This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
I'd suggest in a massive emergency sub-standard PPE is better than no PPE at all.
My mum and a like-minded coterie of competent senior citizens teamed up to make PPE for Macclesfield hospital. Facemasks, largely, IIRC - dozens and dozens of them. Not technically difficult, but more than I could do. I very much doubt that had a CE mark on it. Because it was an emergency, we were getting through PPE faster than it could be procured, any PPE was better than no PPE. Did it eventually get used? I don't know. But had we got down to a stock of zero I'd suggest it would have been pretty churlish to turn it down.
So did my wife. But her understanding was it was not for use by frontline staff. The ICU nurse was not wearing a mask made from a Super Mario Brothers tee shirt.
I am sure a lot of the wastage figure is accounting resolution. If it is not I want to know where my £9b went!
In particular, face shields were being made on an amateur workshop piece work basis. And were then used in medical settings, in some cases.
Basically, a simple design was worked out and the making of the parts was distributed to those with tools and skills. A community workshop I am a member of had all the 3D printers making parts for these.
But I am assuming from what I saw and read they were being made to a standard equivalent to the required specifications. A face mask knitted by Grandma did not find itself in an operating theatre.
Besides which knitted masks and 3D printing us a sideshow. Who bought the paid for **** and why? And just for the fanbois, I accept it was not Boris Johnson.
The correct PMQs strategy is to concentrate on the missed call with Putin, all six questions on that.
I think at some point, after an answer to one of the questions, Starmer has to raise the issue of whether Johnson's answers can be relied upon to be even vaguely acquainted with the truth.
He has to get him to correct the record on one of the times he lied to Parliament, or to make it plain to everyone that Johnson is continuing to lie. In terms of holding him, and the office of PM, to account, that's the most important thing.
It can be as a follow-up to questions about Putin and Ukraine, which is a good choice in terms of how the scandal is preventing normal government.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It doesn't have to be true, or possible, it just has to scare enough MPs into inaction.
Maybe he's telling people he'd go directly to the membership and have them request an EGM on the leadership as a way to change the rules (I think this was part of what brought May down).
The details don't matter. Rules are not inviolable. Doubt and fear are Johnson's allies now.
This is all phoney bluster. If Boris threatened to detonate the rules in this way to retain the leadership of the party, then I have no doubt he would lose his parliamentary majority with haste. You would have anti Boris Tories standing against the Johnson candidate in every seat at the subsequent election. Given perhaps one third of 2019 Tory voters now can’t stand him and that share would likely grow if he went full Trump about retaining power for its own sake, that share would probably go up. And we might conceivably see the official Tory Party polling in the low 20s.
I wonder what'll happen in Southend W. Expect we'll know late on Thursday night.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Why does a standard boilerplate contract mean we don't get the PPE?
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
I don't dispute your conclusion. I say that as I am not a military strategist like you and Johnson.
I suspect that Ellwood, be he right or wrong, has researched Putin and his likely end game in far more detail than you, me or Johnson.
Is he right? I don't know.
Putting troops in Ukraine is about going full on Madmen's Checkers*
The theory is then that Putin blinks. He goes home humiliated.
The problem with that theory is that it ups the game - any NATO country sending troops to the Ukraine will up the ante for any Russian nationalist. Which means that it becomes *harder* for Putin to climb down.
@AlastairMeeks The Jimmy Savile stuff seems to be part of what has pushed a few Conservative MPs into action, them realising that things aren’t going to get better.
It would be justice if it turned out to be entirely counterproductive.
In 2013 Starmer apologised to women abused by Savile after disclosing police had missed three chances to take the case to trial:
“I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.”
Hasn’t Labour been recently arguing the culture is set at the top of an institution…
As a Tory source points out to The Sun, if Sir Keir is really passing the buck on decisions taken by the CPS while he was head of the organisation, can he say what action he took at the time against those members of the CPS who were personally responsible? And did he similarly refuse to take any credit for achievements by the CPS that he had no personal involvement in? Guido suspects the answers to both is ‘no’…
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
One difference is that the Secret Service have a specific policy of not disclosing or recording the actions of protectees. They have a history of covering up for the President - all the way back to Kennedy's affairs and before. Since they are part of the Executive Branch, the President is, in effect, their direct boss.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
He will make so much it won’t matter. Really. People under-estimate what box office he is around the world. The White House press spokesman is making jokes about cake-ambushes. The Russians make laborious satire about his beta maleness
I’m not sure it’s that much fun for Boris but he is a centre of global attention unlike any British PM since thatch. He’s a global celebrity. And we live in the Age of Celebrity
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Just had an update on your bets email from Smarkets. In principle a welcome innovation (do other bookies do this and I just haven't opted in?) even if the only settlement is not necessarily to my advantage
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Your last paragraph is utter nonsense as was your comment last night that Boris loyalists could storm the 1922
You have lost all sense of proportion and reason and actually, I feel sorry for you
You do the party a considerable disservice and damage with your comments
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
I think that's a linguistic distinction which exists only in the male lexicon.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
One difference is that the Secret Service have a specific policy of not disclosing or recording the actions of protectees. They have a history of covering up for the President - all the way back to Kennedy's affairs and before. Since they are part of the Executive Branch, the President is, in effect, their direct boss.
Yes. They acted as procurers, essentially. Did it for Clinton as well as JFK. “Get me that girl”
Some of the stories about JFK in particular are mind boggling. The bathroom scenes. My god
Betting post - 6 nations. Short version - I fancy the Scots to beat England this weekend. At home, with some cold weather (snow/sleet). The Scots have been much improved of late, and will have a full crowd of baying Edinburghites behind them, all dreaming of Bannockburn. England have not travelled well since the World Cup final defeat and I think there are still scars there from that. Plus they have no named captain as yet and have been heavily disrupted. DYOR.
Great article Cyclefree. Hard to see any of this improving until Johnson goes. To which end it's pretty much a patriotic duty to vote against the Tories in the May local elections. It might cost many excellent councilors their jobs but we have an 'omelette and eggs' situation here.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Why does a standard boilerplate contract mean we don't get the PPE?
For the reasons I've given downthread. It was a massive seller's market at a time of unprecedented demand. It'd be good if the seller does accept a standard boilerplate, but if they're giving the money in advance to another party, they may not want to sign it as that party might shaft them.
In ordinary times that would not matter. As people have also said downthread, look at what was happening at the time, with people and companies making PPE, sometimes in garages and homes. It was not ordinary times.
If the seller wanted an evening out with the Queen at the races for providing half our PPE, the government should have arranged it.
