I wonder whether, perhaps, Lord Agnew's rather dramatic resignation is going to have consequences. Coupled with some of PPE contracts it rather looks as though Sunak was spending our money like the proverbial drunken sailor.
Without those Bounceback loans a lot of small businesses wouldn't exist any more.
The issue is really one about failed bank checks - loans made to businesses that didn't exist earlier should be the banks problem not the Governments.
Fair point, although doesn't look, from what Agnew said, as though the Government is blameless.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I wonder whether, perhaps, Lord Agnew's rather dramatic resignation is going to have consequences. Coupled with some of PPE contracts it rather looks as though Sunak was spending our money like the proverbial drunken sailor.
Without those Bounceback loans a lot of small businesses wouldn't exist any more.
The issue is really one about failed bank checks - loans made to businesses that didn't exist earlier should be the banks problem not the Governments.
That is one of the problems - Agnew listed a number in his resignation speech - but that too is down to the Treasury having set up a scheme which reimbursed the banks 100% without any penalties for not chasing fraud. Providing they ticked the boxes on the loan applications, there's little or no comeback.
Admittedly it was a hard problem at the time - any onerous due diligence would have meant the scheme didn't operate in time to save genuine businesses. But the problem has continued to be ignored for well over a year now.
Was it not suggested that fraud appeared to be concentrated on certain banks, not evenly spread?
Yep because most banks spent the minute required on the companies house website to check when the company was created.
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
£500k sounds a reasonable ballpark figure for chartering a plane for the trip, but will be a lot higher than the marginal cost of operating a plane that’s leased by the government already.
If there were more than 30 or 40 government people on the plane, the cost is probably a wash compared to commercial biz class flights,.
This is not true I'm afraid Sandpit.
For any regular fliers out there let's first of all scotch the notion about 1st Class. Loads of airlines have done away with 1st because Business Class travel these days is superb. All good airlines have flat bed and some of the suites e.g. Qater Q are fantastic. Business is brilliant and a perfectly acceptable way to travel long haul.
A single passenger flying business to Sydney can get a return with Qantas for £4000.
Booking 30 or 40 business class tickets in bulk should result in a negotiation for an all-through business class return fare to Sydney of no more than £3000 especially with the publicity for the airline at a time when they're desperate to get people flying again.
30 x 3000 = £90,000
Of course, this all begs the question of whether an entourage of 30 would be needed.
Unless you are a party diehard loyalist who has lost all moral compass there is no way to dress up the fact that Liz Truss has disgracefully splurged taxpayers' money.
This on a day that we learned Boris agreed to evacuate dogs from Kabul rather than people, and the Treasury have blown billions on tax fraud.
But they're going after vulnerable people on universal credit and raising taxes for ordinary working people.
It stinks.
And add the climate change issue as one of us pointed out yesterday - don't do what I do, do what I say ...
There isn't mention of 50 trade negotiators, though she did take her official photographer.
Presumably she will realize that having to deflect stories like this is unhelpful for her profile, although hard to know how far it resonates with the all-important Conservative membership.
My guess is that they won't be much bothered, but it might take a bit of the sheen of her carefully curate swashbuckling trade deal image.
At the least, he has lost what political capital he might have had to do anything remotely unpopular, just at the time he needed it
Per the article in the Times, his problem now is defining "popular"
If he does something the headbangers like, it pisses off the Red Wall.
Something "green" pisses off the headbangers.
"Levelling up" is what the Red Wall want - they don't want "green" unless it benefits them directly with jobs or money.
They really don’t want a large increase in their energy bills, in support of (to them) vacuous slogans like “Net Zero”
Lots of people in the Red Wall care about green policies. The people who don't care about green policies are the elderly, who are probably the bulk of Red Wall Tory voters. I was briefed recently on some focus group work carried out with elderly people looking at how a wide range of issues impact them. They want to be able to ring their doctor and get an appointment the same day, like they used to be able to. They want to stay in their own homes until they're carried out in a box, if at all possible. They don't give a damn about climate change.
I've been genuinely surprised how true this is even here in the supposed Blue Wall.
Our town council recently proposed some modest changes to make it easier for people to cycle around town (basically, allowing people to cycle both ways on two roads that were made one-way in the early 80s).
The 40-somethings were all for it. The 70-plus generation absolutely lost their shit. Nothing would interfere with their god-given right to drive 100m to the shops without looking where they were going. And this is in an affluent, rural area that consistently votes LibDem.
I'd been expecting it to split along class lines, but no, entirely generational.
There isn't mention of 50 trade negotiators, though she did take her official photographer.
Presumably she will realize that having to deflect stories like this is unhelpful for her profile, although hard to know how far it resonates with the all-important Conservative membership.
My guess is that they won't be much bothered, but it might take a bit of the sheen of her carefully curate swashbuckling trade deal image.
Especially in the rural areas with the farmers unhappy as a result.
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
How long would an FOI request take? I'd agree the £500k claim is probably wrong but given the FCO will have "paid" some amount to the plane operating group, how much was that? Would HMG really, for internal transfer and bookkeeping purposes, not have based nominal charges on industry rates? So £500k might be right. What that means in terms of "actual costs" is angels on the head of a pin stuff for accountants.
If the report is watered down so as to become essentially meaningless that is a big blow for those of us who think the Tory Party is best served by a change in leadership. Conversely the public won’t swallow all this: it will all look murky and I suspect this gives the advantage to Labour who keep Boris in situ and can look to solidify their lead.
Although I agree that it stinks of a corrupt Met Police / Home Office / No.10 cover up, I'm not entirely sure this helps Johnson as much as some may think.
The Conservative Party will continue to tear itself apart whilst this stench hangs over it, for very good reason. If Johnson was a good PM who had made a mistake, that's one thing. But many tory MPs know that Johnson is not up to the job. He's lazy, chaotic, disloyal, lacking attention to detail, corrupt - to name but a few.
I'm with Peston on this: the more it drags the worse it is for the tories.
Disbanding the Met, RUC->PSNI style, would not be a bad thing for Starmer to do on Day 1 of a new government.
If he announced that I would vote for him, heck I might even campaign for him.
+1 - the Met has a whole pile of things that shouldn't be under their direct control and should be part of a national police force.
