Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire Van-Tam has been on a repeatedly-extended secondment from the University of Nottingham since 2017 and told senior health officials yesterday that his loan was up.
Understand not directly related to parties or policy – but in this of all weeks...
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
Patrick Maguire @patrickkmaguire Van-Tam has been on a repeatedly-extended secondment from the University of Nottingham since 2017 and told senior health officials yesterday that his loan was up.
Understand not directly related to parties or policy – but in this of all weeks...
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Your problem is that Boris shows no understanding of the things which cause him problems, no interest in understanding them and no willingness to remedy them.
If "Boris" did not do these things perpetually he would still be a comedic political hack. It is his willingness to consistently break the rules without giving a shit that has driven his political career.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
You are aware that everyone on PB is really SeanT?
Even me?
I must book that rehab spot, desist with buying the services of prostitutes and stop being a total shitebag. What a great set of new year resolutions.
Choosing to end his 5 year loan from academia is absolutely nothing to do with current events, we can all be assured of that.
Personally I don't care why he's leaving. IMO he's done a good job over the last couple of years, in very trying circumstances. I wish him luck in his new role(s).
(I'd like to plug again his excellent RI Christmas Lectures last Christmas.)
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
I don’t know about that, it took me ages to realise Roger was also posting as MoonRabbit!!
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
I think a fair bit hinges on the May local elections too. Will she report before then ?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
ISTR he has published thread headers under his real name, which is Roger something. He's never been particularly secretive about his identity.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
Aberdeenshire council is just one example of a council where the Tories are in senior jobs running big councils. If HY thinks that is nothing to save then frankly its gift week.
I am confused though. Someone who claims to be one of only a few true Tories is happy to throw elected colleagues under the bus. Someone who claims to be a staunch Unionist thinks only southern England has any sway.
Its almost as if he does the opposite of everything he claims to stand for. I don't want this to turn into a personalised pile-on, I'm just commenting on his words and trying to understand them.
With JRM saying that all Scottish MSPs and most Scottish MPs can be ignored and discarded I don't think that HY's "There is Nothing to Save" approach to the union is unique in the Conservative and Unionist Party...
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
In which case I'll ask him to stick around, too.
He does like to impersonate Loadsamoney character. Personally it looked like handbags at dawn. He is a perfectly nice chap apart from his odd mention that he is loaded. If only it had been that scumbag Foreskin , I would have cheered from the rafters.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
I don’t know about that, it took me ages to realise Roger was also posting as MoonRabbit!!
Not many people seem to have twigged that SeaShantyIrish2 is also posting as "Leon"
Choosing to end his 5 year loan from academia is absolutely nothing to do with current events, we can all be assured of that.
It probably isn't, the health messaging (Get vaccinated/boosted) is working. If anyone was going to resign for no restriction implementation it would have been done in December.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
I can see why they may not be comfortable ejecting him. I can't see what on earth made them comfortable electing him or pandering to his ambition to bring down the May government.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
You are aware that everyone on PB is really SeanT?
Even me?
I must book that rehab spot, desist with buying the services of prostitutes and stop being a total shitebag. What a great set of new year resolutions.
You've forgotten the bad airport novels, the compulsive travelling blogging (blagging?) complete with details of solitary meals....
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
Absolutely disastrous for the opposition parties that BJ has strengthened his position as leader of the Tories, oh yes.
We’re all quaking in our boots.
I see he is in the fridge again, family member 10 x removed in outer Mongolia has covid so he is following the rules and isolating. Not scared to go oop north no siree.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
Aberdeenshire council is just one example of a council where the Tories are in senior jobs running big councils. If HY thinks that is nothing to save then frankly its gift week.
I am confused though. Someone who claims to be one of only a few true Tories is happy to throw elected colleagues under the bus. Someone who claims to be a staunch Unionist thinks only southern England has any sway.
Its almost as if he does the opposite of everything he claims to stand for. I don't want this to turn into a personalised pile-on, I'm just commenting on his words and trying to understand them.
With JRM saying that all Scottish MSPs and most Scottish MPs can be ignored and discarded I don't think that HY's "There is Nothing to Save" approach to the union is unique in the Conservative and Unionist Party...
Yes. It is not exactly an advertisement for Unionism is it?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
The fact they are getting no benefit from riding out Omicron is telling, I think. A bit like a sports team, you know they're really up the creek when they lose despite playing well. Or the stock markets in a crash when good news is ignored. The Tories will only recoup their poll deficit once they get a new leader. Irritatingly though they seem to be very good at achieving this, sending off the previous leader as a scapegoat into the desert and then miraculously washing away their sins with a sparkling new PM.
I agree on Starmer. He's timed the resignation call perfectly, for maximum effect and when he knows the country is behind it. That Boris doesn't resign and the MPs and ministers - by the look of things - demur on removing him is helpful because it tars the rest of the party with the same brush and takes the shine off any shiny new leader if they come from the cabinet.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
Even if Bozo survives this and leads the Tories into the next GE the stench surrounding him will once again come to the fore when the opposition hammer the point home that you can’t trust a word he says and any election promises are likely to be broken .
The best thing for Labour is he limps on to the GE , the best thing for the country however is for Bozo to depart.
To be replaced by a ‘proper’ conservative, willing to drop the ‘green crap’ and cut public spending to balance the budget? Be careful what you wish for…
Cutting public spending wont retain the red wall.
And i’m willing to bet the “green crap” is popular in the wealthy lib dem targeted blue wall.
Doesn’t sound like a winning electoral strategy.
I think it’s starting to dawn on people, that the persuit of a decarbonised economy comes at a high price. Even the wealthy South East isn’t full of people who can easily stump up another £100 a *month* in energy bills.
Exactly. Support for this will soon diminish when people start to pay the bills and it is fine for wealthy middle class posters here to say we have to do it. They can afford to pay it.
