Assuming the next Conservative leadership contest is whilst the party is in office, I just think it's fantasy to talk about contenders whose cabinet experience has been brief and junior.
Realistically, in choosing a PM as opposed to a party leader who can grow into it, MPs just aren't going to look past the genuinely known quantities - essentially existing senior cabinet members plus Hunt on the outside.
There could be trading value in some of these fringe figures - if they actually enter the contest to strengthen their position to get into the next cabinet, they will shorten. But they just won't be there come the members' vote.
Also, on Cyclefree's point about young cardinals/olds popes... I think you'll find Smith is 50, which would be pretty much lower mid-table in age for an incoming PM (older than Blair and Cameron, and a shade older than Major, but quite a bit younger than Johnson, Brown, or May). There's no comparison with Howard, who was 62 on becoming leader and a few days short of 65 by the 2005 election. It was fair to assume, even if he'd won in 2005, he'd have retired before all that long. That's just not true for a 50 year old - Smith would want to stay as long as people would have him.
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not junior. And given Brexit it's pretty important.
Smith is older than the obvious Cabinet contenders.
A very long shot I agree. But less because of his personal qualities and more because the Tory party seems to have gone temporarily insane.
There's actually a formal order of precedence for Cabinet Ministers, used for determining Chairmanship of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees in the absence of individuals. SoS for NI is currently 17th of 22 - not sure what it was when Smith was there but wouldn't have been all that different.
The NI Office is also basically non-existent in terms of spending. Spending isn't everything - as you say, some interesting Brexit issues etc - but it just doesn't involve managing a major government department.
I don't want to do Smith down - he might well be a capable chap and NI raises some interesting issues - but seven months in what is a junior cabinet job just isn't going to provide MPs with the confidence they need in choosing a PM.
In terms of age, age relative to other contenders isn't the point. The point is he's not going to retire early. A party leader is doing bloody well to make it to 10-15 years, by which time he's well below retirement age. So it doesn't matter if he's 50, 40 or even 35 - he'll just ride the horse as long as he can. That just isn't the same as Howard, say, who was NEVER going to even try to last ten years from becoming leader in 2003. The whole reason young cardinals liked him was that, even if he'd won in 2005, he'd have been gone by 2010.
As I say, possible trading bet. But Conservative MPs, if they're going to get rid of a character who is at best mercurial, are going to go for a known quantity. Taking a punt on an outsider is never likely for a party in office, and even less so in the circumstances we're in.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
So, who are the dark horses overall? We have a sort of tiered system don't we:
High chance of second round:
- Sunak - Truss
Will definitely or probably stand, some chance of second round:
- Javid - Tugendhat - Hunt
Darkish horses:
- Harper - Mordaunt - Hancock?
Ultra-dark horses:
- Julian Smith and assorted remainers - One of the ERG spartans - Lord Frost
Hancock is so deluded he will try and stand. Whether he can get more than a couple of signatures is another matter.
Although perhaps it should be noted that he resigned for an act that now seems positively small potatoes compared to industrial scale parties and god knows what else at No 10 all through lockdowns.
Hancock has a reasonable tale to tell about vaccines and Nightingale hospitals, and even for resigning honourably in contrast to the outgoing Prime Minister. His problem might be simply that MPs regard him as a bit of a lightweight. He lacks gravitas.
Highly unlikely, every new PM who has come in midterm since WW2 has held one of the Great Offices of State in Cabinet ie Chancellor, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary. I therefore cannot see beyond Sunak, Truss or Patel (or indeed Raab or Hunt who have been Foreign Secretary in the past or Javid as a former Chancellor) replacing Boris if he goes before the next general election.
Harper is therefore a very dark horse indeed
Patel? Are you being serious? If you could fix it I'm sure PM Starmer would show his gratitude (Know what I mean Nod nod wink wink.....).
Well if he's not, I am.
Her unpopularity is entirely manufactured. She does have an unfortunate resting smirk though.
It's very hard to work out if the Home Office like her or not. I'd guess they hate her less than everyone else.
I don't think she'll run, and that's a shame I think.
She’s regularly at the bottom of conservative home surveys of cabinet members. Below even Gavin Williamson when he was in education.
