Posts

Showing posts from September, 2020

Emperor Cummings the naked incompetent

This blog post challenges the myth that Dominic Cummings is competent at anything relevant to his position. Is this "emperor" truly clad with extraordinary superpower garments?   It is true that by lies and cheating he achieved victory in the 2016 referendum campaign. We could ignore this result in the light of the methods used, but let us accept it for now. We are not in a referendum campaign any more. The Tories should not be campaigning, but should be governing. (But does Cummings treat government just as a campaign, focussing all the time on what will earn votes?). Apart from that there is very little evidence of Dominic Cummings’ ability. Indeed there is strong evidence of the opposite    He claims to have exceptional insights as to what Britain needs. He lays great stress on “super forecasting“. But it’s always instructive to respond to lies and deception by examining what they tell us about the person. People confident of their position do not need to lie; the

Will my MP support the Rule of Law

Image
[I have no idea why this blogpost is all centred and in italics, and there seems to be nothing I can do about this].  From:  Mike Cashman Date:  16 September 2020 at 08:34:01 BST To:  iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk Subject:   Re: Iain Stewart, are you loyal to your promise on the Withdrawal Agreement, or do you support Boris Johnson's position which has diverged from the WA?             Dear Iain I feel that I should follow up on the fairly blunt question I asked you before Monday’s  vote, and replace that question with this letter. Many of my contacts were horrified at the result of the vote on Monday, and I have sought to assure them that this vote is not final. A vote “in favour” at Second Reading can equate to a vote to give a Bill more detailed scrutiny. I  don’t hesitate to say that I would have hoped that law-abiding lawmakers would have voted down this Bill by now; but as my question on Monday indicated, I can at least see that there was a question of competing loyalties, wh