Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tories drop to 36% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 5 in General
Tories drop to 36% with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

Tory lead slashed to just one point in this week’s YouGov poll for The TimesFieldwork yesterday evening and today — so post-Paterson voteCON 36 (-3)LAB 35 (+2)LIB DEM 8 (nc)GREEN 9 (-1)REF UK 5 (+2)Tory 2019 > Labour: 5%Tory 2019 > Don’t Know: 22%Would not vote: 4% pic.twitter.com/d6FSiDw15d

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • sladeslade Posts: 1,327
    Confirmed Con hold in West Lancs.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,327
    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    slade said:

    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.

    Just the kind of place full of sandal wearing nimby pseudo brummies
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    Ironically, Boris could probably do with a few more bad-news Brexit stories - supply lines creaking, labour shortages and destroyed food etc. That re-motivates the base ('it's only Remoaner doom-mongery. Let's show Boris our support.') and reminds them that they shouldn't give that treacherous Brexit saboteur Sir Keir any change. Boris must be praying that Macron goes through with his threat to cut of Jersey's power supply.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    edited November 5
    slade said:

    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.

    60.2% of the vote I make it from a fair way second.
    Edit: The ward elected 2Con 1LD in May.
    Putting up the Tory who didn't win last time once again was perhaps not wise.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,632
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/04/cruel-world-politics-u-turn-sunk-owen-patersons-political-career/

    So all that about him finding out while in the supermarket was just bollocks.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 702
    edited November 5
    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    As I often say, I think midterm polling is a waste of space. But, if Labour can’t get a lead even now, when the Tories are slopped in sleaze, it doesn’t bode too well.

    There’s a decent all-woman quartet doing the rounds - Rachel, Bridget, Raygun and Rosena. Need to see more of them on the telly.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,327
    LD gain in West Sussex.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    LD gain in West Sussex.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
    This wasn't the PM?
    The fact you refer to him as Boris shows he has a brand not susceptible to usual rules.
    Plus. OP was an arse about it. If he'd just fessed up, he'd have been back by Xmas. He could have repented, donated the cash to a local good cause or two, and probably avoided or won any by-election.
    He confirmed every Tory sleaze stereotype.
    He didn't even need to fess up - he could have maintained he felt it was the wrong decision, and urged his constituents not to recall him, brazened it out. Somehow (likely for the PM's own reasons) marshalling the weight of the parliamentary party to get him out of a hole, is what cut through so much.

    The attempt to evade censure, to cover it up, rather than his lack of contrition, is what did it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Poor night for Tories outside NW. Great night for LD. Meh for Labour, apart from excellent Rutland result.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    slade said:

    LD gain in West Sussex.

    Snap.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    dixiedean said:

    Poor night for Tories outside NW. Great night for LD. Meh for Labour, apart from excellent Rutland result.

    If Labour can’t win the People’s Republic of Rutland it can’t win anywhere.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    Actually covid appears right at the end of Peston. Rosena says cases are going up, which isn’t actually true.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,403
    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
    I think as soon as one mentions wallpaper, the whole thing immediately sounds trivial and mundane, and people tune out. There’s something deeply humdrum about wallpaper particularly.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,748

    Actually covid appears right at the end of Peston. Rosena says cases are going up, which isn’t actually true.

    Did Peston correct her?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924

    Actually covid appears right at the end of Peston. Rosena says cases are going up, which isn’t actually true.

    Did Peston correct her?
    It was Anushka … but no.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    edited November 5
    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 859
    dixiedean said:

    slade said:

    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.

    60.2% of the vote I make it from a fair way second.
    Edit: The ward elected 2Con 1LD in May.
    Putting up the Tory who didn't win last time once again was perhaps not wise.
    The West Sussex result is equally impressive. In many places the Lib Dems are very well entrenched locally, which is why I always take the Green vs Lib Dem poll ratings with a grain of salt.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Cicero said:

    dixiedean said:

    slade said:

    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.

    60.2% of the vote I make it from a fair way second.
    Edit: The ward elected 2Con 1LD in May.
    Putting up the Tory who didn't win last time once again was perhaps not wise.
    The West Sussex result is equally impressive. In many places the Lib Dems are very well entrenched locally, which is why I always take the Green vs Lib Dem poll ratings with a grain of salt.
    The great irony is it the Greens and not the LibDems who would be the major winners from PR.