I would be tempted to expand the remit of the Transport Police to cover such things (or just separate it out).
Likewise Fraud needs to be moved to a national service with appropriate skills but that just requires a tiny increase in the City of London Police's remit. Fraud is rarely something that occurs at a local level that needs local intervention and when it does the City of London police should just have the right to call others as appropriate.
Using the Transport Police as a counter-terror & serious fraud command would make a lot of sense, particularly if it recruited from Police Scotland etc and had operations and jurisdiction across the UK.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
I wonder whether, perhaps, Lord Agnew's rather dramatic resignation is going to have consequences. Coupled with some of PPE contracts it rather looks as though Sunak was spending our money like the proverbial drunken sailor.
Without those Bounceback loans a lot of small businesses wouldn't exist any more.
The issue is really one about failed bank checks - loans made to businesses that didn't exist earlier should be the banks problem not the Governments.
Fair point, although doesn't look, from what Agnew said, as though the Government is blameless.
Oh the Government isn't totally blameless but there are some issues that really were the banks fault because they didn't do a "when did this company start" check.
Beyond that there was little a bank could do to catch problems so I would personal forgive a lot of other items because it fixed what was otherwise an impossible problem. And the fraud issue is a tiny amount of money (although large) compared to say furlough and the £20 UC top up costs.
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
£500k sounds a reasonable ballpark figure for chartering a plane for the trip, but will be a lot higher than the marginal cost of operating a plane that’s leased by the government already.
If there were more than 30 or 40 government people on the plane, the cost is probably a wash compared to commercial biz class flights, if there were any journalists or non-government staff on the plane, they will have been billed which reduces the cost to government further.
There were also security and logistics considerations, Covid protocols around commercial flights, and the background of the ongoing situation in Ukraine.
It’s one of these stories that makes for a great headline, but doesn’t really stand up once you start digging. But for those ploting against Ms Truss, the headline will be enough.
Hard working voters are about to lose their shirts on energy bills and the Johnsonian apologists are claiming what good value for money Truss spaffing half a million for some flights to Australia in a plane that Johnson spent £900k painting is It looks dreadful.
When Jeremy Hunt was Foreign Secretary in May's Government, he sat in the row before me in the BACK of an ANA flight from Tokyo.
We are watching Johnson's rerun of the Court of Louis XIV. It will end, metaphorically speaking, in the same way. The question is when?
The 500k claim is transparent BS, as has been shown.
For a start, the aircraft is a long term lease, not a "charter". That claim in the first para of the Indy story is a straight up lie. Or, I guess, what passes for journalism in that paper.
And on it goes.
Sad to see anyone going for the stuff written for Gormless the Independent Reader.
All you Johnson shills are all missing the point of this. We don't need to be long term leasing aircraft with million pound paiint jobs, we can't afford it, particularly when there are commercial flights leaving at convenient times to all points on the globe every day.
I had a new salesman who demanded a Saab as his company car. "I need to look successful, the customers will be impressed at my success and I will do deals". I said to get the Saab "you need to BE successful, impress the customers and do deals". He was struggling so I rented a SAAB 9-5 for him for three months and he still struggled, at which point he had to make do with public transport.
As a nation we don't need fancy planes and Government yachts to sell for UK plc. Maybe we can afford those when all the deals have been done.
Help I have received about 50 emails this morning all from PB, one for each comment after about 8am. I did not consciously change any setting. Has anyone else experienced this and how do I stop it?
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
£500k sounds a reasonable ballpark figure for chartering a plane for the trip, but will be a lot higher than the marginal cost of operating a plane that’s leased by the government already.
If there were more than 30 or 40 government people on the plane, the cost is probably a wash compared to commercial biz class flights, if there were any journalists or non-government staff on the plane, they will have been billed which reduces the cost to government further.
There were also security and logistics considerations, Covid protocols around commercial flights, and the background of the ongoing situation in Ukraine.
It’s one of these stories that makes for a great headline, but doesn’t really stand up once you start digging. But for those ploting against Ms Truss, the headline will be enough.
Hard working voters are about to lose their shirts on energy bills and the Johnsonian apologists are claiming what good value for money Truss spaffing half a million for some flights to Australia in a plane that Johnson spent £900k painting is It looks dreadful.
When Jeremy Hunt was Foreign Secretary in May's Government, he sat in the row before me in the BACK of an ANA flight from Tokyo.
We are watching Johnson's rerun of the Court of Louis XIV. It will end, metaphorically speaking, in the same way. The question is when?
The 500k claim is transparent BS, as has been shown.
For a start, the aircraft is a long term lease, not a "charter". That claim in the first para of the Indy story is a straight up lie. Or, I guess, what passes for journalism in that paper.
And on it goes.
Sad to see anyone going for the stuff written for Gormless the Independent Reader.
All you Johnson shills are all missing the point of this. We don't need to be long term leasing aircraft with million pound paiint jobs, we can't afford it, particularly when there are commercial flights leaving at convenient times to all points on the globe every day.
I had a new salesman who demanded a Saab as his company car. "I need to look successful, the customers will be impressed at my success and I will do deals". I said to get the Saab "you need to BE successful, impress the customers and do deals". He was struggling so I rented a SAAB 9-5 for him for three months and he still struggled, at which point he had to make do with public transport.
As a nation we don't need fancy planes and Government yachts to sell for UK plc. Maybe we can afford those when all the deals have been done.
But then the Shagamobiles won't be needed ... which is not what is supposed to happen ...
At the least, he has lost what political capital he might have had to do anything remotely unpopular, just at the time he needed it
Per the article in the Times, his problem now is defining "popular"
If he does something the headbangers like, it pisses off the Red Wall.
Something "green" pisses off the headbangers.
"Levelling up" is what the Red Wall want - they don't want "green" unless it benefits them directly with jobs or money.
They really don’t want a large increase in their energy bills, in support of (to them) vacuous slogans like “Net Zero”
Lots of people in the Red Wall care about green policies. The people who don't care about green policies are the elderly, who are probably the bulk of Red Wall Tory voters. I was briefed recently on some focus group work carried out with elderly people looking at how a wide range of issues impact them. They want to be able to ring their doctor and get an appointment the same day, like they used to be able to. They want to stay in their own homes until they're carried out in a box, if at all possible. They don't give a damn about climate change.
