In possibly the most stupid – and tiresomely on-message – contribution to the Covid Inquiry so far, Lee Cain, once Boris Johnson’s most loyal aide, has said Johnson was wrong to canvass a diversity of views on lockdown (i.e., he listened to people actually sceptical about closing down the country over a flu-like virus) but also wrong not to have more diversity in his team because they were too “white and middle-aged”.
Asked this morning whether he thought Mr. Johnson was not up to the job of being Prime Minister, Cain replied: “It was the wrong crisis for this Prime Minister’s skills, which is different from not potentially being up to being Prime Minister.”
Asked by inquiry Chair Baroness Hallett what he meant by that, he said:
He would often delay making decisions, he would often seek counsel from multiple sources and change his mind on issues. Sometimes in politics that can be a great strength… I think if you look at something like Covid you need quickly that strength of mind to do that over a sustained period of time… I felt it was the wrong time for him.
Cain also told the inquiry there was a lack of “diversity” among decision makers during the pandemic. In his witness statement he wrote:
One of the challenges you face when you work on policy is the dynamic of the room, which in this case was white and middle-aged. They were doing their best, but without diversity, some policy decisions slipped through the cracks.
Ah, 21st century diversity: the same set of on-narrative views neatly packaged in a pleasing variety of skin tones.
Messages from Johnson to Cain further show that by October 2020 Johnson was on the verge of moving decisively away from lockdowns. In a message to Cain on October 15th 2020, he wrote:
Jeeez. I must say I have been slightly rocked by some of the data on Covid fatalities. The media age is 82-81 for men and 85 for women. This is above life expectancy. So get Covid and live longer.
Hardly anyone under 60 goes into hospital (4%) and of those virtually all survive.
And I no longer buy all this NHS is overwhelmed stuff.
Folks I think we may need to recalibrate.
There are max three million in this country aged over 80.
Pity they got to him and within days he was imposing yet another lockdown on the country.
Another juicy revelation was that Dominic Cummings blasted the decision to leave the “proven liar” Matt Hancock as Health Secretary. He wrote to Cain:
I also must stress I think leaving Hancock in post is a big mistake – he is a proven liar who nobody believes or should believe on anything and we face going into autumn crisis with the c*nt in charge of NHS still.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Sorry but I don’t agree
Voters who are desperate to reduce immigration know who they need to vote for- there are simply not enough of them
That’s democracy
I think you’re right. Matters will have to get worse, before the majority change their voting habits.
Exactly, all very depressing. Just imagen if Le Pen won in France, she could make a Firewall across the boarder with Germany and rightly so if Germany is forever run by leftists who couldn’t care less how many kids get stabbed when playing in the park. Rebuild the Maginot Line.
Le Pen was instrumental in keeping the AfD out of the Patriots for Europe group in the EU parliament.
What Le Pen did to her own father, who founded the party that catapulted her to stardom, was appalling.
Assuming that the poll above was the actual voting result, 72% of the so-called voters would have voted against the two parties forming the present minority government and the effect of these 72% voting against these two parties would be them remaining in government. Even for your weird idea of democracy¹ as something where people vote for politicians based on pre-election promises which will be immediately dropped after the election because of ‘coalition talks’, this can hardly be called the outcome voters wanted.
¹ Democracy means rule of the demos. But a demos which has no way of preventing certain policies from being implemented and no way to cause certain other policies to be implemented and no way of voting people in our out of specific public offices doesn’t govern anything, regardless how often the partycrats who do rule repeat the nonsensical assertion that it’s the voters and not them who ‘really govern’.
If you believe mass immigration poses an existential threat to white European civilisation, vote AfD. Who knows if they would sort it all out, but it’s worth a try. If you don’t vote AfD then you’re either really thick or not bothered about immigration. That’s the choice. Not complicated, to me.
If you believe mass immigration poses an existential threat to white European civilisation, vote AfD.
Complication #1: If you were an at least somewhat prominent member of the AfD, a statement like that made in public would get you kicked out immediately. The AfD has repeatedly stated that it accepts all people with a German passport as German, regardless of their heritage. Their beef is solely with people abusing the asylum system to immigrate illegally who’ll then be allowed to stay forever nevertheless. It’s also quite popular with well-integrated muslims of Turkish origin whose families have been living in Germany for decades.
