
HH
- is there something even worse that they thought would require hiding from media/public scrutiny
- coming at a time where many are getting fed up with the lockdown, are they *hoping* people will take the law into their own hands, ignore the rules and gallivant all over the place, infecting each other and causing another peak, just so the govenrment can blame the people for being stupid, and not the people blaming the government ?
There's no need for some dark dirty secret to explain why Boris won't ditch Cummings. He just thinks Cummings is a "good egg" and "one of us". No further explanation, or justification, is necessary.
I think that simply reflects proper investigative journalism. One of the reasons why investigative journalism is expensive is that typically it takes a few weeks to run down the details and get confirmation on a complex story. And that's in normal times. I think it's noteworthy that the Guardian/Observer and The Mirror cooperated on this story. I don't know if this unique but I do not remember a previous similar episode. From initial story to full confirmation, I am not sure it could have been done much sooner.
I think it's simply a case that Boris needs Cummings. He needs some sort of 'brains' for he lacks vision and communications strategy on his own. The defence of DC by the Prime Minister and Cabinet has been coordinated and pathetic - and clearly desperate.
AFZ
I think a large amount of it is plain insouciance.
Given the Civil Service have gone rogue on the matter, or at least whoever was operating their twitter this evening, and apparently even the Mail is reporting Tory MP disgruntlement, his time may be limited.
Doesn't he look tired?
The same Laura Kuenssberg who was criticised for defending Dominic Cummings in the National on 23 May (link)
And
Not everything is well in the state ....
Like Eutychus, I don't see the need to invoke conspiracy theories to explain why Boris is standing by his man, and undoubtedly putting pressure on his colleagues to do the same.
It's not exclusively a Conservative thing, most groups and parties will attempt to close ranks when something embarrassing happens and keep those ranks closed until it becomes untenable for them to do so. They will then break ranks and reform around another position claiming that this was the one they were going to occupy in the first place.
It's called Politics.
I'm sure we can all find egregious examples close to our own homes as it were when it comes to party politics or internal organisational politics or church politics ...
I've seen in many times in all sorts of contexts.
That doesn't let Cummings or Boris or the Conservative Party in general off the hook. My experience of Conservatives at a local and regional level is that - like all of us in our different ways - they have whopping big blind-spots and engage in 'herd-behaviour'. There are some notable exceptions, but if they step out of line too far they are mobbed and pecked to death by the rest of the flock (to change the metaphor to an avian one).
Blue on Blue internecine violence is very, very ugly indeed.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think that they are intrinsically savage or evil, which appears to be Arethosemyfeet's default demonising position, but there's something about the way they operate that seems to create this somewhat toxic state of affairs.
I'd also say that I see similar tendencies - expressed in different ways - within certain sectors of the Labour movement. I have no doubt it happens elsewhere. Of course it does. Lib Dem. Green. Independent - or so-called Independent ...
Keir Starmer said that if he was PM he'd sack Cummings. In some ways that's easy to say as he isn't PM and nor is there, as far as I am aware, a Cummings-like figure alongside him.
But I believe he would.
Boris can't and won't. For one thing it would weaken his position further. For another, posh boys stick together, as has been said, and for another he is notoriously bone idle and needs other people to do his work for him.
On one level, I am reluctant to bring in the posh boys versus everyone else trope as it can get too broad-brush, lead to accusations of 'the politics of envy' yadda yadda yadda - and I've opined about that on these boards before. I come from South Wales and find posh people difficult.
But for all that, I think there is something of that going on here, the privileged gang closing ranks to protect themselves. If there's anything that would drive me to equal and opposite levels of enraged mob / herd-instinct behaviour it'd be the sight of Toffs covering one another's backs and getting away with it.
That would have me storming The Bastille or The Winter Palace ...
Indeed.
Now we wait to see when that point arrives. Because it will.
It's a simple extension of the principle 'the king can do no wrong' to cover a faction rather than an individual.
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, along with out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect, that is the essence of conservatism. Some people go along with this in the hope that they can remain one of the in-groups.
1. DC may be investigated by the Police regarding his little trip to Barnard's Castle, following a formal complaint made to them by a Durham resident;
2. Several Anglican bishops (led by Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds) have expressed anger and disquiet at Johnson's response and behaviour, and one bishop has even (*shock* *horror*) said that the C of E might no longer find it possible to work with the government over the pandemic issues...
Dread Cthulhu himself is to make a Public Statement later today, which should be...umm...interesting, if probably untruthful.
I've also known an instance of a non-privileged individual with a husband with a particular condition - which some could consider a disability - who, to my surprise, joined the Conservatives and became a councillor until the day where she sat in a meeting as the others scoffed and joked about those less fortunate than themselves. She left the meeting and never returned.
It's no accident that Tony Grimes one of the original line up of The Clash called himself Tory Crimes. Mind you, he soon abandoned all the agit-prop stuff and went on to enjoy a conventional middle-class career ... but then The Clash were hardly from the wrong side of the tracks ...
I digress.
In-groups and out-groups seem inherent to a large extent - they seem to exist or be set-up every where and anywhere - right, left and centre. Dismantling them is the work of centuries.
As have I, and the common theme is that they generally want to law-and-order someone else.
At the lower tiers, you can all just sit around, drink with friends and chat about how ludicrous the lefties are wanting to change things for the better.
At the upper tiers, you do all those things, but are admitted to the secret knowledge that you're also changing things, but for your own benefit.
At the highest tier, you do all those things, but are told the terrible truth that you could only do the other things because the elder gods demand human sacrifices.
And it turns out you're okay with that, because you're getting what you want and you're not the one being sacrificed. Then you get made an MP in a safe seat, and the cycle continues.
Interesting that the gutter press, who usually respond with howls of outrage when the bishops express their opinions on anything remotely connected to politics, have chosen to join in the demands for Gollum to go.
(I prefer to think of him as Gollum, though Gollum is slightly better looking)
Worrying thought: are there any organisations that aren't like this?
And it's also where it stops for most groups. Yes, if I was a Toon supporter, I might wish success for my own club at the expense of Sunderland, or that I might agitate with my running club for laws that allow the easier closure of roads for races, but there's nothing particularly malevolent about that.
But the mindset that we can creep into that this is a group for our benefit, and not for yours. The cost to 'yours' goes up incrementally as the benefit for 'ours' increases, until at the end, yes, you're literally sacrificing people not in the in-group, not because you're a bad person or anything, but because means that your position, your power, your wealth, you security, stays safe. The rules are, as @chrisstiles says, to bind other people while leaving your own hands free.
Absolutely
Being a vehement denier of conspiracy theories, naturally I have to side with it being a coincidence that Cummings happened to be spotted in the vicinity of GSK HQ at the time that this piece of (surely very commendable!) business was going forward.
Seriously, I really don't care what Cummings did, in terms of his own personal transgressions. It's the Prime Minister who should be held to account here, for his lack of solidarity with the people he claims to be leading.
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] @Anselmina, your link doesn't seem to work! [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
Not in my Granddad's case. These things are less reductionist than your posts imply.
His innate Conservatism remains a mystery to me some 30 odd years after he died. He always thought I was a Communist ...
I'll say this, though, he had a lot more working class credentials than many Labourites I come across ... although I'm generally not one for stereotyping who should or shouldn't be Labour or Tory or whatever else.
Another observation from my own experience in local politics is that the Conservatives tend to have a lot of respect from Labour voters and candidates who are horny-handed sons of toil living in terraced houses but can't seem to get their heads around anyone voting Labour who lives in a nice detached house or semi.
Of course, I am generalising to make a point but it is something I've noticed - particularly among those from more rural wards.