The PM’s branding Starmer as “a lawyer” hardly a negative – politicalbetting.com

System

The PM’s branding Starmer as “a lawyer” hardly a negative – politicalbetting.com

At today’s PMQs Johnson sought to make Starmer’s background as a lawyer into as an attack line. He described him as “A lawyer not a leader”.

Read the full story here

Taz

Furst, as in Josef. Nothing in the world can stop me now !!!!

TheScreamingEagles

Excellent riposte, everyone loves lawyers.

Odd that Boris Johnson chose today of all days to piss off the entire legal profession.

He's going to need some representation shortly.

Leon

This is quite shocking polling. Fair comment on journalists, but have the British people never met any lawyers??!!

TheScreamingEagles

Anyhoo, I'd much rather have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

Stocky

Perhaps Starmer the lawyer could start challenging the government on why I'm still not allowed to visit my own mother who is in a care home:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/01/25/care-homes-chose-safety-compassion-nothing-short-barbaric/

SouthamObserver

Leon said:

This is quite shocking polling. Fair comment on journalists, but have the British people never met any lawyers??!!

Most probably haven't.

Stocky

Lol. Local councillors.

bigjohnowls

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

tlg86

So...

Have any pollsters asked the British public what Boris Johnson was before he went into politics?

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent riposte, everyone loves lawyers.

Odd that Boris Johnson chose today of all days to piss off the entire legal profession.

He's going to need some representation shortly.

Johnson also has north of three dozen lawyers sitting as Tory MPs. They can't all have letters in already.

SouthamObserver

The reason I want Johnson gone is that his staying demeans our country. I do also worry that he might bounce back, but again largely because of what that would say about us as a country.

Mexicanpete

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent riposte, everyone loves lawyers.

Odd that Boris Johnson chose today of all days to piss off the entire legal profession.

He's going to need some representation shortly.

As a child I read the books of Anthony Buckerridge and Geoffrey Willans. Johnson's behaviour these days reminds me very much of Jennings and Nigel Molesworth.

He's nothing but wizard wheezes.

Cyclefree

FPT but entirely on topic.

I am a cussed sort of a person.And a lawyer. I value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

Nigel_Foremain

Great header. I wonder how long it will be before someone does a meme listing all the great world leaders who have been lawyers and contrasting them with Johnson!

MattW

Interesting in the context of Geoffrey Cox MP.

Razedabode

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Leon

fpt for OnlyLivingBoy


"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited.
To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."

++++


That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)

Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.

Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time

One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....

bigjohnowls

"After nearly two years into Starmer’s leadership they have yet to find a means of undermining him in a manner that resonates".

Every Tory i know calls him Captain Hindsight

TheScreamingEagles

Totally agree.

If the Labour Party or a tabloid newspaper aren’t currently getting a junior member of staff fitted for a cake costume and told to follow the PM around then I despair for the state of British politics.

https://twitter.com/Sean_Kemp/status/1486087522593685508

Mexicanpete

SouthamObserver said:

The reason I want Johnson gone is that his staying demeans our country. I do also worry that he might bounce back, but again largely because of what that would say about us as a country.

There is that, but let's just be done with the wretched man. Sunak, Hunt? I really don't care, we need to get rid of this outrageous clown.

Pulpstar

The irony of all this is, is that Boris is going to use the absolute fucking worst sort of lawyering legal technicality defense for all of his shitty behaviour.

Farooq

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

RandallFlagg

bigjohnowls said:

"After nearly two years into Starmer’s leadership they have yet to find a means of undermining him in a manner that resonates".

Every Tory i know calls him Captain Hindsight

They also called Blair 'Bambi'.
Remind me how that went?

Cyclefree

There are lawyers and lawyers.

Suella Braverman is hardly an advert for the profession. Or Shami Chakrabarti.

Nigel_Foremain

Leon said:

This is quite shocking polling. Fair comment on journalists, but have the British people never met any lawyers??!!

I imagine plenty have. Maybe they have written a will or something like that and found the lawyer helpful. Not all lawyers are ambulance chasers, but then to be fair not all journalists are phone hackers. Some write nice travel journal columns.

IshmaelZ

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

FrankBooth

As I understand it for the first time since the end of the Delta wave last spring excess deaths in England and Wales are now below the 5 year average.

Thank god for Omicron?

MoonRabbit

The part and script Starmer brought today was in the wrong play. He bombed.
Boris was brilliant because what people don’t understand is PMQs is not about PM answering questions.
Unlike previous weeks, Boris had been cribbing from my posts on PB - a plan to unite and level up repeated over and over along with we are the party trusted on delivery, and listing strong delivery.
Now do you believe me, the danger of a successful vonc Q1 Q2 is long gone?

Also I don’t buy Boris staying there is good for Labour and Libdems. I really can’t rule Boris out maintaining a majority at next election can you? He’s always been loved for his star turn boosterism not his honesty or puritan lifestyle.

For those of us who value probity and respect for values, not least proper leadership, a chance has passed by Q1 this year, because so many Tory MPs just don’t see sunlit uplands without Boris dream machine.