I've been genuinely surprised how true this is even here in the supposed Blue Wall.
Our town council recently proposed some modest changes to make it easier for people to cycle around town (basically, allowing people to cycle both ways on two roads that were made one-way in the early 80s).
The 40-somethings were all for it. The 70-plus generation absolutely lost their shit. Nothing would interfere with their god-given right to drive 100m to the shops without looking where they were going. And this is in an affluent, rural area that consistently votes LibDem.
I'd been expecting it to split along class lines, but no, entirely generational.
I try not to hold bigoted views about any group in society but when it comes to the baby boomers I struggle sometimes. Stories like this really don't help, please desist!
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
£500k sounds a reasonable ballpark figure for chartering a plane for the trip, but will be a lot higher than the marginal cost of operating a plane that’s leased by the government already.
If there were more than 30 or 40 government people on the plane, the cost is probably a wash compared to commercial biz class flights,.
This is not true I'm afraid Sandpit.
For any regular fliers out there let's first of all scotch the notion about 1st Class. Loads of airlines have done away with 1st because Business Class travel these days is superb. All good airlines have flat bed and some of the suites e.g. Qater Q are fantastic. Business is brilliant and a perfectly acceptable way to travel long haul.
A single passenger flying business to Sydney can get a return with Qantas for £4000.
Booking 30 or 40 business class tickets in bulk should result in a negotiation for an all-through business class return fare to Sydney of no more than £3000 especially with the publicity for the airline at a time when they're desperate to get people flying again.
30 x 3000 = £90,000
Of course, this all begs the question of whether an entourage of 30 would be needed.
Unless you are a party diehard loyalist who has lost all moral compass there is no way to dress up the fact that Liz Truss has disgracefully splurged taxpayers' money.
This on a day that we learned Boris agreed to evacuate dogs from Kabul rather than people, and the Treasury have blown billions on tax fraud.
But they're going after vulnerable people on universal credit and raising taxes for ordinary working people.
It stinks.
Booking London to Sydney for a random few days in February, was £8k - £10k biz class when I looked yesterday,
Utter, utter, rubbish. I'm afraid you are lying. Or to be more charitable, failing to be as honest as you should be.
Go on Momondo. I have today. £4000 business class return with Qantas. Loads of flights, loads of options. Or go with Thai Airways for £3800 - a superb airline.
No one expects the Foreign Office to book the most expensive flight times (and nor, incidentally, would the entourage all have to travel on exactly the same flight).
The fact that you are trying to justify a £500,000 greenhouse gas blasting charter flight for the Foreign Secretary with an alleged necessary entourage of FO officials really is a low and I humbly suggest you get yourself out of this hole. If people like you and HYUFD are representative of the hardline of the tory party you are going to be absolutely trounced in May 2024. If you're still around here on that day I hope you remember this moment.
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
How long would an FOI request take? I'd agree the £500k claim is probably wrong but given the FCO will have "paid" some amount to the plane operating group, how much was that? Would HMG really, for internal transfer and bookkeeping purposes, not have based nominal charges on industry rates? So £500k might be right. What that means in terms of "actual costs" is angels on the head of a pin stuff for accountants.
The A321 lease is £75m over 5 years. Gory details here:
Not just any Conservative MP. I did spend a few seconds wondering about the 4NUL part of his username before realising it is his constituency and not a nerdy computer joke.
Yep - Aaron (formerly of this parish) is one of the few clueful ones
True, although his tweet is a statement of the obvious.
Tory MPs need to decide whether they are prepared to be strung along like this, or whether to just get on and write that letter...
Help I have received about 50 emails this morning all from PB, one for each comment after about 8am. I did not consciously change any setting. Has anyone else experienced this and how do I stop it?
Check your settings on your profile - the notifications when people post etc has probably changed.
Although I agree that it stinks of a corrupt Met Police / Home Office / No.10 cover up, I'm not entirely sure this helps Johnson as much as some may think.
The Conservative Party will continue to tear itself apart whilst this stench hangs over it, for very good reason. If Johnson was a good PM who had made a mistake, that's one thing. But many tory MPs know that Johnson is not up to the job. He's lazy, chaotic, disloyal, lacking attention to detail, corrupt - to name but a few.
I'm with Peston on this: the more it drags the worse it is for the tories.
Oh it’s terrible for the Tories. At the moment anything that serves to keep Johnson in place is a bad result for them IMHO.
o/t but one for @OldKingCole on Essex rebranding itself
Thanks. I've got the book to which she refers.
At one stage of my life I used to have to go the Brentwood, Towie's 'home town' and I always found it artificial. Not at all like the earthy SE of the county where I grew up or the 'still sort of rural' community not far from Colchester where I live now.
Disbanding the Met, RUC->PSNI style, would not be a bad thing for Starmer to do on Day 1 of a new government.
If he announced that I would vote for him, heck I might even campaign for him.
+1 - the Met has a whole pile of things that shouldn't be under their direct control and should be part of a national police force.
I would be tempted to expand the remit of the Transport Police to cover such things (or just separate it out).
Likewise Fraud needs to be moved to a national service with appropriate skills but that just requires a tiny increase in the City of London Police's remit. Fraud is rarely something that occurs at a local level that needs local intervention and when it does the City of London police should just have the right to call others as appropriate.
Using the Transport Police as a counter-terror & serious fraud command would make a lot of sense, particularly if it recruited from Police Scotland etc and had operations and jurisdiction across the UK.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
We have the National Crime Agency already, and the City of London force is basically a national force for serious fraud. British Transport Police is already national but I can't see adding random new functions to it will help.
My daughter (10) not going to school today as P5/6/7 are WFH due to so many teachers being off work with Covid. Quite a lot of kids also off with it as well.
Case rates here in Cambridge are now clearly higher than they were over Christmas/New Year, apparently pretty much entirely due to cases in the under-14s. Does anybody have a guess as to whether this is because kids round here really are getting it more, or if testing rates in (presumably mostly asymptomatic) children vary a lot from area to area?