  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,923
    Who was te poster who used to say at moments like this 'Tipping point'?

    Time for a recall.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 859
    rcs1000 said:

    Cicero said:

    dixiedean said:

    slade said:

    Huge LD gain in Gloucester.

    60.2% of the vote I make it from a fair way second.
    Edit: The ward elected 2Con 1LD in May.
    Putting up the Tory who didn't win last time once again was perhaps not wise.
    The West Sussex result is equally impressive. In many places the Lib Dems are very well entrenched locally, which is why I always take the Green vs Lib Dem poll ratings with a grain of salt.
    The great irony is it the Greens and not the LibDems who would be the major winners from PR.


    Well, you still have to campaign whatever the system.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,768
    edited November 5
    I notice that under the current circumstances Cicero describes below, Johnson's tribute to Paterson yesterday really hasn't done the cause of Brexit any favours at all.

    "He has had a distinguished career, serving in two cabinet positions, and above all he has been a voice for freedom – for free markets and free trade and free societies – and he was an early and powerful champion of Brexit."

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Morning all!

    Why, when well into the later stage of life do I still wake up at 6 or so as I did during my working life?

    On topic, can I put forward the comment in OGH's leader, that 20% of 2019 Con voters are now Don't Know.
    I've often thought that the polls we have either don't differentiate clearly enough between the 'wills' and the 'probably wills'.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    But you know what? I think he'd lose...
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Cicero said:

    Unsurprisingly the press this morning is pretty dire for Boris. Obviously its a shambles, but way more sinister is the suggestion that he is under investigation personally. The chances that he fully complied with all the regulation is basically zero: he has neither the humility nor the organisation to have got everything right, even if he intended to comply (which is not a given).

    Further problem is that he has managed to infuriate all of his own MPs. Those who were unhappy with the three line whip feel vindicated, while those who voted to try to save Owen Paterson feel betrayed. Tory MPs are being abused in the street and their offices attacked, and they are very angry and, especially after the murder of Sir David Amess, quite rightly scared.

    Johnson does not have much time to calm his own side before his own problems are official. Fraser Nelson´s Telegraph OpEd piece today does capture the fin-de-siecle atmosphere on the Tory benches. All this before the second anniversary of the last general election.

    After defying political gravity for so long, I guess the fall of the Tories poll support could be quite sudden and violent, the next five months were set to be "Challenging", I am now guessing "brutal".

    This all just sounds like a typical day in the office for the Conservatives under Boris Johnson.

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 297
    edited November 5
    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,768
    edited November 5
    Heathener said:

    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.

    The Mail is enjoying itself on exactly this point of the elite and mass worlds, and also having a go at its rivals in the Telegraph in the process. It presents this as the result of the disconnect between the Red Wall and the Garrick, and Johnson having stitched this all up with Moore and other ex-Telegraph journalists over pheasant and claret.

    "This is the newspaper, of course, where Boris made his name as a young reporter who became the scourge of Brussels and EU lunacy, and which later paid him a princely £250,000 a year for a weekly column until he entered the Cabinet."

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    Off-topic:

    Tesla need to stop beta-testing their self-drive software on public roads, using the public ...

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/11/tesla-recalls-11706-vehicles-over-full-self-driving-beta-software-bug/
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Heathener said:

    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.

    But the reality is that they are still leading in the polls; despite all of this.

    People don't look closely enough at Labour. Despite the laudable attempt by the leader to present a strong front, many of their MPs are just unfit for any sort of public office. Whenever they come to attention it is for the wrong reason: Angela Rayner for her scum comments about the tories. Richard Burgon calling for reparations to the taliban. And so it goes on and on. The tories self inflicted malaise has to be viewed in this context.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 297
    darkage said:

    Heathener said:

    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.

    But the reality is that they are still leading in the polls; despite all of this.
    YouGov, which shows the Cons drop to 36%, was before the sh*t really hit the fan. The media for the past 48 hours has been terrible for Johnson.

    So let's just see about those poll leads ...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    darkage said:

    Heathener said:

    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.

    But the reality is that they are still leading in the polls; despite all of this.