Complication 2#: The BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) is a split off from the SED/ PDS/ Die Linke which is also opposed to unlimited immigration.
Complication #3: Prior to Merkel, the CDU was an anti-immigration party with strong support for the ius sanguinis to determine who is or isn’t German.
Complication #4: The German voting system, which has both MPs for constituencies (Erststimme, first vote) and party lists (Zweitstimme, second vote). Many CDU politicians will be constituency candidates people will be voting for because they’re conservatives who always vote for their candidate who has always represented them.
As usual, I can’t agree with your assertion that the system cannot possible have been rigged to produce results voters would have preferred to avoid. It most certainly is.
Where and when did I say the system wasn’t rigged? Of course those in power will try to retain it, but you still (so far) get to vote and (so far) the AfD have not been banned.
“Many CDU politicians will be constituency candidates people will be voting for because they’re conservatives who always vote for their candidate who has always represented them.”
Those people are idiots, or not really conservative, and in any case traitors to their race and civilisation.
That the BSW is also opposed to immigration presents a complication for some, especially as I guess they are unlikely to ally themselves with the AfD. It would not be a complication for me because I’m not a lefty.
People in the US voted for Trump, and he is now carrying out stuff that people voted him in to do. I am sure lots of people voted for him despite having reservations, but they made a choice.
What I was trying to get at was: People opposed to unlimited immigration may vote CDU in the hope that it finally finds its mind again or because their MP (MdB, Mitglied des Bundestages, member of the federal parliament) has always been “the CDU or CSU [Bavaria] guy” or because they don’t “want to waste their vote” [on a party that’s not going to govern, anyway] they may vote AfD or BSW. CDU/CSU and AfD could govern together (51%) but that’s probably not going to happen because of threatening noises and actual threats and violence by adherents of left-leaning parties.
For the AfD to have any chance of governing, it would need to get at least 50% of the vote so that no coalition could be formed without it. Ideally, it would need to get at least 51% so that it could govern without a coalition partner. The chances of this happening are 0 which is going deter people from voting for it because of the “wasted votes” myth. In the exceedingly unlikely case that this would actually happen, the outcome is – to say the least – open. It would certainly immediately cause large-scale rioting of the violent hard left and all people inclined towards it and I would expect a concerted effort by all parties left of the CDU and sizable parts of the CDU itself to get rid of such an undesired result as quickly a possible, eg, declare some state of emergency and simply abolish ordinary political procedures for the time being, Corona being the precedent that the powers who are can do that overnight if they really want it.
This system is not a democracy. It;s willing to take [mock] input from the people if this input is useful. When a sudden epidemic of “Nazism” were assumed to have occurred, all bets would be off.
I don’t see what’s undemocratic about it. The parties colluding to exclude the AfD are doing so quite publicly. The voters can make their minds up as to what they think of that.
I don’t know much about German politics but it seems like anyone expecting the CDU to restrict immigration falls into the same category us people expecting that from the Conservatives.
White people have been more successful by far than anyone else on the planet except with regard to the rather crucial measure of ensuring their survival. Sad.
Democracy means rule of the people and not rule of someone who claims to do so on the proper behalf of them. For this definition, every state which has ever existed on this planet was a democracy as all rulers, with the exception of some absolutist monarchs, certainly Louis XIV, and conquerors, have always claimed to rule on behalf of the people.
Democracy means you get to kick the rulers out and replace them with someone else.
The literal meaning of the word democracy is rule of the demos, which is all citizens of a state. That’s not the case in a parliamentary system and hence, a parliamentary system is not a democracy. For practical purposes, voters in contemporary parliamentary states have less political power than the plebs of the Roman Republic had and nobody ever called that a democracy. Also, the US founding fathers intentionally didn’t create a democracy but another kind of republic. Not even direct election of the head of government was originally planned for that, although the system has meanwhile degenerated (in the sense of not working like it was supposed to work anymore) to that.
As was pointed out in a past article of the incredibly well-read guy whose name I don’t remember: Democracy underwent a transformation from being a negative to being a positive term in the 19th century, presumably because it stood in opposition to rule via inherited privilege, and since then, everybody’s a democrat according to himself, including Lenin and Hitler. This has effectively rendered the term meaningless in contemporary usage, see also German Democratic Republic.