Assuming the next Conservative leadership contest is whilst the party is in office, I just think it's fantasy to talk about contenders whose cabinet experience has been brief and junior.
Realistically, in choosing a PM as opposed to a party leader who can grow into it, MPs just aren't going to look past the genuinely known quantities - essentially existing senior cabinet members plus Hunt on the outside.
There could be trading value in some of these fringe figures - if they actually enter the contest to strengthen their position to get into the next cabinet, they will shorten. But they just won't be there come the members' vote.
Also, on Cyclefree's point about young cardinals/olds popes... I think you'll find Smith is 50, which would be pretty much lower mid-table in age for an incoming PM (older than Blair and Cameron, and a shade older than Major, but quite a bit younger than Johnson, Brown, or May). There's no comparison with Howard, who was 62 on becoming leader and a few days short of 65 by the 2005 election. It was fair to assume, even if he'd won in 2005, he'd have retired before all that long. That's just not true for a 50 year old - Smith would want to stay as long as people would have him.
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not junior. And given Brexit it's pretty important.
Smith is older than the obvious Cabinet contenders.
A very long shot I agree. But less because of his personal qualities and more because the Tory party seems to have gone temporarily insane.
There's actually a formal order of precedence for Cabinet Ministers, used for determining Chairmanship of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees in the absence of individuals. SoS for NI is currently 17th of 22 - not sure what it was when Smith was there but wouldn't have been all that different.
The NI Office is also basically non-existent in terms of spending. Spending isn't everything - as you say, some interesting Brexit issues etc - but it just doesn't involve managing a major government department.
I don't want to do Smith down - he might well be a capable chap and NI raises some interesting issues - but seven months in what is a junior cabinet job just isn't going to provide MPs with the confidence they need in choosing a PM.
In terms of age, age relative to other contenders isn't the point. The point is he's not going to retire early. A party leader is doing bloody well to make it to 10-15 years, by which time he's well below retirement age. So it doesn't matter if he's 50, 40 or even 35 - he'll just ride the horse as long as he can. That just isn't the same as Howard, say, who was NEVER going to even try to last ten years from becoming leader in 2003. The whole reason young cardinals liked him was that, even if he'd won in 2005, he'd have been gone by 2010.
I don't disagree. It's not Cabinet precedence I was thinking of. Rather the substance of the work he did in NI and the difficulties he faced were probably some of the most difficult faced in government. He did well in them.
Instead we have, God help us, people like Nadine Dorries in Cabinet. You look at most of the people in charge and want to weep. One of the few competent Ministers who actually achieved something during his time in office was sacked. That is what is wrong with the Tories. They show no signs of realising this let alone doing anything about it.
So, who are the dark horses overall? We have a sort of tiered system don't we:
High chance of second round:
- Sunak - Truss
Will definitely or probably stand, some chance of second round:
- Javid - Tugendhat - Hunt
Darkish horses:
- Harper - Mordaunt - Hancock?
Ultra-dark horses:
- Julian Smith and assorted remainers - One of the ERG spartans - Lord Frost
Hancock is so deluded he will try and stand. Whether he can get more than a couple of signatures is another matter.
Although perhaps it should be noted that he resigned for an act that now seems positively small potatoes compared to industrial scale parties and god knows what else at No 10 all through lockdowns.
Hancock has a reasonable tale to tell about vaccines and Nightingale hospitals, and even for resigning honourably in contrast to the outgoing Prime Minister. His problem might be simply that MPs regard him as a bit of a lightweight. He lacks gravitas.
What are you talking about?
Hancock has got practically no chance of even getting the signatures, let alone progressing in the contest beyond the level of a punchline. Replacing a disgraced PM who broke his own rules with a disgraced ex-Health Secretary who broke his own rules is utterly ludicrous, and even those Tory MPs who feel personal sympathy with him know he's a laughable non-runner in this race.
I find 'Mavis Butterworth', though perfectly wholesome, even more suspicious frankly. I don't think anyone has that name outside of a Midsomer Murders episode.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
So, who are the dark horses overall? We have a sort of tiered system don't we:
High chance of second round:
- Sunak - Truss
Will definitely or probably stand, some chance of second round:
- Javid - Tugendhat - Hunt
Darkish horses:
- Harper - Mordaunt - Hancock?