    People don't look closely enough at Labour. Despite the laudable attempt by the leader to present a strong front, many of their MPs are just unfit for any sort of public office. Whenever they come to attention it is for the wrong reason: Angela Rayner for her scum comments about the tories. Richard Burgon calling for reparations to the taliban. And so it goes on and on. The tories self inflicted malaise has to be viewed in this context.
    A bit desperate there. No one disputes that all parties have their wrong 'uns why look at what we're talking about right now.

    It is the public perception of the party as a whole that matters and Tory Sleaze is a compelling and recurrent theme.

    Governments lose elections...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    slade said:

    Confirmed Con hold in West Lancs.

    Nice, I was surprised Smarkets had Lab as odds-on favourite for that so that's a nice little earner.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,768
    edited November 5
    Roger said:

    For all his apparent mediocrity this could be the making of SKS. The Labour spokesman on Newsnight was taking the line that it was their leader who was prosecuting people like this and putting them behind bars just a few years ago.

    Rather clever marketing I thought

    And incredible serendipity, too. The 2010 expenses scandal was a key moment for Starmer as DPP. Many will understandably be thinking : cometh the hour, cometh the man.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Roger said:

    For all his apparent mediocrity this could be the making of SKS. The Labour spokesman on Newsnight was taking the line that it was their leader who was prosecuting people like this and putting them behind bars just a few years ago.

    Rather clever marketing I thought

    And incredible serendipity, too. The 2010 expenses scandal was a key moment for Starmer as DPP. Many will understandably thinking : cometh the hour, cometh the man.
    Wonder about HIGNFY tonight; could be quite a knockabout.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    Would that be notable Europhile Jeremy Clarkon?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    On topic the movement is within Margin of Error isn't it? It certainly could be a real fall due to Paterson, but normally with single polls showing movement isn't it standard to advise to wait and see if other polls show the same thing or if it is an outlier?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    Would that be notable Europhile Jeremy Clarkon?
    That would be hero of geezers everywhere calls it as it is Farmer Clarkson.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Robin Cook is doing a pirouette in his grave.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    HYUFD's landed gentry?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    Heathener said:

    Mike is right: this was a terrible error by Johnson.

    It was inevitable though with the abundance of arrogance he carries.

    That arrogance trickles down through his Brexiteer MPs and into some pb posters. They loftily assume that because they won the Brexit vote and the 2019 General Election that they have a blank cheque on the opinions of 'working people.' Even someone like Leon arrogantly declared that Brexit is Brexit, as if the packaging itself was sufficient to dupe people. This is the very same Metropolitan arrogance which led to a revolt against the elites in the first place. People are not stupid. They are increasingly realising that they were sold a dud, both on Brexit and Boris.

    Just as people give their support so they readily remove it. The Conservatives would do well to remember this lesson very fast but it may already be too late.

    But the reality is that they are still leading in the polls; despite all of this.
    YouGov, which shows the Cons drop to 36%, was before the sh*t really hit the fan. The media for the past 48 hours has been terrible for Johnson.

    So let's just see about those poll leads ...
    Yes, these things often take a week to percolate through.

    Red Wall Voters love a posh boy with his hand in the till.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    edited November 5
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,451
    It's all a bit Alan Partridge. Needless to say I had the last laugh.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    Yes, via Randox, who sponsored the Grand National. Join the dots and follow the money.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    A new, more jaw dropping than ever, entry in American justice

    https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status/1456253998269276164?t=oLibnNI3J4CcrOmIpE3TWw&s=19

    If only there was some kind of Theory that could Critically explain what is happening here with regards to the jurors Race?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Yesterday I went up to town so missed most of the Paterson story. He'd been saved at breakfast yet was gone by teatime. I'll probably watch Newsnight on iplayer to fill in the gaps. I do wonder if I'm alone in this and if most voters will see it is a bit of a shambles but will miss both the initial corruption and the arguably more seriously corrupt attempt to change the rules and the personnel to rescue Boris.

    In other words, the world king might just get away with it by u-turning so fast rather than let it fester like cash for questions or the expenses scandal.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893
    edited November 5
    I've got to say that the Daily Mail account of Patersongate is luridly compelling. You've got the Fat Lying Sack of Jizz on the piss in Garrick Club getting convinced by Charles Moore to save Paterson then Paterson himself being told by a BBC journalist on the phone in a supermarket that he's getting fucked and abandoned.