Andy_JS

New Dr John Campbell video: "Study confirms omicron reinfections"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32vDjyNE-M

TOPPING

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Yep. Absolutely and having (thx @IshmaelZ ) read the whole of that civil servant's testimony I would be absolutely delighted if it brought BJ down. Indeed I fervently hope it does.
.

Endillion

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

TOPPING

As for Boris, as with last and this week's PMQs, Boris realises that his magic doesn't lie in being contrite and behaving like a whipped dog in TV interviews it lies in rumbunctious displays of go fuck yourself at PMQs vs SKS.

Nigel_Foremain

RandallFlagg said:

bigjohnowls said:

"After nearly two years into Starmer’s leadership they have yet to find a means of undermining him in a manner that resonates".

Every Tory i know calls him Captain Hindsight

They also called Blair 'Bambi'.
Remind me how that went?

Yep and Labour called Cameron "Chameleon" and one PB poster used to insist on calling him Dave "Camera on" which was really witty.

HYUFD

It is not a line which will make much difference I agree, as has been pointed out Thatcher was a lawyer as was Michael Howard and there were no complaints from Tories about their leadership. There are even some lawyers in Boris' Cabinet eg Dominic Raab and Suella Braverman.

However I would expect Tory voters, especially post Brexit Tory voters, to be keener on business leaders than lawyers, so in that sense that is why Boris is using it

Leon

Endillion said:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Who the hell Flagged this?

It's a famously brilliant Shakespeare quote. And entirely apposite

Pulpstar

FrankBooth said:

As I understand it for the first time since the end of the Delta wave last spring excess deaths in England and Wales are now below the 5 year average.

Thank god for Omicron?

Have to be careful with a 5 year moving average as it will start to incorporate periods when Covid was about, so it will move artificially high for a bit. Comparison to a 2015-2019 baseline would probably be best.

darkage

FPT

Cyclefree said:

I am a cussed sort of a person. I also value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

Yes, the damage is done by his conduct, and his lying, both of which have caused his sharp decline in popularity. I have wondered whether that his potential exonneration in a strict legal sense may not help him; because people will simply conclude that the whole system is corrupt. It could well make matters worse than they are at present. By contrast, if he gets a 'ticket' from the Met, he may just be able to shrug it off and draw a line under the whole business.

I am not sure the wider lesson has been learned. These were astonishingly bad laws. More and more laws are just a heap of rubbish. All the principles built up over the 20th Century, and the safeguards built up within administrative state to prevent bad laws from seeing the light of day, have been junked. The rot goes back many decades, but this is about as bad as it has ever been. Nothing has been learned from the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Beibheirli_C

Cyclefree said:

FPT but entirely on topic.

I am a cussed sort of a person.And a lawyer. I value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

But surely the point is that reputational damage to the No.10 operation is being done regardless of the legal points? People can clearly see that, whether technically legal or not, the rules are being flouted by the very people who set them.

Legality and the finer points are for the cops and lawyers to deal with, but spotting hypocrisy does not need a lot of training nor expertise.

Nigel_Foremain

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excellent riposte, everyone loves lawyers.

Odd that Boris Johnson chose today of all days to piss off the entire legal profession.

He's going to need some representation shortly.

Johnson also has north of three dozen lawyers sitting as Tory MPs. They can't all have letters in already.

Was that the final straw for you David? Now completely in the "Right of Centre but Johnson is Shit Club" or still wavering?

FrankBooth

Lawyers are seen as competent and decisive. Journalists are seen as untrustworthy and dislikeable.

Although that doesn't mean Starmer and Johnson conform to the stereotype.

Andy_JS

SouthamObserver said:

The reason I want Johnson gone is that his staying demeans our country. I do also worry that he might bounce back, but again largely because of what that would say about us as a country.

He won't be leader at the next election. Too risky. It's just a question of when he goes between now and then.

WhisperingOracle

IshmaelZ said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

And the Mail - again. They absolutely want him out, which is a new position for a Tory prime minister, except for the last few months of Theresa May's government, which even then wasn't like this.

Razedabode

TOPPING said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Yep. Absolutely and having (thx @IshmaelZ ) read the whole of that civil servant's testimony I would be absolutely delighted if it brought BJ down. Indeed I fervently hope it does.
.

It cost lives. And yet he continued to deny he was involved.

How much worse can this get before Tory MPs act

Selebian

As a scientist, I think we're too high up (and doctors are too, probably). Great attention to detail, but a narrow field and sometimes too wedded to evidence over common sense.

Scientific training would be very useful and maybe even a science career in industry.* But the way that we generally do science in academia is not well suited to running a country - advising those running a country, certainly; creating the evidence on which policies work and which do not, for sure.

I'd probably go for business people as top. Generally broad experience, used to making big decisons on uncertain data that have direct and often personal consequences.