Ultimately we have got to keep using fossil fuels until we can fully transition to renewables and they can deliver 100% of our growing energy needs all year round. That will not be for a very long time either. So impoverishing further the poor is not going to help.
The problem with fossil fuels - even setting all of the environmental issues aside - is that they are not the cheap alternative they once were. Whilst there is still an awful lot of oil and gas left its increasingly harder to get at and increasingly in the control of nations who aren't entirely friendly to the west.
The UK had this golden bonanza, a vast sea of oil and gas. And largely its gone. We sold off the oil rights so that others got rich instead of the state like in Norway, and we let the private sector burn gas instead of coal for bigger profits.
As a businessman I have no problem with turning a profit but it can't be short term over the interests of the long term as we have done. We're now increasingly at the mercy of international supply and international trading prices, so the idea that we can just bin off the "expensive" green energy for "cheaper" fossil energy is for the birds.
As always we need a mix. Oil and gas absolutely. Learn how to build nuclear reactors again. And develop tidal, wind, solar and hydrogen where we can become a world leader in these fields. It will be expensive at the start hence the need for mega subsidies. But the alternative is paying mega money to Putin and Sandpit's Sheikhs.
Sadly this ignores the reality of what is happening right now. The UK Government are actively preventing the development of existing and new Oil and Gas resources to the extent that companies are now shifting their emphasis to other parts of the world. They are doing this without putting in place the alternative energy supplies which means that we are now relying far more on hydrocarbons imported from places which do not have the same environmental controls and which are not, in many cases, predisposed to good relations with the UK.
What people don't realise is that the root of Norway's success is that they have maintained a remarkably stable set of regulations, tax regime and general outlook towards Oil and Gas for the last 40 years. In an environment where you are exploring for resources that may not make it to the market for a decade that is vital. It is a lesson the UK has never learnt.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
I think a fair bit hinges on the May local elections too. Will she report before then ?
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Read what I wrote - the application of this to the entire world is an expansion from the eg yellow fever vaccine requirement in a handful of countries.
Nursing and midwifery leaders have urged Sajid Javid to delay the introduction of compulsory Covid jabs for NHS staff and said the controversial policy amounted to “self-sabotage”.
Significantly, the NHS Confederation, which represents hospital trusts in England, made clear it believed that the policy is being introduced at undue haste
The thing is just kicking the can down the road won't change anything. Those working for the NHS, who have always been at the front of the queue for jabs, and yet still aren't jabbed over a year after they could, aren't just going to do so in a few weeks time.
NHS workers have had far longer than care home staff to get the bloody jab.
It is self-sabotage. And is it needed? With Omicron we could very well get out of this without needing this policy against the unvaccinated anyway. Those opposed to this should argue against it in these practical terms rather than from moral positions.
It is a pity that ritual protests are thought necessary. Just get on with it.
Though as vaccination is very far from perfect at stopping transmission though very good at preventing serious disease, what is the objective?
To reduce the risk to pregnant women, or just to be beastly to the unvaxxed? Increasingly it looks like the latter.
I think it is entirely reasonable for the Health Service to seek to minimise risks to patients. It is clearly the case that vaccination does significantly reduce risks.
I think the "beastly to the unvaxxed" one is a red herring.
Is it clearly the case? By next month there's probably not going to be many health workers who don't have some immunity from prior infection or vaccination. Is someone who has recently had Omicron a significantly greater risk to patients than someone who has been vaccinated?
For a service caring for people who, for example, may have had their immune systems damaged by their condition, or deliberately as part of their treatment, I don't think that "probably" and "some" make a strong enough case.
For me the balance of this argument is firmly on the side of the precautionary principle wrt to patient safety.
OK, but I was asking if it is as you said "clearly the case" that vaccination of health care workers significantly reduces the risk to patients. If you are switching to the "precautionary principle" now, does that mean you no longer think that it is clearly the case?
I don't think I switched.
Vaccination does significantly reduce risk of transmission, and it is basic to the Health Service that risks to patients need to be minimised.
"First, do no harm"?
I don't know if the mandate is a good idea or not, I'm open to persuasion either way. Not that it matters what I think. But a bit more analysis of costs and benefits would be useful. Would comparing transmission for vaccinated staff vs recovered staff would be part of that?
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
I don’t know about that, it took me ages to realise Roger was also posting as MoonRabbit!!
Not many people seem to have twigged that SeaShantyIrish2 is also posting as "Leon"
I hope no one twigs that Carlotta and Malc are the same person
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
Aberdeenshire council is just one example of a council where the Tories are in senior jobs running big councils. If HY thinks that is nothing to save then frankly its gift week.
I am confused though. Someone who claims to be one of only a few true Tories is happy to throw elected colleagues under the bus. Someone who claims to be a staunch Unionist thinks only southern England has any sway.
Its almost as if he does the opposite of everything he claims to stand for. I don't want this to turn into a personalised pile-on, I'm just commenting on his words and trying to understand them.
With JRM saying that all Scottish MSPs and most Scottish MPs can be ignored and discarded I don't think that HY's "There is Nothing to Save" approach to the union is unique in the Conservative and Unionist Party...
In terms of domestic policy since devolution most Scottish affairs are decided at Holyrood not Westminster anyway, certainly for domestic matters. Labour's devomax plans would entrench that further.
Winning Scottish MPs only really matters now in terms of foreign and defence policy and major tax matters. Otherwise as long as the Conservatives won most English seats they could still decide most English domestic legislation given the SNP would abstain
People keep calling Sue Gray’s report “independent”. Jake Berry just did it on Today, several broadcast journalists have too. She might be independent-minded but she’s a serving permanent secretary — it’s not an independent report. Subtle distinction but really matters https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1481527097688563715
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
I agree that we are in a bizarre situation where performance wise the PM has actually done a good job. But this bizarre self inflicted rule breaking and the bizarre non apology way it's been handled means he absolutely has to go.
Not because he's not good at his job, but because those who impose these rules on us can't breach them themselves.