    And we've still got a weekend of leaking and briefing to come when we'll see who they can hang the blame on.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476
    edited November 5
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
    This wasn't the PM?
    The fact you refer to him as Boris shows he has a brand not susceptible to usual rules.
    Plus. OP was an arse about it. If he'd just fessed up, he'd have been back by Xmas. He could have repented, donated the cash to a local good cause or two, and probably avoided or won any by-election.
    He confirmed every Tory sleaze stereotype.
    This.

    Denying everything was foolish, when - as it turned out - the circumstances were quite easy for the person on the bus to understand.

    Tory arrogance brought him down, and more Tory arrogance has created another fine mess of it.
  • Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5

    He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    The Florida Universiry case gets bettet and better.

    DeSantis says there's no free speech protection if you are being paid and the University of Florida allowed one of its Profs to defend voting restrictions.

    https://twitter.com/arothmanhistory/status/1456353461558202368?t=Aojcvky1--PK_QvEYYPfQg&s=19

    https://twitter.com/MrMikeVasquez/status/1456048775844319233?t=gKA3XcTP-mzuSR7OMP-f3w&s=19
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    Gavin Esler?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    A gentle rebuke for the Business Sec, as Nadhim Zahawi says "it's important to remind all parliamentarians" that standards commissioner Kathryn Stone works "for the house". He says he echoes the words of the speaker - it's "up to the house" to decide how procedures are delivered.
    https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1456520648478560311
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,476

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5

    He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
    Dominic Cummings is among those who think this is all about Boris and wallpapergate.

    [Wednesday] was a preemptive strike by PM on EC & Stone. Tory MPs are just expendable cannon fodder. This is about trying to keep secret the coverup earlier this year on his illegal donations & lies to Geidt and the Cabinet Secretary about it all #FOLLOWTHEMONEY
    https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1456200360259997702
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    So Owen - a MP with no past professional history in Food Safety / Standards or cancer warned about something without revealing the credible source of the report.

    That makes it worse rather than better..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Can Keir Starmer succeed where Neil Kinnock failed with the open goal of Westland and nail the Prime Minister?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,768
    edited November 5
    Dura_Ace said:

    I've got to say that the Daily Mail account of Patersongate is luridly compelling. You've got the Fat Lying Sack of Jizz on the piss in Garrick Club getting convinced by Charles Moore to save Paterson then Paterson himself being told by a BBC journalist on the phone in a supermarket that he's getting fucked and abandoned.

    And we've still got a weekend of leaking and briefing to come when we'll see who they can hang the blame on.

    Yes, in their eagerness to get one over the Telegraph and present themselves as the tribune of the people, they've turned up some very interesting stuff. They essentially describe Moore "and 30 former Telegraph leader writers" fixing it up for Paterson over port, Claret, fishcakes and pheasant, after Boris gave a rambling two hour speech. Very interesting.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,435

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    5 live political correspondent this morning has said that this error came about because there was great sympathy for Owen Paterson within the party and it was this that wrongfooted the PM and others. He went on to say that some think this was to try to divert any investigation from Boris, but he said that far too many people are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5

    He went on to say labour have rejected standing aside in the by election as it is not Paterson they would be fighting and therefore they will not agree to a single candidate and will put forward their candidate
    If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!

    The FT covered it well the other day.

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    Why couldn't he declare that he was a paid lobbyist for the firm while doing so?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    Yes, via Randox, who sponsored the Grand National. Join the dots and follow the money.

    Speaking of horses it remains a great pleasure that your username continues to celebrate the sport of foxhunting. Long may it last.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    Cicero said:

    Unsurprisingly the press this morning is pretty dire for Boris. Obviously its a shambles, but way more sinister is the suggestion that he is under investigation personally. The chances that he fully complied with all the regulation is basically zero: he has neither the humility nor the organisation to have got everything right, even if he intended to comply (which is not a given).

    Further problem is that he has managed to infuriate all of his own MPs. Those who were unhappy with the three line whip feel vindicated, while those who voted to try to save Owen Paterson feel betrayed. Tory MPs are being abused in the street and their offices attacked, and they are very angry and, especially after the murder of Sir David Amess, quite rightly scared.