*Includes Thatcher, obviously. I'm too young to really remember her rule directly so I don't have that strong a view, but I'd suggest that probably both her strengths and weaknesses came from science - looking at the evidence, but lacking the human touch to see (or care?) that policies that might be good for the economy on a national level could cause devastation to individuals and communities. I wonder how the ratings would change if examples were given of Prime Ministers from those backgrounds

OnlyLivingBoy

Leon said:

fpt for OnlyLivingBoy


"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited.
To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."

++++


That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)

Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.

Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time

One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....

Oh yes definitely, from an emotional POV I want to do all those things (metaphorically) and more. Plus there's the visceral tribal joy of seeing the king of the rival tribe slain in battle. But I was trying to analyse things dispassionately. If the Tories' goal is solely to stay in office after the next election, I think BJ stays or goes is about the same. If they care about the long run fate of their party, eg having a reasonable base to build on if they get kicked out in 2024, I think they should get rid of him.
But what right do I have to think, as Ugarte says.

MoonRabbit

TOPPING said:

As for Boris, as with last and this week's PMQs, Boris realises that his magic doesn't lie in being contrite and behaving like a whipped dog in TV interviews it lies in rumbunctious displays of go fuck yourself at PMQs vs SKS.

Absolutely spot on Topping. It IS better to be feared than loved.

The main issue now Boris has survived, what happens to the poor rebel alliance? Including Sunak, Cummings, Pork Pie Woman ☹️

bigjohnowls

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

He has sufficiently annoyed 200,000 Socialists who have left Labour and will not vote for them in 2024, along with other non member Socialists who wont either.

He has lost the engagement of the young who voted in their millions for Labour in 2017.

So he is down a couple of million votes so needs to win at least 2m Tories over to break even

You think thats a good thing for Labour exceeding the 12.877m of 2017

You are entitled to your view

FrankBooth

Pulpstar said:

FrankBooth said:

As I understand it for the first time since the end of the Delta wave last spring excess deaths in England and Wales are now below the 5 year average.

Thank god for Omicron?

Have to be careful with a 5 year moving average as it will start to incorporate periods when Covid was about, so it will move artificially high for a bit. Comparison to a 2015-2019 baseline would probably be best.

My understanding is the five year average is 2015-19.

Nigel_Foremain

Mexicanpete said:

SouthamObserver said:

The reason I want Johnson gone is that his staying demeans our country. I do also worry that he might bounce back, but again largely because of what that would say about us as a country.

There is that, but let's just be done with the wretched man. Sunak, Hunt? I really don't care, we need to get rid of this outrageous clown.

Larry the Downing Street Cat would be an improvement as far as I am concerned. Might be a challenge if Donald Trump visits though.

Pulpstar

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT but entirely on topic.

I am a cussed sort of a person.And a lawyer. I value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

But surely the point is that reputational damage to the No.10 operation is being done regardless of the legal points? People can clearly see that, whether technically legal or not, the rules are being flouted by the very people who set them.

Legality and the finer points are for the cops and lawyers to deal with, but spotting hypocrisy does not need a lot of training nor expertise.

Well quite, the PM needs to stick rigidly to the guidance. We were told to do many things which were not the law, the PM is meant to set an example.

Nigelb

Cyclefree said:

There are lawyers and lawyers.

Suella Braverman is hardly an advert for the profession. Or Shami Chakrabarti.

Sturgeon's Law applies to lawyers too ?

Gallowgate

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

He has sufficiently annoyed 200,000 Socialists who have left Labour and will not vote for them in 2024, along with other non member Socialists who wont either.

He has lost the engagement of the young who voted in their millions for Labour in 2017.

So he is down a couple of million votes so needs to win at least 2m Tories over to break even

You think thats a good thing for Labour exceeding the 12.877m of 2017

You are entitled to your view

You’re right but he’s still better than Corbyn.

Andy_Cooke

Andy_JS said:

New Dr John Campbell video: "Study confirms omicron reinfections"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32vDjyNE-M

Isn't he the one who came out with the easily refuted bollocks that "only 17,000 have actually died of covid"?

Nigel_Foremain

HYUFD said:

It is not a line which will make much difference I agree, as has been pointed out Thatcher was a lawyer as was Michael Howard and there were no complaints from Tories about their leadership. There are even some lawyers in Boris' Cabinet eg Dominic Raab and Suella Braverman.

However I would expect Tory voters, especially post Brexit Tory voters, to be keener on business leaders than lawyers, so in that sense that is why Boris is using it

It was childish and populist. So yes, the remains of his more stupid followers might like it.

Mexicanpete

It was looking like a no score draw on BBC1 news. Then a late late "pets not people" story defeat for Bozza.

Beibheirli_C

Leon said:

fpt for OnlyLivingBoy


"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited.
To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."

++++


That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)

Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.

Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time

One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....

As an arch Remainer (no secret there) I would love to see Johnson and his coterie of sycophants and hanger-on get well and truly kicked because the campaign of lies and deceit that was Brexit deserves to have a footnote on the trustworthiness of its architects.

But getting rid of them solves nothing. The mess they created will continue.

As for Labour and SKS... he is just another politician and I certainly am not too impressed by him.