I fail to see how your approach would have got us anywhere near the PPE that was required, given the situation at the time. Which is why Labour, the Lib Dems - any sane government - would have done it. It also makes me question why this government did ...
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
I think that's a linguistic distinction which exists only in the male lexicon.
I think there is a difference between a man who is successful, serially with lots of willing partners, even if he does not stick with them, and a sex-pest. The latter conjures images of creepy losers, a bit too free with the hands etc.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Except
1) If Putin backs down from US troops in Ukraine that is a *bigger* humiliation than backing down from the current situation. 2) At a certain level of humiliation for Russia, Putin's life is at risk. 3) Form 2), at a certain point, war is *safer* for Putin than no war.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Ok so what would be your word for a man who spends his life - not just his youth - dedicated to bedding lots of different women? And is successful?
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
He will make so much it won’t matter. Really. People under-estimate what box office he is around the world. The White House press spokesman is making jokes about cake-ambushes. The Russians make laborious satire about his beta maleness
I’m not sure it’s that much fun for Boris but he is a centre of global attention unlike any British PM since thatch. He’s a global celebrity. And we live in the Age of Celebrity
He’s gonna absolutely mint it after Number 10
I hope his other children and his previous wives will benefit from that. In fact the sooner the better.
@AlastairMeeks The Jimmy Savile stuff seems to be part of what has pushed a few Conservative MPs into action, them realising that things aren’t going to get better.
It would be justice if it turned out to be entirely counterproductive.
In 2013 Starmer apologised to women abused by Savile after disclosing police had missed three chances to take the case to trial:
“I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.”
Hasn’t Labour been recently arguing the culture is set at the top of an institution…
As a Tory source points out to The Sun, if Sir Keir is really passing the buck on decisions taken by the CPS while he was head of the organisation, can he say what action he took at the time against those members of the CPS who were personally responsible? And did he similarly refuse to take any credit for achievements by the CPS that he had no personal involvement in? Guido suspects the answers to both is ‘no’…
The great thing about all this is that Labour will be able to come in in 2023/4 take one look at the Westminster refurbishment costs and our political system and junk the whole lot.
If Ministers can outright lie and throw dubious dirt to avoid answering questions than Parliament as it currently exists is no longer fit for purpose.
Just had an update on your bets email from Smarkets. In principle a welcome innovation (do other bookies do this and I just haven't opted in?) even if the only settlement is not necessarily to my advantage
I suspect most bookmakers don't want to remind people about their loses. That way you lose less sophisticated betters.
Smarkets have an advantage in that their only competition is Betfair who have a serious reputation issue in some places (here for their bet wording and management) and elsewhere for screwing up the Mens' Australian Open.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Britney Spears is now 40, and was in her 20s when she released a song of the same name. Has the language changed that fast?
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Even more simply, we could a. get PPE or b. not get PPE If we went for option a. we could do it c. competently or d. incompetently
Nobody understands why you rule out a. and c. as a possibility
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean other people do not.
But I'd argue the question is framed incorrectly. They got the PPE they required. If you wanted it down perfectly competently, i.e. your option C, then there is a good chance they would have not got the PPE they required. Perhaps the fact they got the PPE means they did it pretty competently, given that was the primary aim?
Here's a question I'd like an answer to: how much 'natural' waste is their in government, percentage-wise? How much money is ordinarily wasted through inefficiencies, either because it would cost more to do it efficiently (*), or because they just don't fix them? 0.1%? 1%? 5%? 10%
(*) An example might be benefit fraud, where it might cost £100 million to recoup £50 million.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Only if the Americans will do that, Biden has made clear he will do sanctions but not send US troops to Ukraine
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Except
1) If Putin backs down from US troops in Ukraine that is a *bigger* humiliation than backing down from the current situation. 2) At a certain level of humiliation for Russia, Putin's life is at risk. 3) Form 2), at a certain point, war is *safer* for Putin than no war.
Maybe. But does that not also apply when Putin tries to take a bite out of the Baltic States?
We're here now because we didn't act strongly enough in response in 2014. Where do we end up in the future?
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Why does a standard boilerplate contract mean we don't get the PPE?
For the reasons I've given downthread. It was a massive seller's market at a time of unprecedented demand. It'd be good if the seller does accept a standard boilerplate, but if they're giving the money in advance to another party, they may not want to sign it as that party might shaft them.
In ordinary times that would not matter. As people have also said downthread, look at what was happening at the time, with people and companies making PPE, sometimes in garages and homes. It was not ordinary times.
If the seller wanted an evening out with the Queen at the races for providing half our PPE, the government should have arranged it.
I fail to see how your approach would have got us anywhere near the PPE that was required, given the situation at the time. Which is why Labour, the Lib Dems - any sane government - would have done it. It also makes me question why this government did ...
My approach? For all that you keep trying to spin this I'm asking for the bare minimum of scrutiny. So many of these companies were formed specifically to win these contracts. The idea that a straight forward delivery clause means none of them would proceed and therefore we would have had no PPE is - as I said earlier - an argument beneath your usual standards.
Remember that the contract between the provider and the PPE manufacturer is not in question. Made in garages and homes you say - ones in China? We weren't being picky and rightly so. Here's a contract, get us facemasks to x spec. How the company then contracts its suppliers is not for the government.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Your last paragraph is utter nonsense as was your comment last night that Boris loyalists could storm the 1922
You have lost all sense of proportion and reason and actually, I feel sorry for you
You do the party a considerable disservice and damage with your comments
It is Boris loyalists proposing this strategy in the media
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
One difference is that the Secret Service have a specific policy of not disclosing or recording the actions of protectees. They have a history of covering up for the President - all the way back to Kennedy's affairs and before. Since they are part of the Executive Branch, the President is, in effect, their direct boss.
Yes. They acted as procurers, essentially. Did it for Clinton as well as JFK. “Get me that girl”
Some of the stories about JFK in particular are mind boggling. The bathroom scenes. My god
Like a Roman emperor
Anyone who watched the recent series about the Clinton impeachment - flawed though it was* - would have seen what a low-life sleaze-ball Bill Clinton was. He and the truth were not on speaking terms. He came across as a far more calculating liar than Boris, who in comparison does not seem well equipped for this particular dark art.
*The portrayal of Monica Lewinski seemed far off reality. I've met Monica and she isn't the weak "poor little old me" figure the script writers had her as. She also has the most exquisite raven blue-black hair. Her attraction was clear to see.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Ok so what would be your word for a man who spends his life - not just his youth - dedicated to bedding lots of different women? And is successful?