    Johnson does not have much time to calm his own side before his own problems are official. Fraser Nelson´s Telegraph OpEd piece today does capture the fin-de-siecle atmosphere on the Tory benches. All this before the second anniversary of the last general election.

    After defying political gravity for so long, I guess the fall of the Tories poll support could be quite sudden and violent, the next five months were set to be "Challenging", I am now guessing "brutal".

    I wonder how many free holidays Boris hasn't accurately reported and whether subsequent offences are treated harsher than initial offences?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189
    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
    I'm not saying its right, I don't know the details, but he views that he did the right thing - and it was the flawed investigation itself was the problem and thus responsible.

    I'm not saying its right or wrong, but I understand where he's coming from.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,714

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
    Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
  • The reverse ferret and then resignation of Paterson doesn't kill this story - the opposite. Had they stuck to the line they could have claimed righteousness and blamed other parties for refusing to co-operate with their Tory Truth and Justice Panel.

    Instead we have join the dots
    PM too busy to avoid flying home from environment summit
    PM flies to a private dinner with his ex boss who urges him to save Patterson
    Absurd short notice motion to abolish the entire standards system.
    "The Commissioner Must Resign"
    Consternation and Uproar
    OK this won't wash, Owen, go see the Chancellor
    Nothing to see here
    Today the Electoral Commission deliver their report over flat-gate to Downing Street for their comments before it is published
    Today the Standards Commissioner - the one they demanded resign - is launching her own investigation into Number 10 and bungs - for wallpaper, for holidays, for peerages

    This was always all about Boris. And having whipped up an absolute frenzy of "Tories on the Take" they now have to face the most awkward questions about the very worst of the corruption with everyone interested. No-one cares what wallpaper nutnut hangs in her flat. People do care that illegal money is used to finance it.

    The idea that this story is over, or we have seen the bulk of it is hope against hope from people who don't understand just how ravenous the news industry is when there is a juicy story sprinting away from them. The pack runs faster. Always does.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
    Suicide is always tragic, but occurred at the time of her own involvement in a political scandal, a week after news broke about how Jenrick intervened in a planning application by the Jockey Club. It was a week after this broke:

    "Rose Paterson's death came as she became embroiled in a planning row alongside housing secretary Robert Jenrick, who has asked his department to re-examine an application by the Jockey Club for 300-plus homes and a hotel at Sandown Park, after it had been unanimously rejected by Surrey councillors last year. His intervention has raised concerns about conflicts of interest because of the Jockey Club's links to senior Conservative figures including Mrs Paterson, who sits on the club's board. No final decision has been made."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8454823/Tory-MP-Owen-Patersons-wife-dead-family-home.html
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,022
    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,714
    IanB2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
    This wasn't the PM?
    The fact you refer to him as Boris shows he has a brand not susceptible to usual rules.
    Plus. OP was an arse about it. If he'd just fessed up, he'd have been back by Xmas. He could have repented, donated the cash to a local good cause or two, and probably avoided or won any by-election.
    He confirmed every Tory sleaze stereotype.
    This.

    Denying everything was foolish, when - as it turned out - the circumstances were quite easy for the person on the bus to understand.

    Tory arrogance brought him down, and more Tory arrogance has created another fine mess of it.
    Tory arrogance? Is that what Claudia Webbe has been displaying?

    I don't understand how people on here think any one political party is better than another. They all behave as our masters, not our servants.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,574

    I notice that under the current circumstances Cicero describes below, Johnson's tribute to Paterson yesterday really hasn't done the cause of Brexit any favours at all.

    "He has had a distinguished career, serving in two cabinet positions, and above all he has been a voice for freedom – for free markets and free trade and free societies – and he was an early and powerful champion of Brexit."

    And free money.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    edited November 5
    Stocky said:

    This could be the next big story.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/tens-thousands-unvaccinated-care-workers-22073061

    Does anyone actually agree with this?

    Agree with what?

    10,000 care workers are going to have to find other work

    or that care workers should be doing everything they can to ensure they don't increase the chance / risk of spreading Covid from one patient to another....

