Categories
Scrutiny not slurs – politicalbetting.com
Scrutiny not slurs – politicalbetting.com
On Monday in Parliament the PM made an accusation against the Opposition leader, an accusation described as a “smear” by Julian Smith, ex-Northern Ireland Secretary, the Minister with the enviable record of being sacked for being good at his job. On Tuesday on the Today programme the Deputy PM and Justice Secretary, ironically (or so I hope) described by the interviewer as a “distinguished lawyer“, said that, while he did not have the evidence “to substantiate” the claim (neatly throwing the hospital pass back to his leader) it was right to scrutinise Sir Keir Starmer’s record as DPP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Powerful piece.
Good job @Cyclefree.
In the US, "guild loyalty" is one of the reasons that police officers sometimes escape punishment for their misdeeds. Is the same true in the UK? Is there any clear solution, or set of solutions to the problem?
The cuts were callous and deliberate. It’s not just about saving money, it’s about tilting justice in favour of the wealthy.
Welcome to Tory Britain.
To Cyclefree's powerful header, we might add that there is insufficient attention paid to research into what actually works, at all stages from deterrence through detection, prosecution, punishment and rehabilitation. See, for instance, recent reports on the success of some forces in tackling burglary where others stop at issuing a crime number for insurance claims.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-01-14/bedfordshire-burglaries-halve-thanks-to-new-police-task-force
Instead, we have calls for longer sentences and the creation of yet more hate crimes as aggravating factors in what are already major crimes, such as murder.
Justice delayed is justice denied. More seriously, it undermines any deterrent effect if the penalty for crime is two years out on bail because, as Cyclefree notes, the court system has been cut to ribbons.
If only – if only – history had been inverted. Boris Johnson could have been Prime Minister for Brexit and Theresa May Prime Minister for Covid and this whole excruciating fiasco might have been averted.
I was a long-time champion of the PM, with the scars on my back to prove it, but I felt sickened. Not just by Boris, whose contrition had all the sincerity of Toad’s “sorrowful eye”, but by the whole damn lot of them.
Not even his most ardent fan would claim that Boris Johnson has a monogamous relationship with the truth, but such flagrant infidelity is starting to become insulting. How stupid does he think the public is? The PM’s claims are so farcical you pity the colleagues who must try to defend them.
It fell to a former prime minister to skewer the current one. The public, she said with icy scorn and a Medusa glare to match, “had a right to expect their prime minister to… set an example...”
Despairing during the debate on the Sue Gray report, I found myself fantasising about an imaginary leader who doesn’t exist but who somehow combines Theresa’s serious attention to detail with Boris’s flair and fun. Where are they? We may need them sooner than we know.
We have a clear candidate.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/01/boris-johnson-keir-starmer-jimmy-savile-smear-julian-smith
...“I don’t have the facts to verify this … I don’t have the facts to justify that. I can’t substantiate that claim,” Raab told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
The culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, told Channel 4 News: “I have no idea of the background of Keir Starmer … The prime minister tells the truth.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c6c55404-836d-11ec-b939-57ea9f594ba1 (£££)
Boris, in the Sue Gray "update" debate (to which it was irrelevant), claimed crime had fallen by 14 per cent since he became Prime Minister, which is only true if fraud is excluded. Added back in, crime rose by 14 per cent.
“People also underestimate the extent to which he lies to literally everybody literally all day – including to Carrie and about Carrie.”
“‘Lies’ isn’t even a useful word with him – he lives inside a fog of invention and ‘believes’ whatever he has to in the moment. E.g He both knows he’s lying about the parties AND thinks he did nothing wrong. This doesn’t make ‘sense’ unless you’ve watched him carefully or similar sociopaths.”
Covid, too, shows that the machinery of government is just not premier league anymore.
The UK needs to act NOW before it gets to the flirting-with-failed-state status of the US.
It’s another lie; he should issue a correction to the House.
Just six per cent of all crimes resulted in a charge in the year to September 2021, equivalent to only one in 17 offences being solved, according to Home Office figures published on Thursday.
That represents a fall from 7.3 per cent in the previous year and is just half the charging rate of 15.5 per cent six years ago, when records began.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/27/police-solving-lowest-proportion-crimes-amid-record-numbers/ (£££)
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
The ridicule of Boris Johnson over the Partygate scandal has extended across the East and West, with U.S. President Joe Biden's spokeswoman laughing at the Prime Minister being 'ambushed by cake' at a birthday party in No10. White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday said Biden has 'never been ambushed by a cake' as she responded to a question on the lockdown-breaching parties at Downing Street.
TV channels in Russia have also been revelling in Mr Johnson's discomfort, with one branding him 'the most disliked, disrespected and ridiculed character in Britain' who was 'completely under the control and heel of his young wife' Carrie.