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
He will make so much it won’t matter. Really. People under-estimate what box office he is around the world. The White House press spokesman is making jokes about cake-ambushes. The Russians make laborious satire about his beta maleness
I’m not sure it’s that much fun for Boris but he is a centre of global attention unlike any British PM since thatch. He’s a global celebrity. And we live in the Age of Celebrity
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
(Whispers quietly): if we got into a real, massive shortage, we'd be using the non-CE marked stuff.
We needed the PPE. It was a massive seller's market. The government got the PPE.
Your analysis is: opponents were criticising the government for not getting the PPE and risking lives; they got the PPE and now we're criticising how it was obtained in an emergency.
Again, we are not criticising them getting actual PPE. We are criticising all the examples where they *didn't* get PPE. Or worse got PPE that was not fit for purpose, issued to hospitals who not only couldn't use it but couldn't quickly get replacements because "you've just been sent some".
Fast track no tender procurement where the contracts are delivered is one thing. Questionable but if it is ultimately successful then you allow it. Fast track no tender procurement where contracts are *not* delivered is something else.
You are criticising them for getting PPE, because they had to do what they could to get it. Trying to stop the cases of waste and fraud you are outlining would have meant we didn't get much of the stuff we did get.
Put simply: in the crisis, we could either get the PPE with some waste and fraud. Or we could not get the PPE. You are trying to single out the 'bad' contracts after the event, when it would have been difficult to single them out in a crisis were every hour counted.
Even more simply, we could a. get PPE or b. not get PPE If we went for option a. we could do it c. competently or d. incompetently
Nobody understands why you rule out a. and c. as a possibility
Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean other people do not.
But I'd argue the question is framed incorrectly. They got the PPE they required. If you wanted it down perfectly competently, i.e. your option C, then there is a good chance they would have not got the PPE they required. Perhaps the fact they got the PPE means they did it pretty competently, given that was the primary aim?
Here's a question I'd like an answer to: how much 'natural' waste is their in government, percentage-wise? How much money is ordinarily wasted through inefficiencies, either because it would cost more to do it efficiently (*), or because they just don't fix them? 0.1%? 1%? 5%? 10%
(*) An example might be benefit fraud, where it might cost £100 million to recoup £50 million.
Estimated amount of overpayments (remember you don't know if it's fraud or not until you actually look in detail) isn't £100m it's £8.9bn of which at least £1.9bn is believed to be intentional.
Day #78 in this depressing farce. It’s impossible to engage in politics when you can have no faith in a system that tolerates Boris. Obviously that’s a trap, because the more you disengage the more free he becomes. Quite a serious state of affairs.
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.
My thoughts exactly. If Johnson gets away with this lot he won't have learned his lesson or show any contrition he will simply believe he's invincible and carry on doing whatever he likes. He will know he can get away with and he will be right, he can carry on taking his MPs and the country for fools.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
He will make so much it won’t matter. Really. People under-estimate what box office he is around the world. The White House press spokesman is making jokes about cake-ambushes. The Russians make laborious satire about his beta maleness
I’m not sure it’s that much fun for Boris but he is a centre of global attention unlike any British PM since thatch. He’s a global celebrity. And we live in the Age of Celebrity
He’s gonna absolutely mint it after Number 10
Blair was also a global celeb PM
Yep but Blair was regarded as a Prime Minister. Bozo is viewed worldwide as a joke (and with it, to some extent, our country as a whole).
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
The best bit here is Labour's letter and its list. For those of you disagreeing with the bit in bold, and that black may be white, go on, remind yourselves what actually happened here.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Nonsense. The Telegraph would have him back tomorrow on twice the salary. That’s £600k a year there. What a capture for them
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
I think that's a linguistic distinction which exists only in the male lexicon.
I think there is a difference between a man who is successful, serially with lots of willing partners, even if he does not stick with them, and a sex-pest. The latter conjures images of creepy losers, a bit too free with the hands etc.
But I also suspect that a lot of those partners, whilst willing, would say that they were convinced against their better judgement. A salesman is still a salesman whether he is successful or not. Of course it's possible that men exist who leave a large number of highly satisfied partners in their wake but I think that is probably the exception.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
I don't know why a corrupt shithole like Ukraine is our problem all of a sudden.
Bear in mind that the Chinese carrier program would not be anything like as advanced as it is if Ukraine hadn't assisted them and sold them the Su-33K prototype. It's the complete strategic incoherence we've come to expect from the Global Britain project.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Your last paragraph is utter nonsense as was your comment last night that Boris loyalists could storm the 1922
You have lost all sense of proportion and reason and actually, I feel sorry for you
You do the party a considerable disservice and damage with your comments
It is Boris loyalists proposing this strategy in the media
You must be 'dreaming' and I can tell you now if anyone in the conservative party publicly suggested Boris loyalists could storm the 1922, as you did yesterday, then the media would explode with the story and compare it to the 6th January outrage in the US
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
I don't dispute your conclusion. I say that as I am not a military strategist like you and Johnson.
I suspect that Ellwood, be he right or wrong, has researched Putin and his likely end game in far more detail than you, me or Johnson.
Is he right? I don't know.
Putting troops in Ukraine is about going full on Madmen's Checkers*
The theory is then that Putin blinks. He goes home humiliated.
The problem with that theory is that it ups the game - any NATO country sending troops to the Ukraine will up the ante for any Russian nationalist. Which means that it becomes *harder* for Putin to climb down.
Can he back down? If he does, his life is in danger. If he doesn't and a war starts, his life may be *safer*
An alternative is to give him a fig leaf, while keeping up the pressure. Like the obsolete Jupiter missiles gave Khrushchev a fig leaf....
*A nickname used by some for applying the theory that the most aggressive wins in Game Theory.
Thank you for that.
I have no idea whether Ellwood is right or wrong. My retort to HY was his parroting of Government policy, because it is Government policy, with no consideration for the opposite point of view. "The policy is right because Boris Johnson says it is right". Ellwood was compelling because of his experience and reading on Putin and strategy, that said I have no idea whether his brinkmanship works.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Britney Spears is now 40, and was in her 20s when she released a song of the same name. Has the language changed that fast?
Good point, I bow to your superior Britney Spears knowledge. Sometimes is probably my person favourite of her oeuvre.
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
I don't know why a corrupt shithole like Ukraine is our problem all of a sudden.
Bear in mind that the Chinese carrier program would not be anything like as advanced as it is if Ukraine hadn't assisted them and sold them the Su-33K prototype. It's the complete strategic incoherence we've come to expect from the Global Britain project.
Because, like Poland in 1939, its about a stop line. Otherwise Putin & Co will be looking at the Baltics next.