    If there is a story it will be about a lack of care workers and when people look in detail I think they will decide they are intentionally unemployed so shouldn't be getting welfare.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,189

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
    Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
    That seems a flawed logic. If it is reasonable to intervene once as public interest, then why are follow-up interventions not just as much in the public interest?

    Either its in the public interest or not. If it is, why is that limited to just once?

    Surely the way to demonstrate it wasn't public interest it so show there was no public interest in what was raised, not to show that it was raised more than once?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
    'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.

    To answer your question:

    Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.

    As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
    Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
    That seems a flawed logic. If it is reasonable to intervene once as public interest, then why are follow-up interventions not just as much in the public interest?

    Either its in the public interest or not. If it is, why is that limited to just once?

    Surely the way to demonstrate it wasn't public interest it so show there was no public interest in what was raised, not to show that it was raised more than once?
    I'm not necessarily supporting you in this, but I asked a question yesterday: were his interventions multiple letters about one issue, or multiple letters about multiple issues?
  • eek said:

    Cicero said:

    Unsurprisingly the press this morning is pretty dire for Boris. Obviously its a shambles, but way more sinister is the suggestion that he is under investigation personally. The chances that he fully complied with all the regulation is basically zero: he has neither the humility nor the organisation to have got everything right, even if he intended to comply (which is not a given).

    Further problem is that he has managed to infuriate all of his own MPs. Those who were unhappy with the three line whip feel vindicated, while those who voted to try to save Owen Paterson feel betrayed. Tory MPs are being abused in the street and their offices attacked, and they are very angry and, especially after the murder of Sir David Amess, quite rightly scared.

    Johnson does not have much time to calm his own side before his own problems are official. Fraser Nelson´s Telegraph OpEd piece today does capture the fin-de-siecle atmosphere on the Tory benches. All this before the second anniversary of the last general election.

    After defying political gravity for so long, I guess the fall of the Tories poll support could be quite sudden and violent, the next five months were set to be "Challenging", I am now guessing "brutal".

    I wonder how many free holidays Boris hasn't accurately reported and whether subsequent offences are treated harsher than initial offences?
    Its not just the free holidays. Its "the money was only resting in our account" over flatgate, or allegations of cash for peerages / planning decisions / Covid contracts. They have all been reported but got mostly skated over. The PM's desperation to remove the Standards Commissioner and an egregious case of open corruption has put everything back into play.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,435

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
    Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
    Particularly as the further contacts seem not to have been concerned with criticising the ingredients in the competitor's product, but mainly with helping the firm that was paying him, in its efforts to try to avoid listing one of its own ingredients as an E number!
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    It would be a cruel irony or at least quite amusing if Boris' undoing was his blind loyalty to one of his MPs.

    On the contrary. Paterson was the shield for his own wrongdoings.
    I genuinely believe he thought it the right thing to do to stand my Paterson.
    If his judgement is so poor as to not understand that paid, undeclared lobbying is wrong, then Johnson is not just amoral but also stupid.
    It was declared, in the register of ministerial interests.

    (The taking of the money in general was, I think many people don't think warning about carcinogens in food is "lobbying")
    It was undeclared in the communications with the Food Standards Agency.

    Why do you defend this embarrassing crook? It is doing the Tories no good.
    If as he says all he did was warn about carcinogens in food then that's not crooked and its not lobbying.

    Do you think someone who knows about carcinogens in food shouldn't report it?
    But that’s just the point. He didn’t make a fuss about it, didn’t go to the media, make any speeches - he didn’t do anything to alert the public and press about this apparently grave threat to public health - all he did was write a letter, by amazing coincidence on behalf of a company that was paying him ££££££££££££££££ and some more ££.
    Except that he did alert the authorities and got changes as a result that removed the carcinogens and the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Select Committee (was he the Health Secretary at the time this happened) has backed him on this and was a signatory to the amendment. That seems significant to me.
    Surely the report covers this. It concedes that for a one-off contact OP may have reasonably believed that it was a public interest intervention, but the repeated further contacts could be nothing other than paid lobbying.
    That seems a flawed logic. If it is reasonable to intervene once as public interest, then why are follow-up interventions not just as much in the public interest?

    Either its in the public interest or not. If it is, why is that limited to just once?