My reason for wanting Johnson to stay as long as possible is to thoroughly trash this version of the Populist brand. Perhaps then the Conservative Party will be reborn and sense can return.

Farooq

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

He has sufficiently annoyed 200,000 Socialists who have left Labour and will not vote for them in 2024, along with other non member Socialists who wont either.

He has lost the engagement of the young who voted in their millions for Labour in 2017.

So he is down a couple of million votes so needs to win at least 2m Tories over to break even

You think thats a good thing for Labour exceeding the 12.877m of 2017

You are entitled to your view

Yup, I'm quite comfortable with people who have a cult-like devotion to particular politicians to feel marginalised. Be it Corbyn, Boris, Trump or whoever.
Not that this extends to anyone who voted for either. Just those who seem unable to move on think that Only He Can Fix It. This applies to you, HYUFD, and a few others.

If your politics is a cult of personality, I'm delighted you feel put out.

kinabalu

SouthamObserver said:

The reason I want Johnson gone is that his staying demeans our country. I do also worry that he might bounce back, but again largely because of what that would say about us as a country.

That's exactly how I feel. In Dec 19 there were respectable reasons for voting for him. Get Brexit Done. Corbyn.

But now? No. So if we do it again next time we'll be announcing ourselves loud & clear as a seedy country full of seedy people.

WhisperingOracle

The Mail having committed, effectively, to getting him out, since around Paterson, and even more so since December, is very important. It's still arguably the most influential publication with Tory voters.

FrancisUrquhart

Russia reports 74,692 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 657 new deaths

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

FrankBooth said:

As I understand it for the first time since the end of the Delta wave last spring excess deaths in England and Wales are now below the 5 year average.

Thank god for Omicron?

Have to be careful with a 5 year moving average as it will start to incorporate periods when Covid was about, so it will move artificially high for a bit. Comparison to a 2015-2019 baseline would probably be best.

-872 v ONS 5-year average (2016-2019 and 2021)
-511 v Pulpstar 5-year average (2015-2019)
-76 v TLG86 5-year average (2016-2020)

I'll be switching to the ONS definition on 1 April.

bigjohnowls

FrankBooth said:

Lawyers are seen as competent and decisive. Journalists are seen as untrustworthy and dislikeable.

Although that doesn't mean Starmer and Johnson conform to the stereotype.

SKS is neither competent or decisive (even his mum couldn't ague with the latter)

He has proved incompetent and divisive though if thats any good.

He has proved untrustworthy with his 10 pledges and dislikeable to at least 200,000 Socialists though. Could he in hindsight make a decent journalist when he loses heavily in 2024?

I would give him a job writing for insomnia world.

Cyclefree

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT but entirely on topic.

I am a cussed sort of a person.And a lawyer. I value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

But surely the point is that reputational damage to the No.10 operation is being done regardless of the legal points? People can clearly see that, whether technically legal or not, the rules are being flouted by the very people who set them.

Legality and the finer points are for the cops and lawyers to deal with, but spotting hypocrisy does not need a lot of training nor expertise.

I quite agree. As I have repeatedly said he has trashed his USP, the sense that some had that he was on the side of us and the sense of solidarity and all being in it together, necessary in a time of crisis.

But when people use the phrase "technically legal" or a "technical defence" my teeth grate. If there is no offence what is done is legal.

Whether it is wise or right is another matter. Law and morality are not the same.

Something may be lawful. Something may not be a crime. But it may still be wrong. Or unwise. Or just plain rude or offensive.

We need to stop assuming that what is wrong is also a crime, a mistake which will be made over and over again in the coming days, and which is made far too often in this country on all sorts of other topics, to the detriment of the country and also the rule of law.

A big topic, I know. But I really must be off to do other stuff.

StuartDickson

YouGov breaks:

London
Lab 46%
Con 24%
Grn 11%
LD 11%
Ref 3%
oth 4%

Rest of South
Con 37%
Lab 33%
LD 12%
Grn 10%
Ref 6%
oth 2%

Midlands/Wales
Lab 39%
Con 38%
LD 8%
Grn 5%
Ref 4%
PC 2%
oth 3%

North
Lab 54%
Con 30%
Grn 8%
LD 4%
Ref 3%
oth 1%

Scotland
SNP 48%
Lab 22%
Con 18%
Grn 6%
LD 4%
Ref 2%
oth 0

(Sample Size: 1668 adults in GB Fieldwork: 20th - 21st January 2022)

kinabalu

MoonRabbit said:

The part and script Starmer brought today was in the wrong play. He bombed.
Boris was brilliant because what people don’t understand is PMQs is not about PM answering questions.
Unlike previous weeks, Boris had been cribbing from my posts on PB - a plan to unite and level up repeated over and over along with we are the party trusted on delivery, and listing strong delivery.
Now do you believe me, the danger of a successful vonc Q1 Q2 is long gone?

Also I don’t buy Boris staying there is good for Labour and Libdems. I really can’t rule Boris out maintaining a majority at next election can you? He’s always been loved for his star turn boosterism not his honesty or puritan lifestyle.