The Su-33K sale was something like 15 years ago - when, among other things, the Ukrainian government was in the hands of Putins best friends, IIRC.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
He says it was legitimate to say it because the CPS apologised for the way it had acted and Starmer was head of the CPS.
Did he say that with an awareness of its applicability to the question of Johnson's responsibility for the actions of the organisation he is head of? Or did he just not think?
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Nonsense. The Telegraph would have him back tomorrow on twice the salary. That’s £600k a year there. What a capture for them
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Tsk
Not sure about your understanding of history. People tend to only remember the trivia about historical figures rather than what they did in their public life. What do most people know of Lloyd George other than his dodgy finances and his sexual proclivity?
The normally erudite Gove unable to find consistent line on this. Says PM shouldn’t apologise and was legitimate to raise issue. Then says out of deference to the families of Savile’s victims he’ll say no more. When asked why PM raised it then praises Starmer for actions at CPS.https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/status/1488787802443730946
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
The incel movement is just the far right creating a new grooming pathway for confused and angry young men.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Nonsense. The Telegraph would have him back tomorrow on twice the salary. That’s £600k a year there. What a capture for them
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Tsk
Not sure about your understanding of history. People tend to only remember the trivia about historical figures rather than what they did in their public life. What do most people know of Lloyd George other than his dodgy finances and his sexual proclivity?
No one with an IQ over 37 will forget that Boris Got Brexit Done. Especially the Remainers
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
The incel movement is just the far right creating a new grooming pathway for confused and angry young men.
And the trans movement is the far left doing ditto for young persons. Discuss.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
It is unless you are particularly good looking.
Yes. @OnlyLivingBoy is not just linguistically wrong but factually wrong. The advent of Tinder and other apps has been disastrous for the 80% of young men who aren’t alpha and good looking (or very notably rich and successful)
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
The incel movement is just the far right creating a new grooming pathway for confused and angry young men.
That's an interesting perspective for someone in the gay community. My very ordinary looking friend used Grindr to bed a string of gorgeous men half his age by virtue of having a car in a very rural area.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Nonsense. The Telegraph would have him back tomorrow on twice the salary. That’s £600k a year there. What a capture for them
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Tsk
Perhaps Boris will be a huge figure in our history, but remember Ted Heath who changed British history by taking us into Europe, arguably the most significant act of any post-war government until Boris took as out again. Yet Heath is almost forgotten by the general public. Even pb Tories talk only of his so-called long sulk.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Ok so what would be your word for a man who spends his life - not just his youth - dedicated to bedding lots of different women? And is successful?
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
I'd call them a sex pest. Someone who views women in those terms - as merely sexual conquests - is in my opinion damaged and emotionally stunted and will almost inevitably use coercive and manipulative techniques to persuade women to sleep with them, leaving a trail of pain and unhappiness in his wake.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
Sending troops into Ukraine now risks WW3.
Sending British troops to Nato states Estonia and Latvia though as Boris is doing is a sensible precaution
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Only if the Americans will do that, Biden has made clear he will do sanctions but not send US troops to Ukraine
Yes. The Americans would have to do it, because the Europeans aren't able. And it's possible that the Americans are more concerned with keeping free of additional commitments so that they can deter Chinese aggression towards Taiwan than with defending Ukraine.
It's disappointing then that there wasn't a determination from Europe to improve its own defence after 2014. Hopefully we and they will be better prepared for the next time.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
And yet several US presidents managed to have a high old time despite being the most overseen politicians in the world. JFK, Clinton.
Clinton managed it in the Oval Office
And Carrie only has power over Boris - or leverage via his needs - as long as the Big Dog is in power. As soon as he’s out he can make billions from memoirs and speeches and he won’t care about divorce
He will be much in demand as a remarkable political character - despite being a scoundrel
This must drive Carrie. She wants to keep him In Number 10 even more than he does
Carrie could also claim her cut of any millions Boris makes from memoirs and speeches post premiership in any divorce too don't forget.
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
At least one of his former wives took him to the cleaners in the divorce settlement IIRC. She might be prepared to advise!
I do wonder how correct Leon is about BoJo’s future earning power. I suspect that within weeks or months of his downfall, he will appear less like an ex PM than William Hague does. He’s not going to get the deal maker gigs that Blair and Mandy have creamed. He’s obviously not got it in him to have a proper job like the Coalition boys. Given the nature of his downfall and his increasingly repugnant behaviour, it’s actually hard to see him even with Ed Balls or Norman Tebbitt type media work for quite a while.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
Nonsense. The Telegraph would have him back tomorrow on twice the salary. That’s £600k a year there. What a capture for them
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Tsk
Not sure about your understanding of history. People tend to only remember the trivia about historical figures rather than what they did in their public life. What do most people know of Lloyd George other than his dodgy finances and his sexual proclivity?
No one with an IQ over 37 will forget that Boris Got Brexit Done. Especially the Remainers
Ok, swim time
That's living memory not history. Will that be what people remember in 100 years time?
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Ok so what would be your word for a man who spends his life - not just his youth - dedicated to bedding lots of different women? And is successful?
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
I'd call them a sex pest. Someone who views women in those terms - as merely sexual conquests - is in my opinion damaged and emotionally stunted and will almost inevitably use coercive and manipulative techniques to persuade women to sleep with them, leaving a trail of pain and unhappiness in his wake.
Yup.
I do like reading Sean’s posts tho. I always wondered what those lads mags dickheads turned into as they aged. In my naïveté, I assumed they matured into fairly normal married men, with a much healthier view of women, later in life.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Tho to be fair he did pretty well on quality, at the same time. Marilyn Monroe for a start
Womaniser isn't a word you hear very often these days. I think sex pest is the term de jour.
No no no. NO
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
Language evolves. Womaniser isn't a word I have heard used by anyone under the age of 50. It belongs in the era of Terry Thomas. In the world of Tinder etc it's not difficult to have tons of sex with random women if that's your thing.
Ok so what would be your word for a man who spends his life - not just his youth - dedicated to bedding lots of different women? And is successful?
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
I'd call them a sex pest. Someone who views women in those terms - as merely sexual conquests - is in my opinion damaged and emotionally stunted and will almost inevitably use coercive and manipulative techniques to persuade women to sleep with them, leaving a trail of pain and unhappiness in his wake.
Up to a point, and that point is where some cross the line into denying that women can enjoy sex.
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The consequence of the SNP blocking the Cambo oilfield development. It is an admission that oil will NOT be the backbone of the economy post independence. The only replacement is London.
