Too right, Sal! Those bloody trees, converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and sustaining ecosystems. Who chuffing needs them?! Better to tarmac over everything. A Starbucks drive-thru for every town!

Alistair Campbell was exactly the same - a tyrant who took no prisoners - it is what is needed at the top of these organisations. Campbell rode on the back of engineering election victories until Iraq came along and he could no longer defend the indefensible. Him and Cummings are no different - Blair was a front as is Boris.

If you get into harder times you need agile thinkers who are prepared to react to conditions not stuck on method such as Hammond. Cummings is a bright guy he has shown his versatility and his ability to read situations - certainly out thought Milne - not that difficult really. That's what happens when you have had everything given to you on a plate e.g. Milne and you have never been in the trenches. Cummings has openly discussed the Tories shortcomings so I doubt it will be issue going forward.

Timothy turned a 30 point lead into a 1% lead he deserved to get the sack - the same cannot be said of Cummings. If we have a recession but the government is spending in areas that people like e.g. NHS/Education/Police etc they will be protected to a point - Cummings is correct you can't say end of austerity and continue with it for another 5 years that would suicide.

Brighter things on the horizon Ms Long-Bailey is catching Starmer - so being Trans will be compulsory for us all!! I ask one question if a man is convicted of crime at the trial self-determines as a women does he/she go to a woman's prison?

Of course the biggest employer in Europe is suddenly going to be sold off in the next 5 years!! and you call me gullable

Absolutely let's not treat our sick or educate our kids all we need to do is plant billions of trees and everything will be great - we can have Starbucks in tree houses - what about that?

Not safe doesn't mean sold off though, does it ??

Unless the Tories are going to steal all of Labours policies, their fall back position has always been to reduce the size of the "state" and although Boris is currently on a post election spending spree, it wont last and you know it.

Certainly seems like there has been a change in tack so far though

There are similarities and differences between Campbell and Cummings. Campbell was a press officer charged with selling policies and keeping the right-wing press at bay. Cummings has moved from campaign lead to policy lead.

For all that he was a pragmatist sometimes given to constructive ambiguity, Blair was the front for policies he believed in. Blairism is a term that is widely understood. Johnson doesn’t really have political convictions and is more of a pure opportunist.

There are no solutions, only choices. Cummings has chosen to empower himself by weakening the cabinet and focusing his recruitment on young, pliable staffers who serve at his pleasure. The upside is that he should be able to get poop done. The downside is that, in the absence of criticism and challenge a lot of it might be poop. He’s been accused today of being bewitched by science without understanding it, off the back of views expressed by one of his aides. Science done well (which it isn’t always), is all about questions and rigorously challenging ideas.

All the Cummings is doing it trying to get stuff that the Tories promised done. He will have viewed what went wrong with May and Labour and has decided that it wont happen on his watch. When you have the likes of Gaulke, Letwin, Grieve senior Tories deliberately trying to undermine the leader something needed to be done. Javid was doing much the same - it simply doesn't add up - in fighting divides parties as we have seen.

There you go again with the false dilemma fallacy; when you know full well that it is entirely possible to do more than one good thing at once.

I'm sure it is pity you seem unable to see the sarcasm in my post - how come you myopia seems focused on me?

I don’t disagree, and I don’t necessarily think it is the wrong choice.

Every approach has downsides. This approach is focused but narrow.

Johnson likes the PM tag, he doesn’t like the scrutiny, so relying on Cummings to run the government hence he is nowhere to be seen with regards the recent floods, stayed on his freebee holiday and has left those on the cruise ship stranded.
I am afraid we are going to have to get use to this because I doubt he will change because he thinks why answer awkward questions when you can dodge and still get elected.

When was the last time you heard a politician give a straight answer to a simple question?

Kind of reinforces the line 'the people get the government they deserve'.

If lying is the default, and the people aren't too bothered, we'll be forever governed by liars.