For those of us who value probity and respect for values, not least proper leadership, a chance has passed by Q1 this year, because so many Tory MPs just don’t see sunlit uplands without Boris dream machine.

You're writing off your £50 then?

FrancisUrquhart

Selebian said:

As a scientist, I think we're too high up (and doctors are too, probably). Great attention to detail, but a narrow field and sometimes too wedded to evidence over common sense.

Scientific training would be very useful and maybe even a science career in industry.* But the way that we generally do science in academia is not well suited to running a country - advising those running a country, certainly; creating the evidence on which policies work and which do not, for sure.

I'd probably go for business people as top. Generally broad experience, used to making big decisons on uncertain data that have direct and often personal consequences.

*Includes Thatcher, obviously. I'm too young to really remember her rule directly so I don't have that strong a view, but I'd suggest that probably both her strengths and weaknesses came from science - looking at the evidence, but lacking the human touch to see (or care?) that policies that might be good for the economy on a national level could cause devastation to individuals and communities. I wonder how the ratings would change if examples were given of Prime Ministers from those backgrounds

However, some return to evidence based policy would be welcome.....

Dura_Ace

Mexicanpete said:

It was looking like a no score draw on BBC1 news. Then a late late "pets not people" story defeat for Bozza.

It doesn’t hurt him at all. British people like dogs a hell of a lot more than they like another plane load of Afghan refugees.

eek

WhisperingOracle said:

IshmaelZ said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

And the Mail - again. They absolutely want him out, which is a new position for a Tory prime minister, except for the last few months of Theresa May's government, which even then wasn't like this.

The Mail Online is not the Daily Mail - it has a different market for a lot of things.

Nigel_Foremain

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

He has sufficiently annoyed 200,000 Socialists who have left Labour and will not vote for them in 2024, along with other non member Socialists who wont either.

He has lost the engagement of the young who voted in their millions for Labour in 2017.

So he is down a couple of million votes so needs to win at least 2m Tories over to break even

You think thats a good thing for Labour exceeding the 12.877m of 2017

You are entitled to your view

Yup, I'm quite comfortable with people who have a cult-like devotion to particular politicians to feel marginalised. Be it Corbyn, Boris, Trump or whoever.
Not that this extends to anyone who voted for either. Just those who seem unable to move on think that Only He Can Fix It. This applies to you, HYUFD, and a few others.

If your politics is a cult of personality, I'm delighted you feel put out.

I find that really odd too. That anyone can be so confident in the virtue of another human being, particularly a politician. There are people one can admire, sure, but blind adulation? It's fecking weird.

Jonathan

Better a lawyer than a liar. After all Attlee was a lawyer.

Carnyx

eek said:

WhisperingOracle said:

IshmaelZ said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

And the Mail - again. They absolutely want him out, which is a new position for a Tory prime minister, except for the last few months of Theresa May's government, which even then wasn't like this.

The Mail Online is not the Daily Mail - it has a different market for a lot of things.

Tits'n'bums certainly seem to be its main interest. And lips too.

Nigel_Foremain

Dura_Ace said:

Mexicanpete said:

It was looking like a no score draw on BBC1 news. Then a late late "pets not people" story defeat for Bozza.

It doesn’t hurt him at all. British people like dogs a hell of a lot more than they like another plane load of Afghan refugees.

Ouch. Cynically amusing but not true in its political implication. It is another lie. Adds to the narrative.

WhisperingOracle

eek said:

WhisperingOracle said:

IshmaelZ said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

And the Mail - again. They absolutely want him out, which is a new position for a Tory prime minister, except for the last few months of Theresa May's government, which even then wasn't like this.

The Mail Online is not the Daily Mail - it has a different market for a lot of things.

But it has much the higher readership, like Guardian Online.

Nigelb

Leon said:

Endillion said:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Who the hell Flagged this?

It's a famously brilliant Shakespeare quote. And entirely apposite

Spoken by a traitor and thug, of course.

bigjohnowls

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

Farooq said:

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo, I'd much have a lawyer than a liar as Prime Minister.

SKS is both a lawyer and a liar

No redeeming features at all

He annoys you intensely, which is a plus.

He has sufficiently annoyed 200,000 Socialists who have left Labour and will not vote for them in 2024, along with other non member Socialists who wont either.

He has lost the engagement of the young who voted in their millions for Labour in 2017.

So he is down a couple of million votes so needs to win at least 2m Tories over to break even

You think thats a good thing for Labour exceeding the 12.877m of 2017

You are entitled to your view

Yup, I'm quite comfortable with people who have a cult-like devotion to particular politicians to feel marginalised. Be it Corbyn, Boris, Trump or whoever.
Not that this extends to anyone who voted for either. Just those who seem unable to move on think that Only He Can Fix It. This applies to you, HYUFD, and a few others.

If your politics is a cult of personality, I'm delighted you feel put out.

Not really answering the point about where he is going to find the 12.9m plus though.

Beibheirli_C

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Cyclefree said:

FPT but entirely on topic.