Ultra-dark horses:
- Julian Smith and assorted remainers - One of the ERG spartans - Lord Frost
Hancock is so deluded he will try and stand. Whether he can get more than a couple of signatures is another matter.
Although perhaps it should be noted that he resigned for an act that now seems positively small potatoes compared to industrial scale parties and god knows what else at No 10 all through lockdowns.
Hancock has a reasonable tale to tell about vaccines and Nightingale hospitals, and even for resigning honourably in contrast to the outgoing Prime Minister. His problem might be simply that MPs regard him as a bit of a lightweight. He lacks gravitas.
What are you talking about?
Hancock has got practically no chance of even getting the signatures, let alone progressing in the contest beyond the level of a punchline. Replacing a disgraced PM who broke his own rules with a disgraced ex-Health Secretary who broke his own rules is utterly ludicrous, and even those Tory MPs who feel personal sympathy with him know he's a laughable non-runner in this race.
That is roughly what I said, isn't it? You say laughable. I say lightweight. Potato potato.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
I've not had to face it myself so maybe I'd behave like a lot of people and just pay up, but it seems worth holding out in a lot of these situations as we know for a fact police thought guidance was law when it isn't, so worth challenging.
They really really don't like it when you do that though.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
I'm assuming magistrates do, certainly, given they should be being advised by solicitors.
If this person could be fined, then there seems to me to be no realistic way that the Downing Street mob can get off being fined.
Similarly, parties in student halls. These people live together. So if the regulations don't apply to Downing Street, they shouldn't apply to these people either, but they did.
Leaving aside the fact these scumbags deserve to be fired anyway for being more useless than Vladimir Putin's anger management course, the fact is people were being fined for comparable offences via the courts. I do not assume the police knew the law, but I do assume the courts do. If not, what's the point of them?
To any Tory MPs thinking 'Please make it stop!' - which most of them must be - you have the means. Just do it. It's not going to stop by itself.
Maybe the people who voted for Boris Johnson to lead their party might ponder what they ever saw in the serial adulterer who has twice been fired for lying. If they expected something different from this they really are utter fools.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
IANAL and I know you have said this before but wasn't there a minor controversy about bypassing Parliament by issuing guidance and regulations under some ancient public health act? If so, would this not muddy the distinction between laws and regulations?
So, who are the dark horses overall? We have a sort of tiered system don't we:
High chance of second round:
- Sunak - Truss
Will definitely or probably stand, some chance of second round:
- Javid - Tugendhat - Hunt
Darkish horses:
- Harper - Mordaunt - Hancock?
Ultra-dark horses:
- Julian Smith and assorted remainers - One of the ERG spartans - Lord Frost
Hancock is so deluded he will try and stand. Whether he can get more than a couple of signatures is another matter.
Although perhaps it should be noted that he resigned for an act that now seems positively small potatoes compared to industrial scale parties and god knows what else at No 10 all through lockdowns.
Hancock has a reasonable tale to tell about vaccines and Nightingale hospitals, and even for resigning honourably in contrast to the outgoing Prime Minister. His problem might be simply that MPs regard him as a bit of a lightweight. He lacks gravitas.
What are you talking about?
Hancock has got practically no chance of even getting the signatures, let alone progressing in the contest beyond the level of a punchline. Replacing a disgraced PM who broke his own rules with a disgraced ex-Health Secretary who broke his own rules is utterly ludicrous, and even those Tory MPs who feel personal sympathy with him know he's a laughable non-runner in this race.
That is roughly what I said, isn't it? You say laughable. I say lightweight. Potato potato.
I ay be misunderstanding you, but I thought your point was that, although he has a case for being a relatively good cabinet minister (I don't agree but let's say some Tory MPs do) he's just a bit lacking in gravitas as a potential PM.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how much "gravitas" he has - whether he had a bit more charisma, a firmer handshake etc - it's simply impossible to take the idea of replacing a disgraced rule breaker with a disgraced rule-breaker seriously for a single moment.