    Surely the way to demonstrate it wasn't public interest it so show there was no public interest in what was raised, not to show that it was raised more than once?
    I was going to link to this separately but I will add it here - it's as nice overview of why the existing system does have an appeal system within it.

    https://twitter.com/thebrieftweet/status/1456188273735372804

    But there is an interesting point there - it seems one of the letters wasn't there are cancerous items in Food, it was there are cancerous items in food that this machine can detect and the FSA should be recommending this machine.

    The fact the machine was manufactured by a company who was paying Owen does seem to be a material consideration.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,957

    Chris said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Summary. 6 by-elections.
    LD 3 (+2)
    Lab 2 (+1)
    Con 1 (-2)
    Ind 0 (-1)

    Talking of by-elections, are Lab and the LDs going to come to some sort of arrangement in Bexley and North Shropshire?
    I can't see it in Bexley & Old Sidcup, but it's *possible* in North Shropshire.

    It does, however, require Labour and the Liberal Democrats to find a high profile, non party affiliated person of impeccable integrity willing to spend a couple of months of their life campaigning, and then between 18 and 30 months as an MP.

    I can't think of any obvious candidates, because it's a very dead end job. You collect a couple of years of salary and... well... that's about it.

    John Cleese? (At 82, surely too old.)
    Martin Lewis? (Not famous enough.)

    There may be loads of appropriate people out there, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
    Esther Rantzen? She's tried before (against Moran un Luton). Although at 80-odd, being thrust into this particular race might not be for her.

    I'd love Rory Stewart to have a go. He's an ex-Tory MP, yes, but he's been independently-minded, and it'd be good to get his voice back into parliament. But AIUI the constituency was heavily leave, so Stewart might not appeal to them.

    Anyone else? It'd have to be someone acceptable to the Lib Dems and Labour, but is seen as being very clean, without any scandal. Someone in journalism or the charitable sectors would be boring choices, but the most likely.
    It needs to be someone people have heard of, and is ideally known for being cleaner-than-clean. (No, not Danny Baker)

    I know! What about Prince Harry, now he is no longer HRH?
    Jeremy Clarkson would win at a canter.
    On the subject of horses, what is it with the Jockey Club and senior Tories. Paterson, Jenrick, Hancock, Harding? They all seem to meet there to hand out contracts to their mates.
    Does Paterson have any links with the jockey club aside from through his wife, who is now sadly dead? If so, why mention it?

    Classy as ever, Foxy ...

    BTW, did you see this sordid story about the 'talent'? I though you and Roger would be impressed:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59170667
    What I've never understood is why - if this affair was a factor in his wife's suicide - PB Tories portray him as the victim rather than the person ultimately responsible.
    'Ultimately responsible' is a bit nasty. Yes, his actions led to it, but could he have expected it to have led to it? Probably not. It's not as if he murdered her.

    To answer your question:

    Because a) compassion - something PB's anti-Tories seem to have a sad lack of. b) there was probably no way for him to believe ahead of time that what he did would cause his wife to take such a tragic course. c) he probably didn't think what he was doing was that wrong. d) Losing your partner of 40 years is hard for anyone: yet alone to suicide.

    As I said yesterday, the kind words after Amess's murder have gone a bit cold.
    If Paterson had come out saying I still disagree with the verdict but hadn't:

    - worked with the govt to get the first ever whipped vote on a disciplinary matter
    - voted on it himself instead of recusal
    - demanded the investigators resign
    - blamed everyone else
    - said he would do it all the same again, even when he also says it led to his wifes suicide

    then sympathy would be forthcoming. As it is, no, a shameless and horrible man, good riddance.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,754
    Isn’t not playing by the rules priced in by Boris supporters? I suspect the bubble wrapped around him will not burst. Those that support him and the Tories will contrive a way to explain it all away. Look at Trump.
  • Aslan said:

    Big lesson for British politicians here: the public expects you to keep the norms of democracy and independent oversight. You are not our bosses, we are yours and you are on notice.

    Thank goodness.

    Seemed this cut through after all, and it was only a story for - what? - 24 hours.

    It’s interesting to ponder why some stories cut through and others - like Boris’s wallpaper benefactor - do not.
    From memory, Wallpapergate did cut through in some polls; there was that clutch of tiny leads at the end of April, but they didn't last.

    Will this one persist?
This discussion has been closed.