I've heard Boris give plenty of straight answers...……………………………...only to change his mind when the time and place suits

They are all the same - Labour promised a referendum on the EU in 2 manifestos and never delivered - McDonald said only the top 5% would suffer tax increases and then backtracked big style. Labour said climate change in place by 2030 then spoke to uncle Len and then it was 2050. They are all as bad as each other.

Actually, I think they are all far from "the same".
People like Trump and Boris just wouldn't have been elected years ago.

They only have one principle, which is to put themselves first and sod the rest.
There are plenty of politicians that I dont like or didn't like but, some at least had a set of principles, sadly, not these two clowns.

There are the likes of Dennis Skinner but they are an irrelevance in the wider scheme - even Corbyn a long-time Euro sceptic went with the wind in an attempt to get elected.

Yeah that was the only thing Corbyn did where he was inauthentic and it meant he always struggled to be convincing on the Brexit issue, as his whole appeal was based on his authenticity. Boris has flip flopped on Brexit and was able to get away with it as people kind of expect him to flip flop.

I see Priti Patel following her leader by exaggerating the so called number of those eligible to work but don’t 8.4 million. These people are meant to fill the jobs of those that are no longer eligible to stay. It would appear that when you take out Students, the sick, home carers the actual number is around 33,000.
They are looking to the various companies to make the jobs more appealing so to the attract British workers. I wonder if the public realise that any increase in costs will be passed onto them, but according to the Conservatives it is a price worth paying.

Perhaps these companies need to pay remunerations that are attractive enough to get the workers they need - and we all need to pay more or find ways of reducing costs during the growing season to fund the picking?

Anyone who thinks there are only 33k people in the whole country available for work is delusional - put a million in front of it and you might be close - certainly enough spare bodies to pick the fruit/vegetable/crops.

There's already a loophole to allow the fruit & veg producers to employ seasonal workers.

The more likely outcome, if there is a shortage of workers in any particular sector, is a bit of wage inflation and while this is a good thing for those who receive higher wages, inevitably this will lead to some inflationary pressure, followed by the inevitable rise in interest rates.

It will take a little while for the ecconomy to re balance itself.

Mind you, if the UK comes under pressure following the trade deal (or lack of one), an economic reverse and a few job losses will help create a workers pool to then fil the holes.

I liked Priti Vacant's little spiel about British companies needing to train British workers up to have the skills they need, so that they can do the work which has previously been done by unskilled immigrants.

It's Schrodinger's worker - both skilled and unskilled at the same time.

Indeed - give British workers the skills they need to do work that I've just described as "low skilled." It's an interesting exercise in rhetorical gymnastics, designed for the purpose of throwing red meat to the Tory gammon base, who are still high on the prospect of booting out all the EU types.

Obviously it won't work - and when the Brit workers forced into "low skilled" work find themselves managed by the "brightest and best" immigrants, I expect there will yet another outpouring of nationalistic angst, cos they're coming over here, taking our jobs.

Meanwhile, in my sector, where we have 100k unfilled vacancies, we are now to fish in a pond of students, long term sick and family carers for our new intake. Lovely stuff.

You can already see what's coming...

Leaving the EU isn't really going to solve any domestic problems, and as soon as that becomes apparent, even to the most fanatical beleavers, the tabloids are going to need a new target. That's where the 'economically inactive' come in. Hey ho, we go full circle, and the students, the scroungers, the benefit cheats, the single parents, the ill, the sick, and the dying will once again find themselves in the cross hairs of a rabid populace.

You can already see the headline in the Daily Mail - Economically inactive single mother, who splashes benefits on widescreen TV, Ibiza holidays, and 30-a-day smoking habit, is COSTING YOU £60,000 a year.

And she's economically inactive because the local childcare provision, staffed by British workers with their newly acquired skills, are paying higher wages, so the resultant increased fees make it impossible for anyone on higher but still low wages to afford?