MPs simply won't be scratching their chins and saying "well, I like Matt, but is he dynamic enough to be PM?" It's just too utterly absurd on its face to even get to that. In horse racing terms, he's not just lacking in form on soft ground so you might want to think twice about him - he's lying under the tarpaulin.
Similarly, parties in student halls. These people live together. So if the regulations don't apply to Downing Street, they shouldn't apply to these people either, but they did.
Leaving aside the fact these scumbags deserve to be fired anyway for being more useless than Vladimir Putin's anger management course, the fact is people were being fined for comparable offences via the courts. I do not assume the police knew the law, but I do assume the courts do. If not, what's the point of them?
It's rather complicated, though, since the law changed several times, and for a while differed according to which 'tier' applied to the local area. So one would need to look at each of the alleged gatherings separately, check exactly what was happening, and see if it was illegal under the particular rules at that time.
Still, based on what we know so far, I would be gobsmacked if at least some of them weren't illegal.
To any Tory MPs thinking 'Please make it stop!' - which most of them must be - you have the means. Just do it. It's not going to stop by itself.
Maybe the people who voted for Boris Johnson to lead their party might ponder what they ever saw in the serial adulterer who has twice been fired for lying. If they expected something different from this they really are utter fools.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
In December 2020 in Tier 1 the gathering needed to be reasonably necessary for work purposes if it was to meet one of the exceptions to the prohibitions on gatherings.
Whether whatever was happening at No 10 meant that it was "reasonably necessary" for work is what the finest minds of the Met will have to consider. I wouldn't place bets on any of those involved getting any of it right - either then or now.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
I will check the rules shortly.
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
In December 2020 in Tier 1 the gathering needed to be reasonably necessary for work purposes if it was to meet one of the exceptions to the prohibitions on gatherings.
Whether whatever was happening at No 10 meant that it was "reasonably necessary" for work is what the finest minds of the Met will have to consider. I wouldn't place bets on any of those involved getting any of it right - either then or now.
That's an astonishing post. You actually think there are people in the Met who have minds?
What's altogether more likely is they will declare it was, and we'll all know they're lying and things will get still worse.
- Cases are going down rapidly. R is below 1. But Scotland seems to be a bit of an outlier in this... R above 1? - Admissions down. R seems stable below 1 - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down. The downward trend seems to be accelerating.
I thought we'd all be dead from Omicron 2 by now.
The split in peoples mindset is still huge. I attended a seminar this afternoon. A colleague loudly proclaimed to me and my other colleagues that she had gone to another building to use the toilet 'because there were 20 students not wearing masks in the closer one'. So what? She's had three vaccine shots, almost certainly had it (two school age kids). I really think we are going to have yet another kind of split in the nation to add to remain vs leave, tory scum vs labour scum. radiohead vs not radiohead and pineapple on pizza...
Yeah I caught a bit of broadcast TV the other day and they had the most alarmist COVID ad on about how it spreads and people with black breath. The government needs to get rid of all of this shite yesterday. It's now just scaremongering.
To any Tory MPs thinking 'Please make it stop!' - which most of them must be - you have the means. Just do it. It's not going to stop by itself.
Maybe the people who voted for Boris Johnson to lead their party might ponder what they ever saw in the serial adulterer who has twice been fired for lying. If they expected something different from this they really are utter fools.
Although I help at a local charity, which often struggles, I suspect there are a few 'charities' registered at the Charity Commission that are anything but, and instead used as vehicles for tax avoidance and nice salaries.
No evidence for that assertion..... just suspicions based on past news. Wasn't the John Smith Foundation found to basically be a charity, the main beneficiary of which was a former Prime Minister?
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
To be honest, since you didn’t experience our lockdown, being thousands of miles away throughout, I am surprised that you feel qualified to judge.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I know this isn't what you're alluding to, but the only person I can think of in the non-fictional world who was PM having at one time being Chief Whip (not directly before, of course) is Ted Heath. There may be others, but not recently if I remember correctly.
More seriously, the case against the trustees will rest on motivation and advice received, to people who may or may not have courted publicity.
Presumably the charity quickly became the full-time job of a few people who were otherwise unemployed by the pandemic (with all the furlough and recovery schemes that briefly existed) , so the case will rest on where one draws the line at expenses and salaries.