Just had a very odd spam call. Recorded message obviously. "Attention - this is a recorded message to tell you that your national insurance number has been compromised due to some illegal activity on the northern border of Wales. Press 1 before we take any legal action against you and your national insurance number." Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
There were always going to be cockups given the circumstances.
The question is about the scale of the cockups and just how incompetent (or downright corrupt) the procurement process was or wasn't. From the headline figures, it's quite hard to tell. Given the reported failure to keep anything approaching adequate records, we may never know.
The fact that we are even now still paying to store 10,000 containers of PPE, with no idea of what they contain, does not install confidence.
(As an aside, the NAO spokesperson on R4 this morning said that the ventilator procurement process was far better handled.)
Leon in his dotage (60 I think by now?) still seems to think he's the authority on women, relationships and, well, just about everything from nature to Sri Lanka to arts to history.
Well I don't think you've got Johnson's relationship to Carrie right at all. Way way way wide of the mark.
I'm obviously something of a feminist but Carrie has Boris under her thumb. Why so? Apart from being married and in such a public relationship she has a LOT on him.
You think Dom is vicious? One misstep by Johnson and Carrie can unleash hell on him.
He's under her thumb alright.
Well she's the one person able to talk about anything that the rest of us aren't, should there be a reason why we can't, which there isn't. She would hold his reputation in her hands, were that to be true, which it isn't. The media would also know about it, were there anything to know, and if there was they might find this frustrating and adopt a more negative stance towards his personal foibles accordingly, so it's good news for him that there isn't and therefore they haven't.
Was that even less coherent before the edit?
It is palpably wrong. Even in terms of known unknowns, she could destroy Johnson in the next 3 minutes by saying that Johnson was at a flat party. The reason she doesn't is that at the moment that destroys her too. The media know a lot more than they publish - they have known about these parties all along, what with one of them being a leaving do for a bloke who went to the Sun.
And Johnson being the shit he is there is no doubt there's unknown unknowns by the bucketload to which his wife is privy
Of course. But that's why the situation that doesn't exist to which I was referring would, if it existed, be so particularly damaging.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Many thought the same when Corbyn lost a VONC amongst Labour MPs in 2016.
Yet Labour members re elected him
That doesn't hold at all - Corbyn was always considerably more popular among Labour members than among his MPs, and everyone knew this all along.
The position with the Prime Suspect is precisely the opposite - even among Tory members a very significant minority want him to go now, whereas so far at least the proportion of Tory MPs wanting the same is below 15%.
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
There were always going to be cockups given the circumstances.
The question is about the scale of the cockups and just how incompetent (or downright corrupt) the procurement process was or wasn't. From the headline figures, it's quite hard to tell. Given the reported failure to keep anything approaching adequate records, we may never know.
The fact that we are even now still paying to store 10,000 containers of PPE, with no idea of what they contain, does not install confidence.
(As an aside, the NAO spokesperson on R4 this morning said that the ventilator procurement process was far better handled.)
The Johnsonians take this criticism personally. I don't see the direct involvement of the Government except for the fast track programme. Procurement Managers who have spent my £9b are presumably still in place. They need to be called out.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
Indeed. I would add, though, that there seems to have been a breakdown in the social structures that help form real relationships. The online ghastliness of varying forms hasn't helped.
Which leaves us with large amounts of the material above....
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
No, Ms Cyclefree, you are, as usual, quite right. We did, though, discuss earlier the problems caused by underpaying young barristers in criminal cases, due to the underfunding of the justice system. And the case I referred to was child sex abuse. But I'm not going into any details about that.
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
Leaving aside the political arguments, how in a practical basis would it work for someone who was born in England, worked in England for x years, worked in Scotland for y years and then moved to a third country, say Ireland, before or after Scottish Independence is achieved. Who pays for the State Pension?
Sounds like it could be a right sodding mess regardless of Nationalist wishful thinking.
Just had a very odd spam call. Recorded message obviously. "Attention - this is a recorded message to tell you that your national insurance number has been compromised due to some illegal activity on the northern border of Wales. Press 1 before we take any legal action against you and your national insurance number." Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
Sounds like Big G has taken up hacking and is doing some naughty things with your NI number?
(on reflection, 'Big G' does sound like a bit of a crimelord name, doesn't it?)
This government is basically a crook’s charter. Practically a free hit if you want to go out and defraud someone. Or worse.
(Boris not especially to blame, although there’s no evidence he gives a fuck. This is the impact of austerity).
Fraud? Also open corruption. Like the PPE contracts handed out without tender to friends? To companies who had zero experience in PPE and in some cases delivered near zero usable but were able to pocket the public money anyway? How about the company who then won a contract to charge £stupid to store the unusable PPE it had procured? Or the company awarded a contract without tender before it had even been incorporated?
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?
The fraud is wrong - where it is genuine fraud.
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.
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.
Labour under Starmer wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have tasked people with hitting their systems and the internet to find suppliers rather than letting their mates become middle men.
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.
Read my post. Reeves stood up with a list of companies - some of which were dubious AFAICR. The government had a massive need, and 8,000 offers. You either go through the proper process and delay things - meaning you do not have the PPE - or you risk fraud and waste.
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.)
Can I ask your perspective on one simple point. Where the contractor did not deliver - either no PPE at all or PPE that was not fit for purpose - should there have been a simple clause in their contract allowing the government to get its (our) money back?
We have numerous examples of £107m being spent and nothing produced. Surely you can't be supporting that. Of a company not only producing unusable PPE and keeping the money but then being awarded an even bigger contract to store the unusable crap. Surely you can't be supporting that.
The corruption claims from so many of us aren't just because of contracts awarded blind - that would inevitably have happened. Its the lack of basic scrutiny. £107m paid for nothing to mates with no ability to get the money back. Yes, they got the PPE. But they also handed £107m at a time to the right people and got nothing in return...
I'd rather like you to address my points, but I'll answer yours, so strongly I'l even put it in bold:
We needed the PPE urgently. That was the priority. Your priority was not getting the PPE.
Ideally, the contract should have had a non-delivery clause. However: if having a non-delivery clause meant we might not get it, we shouldn't have had one. If a company said: "I can get you a million pieces of item x for £5 per item, but we need to pay our supplier in advance today or he'll give the order to another organisation."
What do you do, if the normal price was £2 per item, and the new price is £4-£6 per item? If there's a risk you won't get the money back? If there's a risk it won't quite be the correct kit?
Do you spend three weeks negotiating terms, as you would in 'normal' times? No. The answer might well be you run over, give them a big sloppy kiss and shake their hands. Heck, have their babies if you could. Because the majority of the deals came off and we got the PPE we needed, even if there was some waste and corruption.