It's entirely unnecessary and self inflicted. It seems a bit like if a footballer already on a yellow card scores and takes his shirt off in the celebration: good job scoring but what are you playing at, now you have to get a red card and go.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
In which case I'll ask him to stick around, too.
He does like to impersonate Loadsamoney character. Personally it looked like handbags at dawn. He is a perfectly nice chap apart from his odd mention that he is loaded. If only it had been that scumbag Foreskin , I would have cheered from the rafters.
Personally I find his 'my family this and my family that' schtick a bit tedious but I value his contributions so do hope he reconsiders...
...if only to continue winding up oiks like me with a massive chip on our shoulders. ;-)
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
You are aware that everyone on PB is really SeanT?
The impressive thing is that many of us alter-egos are near to passing the Turing test. Closer indeed than the original (now discontinued) account.
Isn't the weather lovely today? Do you have any pets?
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
You are championing 220 seats as some sort of acceptable compromise for Boris remaining in post
Boris will be gone, most probably by the end of the month, but certainly by the end of May
I think May is more probable than end of this month.
My thinking on this is that conservative mps are facing an existential crisis and clearly are in constant discussions preparing for the release of Sue Gray's report which will report on all the alleged parties.
This is the moment of immediate great danger to Boris and I do expect a swift challenge to him
However, it he survives this then I agree May will see him go
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
Just so we're clear, you think there is "nothing to save" north of the border.
So there is no purpose in having your Scottish Conservatives running councils and council portfolios?
I'm just curious as to why you think anyone here should vote Conservative. You don't think that Tory MPs or Tory MSPs or Tory Councillors are anything to save, not worth having, providing no value despite running big councils like my own.
And you still consider yourself a loyal Conservative? What is Council leader Andy Kille? And you consider yourself a loyal unionist? What is MP and MSP Douglas Ross?
These are your colleagues. And you treat them with such disdain. Hardly an advert for Unionism or Conservatism is it?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
Johnson has a magic touch. Will it still be tainted 12, 18 months from a general election? That is what I imagine many Cons MPs are waiting to see.
Even if Bozo survives this and leads the Tories into the next GE the stench surrounding him will once again come to the fore when the opposition hammer the point home that you can’t trust a word he says and any election promises are likely to be broken .
The best thing for Labour is he limps on to the GE , the best thing for the country however is for Bozo to depart.
To be replaced by a ‘proper’ conservative, willing to drop the ‘green crap’ and cut public spending to balance the budget? Be careful what you wish for…
Cutting public spending wont retain the red wall.
And i’m willing to bet the “green crap” is popular in the wealthy lib dem targeted blue wall.
Doesn’t sound like a winning electoral strategy.
I think it’s starting to dawn on people, that the persuit of a decarbonised economy comes at a high price. Even the wealthy South East isn’t full of people who can easily stump up another £100 a *month* in energy bills.
Exactly. Support for this will soon diminish when people start to pay the bills and it is fine for wealthy middle class posters here to say we have to do it. They can afford to pay it.
Ultimately we have got to keep using fossil fuels until we can fully transition to renewables and they can deliver 100% of our growing energy needs all year round. That will not be for a very long time either. So impoverishing further the poor is not going to help.
The problem with fossil fuels - even setting all of the environmental issues aside - is that they are not the cheap alternative they once were. Whilst there is still an awful lot of oil and gas left its increasingly harder to get at and increasingly in the control of nations who aren't entirely friendly to the west.
The UK had this golden bonanza, a vast sea of oil and gas. And largely its gone. We sold off the oil rights so that others got rich instead of the state like in Norway, and we let the private sector burn gas instead of coal for bigger profits.
As a businessman I have no problem with turning a profit but it can't be short term over the interests of the long term as we have done. We're now increasingly at the mercy of international supply and international trading prices, so the idea that we can just bin off the "expensive" green energy for "cheaper" fossil energy is for the birds.
As always we need a mix. Oil and gas absolutely. Learn how to build nuclear reactors again. And develop tidal, wind, solar and hydrogen where we can become a world leader in these fields. It will be expensive at the start hence the need for mega subsidies. But the alternative is paying mega money to Putin and Sandpit's Sheikhs.
Sadly this ignores the reality of what is happening right now. The UK Government are actively preventing the development of existing and new Oil and Gas resources to the extent that companies are now shifting their emphasis to other parts of the world. They are doing this without putting in place the alternative energy supplies which means that we are now relying far more on hydrocarbons imported from places which do not have the same environmental controls and which are not, in many cases, predisposed to good relations with the UK.
What people don't realise is that the root of Norway's success is that they have maintained a remarkably stable set of regulations, tax regime and general outlook towards Oil and Gas for the last 40 years. In an environment where you are exploring for resources that may not make it to the market for a decade that is vital. It is a lesson the UK has never learnt.
I entirely agree and I don't think I was ignoring it, just commenting on another aspect of it. Our energy policy has been a disaster for 50 years.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
You are aware that everyone on PB is really SeanT?
The impressive thing is that many of us alter-egos are near to passing the Turing test. Closer indeed than the original (now discontinued) account.
Isn't the weather lovely today? Do you have any pets?
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Australia is free to have whatever rules they like for entry to their country. More worrying is the back story, that he’s either been ignoring several countries’ rules on covid infection, or provided misleading information on immigration forms.
Other countries, such as the USA, won’t look kindly on someone who previously has been deported from anywhere.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
I can see why they may not be comfortable ejecting him. I can't see what on earth made them comfortable electing him or pandering to his ambition to bring down the May government.
Because he was the right man for the job at the time, with the right policies and the right vision for the country.
That people who never liked his policies still don't like them, or him, doesn't make it wrong to have elected him at the time. The point of democracy is we can both elect leaders and when the time is right eject them too. We don't elect leaders for life.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
Absolutely disastrous for the opposition parties that BJ has strengthened his position as leader of the Tories, oh yes.
We’re all quaking in our boots.