Regardless, given the rates it's running at in that age group hopefully it'll blow through and bugger off quickly.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I was just a the other day, when he was talking about sanctions, thinking that another campaign might well kill him. Look at Obama after eight years, the job aged him. Bush even aged beyond his years during the presidency. Biden is the same age of both my grandparents, who are mercifully in good health and pretty sharp but even they are in less good health and are less with it than they were just 5 years ago and neither would have the energy to run a country.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
The prime minister is a hostage of his own MPs. Boris Johnson sits in his Commons study and they come in and make demands. However brutal their assessment or sweeping their requests, he does his best to say he has heard them and will address their concerns.
It is a bizarre situation for someone whose personal appeal was so key to the election victory just two years ago, but he can’t afford to make a single extra enemy. His MPs have his fate in their hands.
Backbenchers speak even more bluntly to those arranging the “save Boris” operation. They demand changes to the No 10 team and say that these should come straight after the publication of Sue Gray’s report into the Downing Street parties. They are adamant they will brook no delay to this. If things don’t start to move, they warn that they will conclude Johnson isn’t serious about changing. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-is-a-hostage-with-no-hope-of-escape-n82dg9qq6
If true, the MPs are completely delusional. Boris has no intention of changing, even if he needs to say he will. And if and when his power is on the rise again he has shown he will be brutal to those he perceives as disloyal or a threat.
Boris should be fired for the parties, but if he isn't, he shouldn't need to change.
Having parties isn't illegal anymore. And on the day job of being PM he's doing a good job.
The issue is the lawbreaking of telling us not to gather, then doing so himself. But that law has gone, so throwing boozy parties now is perfectly legal.
It's not the law breaking that was the issue, it's the fact it was one rule for us (enforced randomly but ruthlessly when enforced) and another for him.
Add the continual lying on top and you can see why people are annoyed.
However 30% of the population can't see the issue so I would love to know what would be an issue or whether they simply avoid all news.
People don’t like admitting to themselves that they were wrong.
I can rationalise to myself my support for Johnson in 2019 as he was the only way to break the Brexit impasse without inadvertently handing the levers of power to Corbyn, or down the line making Farage the kingmaker. Was there another way? I don’t know. But he did what he needed to and now needs to go. It’s like marrying someone that you suspected might be an arse for the sake of the unborn child. The child’s now been raised one way or another, they’re imperfect but you wouldn’t be without them. As for the father, cheerio shut the door on the way out.
Many of that 30% got charmed by Johnson and rarely refuse to let themselves see him in his true light. He still charms them, the loveable rogue. These voters are the gangster’s moll. Much like the taxi driver “leave Boris alone he’s doing a smashing job”.
Others are like domestic abuse victims. They are appalled but hope he can still change, even though deep down they know he can’t. That goes for most Tory MPs right now. The bags are packed, the car engine is running. And they fall for the apology yet again. I have to stick with him because I don’t deserve anyone better.
Then there are those that take an entirely transactional approach to him, in the manner of a philandering millionaire’s spouse. I’m only with him because of what he can do for me. That goes for most of Cabinet. The Tory party careerists. And the unthinkingly tribal voter.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I was just a the other day, when he was talking about sanctions, thinking that another campaign might well kill him. Look at Obama after eight years, the job aged him. Bush even aged beyond his years during the presidency. Biden is the same age of both my grandparents, who are mercifully in good health and pretty sharp but even they are in less good health and are less with it than they were just 5 years ago and neither would have the energy to run a country.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
Disbanding the Met, RUC->PSNI style, would not be a bad thing for Starmer to do on Day 1 of a new government.
If he announced that I would vote for him, heck I might even campaign for him.
+1 - the Met has a whole pile of things that shouldn't be under their direct control and should be part of a national police force.
I would be tempted to expand the remit of the Transport Police to cover such things (or just separate it out).
Likewise Fraud needs to be moved to a national service with appropriate skills but that just requires a tiny increase in the City of London Police's remit. Fraud is rarely something that occurs at a local level that needs local intervention and when it does the City of London police should just have the right to call others as appropriate.
Using the Transport Police as a counter-terror & serious fraud command would make a lot of sense, particularly if it recruited from Police Scotland etc and had operations and jurisdiction across the UK.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
We have the National Crime Agency already, and the City of London force is basically a national force for serious fraud. British Transport Police is already national but I can't see adding random new functions to it will help.
The British Transport Police are usually the people dealing with terrorism as they are the people who target the most likely targets.
But the point is that it the Met covers about multiple different areas some of which need to be moved elsewhere and were only handed to the Met police because they don't fit in anywhere else.
Diplomatic protection is a prime example because we have on one level people talking about No 10's parties (not in their remit but people then say they are police men) and equally Wayne Couzens. Separating it out would solve both those issues
This clearly is a stitch up between Dick and no 10.
The report could easily have been released and then the Met could have decided whether to further investigate . Gray should refuse to release her report until the Met finish theirs .
Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?
Although I agree that it stinks of a corrupt Met Police / Home Office / No.10 cover up, I'm not entirely sure this helps Johnson as much as some may think.
The Conservative Party will continue to tear itself apart whilst this stench hangs over it, for very good reason. If Johnson was a good PM who had made a mistake, that's one thing. But many tory MPs know that Johnson is not up to the job. He's lazy, chaotic, disloyal, lacking attention to detail, corrupt - to name but a few.
I'm with Peston on this: the more it drags the worse it is for the tories.
Oh it’s terrible for the Tories. At the moment anything that serves to keep Johnson in place is a bad result for them IMHO.
My fear is by some quirk of undeserved fate Johnson becomes popular momentarily, just in time for the next election.
So the chaos and the carnage runs unabated ad infinitum.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I was just a the other day, when he was talking about sanctions, thinking that another campaign might well kill him. Look at Obama after eight years, the job aged him. Bush even aged beyond his years during the presidency. Biden is the same age of both my grandparents, who are mercifully in good health and pretty sharp but even they are in less good health and are less with it than they were just 5 years ago and neither would have the energy to run a country.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
There isn’t anyone. Is there?
I suspect that's the problem - Harris isn't good enough, Pete Buttigieg definitely has some issues and Biden needs to fix this asap.
The first question though is how do you remove Harris in a way that works - would she willingly head to the Supreme Court and how easily would that appointment get through Congress.
After that you then need to ask who do you replace her with - there isn't many decent middle of the road options that inspire.