2% of police resources allocated.
https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/who-suffers-fraud/
The government basically ignores fraud as a crime, with the possible exception of benefit fraud, where 2000 cases were referred for prosecution.
The investigation of tax fraud also gets some resources devoted to it.
But unless it’s directly costing the government money, fraud is largely ignored by the criminal justice system.
Though of course that’s also true of fraud generally.
I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
Alternatively, it’s time we had a Home Secretary and Justice Secretary who had the serious approach their jobs require.
‘Many ambitions will not be achieved until 2030.’
Two words too many…
An analysis of this history quickly debunks the notion that the coalition years were an oasis of stability in recent political history.
Day 87. The search for a collective Conservative spine continues.
Eden at Suez, or Blair over Iraq, are, I admit comparable, but they were shocking because they were outliers, not normal practice.
FT
“Tory plotters know they have no obvious rival to Boris Johnson
The sheer range and diversity of the prime minister’s opponents is, for now, his greatest protection”
Unpaywalled if read via Twitter
If they're in the electoral equivalent of a burning building, and face the certainty of burning to death or leaping from a dark window and facing a wide range and diversity of potential outcomes, what's the smart move?
Guaranteed agonising death, or the possibility of survival?
It's their own damned fault for backing the clown in the first place. Failing to remove him is another critical failure.
They were wrong, of course, but they weren't out for themselves. Quite the contrary.
Having illegal pissups because you feel somehow you are superior to everyone else and then lying about it to save your career is, as the Wizard of Oz might have said, a horse of a very different colour.
How the governing system deal with that is a choice. As Monday's events - and the actions of the Speaker - showed, we now have a system which rules those lies in order, and suspends from the Commons MPs who call out those lies.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Blackford is as subtle as a brick, but on this occasion he was stating what everyone knows to be true.
And in the circumstances, the Speaker's why can't we all just get along schtick about Johnson's comments, on which he won't take action - “I am far from satisfied that the comments in question were appropriate on this occasion,” he said. “I want to see more compassionate, reasonable politics in this house and these sort of comments can only inflame opinions.” - is ridiculous.
"He is wrong and really needs to wait for the inquiry. Oh and Brexit and Vaccines and Levelling Up. Errr and you and Starmer smell."
There's just so much sewerage around and whatever he does turns to sh*t. When papers like the Mail, Telegraph and even the Express start turning on him you can be sure it's a reflection of the mood in the country.
We're in a situation where we have a man in charge who seems to lie with every passing breath. There's not a day goes by without some lie or other being exposed. This is omnilying.
Even in the last election some Southern seats were trending Labour / Lib Dem and are now probably in the marginal seat / lost category. And the Red Wall seats are going to return to Labour unless things are fixed and there isn't that much time left to fix things.
Some of the comedy in the "Benefits of Brexit" document as an example. New trade deals signed with countries to replicate word for word the previous EU trade deal and thus cement into place the existing EU status quo. Allowing (after much pushing from the industry) foreign drivers to take cabotage work as they always could under the EU as the only way to cure the worst of the HGV driver shortages. Freeports which we had and others still have in the EU.
None of these are benefits. None of them are new. The people saying "these are new benefits" know the entire document is a lie, presented to people they think are stupid.
Have we ever before had a government holding its own voters in such disdain?
For the most part they are extremely critical of Johnson at the moment.
If I was him in question 1 I would ask Johnson to state categorically for the parliamentary record if he will release the Gray report in full and without delay. And if he prevaricates at all I would begin question 2 by giving notice of a parliamentary motion to compel him to. That’s a motion he would so easily win that Johnson would cave before the vote.
He can then follow up by forcing the issue of Johnson’s prior statements to the house, inviting him to correct the Parliamentary record, given he has accepted the Gray Update in full. And if he refuses to, turn it over to the Speaker. And if the Speaker refuses to (which he probably would the wet flannel), then give notice of a further parliamentary motion along the lines of “This House condemns the Prime Minister for misleading parliament”. Force the Tory rebels to put their cards on the table.
Personally I think it’s time for Starmer to go for the jugular. It will be a far more compelling narrative for him if he is the one that directly sets in motion Johnson’s exit than to let his future opponent claim the credit for being the new broom cleaning up the mess.
When the government practice open corruption and ask no questions tenders with no penalty clauses for non-delivery, why should we expect them to run a proper legal system? Where is the benefit?
Boris has led them to a world of pain, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. But he also possesses the Boris Myth, that he alone can work miracles. I've never met him (lucky me), but I can imagine him having the strange terrible charisma to make up for his many obvious flaws as a person and politician. He probably leads the Conservatives to a huge defeat in 2024, but maybe, just maybe...
Whereas anyone else, even if there was agreement on who, calmly leads the Conservatives to a calm, dignified, small but decisive defeat in 2024.
And in a way, that's how it should be. A political party shouldn't get away with letting itself be taken over by a clown. And not one of the jolly ones either.