I see he is in the fridge again, family member 10 x removed in outer Mongolia has covid so he is following the rules and isolating. Not scared to go oop north no siree.
He's not actually following the rules (again):
"Boris Johnson has cancelled a visit to a vaccination centre in Burnley today after a family member tested positive for Covid, Downing St has said.
The PM won’t have to isolate but No10 say he’s taking advice not to travel. He was due to give a pooled TV interview."
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
I think a fair bit hinges on the May local elections too. Will she report before then ?
Supposedly 4-6 weeks, probably at the long end as additional allegations have been made. Say mid-March?
Not impossible that readers will be bored by then - "oh not that stuff again". On the other hand, they probably already have a settled view on whether the Conservatives excel at telling the truth.
You’re assuming that BJ doesn’t continue his gaffe-a-week performance. Unlikely.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
Who are the 3 miscreants Topping, name and shame.
Malc that I am replying to you now I hope reassures you that you aren't one of them.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
I don’t know about that, it took me ages to realise Roger was also posting as MoonRabbit!!
Not many people seem to have twigged that SeaShantyIrish2 is also posting as "Leon"
I hope no one twigs that Carlotta and Malc are the same person
Douglas Ross being advised to maintain dignified silence and not respond to JRM and other attacks from Boris bunker. We'll see. But if PM is forced out that, arguably, strengthens Scottish Tories and Union a bit. They'll get some of the credit.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pulled out of a planned visit to Lancashire "due to a family member testing positive for coronavirus", Downing Street says.
Meanwhile in other news...Restrictions on vaccinated people travelling from the UK to France are being relaxed ([tomorrow]), the country's tourism minister says.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
So 600 years ago and in a dozen-odd countries today negates my statement about "the extent to which the State has [now] intruded into our personal lives"?
I can't believe Johnson is going anywhere. This year or next.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings. 2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind. 3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job. 4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
I like Charles. He reminds me of a notorious name-dropper I knew in the 1980s. He’s like an historical artefact.
He’ll probably do what Sean, Philip and hundreds of others have done and pop up with a new username. He’ll be super easy to spot as, like many great writers, he has a very distinctive voice.
Charles barely name drops.
If you want name dropping, you want Woger in his heyday.
Roger is another great writer with a very distinctive voice. He’d be easy to spot if he ever changes username. (Not sure if Roger is his real name.)
I don’t know about that, it took me ages to realise Roger was also posting as MoonRabbit!!
Not many people seem to have twigged that SeaShantyIrish2 is also posting as "Leon"
I hope no one twigs that Carlotta and Malc are the same person
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
Must have lost a lot balls playing tennis in Venice.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
Reading her profile in the Graun she sounds like an encouragingly independent-minded person. Apparently she took a career break in the eighties to run a bar in Northern Ireland. For reasons that I don't fully understand this endeared me to her greatly.* * not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
The You Gov poll is very poor for the Tories; but it isn't that good for Labour either. With the Tories down on 28%, Labour should really be polling in the 40s rather than a modest 38%.
However, I understand the poll was taken before yesterday's shenanigans. I'd expect the weekend polls to knock a couple of the Tories and add a couple on to Labour - 40% to 26%? If I'm right, that would focus the thoughts of a few more Tory MPs.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
I didn't know that. I'm pretty shocked if that's the case (and I have no reason to disbelieve you). Are you saying that a Google search for example didn't bring a link to the statement, rather than just having some kind of text warning that the statement was disputed etc?
Definitely not the case now. I do seem to recall finding it rather easily at the time, too.
I've just Googled 'Great Barrington Declaration' and you're right, it gives you a link to where you would expect.
But at the time, if you googled it, you got a link to a site explaining why it was wrong/discredited etc.
If you wanted to find the site itself, you had to find another search engine (duckduckgo, for example). Google refused to link to it. I'm not sure how long that lasted for.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
Hey! The rich tapestry which is PB will be slightly less rich without you. No use saying stay because you'll come and go as you please as we all do.
Charles is one of the few posters I've met with for a drink. I won't say where or in these febrile times I'll be accused of name dropping! But liked him. I suspect many of us in person are not as others imagine us. I mean Charles in a LEAVER and he didn't even have horns.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
Reading her profile in the Graun she sounds like an encouragingly independent-minded person. Apparently she took a career break in the eighties to run a bar in Northern Ireland. For reasons that I don't fully understand this endeared me to her greatly.* * not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
That is *very* cool, if not a mistake for "be at the bar."
Like Sunak, she got the gig by accident cos her boss fell over. Omen there.
As people who were around last night may have seen, I had a small spat with someone.
While I’ve never made a particular secret of my identity this individual chose to highlight the fact that he knew some of my family in the real world.
That really doesn’t sit well with me and, frankly, doesn’t fit with the culture of this place which - to my mind - has always operated on “Chatham house rules”.
So it’s time for me to say goodbye.
Have fun and play nice. I shall miss the wit and insight.
I hope you reconsider, you would be much missed.
He probably needs another 3-4 people asking him to stay before the reverse flounce is on.
In which case I'll ask him to stick around, too.
He does like to impersonate Loadsamoney character. Personally it looked like handbags at dawn. He is a perfectly nice chap apart from his odd mention that he is loaded. If only it had been that scumbag Foreskin , I would have cheered from the rafters.
Personally I find his 'my family this and my family that' schtick a bit tedious but I value his contributions so do hope he reconsiders...
...if only to continue winding up oiks like me with a massive chip on our shoulders. ;-)
As an oik who has never met anyone of note, I quite enjoy the occasional name-dropping of some PBers, and their different styles. But more so, the different expertise and experience of people here, including the pharma investment world of @Charles
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Your problem is that Boris shows no understanding of the things which cause him problems, no interest in understanding them and no willingness to remedy them.
If "Boris" did not do these things perpetually he would still be a comedic political hack. It is his willingness to consistently break the rules without giving a shit that has driven his political career.
It depends on which rules.