Can I bill my own charity £100 a day for my time? How’s about £300, if that’s what I was earning before I was made redundant? How’s about £500, if that’s what charities making a million a week in normal times are paying their CEOs?
Perhaps you could consult with #45? He is a Grand Master at the non-charitable "charity" Con-game.
The problem for Boris Johnson is he has two Chief Whips gunning for him.
Chiefs Whip - same as Attorneys General and Grands Prix.
No, that can’t be right.
You are right, I've asked a grammarian, and they say it is chief whips, the plural of Prime Minister is Prime Ministers, and not Primes Minister.
Yes, grands prix is not really in point either. A confused post, though not quite up there with the suggestion that David Lammy is a contender for the tory leadership.
Not sure what Peterborough and Rugeley did to offend FU.
I agree about Rugeley
Well, he couldn't even pronounce it.
It is a bit of a dump though.
That said, the countryside around it is beautiful. Running north west to Stone, fertile farmland. West to Milford, forests. South, the heath of Cannock Chase. East, the Trent Valley. North, only a short distance, Blithefield Reservoir and then five miles north of that, Dovedale.
Francis Urquhart had more integrity and honesty than Boris Johnson.
Tsar Nicholas II was more competent and law abiding.
Is there anyone we can't compare him unfavourably to?
Apparently I peaked when I said
To normal apolitical people Boris Johnson is seen as worse than Fred West, to give Fred West his dues, he finally admitted to having people in his garden.
The problem for Boris Johnson is he has two Chief Whips gunning for him.
Chiefs Whip - same as Attorneys General and Grands Prix.
No, that can’t be right.
You are right, I've asked a grammarian, and they say it is chief whips, the plural of Prime Minister is Prime Ministers, and not Primes Minister.
Yes, grands prix is not really in point either. A confused post, though not quite up there with the suggestion that David Lammy is a contender for the tory leadership.
@TSE would surely tell you the problem with F1 is that Verstappen, Horner and Masi are grand pricks.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
Question on the Downing Street photo. What possible reason is there for the woman to be pixelated and, indeed, is that question fully answerable?
I actually think I know who the woman in the photo might be. Junior SpAd, not British, Vote Leave campaign veteran.
Maybe I’m wrong, and she’s a junior on the permanent CS side, or a non-government member of admin staff.
Interestingly, the photo itself looks like a screenshot of a camera that was used for an online meeting - so the “party” in question was actually a “zoom party” rather than a physical gathering.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
Lord George Bentinck, writing to his newly appointed successor the Marquis of Granby on the 11th February 1846:
'My advice to you is to appoint your own whippers in, and let them take orders from none but you.'
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Heath definitely was a prominent figure. He was credited with saving the Tories from actually splitting over Suez and one of the key players in Macmillan's succession.
Question on the Downing Street photo. What possible reason is there for the woman to be pixelated and, indeed, is that question fully answerable?
There are actually two pixelated women - one on the right of the picture too.
I suspect the reason is that the story is the PM and the chap in the middle (whose name I don't know off hand but I believe was a fairly senior figure who has previously been named).
The women might well be much more junior figures - PAs/secretaries for example - and what would be the point plastering their faces over the papers? "PM and senior official break their own rules" is news; "secretary also in attendance" isn't - maybe they should have gone home, but they're not really responsible for the situation.
. 21 In particular, No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office were at the centre of the Government’s response to the pandemic. Tight knit groups of officials and advisers worked long hours under difficult conditions in buildings that could not be easily adapted as Covid secure workplaces. No 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in 70 Whitehall are closely interconnected, with staff moving regularly between the two buildings as part of their daily work. The Prime Minister’s flat and the Downing Street garden are in close proximity to the offices and serve a dual office and private purpose. 22. Those challenges, however, also applied to key and frontline workers across the country who were working under equally, if not more, demanding conditions, often at risk to their own health. It is important to remember the stringency of the public health regulations in force in England over the relevant periods and that criminal sanctions were applied to many found to be in breach of them. The hardship under which citizens across the country worked, lived and sadly even died while observing the Government’s regulations and guidance rigorously are known only too well
Several aspects to this. First of all, let's face it, a lot of these people had they done no work at all throughout the pandemic would have been doing the rest of us a massive favour. On 12 days between March 2020 and July, the DfE issued five contradictory pieces of guidance before 9 in the morning. On average, they issued two pieces of advice a day. This did not make keeping the education system running any easier. The PM's office, we know find, set up a track and trace system as vast cost that has been worse than useless. So actually, it's hard to argue (unlike in the case of doctors, teachers or delivery drivers) that they couldn't have worked from home.