I am a cussed sort of a person.And a lawyer. I value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.

But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.

I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.

It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.

This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.

My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.

There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.

What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.

Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.

But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.

But surely the point is that reputational damage to the No.10 operation is being done regardless of the legal points? People can clearly see that, whether technically legal or not, the rules are being flouted by the very people who set them.

Legality and the finer points are for the cops and lawyers to deal with, but spotting hypocrisy does not need a lot of training nor expertise.

I quite agree. As I have repeatedly said he has trashed his USP, the sense that some had that he was on the side of us and the sense of solidarity and all being in it together, necessary in a time of crisis.

But when people use the phrase "technically legal" or a "technical defence" my teeth grate. If there is no offence what is done is legal.

Whether it is wise or right is another matter. Law and morality are not the same.

Something may be lawful. Something may not be a crime. But it may still be wrong. Or unwise. Or just plain rude or offensive.

We need to stop assuming that what is wrong is also a crime, a mistake which will be made over and over again in the coming days, and which is made far too often in this country on all sorts of other topics, to the detriment of the country and also the rule of law.

A big topic, I know. But I really must be off to do other stuff.

I use "technically legal" in the sense of "letter of the law, not spirit of the law"

CarlottaVance

1/ A lot of people are concerned about fraud in our Covid support measures and they’re absolutely right to be.

No, I’m not ignoring it, and I'm definitely not ‘writing it off’ https://twitter.com/rishisunak/status/1486332699337973763?s=21

darkage

In day to day life most peoples engagement with lawyers is bewildering. They seem to find endless problems. We bought our first flat a few years ago and the lawyer found so many problems with the lease etc that it sounded like we were heading towards catastrophe and financial ruin if we went ahead with the purchase. But it was a cheap flat and we needed somewhere to live and now it has doubled in value, along with rents in the area, which we would have needed to keep paying if we were cowed by her dire predictions, none of which were ever realised.

Professionally I have dealt with all parts of the legal profession from high street basement lawyers right up to leading QC's. Their main shortcoming is that they are not doers. But Starmer can't be criticised on this front, being DPP there were clearly a lot of difficult decision making involved. It is harder to think of a better background to prepare someone for the role of PM.

IshmaelZ

Wato reporting nowzad emails

Non coincidence

El_Capitano

WhisperingOracle said:

The Mail having committed, effectively, to getting him out, since around Paterson, and even more so since December, is very important. It's still arguably the most influential publication with Tory voters.

It hasn't. The Daily Mail newspaper is running Pravda-like headlines every day at the moment saying "lalala, nothing to see here". It's the online Mail that's running partygate stories.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jan/25/how-the-newspapers-reacted-to-downing-street-parties

The print edition of the Daily Mail has remained one of Boris Johnson’s strongest backers in the media, even as other rightwing news outlets – including its sister outlet MailOnline – are increasingly critical of the beleaguered prime minister.

On Tuesday the Daily Mail used its editorial to bemoan that “we are in the grip of a collective madness” over the ongoing stories about parties in Downing Street, suggesting those focusing on it are indirectly backing Russian aggression against Ukraine.

“For as Britain obsesses about parties, Vladimir Putin has been busy cranking up his formidable war machine. It is now fully primed for attack,” the paper proclaimed.

This intervention comes after Ted Verity, the outlet’s new editor, ran a rare front-page editorial last week decrying the Conservative MPs trying to oust Johnson: “Putin poised to start a war. Inflation soaring. Yet a narcissistic rabble of Tory MPs are trying to topple PM who’s leading us out of Covid. Today, as their plot crumbles, the Mail echoes one of their ringleaders to tell them … IN THE NAME OF GOD, GROW UP!”

By comparison, the editors at MailOnline – which has its own editorial structure and reaches substantially more readers – on Tuesday ran critical headlines such as “FINAL BLOW FOR BORIS?” and “CARRIE: LET US EAT CAKE”. The latter featured a picture of the prime minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, next to her grinning husband, channelling the quote often erroneously misascribed to Marie Antoinette.

kinabalu

Leon said:

fpt for OnlyLivingBoy


"No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited.
To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse."

++++


That's a fair analysis. But my point is less about logic than emotion. Labour, and the Remainery centre and left, have been brutally duffed up by Boris more than once. He is the man that won the Brexit referendum AND then won the Brexit election, forcing it through (it is remarkable to remember how close we came to the moral catastrophe of a 2nd vote)

Boris, therefore, is like the guy who beat you senseless, in a bewildering and extremely painful way, several times.

Now he lies sprawled in the dust, leaking blood. Your brain says: He's finished. But your muscle memory, your subconscious, says Go over there and stamp on his head. Then shoot him. Then dump him in a river. Like Rasputin. Make sure he's bloody dead this time

One hint of a twitch of Boris reviving, and all the jangling nerves return.....

