The strategy of this Govt often confuses me. Today, its focus was on the COVID Winter Plan. THREAD. 1/10 gov.uk/government/pub…
What I'm curious about, is the decision to publish not only a Plan A, but also a Plan B.
One plan is often a plan too far for the Govt - so why have we been treated to two today? 2/
The reaction has been predictable, and at first sight at least, not the best for the Govt. It is, in the aftermath of its announcement, finding itself attacked from all sides. 3/
For some, Plan A is inadequate. For others, the very thought of Plan B is unconscionable. For other others, there is no clarity about what might prompt the move from Plan A to Plan B. 4/
So why publish both plans today?
Might it be pressure from 'the science' insisting on a Plan B the Govt is reluctant ever to implement? I'm not so sure. 5/
Instead, the aim might be to present the Govt (however implausibly) as having the sensible, 'balanced' position. And to leave the public ever more confused as both plans are attacked from both sides. 6/
That, I'm thinking, is a deliberate part of the Govt strategy - not only re COVID, but also re eg Brexit and 'levelling up'.
The aim is to stir the opposition from all sides; to confuse; and to destabilise. 7/
The 'noise' adversely affects the ability of its opponents to criticise its policy choices. And the equivocation in those policy choices gives the Govt the freedom to shift tack whenever the circumstances (or polling) suggests that they need to. 8/
In policy terms, the outcomes have, pretty much uniformly, disappointed. But... the public remain pretty much on side, and the opposition (on all sides) has been pretty much ineffective. 9/
Might the equivocation we saw today, and which we see in relation to Brexit (re eg no deal and the triggering of A16), be deliberate; and be part of the reason opposition to the Govt has been so difficult? 10/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have been reading and listening to a lot of analyses of the reshuffle. Pretty much all of them seem to me to be wide of the mark. THREAD 1/14
Commentators, backbenchers and policy analysts all speak as though the detail of policy matters. In the real world, of course it does.
But, in the mind of the PM and his top advisors, it hardly matters at all. And that explains a lot. 2/
Trying to read the runes, to work out the direction of travel, to put flesh onto the bones of Johnsonism (or whatever), is likely to be an unsatisfactory exercise. 3/
The Advice shows that there are 4 levels of decision-making involved. The key point is that, at each stage, as more factors are taken into account, the policy recommendations and prescriptions may differ. 2/10
First, the MRHA has the task of determining whether a vaccine is safe and effective, and whether to grant a licence. Their assessment, which is taken as read by the CMOs, was that benefits exceed risks. 3/10
As COVID restrictions are lifted, it is becoming more and more difficult to resist the conclusion that Brexit is having a profound effect on our economy, and its ability to recover. 1/6
In the last weeks, we have seen shortages of the flu vaccine, chicken in Nando's, and milkshakes in McDonald's, and supermarket supply chains. 2/6
These effects of Brexit are not new, but, for seemingly the first time, they are news.
(If you have a spare few hours, make your way through this mega-thread from @rdanielkelemen
This was from the first week of Johnson as PM - back in 2019. Lots of it was - sadly - right. The bit which remains right is that for this Govt, decision-making is deferred (they cross the bridge when they come to it). 1/3
It is not only in relation to Brexit that the inability, or unwillingness, to make decisions has consequences. If you fail to act, there is a risk that - sadly - you get overtaken by events. 2/3
That has been the key feature of the COVID response, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the climate crisis. In each case, it is too little, too grudging, too late. And in each case, the consequences of a lack of strategy are - sadly - plain to see. 3/3
I'm trying to make sense of the news on the timing of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the 31 August deadline.
There seem to be 2 things going on at once. 1/7
First, the 31 August date is the date agreed between the US and the Taliban. If the US feels that it (or, perhaps, others) need more time, they can discuss with the Taliban whether the deadline can be pushed back. 2/7
There are questions about whether Biden wants to ask for more time, and, importantly, whether the Taliban will agree. 3/7
This is the essay on Afghanistan by Tony Blair. It is certainly thought-provoking... and these are the thoughts it has provoked from me. 1/10 institute.global/tony-blair/ton…
Blair calls on the West to think strategically, and to recognise the multi-faceted threat of 'radical Islam'.
He is alert to the wider geopolitical implications of intervention and withdrawal.
And yet... 2/
... while there is analysis of the path which 'radical Islam' has taken over the last 20 years, there is no corresponding analysis of the way political thinking in the West has evolved, and is evolving. 3/