Secondly, any of those people, whether they worked together or not, couldn't socialise. No Christmas parties for me, or Foxy. Heck, we even switched staff meetings to Zoom when we were in the same building. So how come they get different treatment?
Whether this was a sensible law is beside the point. It was the law. They are claiming special exemption for reasons so specious even Dominic Cummings has seen through them (and we all know how bad his eyesight is). If they break their own laws, they deserve to get the shit kicked out of them by the law.
What they deserve and what the law said at the time are two very different matters.
Breaking: Scotland Yard is reviewing its assessment that the Christmas quiz in No 10 on December 15 2020 did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation after an image surfaced of Boris Johnson near a bottle of wine
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement: “The MPS previously assessed this event and determined that on the basis of the evidence available at that time, it did not meet the threshold for criminal investigation.
Is the threshold a factor how many open bottles there are in each photo?
It’s all bollocks. These people had all been working together in the same place for months. If there was any evidence of an actual party involving politicians, with DJ and dancing, it would have been produced by now.
You keep posting this general point.
That was not the law or the rules at the time. The rules were crystal clear. It did not matter one fuck that you had worked next to the people for days on end or not. You could not meet socially and this is what they did.
If people from outside were invited to the “party”, then there’s a problem I agree.
But the people already in the bubble, having a social drink at their desks at the end of the day, what’s the issue?
This.
Guidance or Law?
Guidance.
Then why did they prosecute people for breaking their guidance?
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Heath definitely was a prominent figure. He was credited with saving the Tories from actually splitting over Suez and one of the key players in Macmillan's succession.
I rather regard Heath and Wilson as the most diabolical of fools, so I've not really ever bothered investigating the truth. I have a similar gap from about 1820-1855. Admitedly I mostly have a gap from the beginning of time until today I do try.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Heath definitely was a prominent figure. He was credited with saving the Tories from actually splitting over Suez and one of the key players in Macmillan's succession.
I rather regard Heath and Wilson as the most diabolical of fools, so I've not really ever bothered investigating the truth. I have a similar gap from about 1820-1855. Admitedly I mostly have a gap from the beginning of time until today I do try.
I'm sorry I'll Read That Again joke, while spoofing Macbeth, 1970:
the riddler @mathew_gilb Replying to @BBCNews That's a dreadful smear, and undermines the excellent work that people, government and charities have done over the last 20 years cleaning up Chernobyl.
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Not sure I understand. Do you mean Heath wasn't as prominent a figure in the late 1960s as Julian Smith or Chris Heaton-Harris have been in recent years?
The nature of the role is that it is quite important but isn't all that prominent. Nobody normal will be reminiscing about Chris Heaton-Harris as Chief Whip in 10 years time, let alone 60 years time.
It is now as it was when Heath did it - a politically somewhat important job that tends to go to someone reasonably serious and ambitious, but which isn't terribly interesting or memorable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Wow, that would be a bit of a game-changer, wouldn't it?
What would it change? He's already lied and broken laws. How would this be materially different?
Bribery would be a bit more hard-core, wouldn't it?
But I agree that there are plenty of reasons why he should have been chucked out in disgrace long ago. Or, even more to the point, never chosen as leader in the first place.
Scotland Yard is considering whether to investigate Boris Johnson over the funding of his Downing Street flat renovation after Labour’s lawyers claimed there was a “reasonable suspicion” that he had broken anti-bribery laws.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
Trying to think of another person who was Chief Whip who then became Prime Minister.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
I'd suggest nobody. Chief Whip wasn't so important (and shouldn't be now)
I think you're wrong if you think Chief Whip used to be a significantly less important position historically than it is now.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
It's very hard to say though isn't it? Whitelaw was the first chief whip of any prominence so far as I know and that was just about a sexist judgement that there had to be a man behind the throne.