So in fact you agree with my take. Not sure why you replied before with "nonsense". Was it because it was me? But, yes, it's exactly as per this. Emotionally, yes, people like me want Johnson dead and six feet under. No question. But logically - which is how Starmer rolls - it's fine either way. That's why he's relaxed. Not me or OLB or Mex Pete or Southam Ob etc - we're not relaxed at all - but Keir Starmer. That's why HE is relaxed. See?

Dura_Ace

Nigel_Foremain said:

Dura_Ace said:

Mexicanpete said:

It was looking like a no score draw on BBC1 news. Then a late late "pets not people" story defeat for Bozza.

It doesn’t hurt him at all. British people like dogs a hell of a lot more than they like another plane load of Afghan refugees.

Ouch. Cynically amusing but not true in its political implication. It is another lie. Adds to the narrative.

Anybody who is still going to vote for Johnson at this point doesn't give a fuck about the lying. They are not think, 'I was fine with the first 83 lies but this one, the 84th, is too much.'

StuartDickson

Burgessian said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I don't think the polling position is recoverable if Boris somehow manages to cling on. People make comparisons with Thatcher recovering strongly from her unpopularity pre-Falklands, and also to Blair in the fuel crisis of 2001. Leaving aside the fact that there's not going to be a second Falklands, and that Boris is no Maggie, and that the fuel crisis was superficial and temporary, such comparisons miss a crucial element: the issue isn't just about voters' view of Boris, it's about the government falling apart. Whatever now happens, the on- and off- the record comments by large numbers of Tory MPs, including notably the small but important Scottish contingent, can't be unsaid or removed from the internet. Everyone now knows that Tory MPs think Boris is a rule-breaking liar and have lost confidence in him. (They should never have placed confidence in him, of course, but that's by the by). How can the government function against that background? It will just keep coming up again and again, and the various rebel factions will be squabbling repeatedly, sucking all the air out of the political space.

That of course is a parallel with Corbyn, who similarly lost the confidence of his MPs. That wasn't quite as damaging, since Labour were in opposition so didn't need to function as a governing party, but it was still a significant element in Labour's travails.

Will another leader be able to recover the situation? Bloody hard, certainly, but at least there's a possibility if it's someone clean and competent, and if (it's a big 'if') the party unites behind him or her.

This seems spot on. Imagine someone like Douglas Ross in Scotland having to campaign for the re-election of a Cons Govt led by Boris. As it happens, I don't think the Scottish Tories will suffer a wipe-out in the May local elections. They are protected by the AV system, the fact that they under-nominated last time and missed some wins, and the distance Ross has managed to put between the Scottish party and Westminster. A general election is a very different matter though.

One of many reasons why I don't expect Boris to fight the next GE, even if he manages a reprieve now.

Point of information: Scotland’s local elections are decided by Single Transferable Vote (STV), not Alternative Vote (AV).

It is unimaginable for Ross and his entire Scottish Parliamentary group to campaign for a Johnson-led party at a UK GE after every single one of them demanded his resignation. If Johnson is still there then, Ross will have to go. But who on earth could replace him?

Agree re May. The SCon VI is looking remarkably robust, vis-à-vis ECon VI.

Agree also re SCon under-nomination last time: they missed some sitters.

FrankBooth

If you split them on excess deaths, Wales is still above the 5 year average whereas England is now below. Is it possible that Wales' decision to slow the spread of omicron and therefore its replacement of the more virulent Delta could have actually led to more deaths?

A very speculative hypothesis but one to consider.

ping

Dura_Ace said:

Mexicanpete said:

It was looking like a no score draw on BBC1 news. Then a late late "pets not people" story defeat for Bozza.

It doesn’t hurt him at all. British people like dogs a hell of a lot more than they like another plane load of Afghan refugees.

Depressingly true…

FrancisUrquhart

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume game over carefully crafted narrative positions, whatever their under-paid / over-worked young staffers can find on the socials.

WhisperingOracle

FrancisUrquhart said:

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume over carefully crafted narrative positions.

No, I don't agree there. They've been absolutely out to get Johnson since around November, or even October. There was nothing like that for Cameron, nor even May.

FrancisUrquhart

Sue Gray on the phone. Says her report will be released in instalments but all episodes will be available on iplayer and there’ll likely be a Christmas special.

https://twitter.com/Queen_UK/status/1486335454425272325?s=20

BartholomewRoberts

FrancisUrquhart said:

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume game over carefully crafted narrative positions, whatever their under-paid / over-worked young staffers can find on the socials.

Its pure clickbait crap.

There's no principles there whatsoever.

Anabobazina

Any word from the Silver Lady?

TheScreamingEagles

New: Hearing the prime minister is telling MPs (who say they are getting more time with the PM than they ever imagined) that this is a media / Labour witch-hunt, that he’s been through worse before and that he’s bounced back before and will do so again

https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1486334067842899968

tlg86

FrancisUrquhart said:

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume game over carefully crafted narrative positions, whatever their under-paid / over-worked young staffers can find on the socials.

Have you seen this?

https://tinyurl.com/2p9c9sy6

Chelsea legends John Terry and Ashley Cole are facing an non-fungible token (NFT) legal storm, with the Premier League taking legal advice after their trophy was used in digital assets promoted by the former team-mates.

