This thread from Nicholas Watt, just published on Twitter, is fascinating:
Let me do a little speculating.
I suspect that the Manchester team entered into negotiations with the government in good faith. It is very clearly in their best interests to get a solution to this problem, and an outcome for the population of Manchester that both tackles Covi-19 and provides support for those who cannot work. That would be a wholly reasonable objective.
Then let's presume that the government did not want that result because that would look like a success for a Labour mayor. So, when it looked as if the talks were progressing well then (as a number of sources seem to confirm) the government suddenly pulled out of the talks, which then seemed to collapse.
Why would the government do that? The only obvious explanation is that they do not want a solution other than their own chosen, chaotic, outcome.
Then note that the government is also, of course, still in negotiation with the EU, whatever they wish to say otherwise. Just as Manchester is, I think, negotiating in good faith, I very strongly suspect that the EU is as well. After all, they have every reason to wish to avoid economic chaos in the UK: they will undoubtedly lose as a result of it. They might have red lines they are not willing to cross, which were always entirely predictable when seeking that agreement, but I am also quite sure that those red lines gave them ample wriggle room to create a perfectly acceptable deal. Indeed, I rather strongly suspect that such a deal has been put on the table.
What has been the UK government's response to that perfectly acceptable deal? They walked away, having created an entirely artificial deadline, without consultation. What was their aim? It was to prevent a deal that would, effectively, have been written by the EU for which Johnson could be blamed, and for which he could claim no credit. So, instead, he would rather have no deal and blame the EU, Just as he would rather have no deal with Manchester and blame Andy Burnham.
Am I the only person seeing a pattern in this? I very much doubt it. But, I still think it worth noting because what it very clearly says is that we have a government that does not act in good faith, pretty much as I suggested in a blog post yesterday. I would describe this as a form of corruption.
How did we reach such a low point in our history? I also answered that question yesterday. We now need fundamental reforms to survive this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I came to the conclusion, a long time ago, that the govt wanted “herd immunity” and anything else was not acceptable. They backtracked as soon as it became obvious that their stance was the political equivalent of cutting their throats, they still wanted herd immunity, but by the stealth route.. Which is where we are now: Herd immunity but slowly. Worse than useless. Any gained immunity is rendered useless as soon as the virus mutates. Unfortunately, we effectively have a single-party state now!
As someone pointed-out to me a while ago, this virus, if it can be maintained, will go a long way to solving the problems of excessive elderly people with their high associated costs.
I’m intrigued as to how the government is going to impose restrictions on Manchester. Send in the army? Slap Burnham in jail? Fine the whole population? Call his bluff Andy Burnham! If the local health service stats reported on the hews tonight are reliable then Johnson has no basis for the fear mongering they are attempting and I know who I’d rather believe. The government’s credibility is in tatters…but where is Starmer?….about time he gathered up the courage to back Burnham. The Labour leadership really is taking their party into oblivion. Jesus, am I angry!
I wish Starmer was publicly backing Burnham
I am firmly of the opinion that long term planning for this government is 36 hours.
Fisheries, state aid and so forth have been convenient red herrings (ching..). This government doesn’t care one jot about fishing; if they did, they would have negotiated with the EU a better system. One that starts with how to protect and enhance fishing stocks and to work forwards from there. Just as carbon taxes do not work, the quota system failed miserably with quotas being traded/monetised.
For Brexit and now Manchester, it is more about command/control ideology than anything rational.
Back in the 70s we would laugh about the Soviets and the doublespeak – now we have it writ large.
Still our MPs (they represent us don’t they?) sit with their hands under their legs not saying anything useful. Theresa May did give Gove the wtf look, but others dare not speak up when they need to.
Let us imagine there is no deal on fishing. And yet French and Spanish and other EU fishermen still want to continue fishing in UK waters. So who is going to stop then? How many seaworthy ships and boats does the Royal Navy have nowadays? How many fisheries protection vessels?
Legislating to ban something is easy, but laws don’t implement themselves. Saying “it is illegal: you can’t do it” is one thing: actually stopping someone doing it (and if they do, catching and punishing them) is something entirely different.
It’s the same with law enforcement in Manchester this weekend…..