People have been saying for years that Boris was sacked by the Spectator for lying.
But nobody outside the bubble cares about that.
When its rules imposed on the proles then the proles do care.
The JRM treatment of Ross et al is a fairly logical thing given the Cons morphing towards english nationalistism over the last decade. Arguably the SNPs greatest achievement.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
I am trying to work out a function, measuring data on social media, when they will come for Gandhi, in Tavistock Square.
I am interested in the blind spots - I have talked to my daughters about this and the younger generation have a completely different set of hate figures than you might imagine. No interest in Cromwell... Even though they get taught at school about his acts in Ireland etc. Too remote, it seems - it has as much interest as pulling down statues of Richard I for the Crusades....
It seems that a certain nearness in history is required.
I can't believe Johnson is going anywhere. This year or next.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings. 2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind. 3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job. 4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
I think that's right, barring either more party revelations from the Phantom Leaker or some fresh scandal.
On the latter point it's worth remembering we have in the past few months had Paterson, Wallpapergate, Afghan hounds and Partygate x n.
What's next? Could be anything - PPE contracts scam linked directly to Johnson wouldn't be surprising.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
Absolutely disastrous for the opposition parties that BJ has strengthened his position as leader of the Tories, oh yes.
We’re all quaking in our boots.
I see he is in the fridge again, family member 10 x removed in outer Mongolia has covid so he is following the rules and isolating. Not scared to go oop north no siree.
He's not actually following the rules (again):
"Boris Johnson has cancelled a visit to a vaccination centre in Burnley today after a family member tested positive for Covid, Downing St has said.
The PM won’t have to isolate but No10 say he’s taking advice not to travel. He was due to give a pooled TV interview."
The You Gov poll is very poor for the Tories; but it isn't that good for Labour either. With the Tories down on 28%, Labour should really be polling in the 40s rather than a modest 38%.
However, I understand the poll was taken before yesterday's shenanigans. I'd expect the weekend polls to knock a couple of the Tories and add a couple on to Labour - 40% to 26%? If I'm right, that would focus the thoughts of a few more Tory MPs.
As a rule of thumb I add half the GRN share to LAB because that is what has happened at recent elections.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
I disagree on Johnson, in that I think he should go for this. The rules were controversial and grated for those of us with a more liberal bent (particularly the daft rules on meeting outside) but can be stomached, just about, if those imposing them follow them to the letter, even if shown to be over the top in hindsight - honest mistakes made on limited information etc. But if the rule makers ignored them at the time then the rest of us feel like we were taken for fools. And we don't like that.
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
Johnson has a magic touch. Will it still be tainted 12, 18 months from a general election? That is what I imagine many Cons MPs are waiting to see.
He is a burst balloon. A busted flush. Beria in the final 10 minutes of Death of Stalin. There is no coming back from this. Sunak will be PM at the conference.
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
Absolutely disastrous for the opposition parties that BJ has strengthened his position as leader of the Tories, oh yes.
We’re all quaking in our boots.
I see he is in the fridge again, family member 10 x removed in outer Mongolia has covid so he is following the rules and isolating. Not scared to go oop north no siree.
He's not actually following the rules (again):
"Boris Johnson has cancelled a visit to a vaccination centre in Burnley today after a family member tested positive for Covid, Downing St has said.
The PM won’t have to isolate but No10 say he’s taking advice not to travel. He was due to give a pooled TV interview."
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
I think a fair bit hinges on the May local elections too. Will she report before then ?
Supposedly 4-6 weeks, probably at the long end as additional allegations have been made. Say mid-March?
Not impossible that readers will be bored by then - "oh not that stuff again". On the other hand, they probably already have a settled view on whether the Conservatives excel at telling the truth.
With 4-6 weeks notice it shouldn't be beyond Boris to come up with some kind of reasonably spectacular distraction.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Oh well, looks like I’m still in a very small minority when it comes to the PM.
I don’t have any particular like for the guy, have met several sales people with similar personalities over the years and know not to trust them as far as I can throw them. He was in the right place at the right time in 2019 though, and added many Conservative seats in traditionally Labour areas.
He wouldn’t have been many people’s choice to handle a pandemic, but the vaccine rollout was brilliant and in recent times he’s avoided imposing restrictions that were put in place elsewhere.
When the LotO calls directly for the PM to resign, and he doesn’t, that makes Starmer look weak. All the attacks at PMQs will have done is strengthened his position, even if it’s only on a temporary basis.
Absolutely disastrous for the opposition parties that BJ has strengthened his position as leader of the Tories, oh yes.
We’re all quaking in our boots.
I see he is in the fridge again, family member 10 x removed in outer Mongolia has covid so he is following the rules and isolating. Not scared to go oop north no siree.
He's not actually following the rules (again):
"Boris Johnson has cancelled a visit to a vaccination centre in Burnley today after a family member tested positive for Covid, Downing St has said.
The PM won’t have to isolate but No10 say he’s taking advice not to travel. He was due to give a pooled TV interview."
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
Reading her profile in the Graun she sounds like an encouragingly independent-minded person. Apparently she took a career break in the eighties to run a bar in Northern Ireland. For reasons that I don't fully understand this endeared me to her greatly.* * not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
Running a bar in NI could very... entertaining in the 80s. Depends where, though.....
I can't believe Johnson is going anywhere. This year or next.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings. 2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind. 3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job. 4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
I think that's right, barring either more party revelations from the Phantom Leaker or some fresh scandal.
On the latter point it's worth remembering we have in the past few months had Paterson, Wallpapergate, Afghan hounds and Partygate x n.
What's next? Could be anything - PPE contracts scam linked directly to Johnson wouldn't be surprising.
PPE scam linked to Boris directly would surprise me - he isn't that bright about money to be able to organise such a scheme.
Seriously if anyone asked Boris about PPE you just know he would refer you to Hancock or someone because he would be too busy.