Did 50 people really fly out for a couple of days for serious negotiations? Truss and a couple of flunkies perhaps, but nothing like 50. This was a visit to shore up Morrison before the elections.
o/t but one for @OldKingCole on Essex rebranding itself
Thanks. I've got the book to which she refers.
At one stage of my life I used to have to go the Brentwood, Towie's 'home town' and I always found it artificial. Not at all like the earthy SE of the county where I grew up or the 'still sort of rural' community not far from Colchester where I live now.
Yep, bits of it are very nice - like everywhere, of course. Brentwood, not so much The rural Essex accent is also very different to the stereotype - mine's more like that and people are normally surprised when they find ot I grew up in Essex.
Was slightly taken aback, on a weekend away with friends who still live in Essex (near Braintree) at their 6 year old's accent, much more 'Essex' than either of theirs and stronger than I'd associated with Braintree. He sounded like he was auditioning for a the part of the Artful Dodger in an Oliver Twist remake, but I don't think he was putting it on.
1 Blaming Sunak for blocking triggering Article 16 and wanting to stick with NI rise despite cost of living crisis
2 Accusing Truss of wasting taxpayers money on private jet flights to, from and around Australia
I think it was pointed out on the past thread that there is little point in having a plane painted in GB colours for trade missions if you don't use it for trips like Truss's Australia jaunt.
One might wonder why the Embassy staff in Canberra were cut to the point that they needed fly ins by Ms "any deal is better than no deal" Truss.
The idea that embassy staff could simply replace visits/interactions with leading members of the government is laughable. International diplomacy is made of meetings like these.
My experience is that 90% of the actual work is done before the big guns arrive to settle and remaining thorny issues and take the credit.
No doubt, but that 10% can't be replaced with more meetings with the embassy staff.
Do we have any evidence at all to support BJO's claim wrt to Truss's trip?
The first piece I saw on that was a piece of misleading drivel in the Independent.
eg the basis for the £500k claim is 'from a source in the charter industry', which the Indy turns into 'the cost to the taxpayer'. Instead of doing some journalism and finding out what the actual cost was - quite accessible via FOI.
I was going to put in a complaint to the independent regulator, but for some reason the Indy has chosen not to have one.
How long would an FOI request take? I'd agree the £500k claim is probably wrong but given the FCO will have "paid" some amount to the plane operating group, how much was that? Would HMG really, for internal transfer and bookkeeping purposes, not have based nominal charges on industry rates? So £500k might be right. What that means in terms of "actual costs" is angels on the head of a pin stuff for accountants.
The A321 lease is £75m over 5 years. Gory details here:
The procurement without competition through a travel agent in Bradford is a nice touch. Levelling up!
So £75 million for five years is about £200,000 a week and that is without fuel, pilots and those little bags of peanuts. I can believe £500k nominal, even if the actual marginal costs are far lower.
Sky reporting the Met Police have issued a statement saying that they want Sue Gray to make only minimal reference to the events they are discussing
Not sure that is acceptable but the lawyers on here may be able to explain just how much this will affect the report or even nullify it
If this blatant subversion of democratic principles is allowed to fly by Tory MPs then every single one of them that runs at the next election under the Tory banner deserves to lose their seat.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?
Because they can?
Equally it could be that Avis UK want a significant mark-up for reasons unknown..
I should point out some of my money comes from software that compares prices across Amazon's European sites and points out better deals.
My daughter (10) not going to school today as P5/6/7 are WFH due to so many teachers being off work with Covid. Quite a lot of kids also off with it as well.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
You must know some seriously healthy 89+ year olds.
Although I agree that it stinks of a corrupt Met Police / Home Office / No.10 cover up, I'm not entirely sure this helps Johnson as much as some may think.
The Conservative Party will continue to tear itself apart whilst this stench hangs over it, for very good reason. If Johnson was a good PM who had made a mistake, that's one thing. But many tory MPs know that Johnson is not up to the job. He's lazy, chaotic, disloyal, lacking attention to detail, corrupt - to name but a few.
I'm with Peston on this: the more it drags the worse it is for the tories.
Perhaps, but not worse for Boris. Persistent but low level unhappiness he can survive, its outrage that leads to challenge. As it takes a lot for an MP to become a regicide anything that reduces the allegations against him prevents more challenges.
If I were Gray, I'd resign and state that I am unable to complete a report timeously due to the ongoing to police investigation.
Or, publish the whole report with massive redactions. That, at least, would cause some political damage.
Unless she's happy with the development. Perhaps she was uncomfortable in the position she was in - the enormous focus on her Report and it becoming viewed as THE instrument to bring down a PM by people who already know all they need to know. This gets her off that hook.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Stitch up, plain and simple, with the future Lady Dick
Presumably once the Met has finished its uncharacteristically thorough investigation of something everyone expects them to treat as a petty offence, Gray's report can be published.
At the prime minister's discretion, of course. ;-)
Anyone know why the quoted cost for hiring a car in the US through the Avis.co.uk site is over double the cost on the Avis.com site (with all the same details, and declaring country of residence as the UK, both quotes in £)?
Because they can?
Equally it could be that Avis UK want a significant mark-up for reasons unknown..
I should point out some of my money comes from software that compares prices across Amazon's European sites and points out better deals.
I suppose I should have asked, why can't I just book using the US site? It appears to be open to people who don't live in the US, offering a drop down menu for such.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I was just a the other day, when he was talking about sanctions, thinking that another campaign might well kill him. Look at Obama after eight years, the job aged him. Bush even aged beyond his years during the presidency. Biden is the same age of both my grandparents, who are mercifully in good health and pretty sharp but even they are in less good health and are less with it than they were just 5 years ago and neither would have the energy to run a country.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
The problem with that is how to get Kamala out of the way. I mean, putting her on the Supreme Court would fix it, but I'm not sure if Joe Manchin would vote for her.
Sky reporting the Met Police have issued a statement saying that they want Sue Gray to make only minimal reference to the events they are discussing
Not sure that is acceptable but the lawyers on here may be able to explain just how much this will affect the report or even nullify it
Its going to trash the Gary report. Imagine if the PM had been accused of robbing a bank, then car jacking someone, and also going past a speed camera at 40 rather than 30. Redacting the report in this way will only be able to mention the speeding ticket...