Well I am going by the generally accepted definition.
Perhaps you can describe what you think a democracy is, and cite some examples.
Democracy is combination of the Greek words demos – people – and kratos – to rule. Invented in Athens, it used to stand for a political system where
The classical definition is in Aristotle, Politics, book 3 from part VII (7) onward:
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
[difficult to read due to stupid formatting]
The essence is that there are three general types of government, rule by one, rule by a selected few and rule by many/ the multitude which come in true and in degenerated forms, eg, monarchy and tyrannis for rule by one. Democracy is a form of the latter, rule by many/ the multitude. Considering that there are about 68 million people in the UK but there are only 650 members of the house of commons and 836 of the house of lords, which are entitled to make political decisions or occupy public offices, that’s clearly a case of rule of a selected few and not rule of the multitude.
BTW, I don’t know how this is in the UK but in Germany, this is part of mid-level secondary school education (7th – 10th form, Sozialkunde).
That model doesn’t sound very practical nor is it in use anywhere that I am aware of
It’s nevertheless what the people who invented the term meant with “democracy¹”, while they would have classified the parliamentarian model as some sort of oligarchy/ aristocracy. That’s especially true because voters have no direct influence on politics whatsoever. They may just chose a politician whose face they particularly like who’s then free to do whatever he wants.
¹ By that time, states and cities where basically identical.
We seem to have drifted into this, but it’s what people accept. I wish I could persuade people otherwise, but they probably think I am a crank.
Gott helfe dem deutschen Volk. Sounds as if things are going to get ugly.
They don’t need God – they can help themselves
Too many white people hate themselves and want to commit suicide, or they hate other white people
Wow, in the UK vs Germany race to the bottom the Germans are nosing ahead (very slightly)…
German politics gets more like Waiting for Godot by the minute, the migrant statistics and the latest massacre.
In the great Theatre of the Absurd up in the sky, Berthold Brecht will be smiling wryly.
Centre-stage to be vacated, new cast to enter stage right, stage left door surplus to requirements for forthcoming productions.
I would say that perhaps one of the biggest political shifts in the last 20 years has been the way the main political parties have ceased to view each other as rivals (and at times enemies) and have lined up behind the bureaucracy.
In doing so they have adopted the position of the bureaucracy which is to order, instruct and control the population. The natural enemy of the bureaucracy, and therefore the fully aligned mainstream political establishment ,are people who resist being instructed and controlled.
That is why politicians these days define democracy as institutions and defending democracy means defending institutions. Institutions are basically the bureaucracy.
The emergence of political parties that resist the bureaucracy are, I suppose, a much needed reaction to the disappearance of political forces that represent people instead of the bureaucracy.
Yes, the Uniparty.
People need to stop voting for them but so far too many just don’t get it.
It’s not just that it’s in effect one party. It’s that its actual constituency is the bureaucracy, not the people.
Yes, that makes sense. I think this is enabled by there being in effect one party. If there’s no real opposition then the government doesn’t have to represent the people.
Looks like Poland’s about to become more diverse;
”Germany could send up to 70,000 migrants to Poland per year, according to a Polish MP.
@DariuszMatecki
filmed the new massive migrant center near the Polish border.
Germany “can’t cope with the migration problem.”
The solution? Send them to Poland and other EU nations.”
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1892965780813148494
Its just so depressing, these people with the “firewall” claim they are anti facists, but their behaviour betrays the reality of what they are, anti democratic, despots ignoring the will of the voter. In the EU it seems that it is now so blatantly a Dictatorship ran by a cadre of unelected, who do run Germany, France, Italy etc and which the conniving Starmer is retying us too. The people have no real say its just a pretence ran by greedy, power crazed ego maniacs. I truly believe now that war will be coming but it is going to be a great civil war wherby the indigenous populations rise up against the puppets in their Governments and take down the EU.
Its the only way out of this I believe, I cannot see it sorting itself out any other way.
A decade or so ago Nigel Farage stood up in the EU Parliament and warned the Kommissars that if they made meaningful change via democratic means impossible, the only alternative people would have would be violence.
Perhaps someone should send a link of the speech to the head of the CDU.
They are playing with fire.
The trouble is that any such fire will fizzle out, because people have lost their bottle.