The You Gov poll is very poor for the Tories; but it isn't that good for Labour either. With the Tories down on 28%, Labour should really be polling in the 40s rather than a modest 38%.
However, I understand the poll was taken before yesterday's shenanigans. I'd expect the weekend polls to knock a couple of the Tories and add a couple on to Labour - 40% to 26%? If I'm right, that would focus the thoughts of a few more Tory MPs.
As a rule of thumb I add half the GRN share to LAB because that is what has happened at recent elections.
Yes, same here. But I think my comment still stands.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
So 600 years ago and in a dozen-odd countries today negates my statement about "the extent to which the State has [now] intruded into our personal lives"?
Probably not, but it's interesting. There are also still countries that restrict entry for people with HIV, for example.
I can't believe Johnson is going anywhere. This year or next.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings. 2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind. 3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job. 4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
On Sunak: have you seen Don't Look Now? I don't see any evidence of cowardice. Going to Cornwall yesterday was a ballsy decision.
Due to Covid etc, overseas trips by UK Labour shadow foreign secretaries have been non-existent. But Lammy along with shadow defence secretary John Healey is due in Ukraine today in support of Ukrainian sovereignty. A contrast drawn with Labour response to Salisbury poisoning.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Your problem is that Boris shows no understanding of the things which cause him problems, no interest in understanding them and no willingness to remedy them.
If "Boris" did not do these things perpetually he would still be a comedic political hack. It is his willingness to consistently break the rules without giving a shit that has driven his political career.
It depends on which rules.
People have been saying for years that Boris was sacked by the Spectator for lying.
But nobody outside the bubble cares about that.
When its rules imposed on the proles then the proles do care.
There's also the fact that he created and imposed those rules on the proles before breaking them. That adds insult to injury.
There's a cliche that lawmakers can't be lawbreakers (I used that line myself) but it's not always true. If someone is opposed to the law they're breaking and the people are ok to elect them then that's okay in my eyes.
Eg if while homosexuality was illegal the public chose to elect an openly gay politician who wanted it legalised then that'd be fair enough.
It's the hypocrisy of passing a law on us, then breaking it, that is impossible to stomach.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
It might depend on exactly what Sue Gray is investigating. For the 20/5 BYOB do, it ought to be straightforward to establish the recipients of Reynolds' email and their responses. If, however, she is trying to chase down every suspect event over a year anywhere in Whitehall, she might be up against it.
In the official announcement of JVT stepping down, he pays tribute to Whitty, officials, scientists, public health professionals and clinicians for their “wisdom and energy” during the pandemic but interestingly this list does not include ministers https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1481556400476200961/photo/1
I can't believe Johnson is going anywhere. This year or next.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings. 2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind. 3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job. 4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
You make a reasonable point. It's difficult to imagine Rees Mogg coming out to bat for Truss as he did for the Bullingdon Boy last night on Newsnight.
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
"Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives."
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
Indeed.
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
Must have lost a lot balls playing tennis in Venice.
Now I am thinking of Brian Blessed pronouncing these words, as only he could
In the official announcement of JVT stepping down, he pays tribute to Whitty, officials, scientists, public health professionals and clinicians for their “wisdom and energy” during the pandemic but interestingly this list does not include ministers https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1481556400476200961/photo/1
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
Reading her profile in the Graun she sounds like an encouragingly independent-minded person. Apparently she took a career break in the eighties to run a bar in Northern Ireland. For reasons that I don't fully understand this endeared me to her greatly.* * not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
Running a bar in NI could very... entertaining in the 80s. Depends where, though.....
Outside Newry, Co Down, apparently. Ran it with her husband, a country and western singer from the area. (I'm getting visions of Bob's Country Bunker from the Blues Brothers, perhaps unfairly).
I've just Googled 'Great Barrington Declaration' and you're right, it gives you a link to where you would expect.
But at the time, if you googled it, you got a link to a site explaining why it was wrong/discredited etc.
If you wanted to find the site itself, you had to find another search engine (duckduckgo, for example). Google refused to link to it. I'm not sure how long that lasted for.
The pub in Great Barrington (the Fox) is very good. A combination of old-style Cotswold local (before Elisabeth Murdoch and the Bamfords got in and started buying them all up), stop-off for drunken Irishmen on the way back from Cheltenham races, and chilled-out family-friendly riverside terrace.
If Google was directing people there rather than to some half-arsed covid opinion from a bampot libertarian institute in the States, then well done Google for once.
I am energised and excited that HYUFD is supporting the campaign to remove Conservative councillors here in Scotland. I would like to invite him to come leaflet with me in Fraserburgh to unseat Aberdeenshire Council leader Andy Kille, who's leadership he describes as "nothing to save".
I think that "Nothing to Save" is a fine election slogan when you run a council.
Aberdeenshire is NOC not Conservative majority controlled
He didn't say it was. He referred to him as council leader. No idea if that is accurate, but he never said it was majority controlled.
And my original comment was the Conservatives control no council in Scotland, which is correct. Not a single council in Scotland has a Conservative majority of its councillors
“ the Conservatives control no council in Scotland”
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
Could call Andy Kille in the Council Leader's office at the council office (which interestingly is in Aberdeen city - another council's area...) and tell him that although he runs the council he really doesn't and there is nothing to save.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
I am trying to work out a function, measuring data on social media, when they will come for Gandhi, in Tavistock Square.
I am interested in the blind spots - I have talked to my daughters about this and the younger generation have a completely different set of hate figures than you might imagine. No interest in Cromwell... Even though they get taught at school about his acts in Ireland etc. Too remote, it seems - it has as much interest as pulling down statues of Richard I for the Crusades....
It seems that a certain nearness in history is required.
Very interesting discussion at 08:57 on R4 Today about just this - one side saying Broadcasting House of all places (after Savile, etc) shouldn't be showcasing child abusers. The other side was it's art slippery slope.
The saving grace for the Tories in this poll is that it is still mostly Tory 2019 voters now saying would not vote/don't know/refused. 33% of Tory 2019 voters are wnv/dk/r, compared to 15% of Labour 2019 voters.