I just have a sense that turning this around has already gone pear-shaped and the stench of the parties goes on and on and on. The Mail headline this morning (online) is eviscerating. How much more of this can he endure? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
The Telegraph are also having a go and that Allison Pearson article is quite a turn up. Interesting comment she makes about if the two PMs could have swapped timeframes.
I suspect the Conservatives are in for some opinion polls over the next week which will make even HYUFD pause for a second. If that doesn't wake up the 1922, nothing will.
What should really make people shudder is what Boris will be like if he wriggles off the hook. The king of the world will be validated and entitled to do whatever he wants. Dangerous. Trumpian.
Planning ahead is a very useful trait for humans, but if taken too far it can lead to paralysis, if a perfect plan is required before acting, and I think that is a factor in the current failure of Tory MPs to act. A major Cabinet resignation is required to galvanise action. Perhaps a few of them willing to act together.
But there was no good reason for the complete absence of controls, and the severely deficient record keeping.
However, you fail to remember where we were in April/May last year. We needed PPE. In this case - as in war - the government had to do whatever it could to get PPE. It did.
It is another case where there was no right answer. We could procure properly, and not get it in time, or procure quickly, and risk fraud and waste. Remember this, and some of the dodgy companies on the list?
https://labour.org.uk/press/dozens-of-companies-offering-ppe-ignored-by-government-labour-reveals/
According to the article below, the government had 8,000 offers from suppliers of PPE. That is a massive number, when decisions needed making immediately, sometimes to the day, or the kit would not be got.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52369223
Here's a sad truth for you: Labour under Starmer would have done exactly the same thing, because not to do so would have been a grossly wrong.
It’s more that he can’t be arsed. He is happy to let Carrie do what she wants until the point when it bothers him, from decorating the fiat to organising their social life. It keeps Carrie happy which means less grief and tedium. But as Carrie seems unusually flighty and a bit clueless, this leads to trouble
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2022/feb/02/levelling-up-funding-inequality-exposed-by-guardian-research
If the tories stay with Boris Johnson until 2024 then I think Labour will be in power for at least two terms, so through to 2034. Effectively we are talking about a once in a generation sea change: like 1979 and 1997. Remember that Margaret Thatcher only beat Jim Callaghan by 7% and her majority was 'just' 44 seats. It was sufficient to usher in the most momentous change in this country since Attlee.
If they ditch him and have someone sensible and competent then they might be able to avoid a sea change defeat and at the worst leave Labour in coalition territory. That gives them every chance of returning to power in 2029.
Stay with Johnson and we're looking at 1979 or 1997. A sea change.
My objection is to corruption. Companies who provide PPE and medical supplies can;t get anyone in the DoH to even pick up the phone. Because the machine is too busy allocating £107m contracts to companies who have never even seen PPE never mind have a track record.
Contracts awarded without tender to companies offering no track record means a MASSIVE risk of failure. Especially when the company has been newly founded (or not even that in that one example). It was a gamble, and even the basics of a contract - delivery clauses allowing clawback of money should the kit be unfit or unsuitable or never arrive - were completely missed out.
We should have been able to go back to these Tories and demand our money back. Instead its "whoops, but the naysayers are complaining at us pocketing their cash for political reasons" Posted by some on here on the last thread.
‘It’s a shame, but he has to go’
That means literally no-one of my acquaintance now supports him, as far as I can tell. And I know - or knew - a LOT of Borisovian Brexiteers
Lets pick at two aspects of this. You have existing suppliers with an existing track record of procuring medical supplies. And you have brand new companies set up by friends of ministers. Do you give the business to the companies you already know with a track record of success? Or risk it all backing friends?
Second, regardless of how you have contracted and to whom, why do you not have standard boiler-plate clauses? That the supplier is liable to deliver PPE fit for purpose or the money will be recovered?
The corruption isn't just awarding untendered high risk contracts to new companies set up by the right people whilst ignoring the existing industry suppliers. It is failing to include any means to recover public money when the high risk contract fails to deliver.
In reality we have seen the government hand over £107m to the right people no questions asked. And you claim Starmer would have done the same? Please.
https://twitter.com/freddiesayers/status/1488422580939894786?s=21
Britain’s boffins are no better than her politicians. They need to be held to account. All of them
He also pointed out that the Blair team spent an awful lot of time on inequality (child poverty, surestart, delivery units, troubled families schemes etc etc) and so on and they found the hard way how complex and unrelentingly difficult it is to make meaningful change.
Johnson will have raised expectations which will not be met other than a few shiny new baubles scattered around.
I think there’s this casual complacency that so long as there’s a new leader in place before the election, it doesn’t matter what damage Johnson does in the meantime.