It helps no one. We need to see the totality of this, not the ones of least concern to the fecking police, so that they can do their investigations (and then issue fixed penalty notices).
By the way, everyone seems to be referring to the charter cost. What about the fuel?
My back of fag packet calculation suggests something around 145,000 litres of fuel return to Sydney, so that's another c. £150,000
Clearly you've never chartered a plane, the charter cost includes fuel.
I suspect there is a big difference between chartering a plane for a single flight (journey known - fuel costs a simple calculation) and leasing a plane for a period of time (depreciations costs known, journeys and fuel costs not a clue).
After all that fuss about Sue Gray's report being published unredacted, it seems the Met got there first - below statement says police have asked her to make "minimal reference" to any potentially illegal parties which it is now investigating https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1486972451187789826/photo/1
This is significant as it suggests if the Gray report is published before the Met investigation is finalised then the most serious allegations may be scaled back. Which would clearly be good news for the PM.
.... Ahem ..... as predicted by me several days ago.
Also if the Met is going to be abolished / reorganised, please please can I be involved. I shall need some more work when my current project finishes.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Boris must be thankful that there's no one on the opposition benches with expert knowledge of the law relating to prosecutions and that kind of thing.
Sky reporting the Met Police have issued a statement saying that they want Sue Gray to make only minimal reference to the events they are discussing
Not sure that is acceptable but the lawyers on here may be able to explain just how much this will affect the report or even nullify it
If this blatant subversion of democratic principles is allowed to fly by Tory MPs then every single one of them that runs at the next election under the Tory banner deserves to lose their seat.
To be honest I am not expecting the conservative mps to change their position before the report
And Sky have just suggested the report may be delayed until the police have finished their investigations
I feared this as soon as the Met became involved, indeed maybe it was inevitable
The Met Police is a complete and utter disgrace. Never been their biggest fan, but my god somehow my opinion of them has managed to get even lower than it was before.
Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Help I have received about 50 emails this morning all from PB, one for each comment after about 8am. I did not consciously change any setting. Has anyone else experienced this and how do I stop it?
I did that once by accidentally clicking on the tab on the thread listing in Vanilla. Unclicking stopped it.
If I were Gray, I'd resign and state that I am unable to complete a report timeously due to the ongoing to police investigation.
Or, publish the whole report with massive redactions. That, at least, would cause some political damage.
Unless she's happy with the development. Perhaps she was uncomfortable in the position she was in - the enormous focus on her Report and it becoming viewed as THE instrument to bring down a PM by people who already know all they need to know. This gets her off that hook.
Indeed. She is an establishment civil servant, used to having power in the shadows. A controversial or politically significant report either way threatens that power. Reducing the importance of the report as much as possible, by getting the police involved, but only at the very last minute, to delay and cloud things is perfect for her.
Sky reporting the Met Police have issued a statement saying that they want Sue Gray to make only minimal reference to the events they are discussing
Not sure that is acceptable but the lawyers on here may be able to explain just how much this will affect the report or even nullify it
Its going to trash the Gary report. Imagine if the PM had been accused of robbing a bank, then car jacking someone, and also going past a speed camera at 40 rather than 30. Redacting the report in this way will only be able to mention the speeding ticket...
It helps no one. We need to see the totality of this, not the ones of least concern to the fecking police, so that they can do their investigations (and then issue fixed penalty notices).
Disbanding the Met, RUC->PSNI style, would not be a bad thing for Starmer to do on Day 1 of a new government.
If he announced that I would vote for him, heck I might even campaign for him.
+1 - the Met has a whole pile of things that shouldn't be under their direct control and should be part of a national police force.
I would be tempted to expand the remit of the Transport Police to cover such things (or just separate it out).
Likewise Fraud needs to be moved to a national service with appropriate skills but that just requires a tiny increase in the City of London Police's remit. Fraud is rarely something that occurs at a local level that needs local intervention and when it does the City of London police should just have the right to call others as appropriate.
Using the Transport Police as a counter-terror & serious fraud command would make a lot of sense, particularly if it recruited from Police Scotland etc and had operations and jurisdiction across the UK.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
Police Scotland?!?!? They're as bad as the Met. Absolutely not.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
See about a million headers I've written on why the Met don't know their arse from their elbow let alone the actual law.
Sixteen percent said they would choose a different candidate, while 6 percent said they would not vote...
Surely the two parties have it in themselves, to find candidates who are neither senile nor insane, to compete for the highest office in the land?
De Santis also trails Biden in that poll. If he isn't totally gone by then, it's fairly likely he'll run again. And having a Republican Congress to battle after 2022 might actually help him electorally.
US politics is weirder than ours.
Can Biden run again? He looks completely fucked, at least 10 years older than his actual age.
I was just a the other day, when he was talking about sanctions, thinking that another campaign might well kill him. Look at Obama after eight years, the job aged him. Bush even aged beyond his years during the presidency. Biden is the same age of both my grandparents, who are mercifully in good health and pretty sharp but even they are in less good health and are less with it than they were just 5 years ago and neither would have the energy to run a country.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
There isn’t anyone. Is there?
I suspect that's the problem - Harris isn't good enough, Pete Buttigieg definitely has some issues and Biden needs to fix this asap.
The first question though is how do you remove Harris in a way that works - would she willingly head to the Supreme Court and how easily would that appointment get through Congress.
After that you then need to ask who do you replace her with - there isn't many decent middle of the road options that inspire.
I was thinking Buttigieg but, while I actually rated him in the Primaries, he's been pretty background (from my outsider perspective) and as you say he has some issues that mean it would be difficult for him to appeal with certain sections of the American Electorate. An American student I knew told me that her parents had prayed and been told Obama was the antichrist. Her dad had been elected to a state office as a Republican. And that was Obama, God alone knows what they would think of Buttigieg, but I'm sure He will tell them. Not saying it's not possible for Buttigieg to win, and the Americans do occasionally surprise, but it's a hell of a risk.
I don't think Harris could go to SCOTUS, at least not any time soon, and she would be an issue to securing a successor. It's a thin field but perhaps our American posters could shed some light.