I'm shocked that such fine members of society as Terry and Cole have got involved with NFTs.

MattW

Leon said:

Endillion said:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Who the hell Flagged this?

It's a famously brilliant Shakespeare quote. And entirely apposite

A lawyer?

Let's see if they flag Bart.

Can you imagine a world without lawyers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4

AlistairM

Some rather surprising stuff on my Facebook feed today. Normally there isn't much politics on it other than what the few very vocal left-wingers who have for years been putting our messages to bash the Tories (and more recently how we should be wearing masks forever).

Today an old work colleague based in the North put out a message saying to stop making such a fuss about birthday cake when there are more important things. Also mentioned if it weren't for Boris getting is out the EU then we would all still be waiting for vaccines. Even as a Brexiteer that's a bunch of rubbish as they are just as well vaxxed now as we are, just a bit later. Even more surprising to me was the number of people who commented to support them.

I am very surprised that there are so many people who are willing to give Boris a pass on all this recent news.

StuartDickson

NerysHughes said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

Latest Westminster voting intention (20-21 Jan)

Lab: 39% (n/c from 13-14 Jan)
Con: 32% (+1)
Lib Dem: 8% (-3)
Green: 8% (+2)
SNP: 5% (n/c)
Reform UK: 4% (-1)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/01/21/voting-intention-con-32-lab-39-20-21-jan?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1486310710804111361/photo/1

Labour lead still just a mere 7%

I do think that some of the public are getting fed up with the endless reporting of this party stuff. Yesterday's story regarding the birthday cake with everything else that is going on in the world was pushing it too far. To have headline news that a man had a bit of birthday cake whilst at work whilst Russia is on the brink of invading the Ukraine is a bit silly.

Labour to be below 40% after everything that has happened over the past 3 months is pretty poor. They should be mid 40s regularly. Corbyn got 40% at the 2017 GE

Labour are regularly in the mid to upper 40s… in England and Wales. It is their dire Scottish numbers pulling the GB total down. However, FPTP rewards geographical concentrations of votes, so Starmer is well on course.

Eg:

England
Lab 46%
Con 36%
LD 10%

Scotland
SNP 45%
Lab 22%
Con 18%
LD 9%

Wales
Lab 44%
Con 29%
PC 11%
LD 10%

(Survation/38 Degrees; 14-17 January 2022; sample size 2,036)

Taz

TheScreamingEagles said:

New: Hearing the prime minister is telling MPs (who say they are getting more time with the PM than they ever imagined) that this is a media / Labour witch-hunt, that he’s been through worse before and that he’s bounced back before and will do so again

https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1486334067842899968

He's bounced back, like Alan Partridge. Presumably the only thing he has got from London is being mugged and not appreciated.

El_Capitano

WhisperingOracle said:

eek said:

WhisperingOracle said:

IshmaelZ said:

Razedabode said:

I think the whole Afghanistan animals evacuation Is worse for Johnson.

Another lie

Guardian leading with trhat

NB FAC = Tugendhat = contender.

And the Mail - again. They absolutely want him out, which is a new position for a Tory prime minister, except for the last few months of Theresa May's government, which even then wasn't like this.

The Mail Online is not the Daily Mail - it has a different market for a lot of things.

But it has much the higher readership, like Guardian Online.

Yes. I very strongly suspect the Guardian print edition is not long for this world.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume game over carefully crafted narrative positions, whatever their under-paid / over-worked young staffers can find on the socials.

Have you seen this?

https://tinyurl.com/2p9c9sy6

Chelsea legends John Terry and Ashley Cole are facing an non-fungible token (NFT) legal storm, with the Premier League taking legal advice after their trophy was used in digital assets promoted by the former team-mates.

I'm shocked that such fine members of society as Terry and Cole have got involved with NFTs.

Shocking.

Totally unrelated, but some advice to people who make home made porn and worry about revenge porn.

Make sure you record yourself with some live Premier League action on in the background.

If it ever goes public, the PL will have that stuff taken down ASAP for violating their rights.

FrancisUrquhart

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Micro-analysing the Mail Online position is a fools errand. During the height of COVID they regularly had pro and anti lockdown pieces at the same time, bemoaning not enough lockdown, right next to bemoaning all this unnecessary restrictions (neither these from columnists).

Remember they work on a business model to pump out 100s of articles every day. Its volume game over carefully crafted narrative positions, whatever their under-paid / over-worked young staffers can find on the socials.

Have you seen this?

https://tinyurl.com/2p9c9sy6

Chelsea legends John Terry and Ashley Cole are facing an non-fungible token (NFT) legal storm, with the Premier League taking legal advice after their trophy was used in digital assets promoted by the former team-mates.

I'm shocked that such fine members of society as Terry and Cole have got involved with NFTs.

Everybody and their mum are pumping NFT bollocks at the moment.

Dura_Ace

On topic... I like and respect my lawyer as she keeps me out of jail. Also has a Golf R which is OK I suppose.