No doubt stemming from his remarkable trick in 2019 to make it feel like he was an insurgent fighting as the change candidate, rather than as the incumbent PM of a party which had been in power for a decade. This will be very difficult for the party to pull off twice.
That's the issue here but again it's hidden alongside other issues so people don't focus on the important one.
In fact this is an incredibly obvious playbook - we get given the complete picture (PPE, BBL fraud) and then when people pick up the real fixable problems that demonstrate a real screw up that they were responsible flaw they change the conversation to a different issue that was revealed at the same time.
PPE has - mates without experience allowed to purchase anything at vast expense, expensive proper PPE purchased when supply was less than demand and fraud.
BBL has - clearly fraudulent loans (companies created after the scheme began), dodgy loans and failed firms.
In both cases there is a clear area that could be investigated but it can't be because other issues are used to hide and sidetrack from the outright fraud.
Politically it should be the opposite. So much of their success as a government is due to the WWC voting for them for the first time. They are the people hardest hit by crime, and should be Up In Arms at the crime disaster. But are still - or have been - listening to the Pied Brexiteer's tune. Where the new benefits like the old trade arrangements being copy pasted are a higher value than their neighbourhood not being a crime-ridden hell.
When they realise what has been done to them these people will be furious. Won't do the Tories good will it?
Even then the key factor was strikes and sky high inflation rather than who the previous leader and PM was. Indeed Heath had won a solid majority of 30 in 1970
How have contracts like this been issued? I can park the issue about friends donors and patrons being awarded contracts without tender at high risk. But how can contracts be issued which do not let the powers that be claw the money back when in some cases literally nothing is delivered? No business would operate in such a manner. Does the government usually do so?
I don't know if it's been discussed but currently it takes 54 Tory MPs and then a successful VONC by the same Tory MPs to remove him. Instead why can't there be a VONC in him in Parliament. It is single step and only requires just over 35 Tory MPs to vote against or even to be achieved with a few more MPs abstaining.
Or a VONC in the government. Typically that results in a GE, but it doesn't have to if the Tories can form a new government. That is not uncommon in Europe under PR and only doesn't happen here because a loss of confidence isn't normally recoverable, but with a 70+ majority is currently.
These are all significant achievements.
But every day that loyalty is being eroded
"You have existing suppliers with an existing track record of procuring medical supplies. "
Let's remember the scale of the problem. ISTR PPE demand in April 2020 was 20 times over normal. And on top of that, there was a non-NHS demand from companies and civilians.
The existing suppliers could not cope with this - which was why Reeves produced a list of companies not with an existing track record.
Labour would have thrown money at the problem, just as the government did. If they did not, they would not have had the PPE.
(I hate to say this, but some criticism should be thrown at France as well for their behaviour.)
Waiting time for jury trial 2010 - 6-9 months
2019 - 15-18 months
2022 - 2+ years.
The problem you end up with is that to provide a comparison that Covid can't be blamed for you need to go back to before Boris was in power and he will say nowt to do with me and look at the tuppence extra we've given them since.
As it is, alongside all the rest of the sh*tshow we have a continuous drip drip drip of lurid partying details which is likely to continue for months.
It's another cack-handed and misguided call by Johnson and his cronies.
Can those on here critical of Boris Johnson please desist in calling him by his preferred cuddly stage name "Boris". Under the circumstances "Boris Johnson" "Mr Johnson" or preferably simply "Johnson" would seem far more appropriate. He is not a lovable uncle, a music hall comedian or the old fool down the pub, he is supposed to be the Prime Minister.
He is a malevolent politician, he is not our friend.
The loss to fraud was “only” £673m.
Obviously a lot, but far less than the headline £9bn people are citing. The balance was writing down value in line with market prices and gifts of PPE to other countries
The government got the PPE. Your approach would not have got it.
(As for Labour not letting their mates get advantage; the history of Labour rather goes against this.)
Rachel Wearmouth
@REWearmouth
Most headlines on levelling up say there is no new money & no new ideas. Rather than moving people on from partygate, the govt has signalled a major weakness
The only comparable period in your timeframe is 2010 to 2019. Cameron's win in 2015 is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
If, but it's a big if, the Conservatives don't do a Labour and select an unelectable leader (Jeremy Corbyn) then they would stand every chance of winning in c. 2029
Stay with Johnson and they're out of power for a generation.
Many of the new companies were set up by existing players in the space
Recovery clauses were fairly meaningless and would have caused delays. These contracts were with middlemen. So you pay £107m to them, they pay £97m to a Chinese company (often without having seen the product). You are asking them to guarantee quality - which they couldn’t do or give up their commission. There’s no way you’ll get the money back from China.
They were crap contracts but it was a unique situation. They did what they had to do.
They all voted for and supported the cuts described above. They have all supported the useless police leaders. They have all failed to take child sex abuse seriously, apart from some warm words - and in the PM's case not even that.
He wakes up every morning with a heel over his balls.