The Met news has certainly moved the betting. Johnson early exit is on the drift. I hope the Met aren't doing it with this in mind. That would be rank corruption.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Lawyers have happened
As I wrote a few days ago -
"It's down to the Terms of Reference I understand.
An internal disciplinary report could certainly be concluded and action taken. But the problem here is that if you uncover evidence of a potential crime and you report it to the police then the police will want their investigation to take precedence.
We had just this issue in the Adoboli case. Disciplinary proceedings against some of his colleagues could only take place once it was confirmed that the police would not be charging them. The final FCA report into the bank was not published until after the conclusion of the criminal trial etc.
When the original Case investigation was set up I suspect little thought was given to the implications hence the current mess."
Disbanding the Met, RUC->PSNI style, would not be a bad thing for Starmer to do on Day 1 of a new government.
If he announced that I would vote for him, heck I might even campaign for him.
+1 - the Met has a whole pile of things that shouldn't be under their direct control and should be part of a national police force.
I would be tempted to expand the remit of the Transport Police to cover such things (or just separate it out).
Likewise Fraud needs to be moved to a national service with appropriate skills but that just requires a tiny increase in the City of London Police's remit. Fraud is rarely something that occurs at a local level that needs local intervention and when it does the City of London police should just have the right to call others as appropriate.
Using the Transport Police as a counter-terror & serious fraud command would make a lot of sense, particularly if it recruited from Police Scotland etc and had operations and jurisdiction across the UK.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
Police Scotland?!?!? They're as bad as the Met. Absolutely not.
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
See about a million headers I've written on why the Met don't know their arse from their elbow let alone the actual law.
When I read the news this morning it made me think of all your headers on the subject, like some kind of Pavlovian reinforcement. I just think this is such a clear and perfect example of what you've been writing about. Corruption? Incompetence? Some reckless unholy mixture of the two?
o/t but one for @OldKingCole on Essex rebranding itself
Thanks. I've got the book to which she refers.
At one stage of my life I used to have to go the Brentwood, Towie's 'home town' and I always found it artificial. Not at all like the earthy SE of the county where I grew up or the 'still sort of rural' community not far from Colchester where I live now.
Yep, bits of it are very nice - like everywhere, of course. Brentwood, not so much The rural Essex accent is also very different to the stereotype - mine's more like that and people are normally surprised when they find ot I grew up in Essex.
Was slightly taken aback, on a weekend away with friends who still live in Essex (near Braintree) at their 6 year old's accent, much more 'Essex' than either of theirs and stronger than I'd associated with Braintree. He sounded like he was auditioning for a the part of the Artful Dodger in an Oliver Twist remake, but I don't think he was putting it on.
I'm involved with a local history project not far from Braintree and we're quite anxious to get recordings of 'genuine' local accents before they die out completely. As Mr S says, the East London one, even more than Estuary, has taken over almost completely among school children and indeed 'real Essex' is unusual even among 50 year olds now.
In fact people who use 'real Essex' are sometimes asked if they come from Suffolk!
The Met thing confuses me. As per the received wisdom, when the Met investigation was announced it seemed as though it would nix Gray's report, as it could be prejudicial. Then the Met came out and said they were fine with the report going ahead in full. Now the Met seemed to have changed their mind?
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Lawyers have happened
The civil service union lawyers, apparently surprised that there were names of people who attended “parties” in the report, who weren’t politicians.
o/t but one for @OldKingCole on Essex rebranding itself
Thanks. I've got the book to which she refers.
At one stage of my life I used to have to go the Brentwood, Towie's 'home town' and I always found it artificial. Not at all like the earthy SE of the county where I grew up or the 'still sort of rural' community not far from Colchester where I live now.
Yep, bits of it are very nice - like everywhere, of course. Brentwood, not so much The rural Essex accent is also very different to the stereotype - mine's more like that and people are normally surprised when they find ot I grew up in Essex.
Was slightly taken aback, on a weekend away with friends who still live in Essex (near Braintree) at their 6 year old's accent, much more 'Essex' than either of theirs and stronger than I'd associated with Braintree. He sounded like he was auditioning for a the part of the Artful Dodger in an Oliver Twist remake, but I don't think he was putting it on.
I'm involved with a local history project not far from Braintree and we're quite anxious to get recordings of 'genuine' local accents before they die out completely. As Mr S says, the East London one, even more than Estuary, has taken over almost completely among school children and indeed 'real Essex' is unusual even among 50 year olds now.
In fact people who use 'real Essex' are sometimes asked if they come from Suffolk!
The old money farmers around Epping whose families have lived there since before the 19th century do not consider those who have moved out from London proper Essex. Basically they are East Londoners who happen to have made Essex their home
Comments
As usual, Boris Johnson seems to think the best course of action involves Dick.
My guess is that they won't be much bothered, but it might take a bit of the sheen of her carefully curate swashbuckling trade deal image.
Our town council recently proposed some modest changes to make it easier for people to cycle around town (basically, allowing people to cycle both ways on two roads that were made one-way in the early 80s).
The 40-somethings were all for it. The 70-plus generation absolutely lost their shit. Nothing would interfere with their god-given right to drive 100m to the shops without looking where they were going. And this is in an affluent, rural area that consistently votes LibDem.
I'd been expecting it to split along class lines, but no, entirely generational.
What a fecking joke.
Gray should just put everything on line.
Although I agree that it stinks of a corrupt Met Police / Home Office / No.10 cover up, I'm not entirely sure this helps Johnson as much as some may think.
The Conservative Party will continue to tear itself apart whilst this stench hangs over it, for very good reason. If Johnson was a good PM who had made a mistake, that's one thing. But many tory MPs know that Johnson is not up to the job. He's lazy, chaotic, disloyal, lacking attention to detail, corrupt - to name but a few.
I'm with Peston on this: the more it drags the worse it is for the tories.
It's one area where devolution doesn't make much sense. Basically an FBI.
Beyond that there was little a bank could do to catch problems so I would personal forgive a lot of other items because it fixed what was otherwise an impossible problem. And the fraud issue is a tiny amount of money (although large) compared to say furlough and the £20 UC top up costs.