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
Not sure I understand. Do you mean Heath wasn't as prominent a figure in the late 1960s as Julian Smith or Chris Heaton-Harris have been in recent years?
The nature of the role is that it is quite important but isn't all that prominent. Nobody normal will be reminiscing about Chris Heaton-Harris as Chief Whip in 10 years time, let alone 60 years time.
It is now as it was when Heath did it - a politically somewhat important job that tends to go to someone reasonably serious and ambitious, but which isn't terribly interesting or memorable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Comments
The NI Office is also basically non-existent in terms of spending. Spending isn't everything - as you say, some interesting Brexit issues etc - but it just doesn't involve managing a major government department.
I don't want to do Smith down - he might well be a capable chap and NI raises some interesting issues - but seven months in what is a junior cabinet job just isn't going to provide MPs with the confidence they need in choosing a PM.
In terms of age, age relative to other contenders isn't the point. The point is he's not going to retire early. A party leader is doing bloody well to make it to 10-15 years, by which time he's well below retirement age. So it doesn't matter if he's 50, 40 or even 35 - he'll just ride the horse as long as he can. That just isn't the same as Howard, say, who was NEVER going to even try to last ten years from becoming leader in 2003. The whole reason young cardinals liked him was that, even if he'd won in 2005, he'd have been gone by 2010.
As I say, possible trading bet. But Conservative MPs, if they're going to get rid of a character who is at best mercurial, are going to go for a known quantity. Taking a punt on an outsider is never likely for a party in office, and even less so in the circumstances we're in.
You can only be prosecuted for breaking the law. Guidance.
Or will their convictions now be annulled?
Instead we have, God help us, people like Nadine Dorries in Cabinet. You look at most of the people in charge and want to weep. One of the few competent Ministers who actually achieved something during his time in office was sacked. That is what is wrong with the Tories. They show no signs of realising this let alone doing anything about it.
Hancock has got practically no chance of even getting the signatures, let alone progressing in the contest beyond the level of a punchline. Replacing a disgraced PM who broke his own rules with a disgraced ex-Health Secretary who broke his own rules is utterly ludicrous, and even those Tory MPs who feel personal sympathy with him know he's a laughable non-runner in this race.
Unlikely, but not impossible, as we saw in 2016.
Key questions are how much disgrace Johnson leaves in (if he leaves at all) and how many Cabinet members does he take down with him?
You are assuming the police know the law. If they issue a FPN and the person pays up without challenge it may not be obvious that the FPN was wrongly issued. In all the cases where there was a challenge in the early part of 2020 the CPS had to drop the prosecutions because the police had incorrectly understood the legislation.
They really really don't like it when you do that though.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UKinUSA/status/1491415173696868352
If this person could be fined, then there seems to me to be no realistic way that the Downing Street mob can get off being fined.
https://inews.co.uk/news/downing-street-party-student-fined-snowball-fight-no-10-punishment-1402464
Similarly, parties in student halls. These people live together. So if the regulations don't apply to Downing Street, they shouldn't apply to these people either, but they did.
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-students-fined-thousands-illegal-5524649
Leaving aside the fact these scumbags deserve to be fired anyway for being more useless than Vladimir Putin's anger management course, the fact is people were being fined for comparable offences via the courts. I do not assume the police knew the law, but I do assume the courts do. If not, what's the point of them?
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how much "gravitas" he has - whether he had a bit more charisma, a firmer handshake etc - it's simply impossible to take the idea of replacing a disgraced rule breaker with a disgraced rule-breaker seriously for a single moment.
MPs simply won't be scratching their chins and saying "well, I like Matt, but is he dynamic enough to be PM?" It's just too utterly absurd on its face to even get to that. In horse racing terms, he's not just lacking in form on soft ground so you might want to think twice about him - he's lying under the tarpaulin.
Still, based on what we know so far, I would be gobsmacked if at least some of them weren't illegal.
Whether whatever was happening at No 10 meant that it was "reasonably necessary" for work is what the finest minds of the Met will have to consider. I wouldn't place bets on any of those involved getting any of it right - either then or now.