We needed the PPE in unprecedented quantities. That was the priority.
I am not supporting the (small in the scheme of things) fraud and corruption. What I am supporting is getting the PPE.
Heck, I am not a fan of this government, but the sh*t spoken about PPE and ventilators is ridiculous.
Yes but there are specific specifications for procurement of stock by public bodies. PPE is CE marked. Without assurances that in an emergency procurement situation it meets the standard it is not fit for purpose and never was
Your analysis is "I'm short of fruit, but I know where I can get some over ripe bananas, that should do".
There were always going to be cockups given the circumstances.
The question is about the scale of the cockups and just how incompetent (or downright corrupt) the procurement process was or wasn't. From the headline figures, it's quite hard to tell. Given the reported failure to keep anything approaching adequate records, we may never know.
The fact that we are even now still paying to store 10,000 containers of PPE, with no idea of what they contain, does not install confidence.
(As an aside, the NAO spokesperson on R4 this morning said that the ventilator procurement process was far better handled.)
Wasn't that because we went to people who, if they didn't know how the make the things themselves, were quick learners?
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
I think this is 'it' folks ... domino effect coming up.
Why do I think that? Because Ellwood's right: this can't go on.
The Savile thing – cravenly defended by @Leon yesterday – now looks like a huge tactical misstep as well as an act of gross mendacity and vindictiveness. Trumpian in the extreme.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Of course the idea that there has to be a GE if Johnson falls via VONC is utter bollx.
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
I don't see any implied approbation in the comments of 2 minute sex sessions.
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Good Morning everyone. As someone else said, a powerful piece by Ms Cyclefree. I really do not recall a time when flagrant dishonesty was so common in public life.
I keep being told that politicians always lie, why am I making such a fuss. Nice to hear you say differently
It's a fact of life that people lie. 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.
Although Blackford, as usual, bungled it. He should have asked if Johnson could reconcile his statement that there were no parties in his flat with Gray's finding that there was one, and asked the Speaker, separately, what the penalty is for misleading the House.
Then he'd not only have got away with it but effectively forced the Speaker to be the one calling out Johnson for lying.
Perhaps this is what Starmerama will do today. Or will Johnson hide behind being tired from his Ukraine jaunt and not turn up?
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.
Agree.
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.
As long as Boris has at least 50 loyalists amongst Tory MPs, those loyalists can vote down any alternative Tory Leader and PM except Boris. So a VONC in Boris' government would lead to a general election which most Tory MPs would still not risk
I didn't know that. Odd rule if another Tory can get a majority but 50 can stop it. Are you sure?
And surely they wouldn't support him if that would result in a GE. Surely they would get behind a compromise candidate so as not to force a GE.
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice?
If Boris lost a VONC and Boris loyalists threatened to not support an alternative leader's government in a Starmer VONC in that government, then yes there would be a general election. Unlikely yes but not impossible.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
Cheers @hyufd but I was really after your opinion on the specific question I asked namely:
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
My understanding is:
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
Your point 1 is correct(*), but it doesn't address how a new government is formed - and critically, to avoid a GE the new government has to be formed and the Commons has to vote confidence in it within 14 days.
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.
I for one am overjoyed we're talking about "alpha" and "beta" men again. I missed this kind of discourse. 2016 was such a great year, we should have more years like it.
Well, we are talking - endlessly - about a prime minister who is probably about to be toppled, in large part because of his sizeable sexual appetite and desire for young partners.
Pretty unavoidable
It seems to have turned into something of a PB tradition. Following a header written by a woman about child sexual abuse and sexual offences against women, some are talking about men who have sex in 2 minutes and whether the correct description for such men is "womaniser", "sex pest" or "cad".
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
Blimey, what did I miss? You wonder off to do a virtual court and....
On matters Scotch, an interesting article by the director of the Better Together campaign.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The problem there is that if Scotland decides to leave the UK, then we no longer have a UK Government, or even a UK. We have a Scottish government and a WENI government. Obviously, the WENI government has no duty to pick up the tab for the whole lot.
A vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson is now "inevitable", Tobias Ellwood has said as he confirmed he will submit a letter to the 1922 Committee later today.
Mr Ellwood, the chairman of the defence committee, told Sky News the ongoing row over alleged parties at Downing Street was "horrible" for Conservative MPs to continue to have to defend to the British public, and attacked "rushed policy announcements" from No 10.
"I don't think the Prime Minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike that this is all only going one way," Mr Ellwood told Sky News.
"I believe it's time for the Prime Minister to take a grip of this, he himself should call a vote of confidence rather than waiting for the inevitable 54 letters to be eventually submitted. It's time to resolve this completely, so the party can get on with governing.
"And yes, I know the next question you'll ask, I will be submitting my letter today to the 1922 Committee."
He also criticised Boris Johnson's claims about Sir Keir Starmer in relation to Jimmy Savile on Monday, adding: "We must seek to improve our standards."
I think this is 'it' folks ... domino effect coming up.
Why do I think that? Because Ellwood's right: this can't go on.
The Savile thing – cravenly defended by @Leon yesterday – now looks like a huge tactical misstep as well as an act of gross mendacity and vindictiveness. Trumpian in the extreme.
Surely the last straw? Seems like the defection spiked the "pork pie plot", but the situation is getting worse every day for the Tories. If no action soon, then the Party will really be over for the Tories.
Final thought. Boris is Charles II, the Merrie Monarch. Supposedly he was easily manipulated by his younger mistresses, which proved near-fatal to the governance of the country
‘Writing for BBC History Magazine, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh reveal how the merry monarch's obsession with sex cost England a fortune and left it vulnerable to attack’
But was Charles ever ‘controlled’ by these women? No. He was always the king. He was controlled by himself, by his own appetites: his urgent desire for sex, his need for female company, and his hunger for a constant variety of partners
That's fair, though ultimately the consequences are the same. Boris can only get sex from one source while he's PM and she's more than capable of withholding sex if he doesn't do exactly what she wants, whether that's parties, staffing or policy.
Major and Currie were at it like ferrets during his PMship.
No, they weren't. They broke it off when there was a chance that he might run for high office as they feared there would be too much public scrutiny IIRC.
You are right. 1984-88
But on the wider point I bet anything you like Boris is capable of arranging a quick away knee trembler as PM
I don't think it's as easy as that. His movements are basically public all the time, if Boris was having an affair as PM it would become public knowledge very, very quickly. His police protection would leak it within days of it starting. That's why Carrie has got such a powerful hold over him, as I said - he wakes up every morning with a stiletto heel over his balls so Carrie gets what Carrie wants.