If those figures were to become the same, and the 18% return to the Tories, they would regain a lead*. This is why support for all the opposition parties is up: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and assorted nationalist parties, as the size of the base of voters who give a voting intention is smaller, so the same absolute level of support is a higher percentage of the whole.
In particular 41% of Leave voters now say wnv/dk/r. Those voters are there to be won. Can Starmer win them round?
* The corollary is that, if Starmer and Labour convince them to vote Labour to kick the Tories out, then the vote shares become Labour 45 - 25 Conservative.
Note even if 145 Tory MPs lost their seats on last night's polls, 220 Tory MPs would still keep their seats even after this onslaught.
So no certainty over 50% of Tory MPs will vote to no confidence Boris yet before he has had a chance to recover and end the remaining Covid restrictions for example
Are you referring to a VONC if Starmer tabled one?
If so, why would a CP MP express no confidence against Johnson in a VONC (which would be public) rather than writing to Brady (which would be private)?
I think a VONC prior to Gray reporting would be a mistake; the awaited report gives Tories an easy free pass to unite, even those who want the clown to step down.
The counter-argument would be that if a significant number of Tories were prepared to stand up and speak against their leader Geoffrey Howe style, it might finish him off. That's a judgement call they can only make in Parliament.
I'd guess that the most probable outcome of Sue Grey's report will be highly critical but say nothing about consequences - "rules were broken on 4 occasions, as follows..." - that sort of thing. Johnson will look suitably apologetic and say it was very hectic in mid-pandemic, but no excuses, I take responsibility, in the unlikely event of future restrictions, I will keep this totally in mind.
Do we think that Tory MPs will then vote him out? I think it's actually less likely than now - people will see it as anti-climax since they're sort of expecting a "This is a resignation issue" finding which a civil servant will nor deliver.
It's in the national interest, and the Conservative partisan interest (not the same thing) for BoJo to go pronto.
But it's in nobody's personal interest to be the one that presses the red button.
That might change, or events might move from "too early" to "too late" with no sweet spot in between.
Gray's verdict is likely to be recommendation for further investigations under ministerial code
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
Reading her profile in the Graun she sounds like an encouragingly independent-minded person. Apparently she took a career break in the eighties to run a bar in Northern Ireland. For reasons that I don't fully understand this endeared me to her greatly.* * not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
Running a bar in NI could very... entertaining in the 80s. Depends where, though.....
Indeed. One example which was (literally) close to home when I was there.
Comments
@patrickkmaguire
Van-Tam has been on a repeatedly-extended secondment from the University of Nottingham since 2017 and told senior health officials yesterday that his loan was up.
Understand not directly related to parties or policy – but in this of all weeks...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/13/no-10-parties-inquiry-boris-johnson-sue-gray-former-civil-servants
So not clear cut. Unless she decides nothing to see here at all, everything is fine. Which I doubt.
I must book that rehab spot, desist with buying the services of prostitutes and stop being a total shitebag. What a great set of new year resolutions.
(I'd like to plug again his excellent RI Christmas Lectures last Christmas.)
Djoko if nothing else is highlighting the extraordinary times we live in and the extent to which "the State" has intruded into our personal lives.
Boris useless twat as he is I expect Sue Grey's report to not make any conclusions with something like "it could be seen as...." as damning as it gets.
Masked Singer - no stand out performance yet.
Prince Andrew - haven't been following it.
Nicola Sturgeon - those calling for Boris to resign shouldn't be as casual to dismiss her transgression.
Succession - still trying to get into the latest season am struggling on
@Charles - tricky one. Slightly wants to run with the hare (it's all an anonymous chat room Chatham House rules, etc) and hunt with the hounds (this is who I am and my family did/does XYZ). But as with everyone apart from about three posters whose posts I routinely skip, he is an important part of PB so I'd rather he stayed.
Oh and it was blindingly obvious they would come for Eric Gill given the green light over Colston.
Aberdeenshire council is just one example of a council where the Tories are in senior jobs running big councils. If HY thinks that is nothing to save then frankly its gift week.
I am confused though. Someone who claims to be one of only a few true Tories is happy to throw elected colleagues under the bus. Someone who claims to be a staunch Unionist thinks only southern England has any sway.
Its almost as if he does the opposite of everything he claims to stand for. I don't want this to turn into a personalised pile-on, I'm just commenting on his words and trying to understand them.
With JRM saying that all Scottish MSPs and most Scottish MPs can be ignored and discarded I don't think that HY's "There is Nothing to Save" approach to the union is unique in the Conservative and Unionist Party...
But I do agree that it's a bizarre self-made disaster when he should really be riding high right now as the leader who resisted panic/caution (delete according to personal viewpoint) over Omicron and appears to have been proven right on that. It was a big call and he got it right. That may have been more from being forced to by cabinet or through fear of the CRG sending in their letters or the embarassment of having to rely on Labour votes to pass anything else, but as leader he takes the credit just as he (should) take the blame when things go wrong.
I don't think calling for resignation and failing to get it makes Starmer look weak. He'd have looked a numpty if he'd not called on Johnson to resign. The failure of the Conservative party MPs to eject Johnson makes them look weak/spineless.
IMV this is a bogus argument, as vaccinations for things like yellow fever have been required to get into some countries for generations. AIUI polio is another one for some countries.
I agree on Starmer. He's timed the resignation call perfectly, for maximum effect and when he knows the country is behind it. That Boris doesn't resign and the MPs and ministers - by the look of things - demur on removing him is helpful because it tars the rest of the party with the same brush and takes the shine off any shiny new leader if they come from the cabinet.
What people don't realise is that the root of Norway's success is that they have maintained a remarkably stable set of regulations, tax regime and general outlook towards Oil and Gas for the last 40 years. In an environment where you are exploring for resources that may not make it to the market for a decade that is vital. It is a lesson the UK has never learnt.