Ah. We’re channelling Mrs T in Moscow. https://twitter.com/fifisyms/status/1491476268231110656/photo/1
What's altogether more likely is they will declare it was, and we'll all know they're lying and things will get still worse.
No evidence for that assertion..... just suspicions based on past news.
Wasn't the John Smith Foundation found to basically be a charity, the main beneficiary of which was a former Prime Minister?
Because if the latter, he's not actually lost anything by his, to put it charitably, mistakes.
Admittedly, he then immediately took up a better paid job working for a MAT.
I just can't think of one.......
Could anyone possibly comment?
Not sure what Peterborough and Rugeley did to offend FU.
Is there anyone we can't compare him unfavourably to?
I'm gutted, that'll teach me to be subtle.
It is a bit of a dump though.
That said, the countryside around it is beautiful. Running north west to Stone, fertile farmland. West to Milford, forests. South, the heath of Cannock Chase. East, the Trent Valley. North, only a short distance, Blithefield Reservoir and then five miles north of that, Dovedale.
To normal apolitical people Boris Johnson is seen as worse than Fred West, to give Fred West his dues, he finally admitted to having people in his garden.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/01/16/were-you-up-for-boris-johnson/
I think if it had been me I'd have put it down to experience, and kept quiet.
I hear that stuff is pixelated silly.
It just isn't the case that whips decades ago were relatively benign, Sergeant Wilson figures, who asked if MPs wouldn't mind terribly voting with the party.
The role waxes and wanes in line with majority - Julian Smith was a relatively important (and ultimately unsuccessful) Chief Whip under May because she had no majority and a huge item she couldn't get through Parliament. But it has been true that the whips office has been very important, particularly for Governments with a fragile majority, for many decades.
Maybe I’m wrong, and she’s a junior on the permanent CS side, or a non-government member of admin staff.
Interestingly, the photo itself looks like a screenshot of a camera that was used for an online meeting - so the “party” in question was actually a “zoom party” rather than a physical gathering.
'My advice to you is to appoint your own whippers in, and let them take orders from none but you.'
Granby let Derby appoint his whips instead.
Granby resigned on the 4th March 1846...
I'd rather forgotten about Heath (thanks Ismael), but so far as I know he wasn't a prominent figure.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1491459141365342211
Chernobyl’s illuminations were much better in 1986.
I suspect the reason is that the story is the PM and the chap in the middle (whose name I don't know off hand but I believe was a fairly senior figure who has previously been named).
The women might well be much more junior figures - PAs/secretaries for example - and what would be the point plastering their faces over the papers? "PM and senior official break their own rules" is news; "secretary also in attendance" isn't - maybe they should have gone home, but they're not really responsible for the situation.
Solicitors on behalf of Labour wrote to the Metropolitan police commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick, last week suggesting the force was “duty-bound” to begin a formal investigation.
They said the prime minister may have acted improperly by having “linked” a request for funds to cover the refurbishment works – which eventually cost at least £112,000 – with a promise to “promote a project” backed by the benefactor.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/09/met-police-considering-whether-investigate-pm-boris-johnson-downing-street-flat-refurb
I rather regard Heath and Wilson as the most diabolical of fools, so I've not really ever bothered investigating the truth. I have a similar gap from about 1820-1855. Admitedly I mostly have a gap from the beginning of time until today
David Hatch: Scene one, the blasted Heath.
Bill Oddie: Better than the infernal Wilson.
https://twitter.com/mathew_gilb/status/1491463076616577025
the riddler
@mathew_gilb
Replying to
@BBCNews
That's a dreadful smear, and undermines the excellent work that people, government and charities have done over the last 20 years cleaning up Chernobyl.
etc. etc.
The nature of the role is that it is quite important but isn't all that prominent. Nobody normal will be reminiscing about Chris Heaton-Harris as Chief Whip in 10 years time, let alone 60 years time.
It is now as it was when Heath did it - a politically somewhat important job that tends to go to someone reasonably serious and ambitious, but which isn't terribly interesting or memorable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus.
But I agree that there are plenty of reasons why he should have been chucked out in disgrace long ago. Or, even more to the point, never chosen as leader in the first place.
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
4m
NEW: 50 people to be sent questions by Met under Operation Hillman - aka Partygate - via email.