I had a new salesman who demanded a Saab as his company car. "I need to look successful, the customers will be impressed at my success and I will do deals". I said to get the Saab "you need to BE successful, impress the customers and do deals". He was struggling so I rented a SAAB 9-5 for him for three months and he still struggled, at which point he had to make do with public transport.
As a nation we don't need fancy planes and Government yachts to sell for UK plc. Maybe we can afford those when all the deals have been done.
I have received about 50 emails this morning all from PB, one for each comment after about 8am. I did not consciously change any setting. Has anyone else experienced this and how do I stop it?
Go on Momondo. I have today. £4000 business class return with Qantas. Loads of flights, loads of options. Or go with Thai Airways for £3800 - a superb airline.
No one expects the Foreign Office to book the most expensive flight times (and nor, incidentally, would the entourage all have to travel on exactly the same flight).
The fact that you are trying to justify a £500,000 greenhouse gas blasting charter flight for the Foreign Secretary with an alleged necessary entourage of FO officials really is a low and I humbly suggest you get yourself out of this hole. If people like you and HYUFD are representative of the hardline of the tory party you are going to be absolutely trounced in May 2024. If you're still around here on that day I hope you remember this moment.
https://twitter.com/AndyNetherwood/status/1421740602430050312
The procurement without competition through a travel agent in Bradford is a nice touch. Levelling up!
Tory MPs need to decide whether they are prepared to be strung along like this, or whether to just get on and write that letter...
At one stage of my life I used to have to go the Brentwood, Towie's 'home town' and I always found it artificial.
Not at all like the earthy SE of the county where I grew up or the 'still sort of rural' community not far from Colchester where I live now.
I am uneasy at the Mets involvement and subsequent watering down of the report - Dick really is awful.
Regardless, given the rates it's running at in that age group hopefully it'll blow through and bugger off quickly.
Someone on here talked about how Biden doesn't have the strength to pull America back from the brink, but is better than Trump who was actively pushing it over. I agree with this, and I'll agree with it in 2024, but even the best 82 year old is still an 82 year old. Biden needs to pick a successor, keep them well away from the mid terms, and then build them up to run in '24.
I can rationalise to myself my support for Johnson in 2019 as he was the only way to break the Brexit impasse without inadvertently handing the levers of power to Corbyn, or down the line making Farage the kingmaker. Was there another way? I don’t know. But he did what he needed to and now needs to go. It’s like marrying someone that you suspected might be an arse for the sake of the unborn child. The child’s now been raised one way or another, they’re imperfect but you wouldn’t be without them. As for the father, cheerio shut the door on the way out.
Many of that 30% got charmed by Johnson and rarely refuse to let themselves see him in his true light. He still charms them, the loveable rogue. These voters are the gangster’s moll. Much like the taxi driver “leave Boris alone he’s doing a smashing job”.
Others are like domestic abuse victims. They are appalled but hope he can still change, even though deep down they know he can’t. That goes for most Tory MPs right now. The bags are packed, the car engine is running. And they fall for the apology yet again. I have to stick with him because I don’t deserve anyone better.
Then there are those that take an entirely transactional approach to him, in the manner of a philandering millionaire’s spouse. I’m only with him because of what he can do for me. That goes for most of Cabinet. The Tory party careerists. And the unthinkingly tribal voter.
But the point is that it the Met covers about multiple different areas some of which need to be moved elsewhere and were only handed to the Met police because they don't fit in anywhere else.
Diplomatic protection is a prime example because we have on one level people talking about No 10's parties (not in their remit but people then say they are police men) and equally Wayne Couzens. Separating it out would solve both those issues
The report could easily have been released and then the Met could have decided whether to further investigate . Gray should refuse to release her report until the Met finish theirs .
My back of fag packet calculation suggests something around 145,000 litres of fuel return to Sydney, so that's another c. £150,000
So the chaos and the carnage runs unabated ad infinitum.
Sky reporting the Met Police have issued a statement saying that they want Sue Gray to make only minimal reference to the events they are discussing
Not sure that is acceptable but the lawyers on here may be able to explain just how much this will affect the report or even nullify it
The first question though is how do you remove Harris in a way that works - would she willingly head to the Supreme Court and how easily would that appointment get through Congress.
After that you then need to ask who do you replace her with - there isn't many decent middle of the road options that inspire.
Was slightly taken aback, on a weekend away with friends who still live in Essex (near Braintree) at their 6 year old's accent, much more 'Essex' than either of theirs and stronger than I'd associated with Braintree. He sounded like he was auditioning for a the part of the Artful Dodger in an Oliver Twist remake, but I don't think he was putting it on.
People seem to be doing a Johnson and trying to mask the truth by rubbishing the £500,000 cost.
What the hell has happened? Have they decided it would now be prejudicial? I understand that there is a presumption that everyone knows the law, but it seems the metropolitan police, an organisation that actually should, really doesn't.
Equally it could be that Avis UK want a significant mark-up for reasons unknown..
I should point out some of my money comes from software that compares prices across Amazon's European sites and points out better deals.
At the prime minister's discretion, of course. ;-)
It helps no one. We need to see the totality of this, not the ones of least concern to the fecking police, so that they can do their investigations (and then issue fixed penalty notices).
Also if the Met is going to be abolished / reorganised, please please can I be involved. I shall need some more work when my current project finishes.
And Sky have just suggested the report may be delayed until the police have finished their investigations
I feared this as soon as the Met became involved, indeed maybe it was inevitable
this thread has been redacted
Hope Sue Gray just released the report tbh and tells the Met to go and do one.
I don't think Harris could go to SCOTUS, at least not any time soon, and she would be an issue to securing a successor. It's a thin field but perhaps our American posters could shed some light.
"It's down to the Terms of Reference I understand.
An internal disciplinary report could certainly be concluded and action taken. But the problem here is that if you uncover evidence of a potential crime and you report it to the police then the police will want their investigation to take precedence.
We had just this issue in the Adoboli case. Disciplinary proceedings against some of his colleagues could only take place once it was confirmed that the police would not be charging them. The final FCA report into the bank was not published until after the conclusion of the criminal trial etc.
When the original Case investigation was set up I suspect little thought was given to the implications hence the current mess."
In fact people who use 'real Essex' are sometimes asked if they come from Suffolk!
On the fuel point, the clue is in the name “wet lease”. It includes crew and fuel.