Winning Scottish MPs only really matters now in terms of foreign and defence policy and major tax matters. Otherwise as long as the Conservatives won most English seats they could still decide most English domestic legislation given the SNP would abstain
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1481527097688563715
Not because he's not good at his job, but because those who impose these rules on us can't breach them themselves.
It's entirely unnecessary and self inflicted. It seems a bit like if a footballer already on a yellow card scores and takes his shirt off in the celebration: good job scoring but what are you playing at, now you have to get a red card and go.
...if only to continue winding up oiks like me with a massive chip on our shoulders. ;-)
Isn't the weather lovely today? Do you have any pets?
So there is no purpose in having your Scottish Conservatives running councils and council portfolios?
I'm just curious as to why you think anyone here should vote Conservative. You don't think that Tory MPs or Tory MSPs or Tory Councillors are anything to save, not worth having, providing no value despite running big councils like my own.
And you still consider yourself a loyal Conservative? What is Council leader Andy Kille?
And you consider yourself a loyal unionist? What is MP and MSP Douglas Ross?
These are your colleagues. And you treat them with such disdain. Hardly an advert for Unionism or Conservatism is it?
One of the first legal interventions (that we have records of) by the state in health care was -
The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days.
Wonder if there were any tennis players on the ships at Venice.....
My bonsai mountain requires watering.
Other countries, such as the USA, won’t look kindly on someone who previously has been deported from anywhere.
That people who never liked his policies still don't like them, or him, doesn't make it wrong to have elected him at the time. The point of democracy is we can both elect leaders and when the time is right eject them too. We don't elect leaders for life.
"Boris Johnson has cancelled a visit to a vaccination centre in Burnley today after a family member tested positive for Covid, Downing St has said.
The PM won’t have to isolate but No10 say he’s taking advice not to travel. He was due to give a pooled TV interview."
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1481549184830521345?s=20
Has anyone else with #longCOVID received monoclonal antibodies to SARS-CoV-2? Please share your experience. More data will help justify a clinical trial. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1481346890662879245
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1481557258530013186?s=21
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pulled out of a planned visit to Lancashire "due to a family member testing positive for coronavirus", Downing Street says.
Meanwhile in other news...Restrictions on vaccinated people travelling from the UK to France are being relaxed ([tomorrow]), the country's tourism minister says.
1. Lack of an obvious successor. Tiny Dancer is a shifty little coward, Live Laugh Truss is not "one of us". There's that one with the big head and that one that always looks like he's about to burst into tears. After that it's slim pickings.
2. If they come at the king, they better not miss. They'll be stuck with him for at least another year and they know he's a vindictive shit with a nasty streak as broad as Therese Coffey's behind.
3. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong or is doing anything but a brilliant job.
4. NutNut loves being FLOTUK and as he is a master cocksman he has to placate her at all costs.
* not sure if I've got the whole "endeared X to Y" construction the right way round here. You know what I mean, anyway.
However, I understand the poll was taken before yesterday's shenanigans. I'd expect the weekend polls to knock a couple of the Tories and add a couple on to Labour - 40% to 26%? If I'm right, that would focus the thoughts of a few more Tory MPs.
But at the time, if you googled it, you got a link to a site explaining why it was wrong/discredited etc.
If you wanted to find the site itself, you had to find another search engine (duckduckgo, for example). Google refused to link to it.
I'm not sure how long that lasted for.
Charles is one of the few posters I've met with for a drink. I won't say where or in these febrile times I'll be accused of name dropping! But liked him. I suspect many of us in person are not as others imagine us. I mean Charles in a LEAVER and he didn't even have horns.
Like Sunak, she got the gig by accident cos her boss fell over. Omen there.
People have been saying for years that Boris was sacked by the Spectator for lying.
But nobody outside the bubble cares about that.
When its rules imposed on the proles then the proles do care.
I am interested in the blind spots - I have talked to my daughters about this and the younger generation have a completely different set of hate figures than you might imagine. No interest in Cromwell... Even though they get taught at school about his acts in Ireland etc. Too remote, it seems - it has as much interest as pulling down statues of Richard I for the Crusades....
It seems that a certain nearness in history is required.
On the latter point it's worth remembering we have in the past few months had Paterson, Wallpapergate, Afghan hounds and Partygate x n.
What's next? Could be anything - PPE contracts scam linked directly to Johnson wouldn't be surprising.
Please do not leave as your comments are always insightful.
You can always rejoin with a nom de plume.
Otherwise, how could I and others get you to vote LibDem?
Have you informed Douglas Ross?
In fairness, if it is one of the children, not naming is entirely correct and understandable.
Seriously if anyone asked Boris about PPE you just know he would refer you to Hancock or someone because he would be too busy.
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1481558565064265728?s=20
There's a cliche that lawmakers can't be lawbreakers (I used that line myself) but it's not always true. If someone is opposed to the law they're breaking and the people are ok to elect them then that's okay in my eyes.
Eg if while homosexuality was illegal the public chose to elect an openly gay politician who wanted it legalised then that'd be fair enough.
It's the hypocrisy of passing a law on us, then breaking it, that is impossible to stomach.
EXETER - Tennis balls, my liege.
So it's a shame that Charles has departed.
If Google was directing people there rather than to some half-arsed covid opinion from a bampot libertarian institute in the States, then well done Google for once.
I thought JRM was spectacularly tone-deaf last night. But compared to HY...
If those figures were to become the same, and the 18% return to the Tories, they would regain a lead*. This is why support for all the opposition parties is up: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and assorted nationalist parties, as the size of the base of voters who give a voting intention is smaller, so the same absolute level of support is a higher percentage of the whole.
In particular 41% of Leave voters now say wnv/dk/r. Those voters are there to be won. Can Starmer win them round?
* The corollary is that, if Starmer and Labour convince them to vote Labour to kick the Tories out, then the vote shares become Labour 45 - 25 Conservative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droppin_Well_bombing