My guess is sex with Boris is hot sweaty unexpected and unwelcome by the recipient (hence the high unwanted pregnancy count) and over in 3 minutes. Think Becker and broom cupboards. I am sure Johnson can still fit this into his schedule. After all the police didn't leak the parties did they
I suspect you are right.
There is a certain kind of womaniser for whom it is all about quantity. Get it done. Find the next. Foreplay isn’t exactly a priority
By all accounts JFK was precisely like this. 2 minutes of squelching noises
Comments
Besides which knitted masks and 3D printing us a sideshow. Who bought the paid for **** and why? And just for the fanbois, I accept it was not Boris Johnson.
He has to get him to correct the record on one of the times he lied to Parliament, or to make it plain to everyone that Johnson is continuing to lie. In terms of holding him, and the office of PM, to account, that's the most important thing.
It can be as a follow-up to questions about Putin and Ukraine, which is a good choice in terms of how the scandal is preventing normal government.
That is also assuming Boris resigns after losing a VONC and does not try and contest a subsequent leadership election so as to get his loyalist MPs to put him through to the membership stage in the runoff as runner up
English is the world’s greatest language by a distance because we have words for almost everything - and beyond
A womaniser is someone dedicated to bedding lots of women, who is successful at it. He is probably a cad but not necessarily so
A sex pest is someone who would like to be a womaniser, but is much less successful. So he just ends up pestering women, forlornly
The theory is then that Putin blinks. He goes home humiliated.
The problem with that theory is that it ups the game - any NATO country sending troops to the Ukraine will up the ante for any Russian nationalist. Which means that it becomes *harder* for Putin to climb down.
Putin is, as the man said - Only President for Life
Can he back down? If he does, his life is in danger. If he doesn't and a war starts, his life may be *safer*
An alternative is to give him a fig leaf, while keeping up the pressure. Like the obsolete Jupiter missiles gave Khrushchev a fig leaf....
*A nickname used by some for applying the theory that the most aggressive wins in Game Theory.
In 2013 Starmer apologised to women abused by Savile after disclosing police had missed three chances to take the case to trial:
“I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.”
Hasn’t Labour been recently arguing the culture is set at the top of an institution…
As a Tory source points out to The Sun, if Sir Keir is really passing the buck on decisions taken by the CPS while he was head of the organisation, can he say what action he took at the time against those members of the CPS who were personally responsible? And did he similarly refuse to take any credit for achievements by the CPS that he had no personal involvement in? Guido suspects the answers to both is ‘no’…
Boris now has 2 young children with her too to fund
She might be prepared to advise!
I’m not sure it’s that much fun for Boris but he is a centre of global attention unlike any British PM since thatch. He’s a global celebrity. And we live in the Age of Celebrity
He’s gonna absolutely mint it after Number 10
On a point of fact do you think my 2 suggestions are valid in principle even if not practical in practice? Eg:
1) You can have a vonc in parliament on the Govt and the same Govt reform under a different leader without a GE because they have a majority. Is this correct?
2) Can you have a vonc in parliament on the PM, and not the Govt itself, and what is the impact of this?
AND
3) Are you sure 50 Mps can stop a replacement even if a replacement gets a majority of MPs from his party to vote for him/her?
Cheers kjh
You have lost all sense of proportion and reason and actually, I feel sorry for you
You do the party a considerable disservice and damage with your comments
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
Some of the stories about JFK in particular are mind boggling. The bathroom scenes. My god
Like a Roman emperor
DYOR.
In ordinary times that would not matter. As people have also said downthread, look at what was happening at the time, with people and companies making PPE, sometimes in garages and homes. It was not ordinary times.
If the seller wanted an evening out with the Queen at the races for providing half our PPE, the government should have arranged it.
I fail to see how your approach would have got us anywhere near the PPE that was required, given the situation at the time. Which is why Labour, the Lib Dems - any sane government - would have done it. It also makes me question why this government did ...
1) If Putin backs down from US troops in Ukraine that is a *bigger* humiliation than backing down from the current situation.
2) At a certain level of humiliation for Russia, Putin's life is at risk.
3) Form 2), at a certain point, war is *safer* for Putin than no war.
It’s definitely not “sex pest” - that strongly implies a weak man who can’t get enough sex so has to resort to pestering. And fails
Seducer? That’s not it, that implies flowers and poetry and is too lyrical. Philanderer? That’s better - but it also suggests someone who strays helplessly. Womaniser has the correct “industrial” sense to is. A man who works his way through a lot of women partners. Relentlessly.
If Ministers can outright lie and throw dubious dirt to avoid answering questions than Parliament as it currently exists is no longer fit for purpose.
Smarkets have an advantage in that their only competition is Betfair who have a serious reputation issue in some places (here for their bet wording and management) and elsewhere for screwing up the Mens' Australian Open.
But I'd argue the question is framed incorrectly. They got the PPE they required. If you wanted it down perfectly competently, i.e. your option C, then there is a good chance they would have not got the PPE they required. Perhaps the fact they got the PPE means they did it pretty competently, given that was the primary aim?
Here's a question I'd like an answer to: how much 'natural' waste is their in government, percentage-wise? How much money is ordinarily wasted through inefficiencies, either because it would cost more to do it efficiently (*), or because they just don't fix them? 0.1%? 1%? 5%? 10%
(*) An example might be benefit fraud, where it might cost £100 million to recoup £50 million.
Which leaves his memoirs and after dinner speeches. The former will do less well than Leon thinks, as who wants to pay to read a pack of lies. There will be a market from Brexit die hards and the type who buy every ex PM’s book. He’ll convince some sucker for a big advance but it’s one time only and he’ll lose half to tax and another slug to alimony. Advances for his Shakespeare book if he ever finishes it, will disappoint.
And after a short burst of activity with the speeches, the poorly prepared jokes will wear thin, at least in this country. I reckon he’s got a lonely life ahead of him in red state America, shlepping from one non-descript convention hall to the next, trying to tap cocktail waitresses by telling them what a big deal he used to be.
We're here now because we didn't act strongly enough in response in 2014. Where do we end up in the future?
Remember that the contract between the provider and the PPE manufacturer is not in question. Made in garages and homes you say - ones in China? We weren't being picky and rightly so. Here's a contract, get us facemasks to x spec. How the company then contracts its suppliers is not for the government.
*The portrayal of Monica Lewinski seemed far off reality. I've met Monica and she isn't the weak "poor little old me" figure the script writers had her as. She also has the most exquisite raven blue-black hair. Her attraction was clear to see.
Hence the rise of the incel movement. A lot of young men not getting any sex as the top 20% get loads. And the stats show this is a real and dangerous phenomenon
Roll on the sex bots in the metaverse. Then we can all be JFK (or the equivalent woman - Catherine the Great?)
“Swordsman”
Which is why DWP are recruiting 2000 officers at a cost of £80-100m a year (it's £500m but over an unknown number of years so I'm going 5-7) https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/dwp-gets-500m-in-benefit-fraud-crackdown-73672
That was 30 seconds of research on Google.
Govey joining the Saville slur
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-nothing-apologise-over-083320049.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly91ay5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHcFcc9JHZQLsd5yF3tuRvyI9jTN46yTALDDJU2nxJJH8gczntcLBA44EumWWAcQ8827fU1l1yGNalnXDES-_WjDHZDv46-LKNAfY1JmDyr4tvSutwBItUjp5S1Ex-zafZvyZgpAglIpMT9ng_Yjb9OkPPNIyg4CcNRTb9mireB6
Like so many you are allowing your dislike and disapproval of Boris to cloud your acumen.
In the end, what has boris done? He’s fucked a lot of women, cheated on his wife and had some ill-advised parties. He’s not Hitler
When he’s gone (which needs to be soon) we will quickly forget the mild squalor and he will be a huge figure in our history. He won Brexit twice. He changed global history
Tsk
Bear in mind that the Chinese carrier program would not be anything like as advanced as it is if Ukraine hadn't assisted them and sold them the Su-33K prototype. It's the complete strategic incoherence we've come to expect from the Global Britain project.
I have no idea whether Ellwood is right or wrong. My retort to HY was his parroting of Government policy, because it is Government policy, with no consideration for the opposite point of view. "The policy is right because Boris Johnson says it is right". Ellwood was compelling because of his experience and reading on Putin and strategy, that said I have no idea whether his brinkmanship works.
Essentially, in order to address the gaping financial hole represented by independence, the SNP leadership is now arguing that in the event of independence restofUK would be liable for paying the state pensions of Scots, that's to say the putative back-dated pension liability built up pre-independence. Seriously. You English taxpayers will be paying my pension come the glorious day. Believe me, there's plenty up here will believe it.
https://notesonnationalism.substack.com/p/playing-for-time
Ian Blackford: "That commitment to continue to pay pensions rests with the UK Government. That’s no different to a UK citizen that chooses, for example, to live in Canada or Spain, or France or anywhere else. That commitment to receive your pension remains in place. That’s an obligation of the UK Government and what will happen going forward is that it will be the obligation of the Scottish Government to look after pension entitlement from the period for those that are working and making pension contributions for the period post-independence.”
The Su-33K sale was something like 15 years ago - when, among other things, the Ukrainian government was in the hands of Putins best friends, IIRC.
Pretty unavoidable
Did he say that with an awareness of its applicability to the question of Johnson's responsibility for the actions of the organisation he is head of? Or did he just not think?
Ok, swim time
1. If a Government loses a VONC the Government falls. That does not directly lead to a GE. Parliament then decides if there is a majority for a new Government or if a GE is necessary. Only if no one else can garner the support to form a new Government does there have to be a GE.
2. In effect if you have a VONC in the Government you are having a VONC in the PM. What you are not having is a VONC in the makeup of Parliament itself. Hence the reason why a GE may not be necessary.
As such it would be entirely possible to have a VONC in a Government and subsequently have the same party form a new Government if they can show it will be stable - clearly have majority support in Parliament. Alternatively if somehow the Opposition had majority support then they could try to form a Government.
Of course in practice the PM having lost a VONC in Parliament could in the past have called a GE but that option is now removed and requires 2/3rds of the MPs to agree under the FTPA.
The idea touted by HYUFD and Jacob Rees-Mogg that a GE is inevitable after a lost VONC is, I believe, incorrect.
It's disappointing then that there wasn't a determination from Europe to improve its own defence after 2014. Hopefully we and they will be better prepared for the next time.
Yup.
I do like reading Sean’s posts tho. I always wondered what those lads mags dickheads turned into as they aged. In my naïveté, I assumed they matured into fairly normal married men, with a much healthier view of women, later in life.
Turns out, they remain dickheads.
When in fact the correct description is "bloody useless". In fact even the term "having sex" is barely accurate: "having a *ank* inside a woman but might as well be a paper bag" would more properly cover it.
But now I expect I'll be criticised for using too many words and unlady-like ones at that.
Not sure where to start with what is wrong with this but 'northern border of Wales' is a strange and unnecessary detail. Sounds like fraud designed by GPT3.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1488611619378806786
The question is about the scale of the cockups and just how incompetent (or downright corrupt) the procurement process was or wasn't. From the headline figures, it's quite hard to tell. Given the reported failure to keep anything approaching adequate records, we may never know.
The fact that we are even now still paying to store 10,000 containers of PPE, with no idea of what they contain, does not install confidence.
(As an aside, the NAO spokesperson on R4 this morning said that the ventilator procurement process was far better handled.)
The position with the Prime Suspect is precisely the opposite - even among Tory members a very significant minority want him to go now, whereas so far at least the proportion of Tory MPs wanting the same is below 15%.
Which leaves us with large amounts of the material above....
And the case I referred to was child sex abuse.
But I'm not going into any details about that.
Sounds like it could be a right sodding mess regardless of Nationalist wishful thinking.
(on reflection, 'Big G' does sound like a bit of a crimelord name, doesn't it?)
If they are saying an earlier GE is more likely then that is more correct. At the moment there is more chance of @Leon doing dry January than as things stand there being a GE with Johnson in the shit as now. So if Johnson falls one is more likely. But it's all relative.
Thought he'd have been kept inside for that!
The risk is that after the Commons VONC, Boris refuses to resign as party leader, therefore there's nobody that HMQ can ask to form a government as nobody else could be said to have any chance of winning a Commons confidence vote.
DACOP has Lords Report stage next Wednesday. It cleared Committee stage without amendment and Labour support it, so it should theoretically clear the remaining stages and receive Royal Assent pretty quickly - looking at the progress of other bills, I'd expect Lords 3rd Reading a week later and unless any amendments are made, it should get Royal Assent by the middle of the month - though if there were a Commons VONC passed before Royal Assent it would be interesting if assent were delayed until after the 14 day clock, as granting it would stop the clock.
(*) Technically, I don't think there's anything in FTPA which prevents the Commons changing its mind and voting confidence in the same government within 14 days, but it seems rather unlikely.