Did I read that the Sue Gray report is out next week? Presumably any additional FPNs would also happen v soon.
I think he will continue to hang on. The council election results will be a period of danger, but so far there’s no hint of a landslide against the Tory Party itself, except possibly in Scotland.
As this is Boris, and we know he is an inept crook, we may just have to wait for the next scandal. I’m attracted to the theory that 2023 works best for the Tory Party.
Much as I hope for egregious damage to the Dishonourable Company of Liars, I hope that doesn't go too far. Imagine if my paper candidacy in a no-hoper ward gets me elected...
Do you think you are being honest by hoping not to win
Most paper candidates hope not to win. They are giving the electors an opportunity to vote for that party. It also helps to keep the other parties honest in not neglecting a ward that is otherwise uncontested. It is difficult for all parties to put up a full slate of people who want to win. Paper candidates is very common.
I would suggest for minor candidates that is fair comment but for the lib dems ?
In any seat where a national party has next to no chance of winning it is entirely normal. As a democrat it is an important principle to give people the opportunity to vote for my party. I don't believe there is remotely enough support to get me elected and that was the basis on which I stood. If I would be successful then we would make it work to the best of my ability.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Starmer is only 1% ahead of Johnson in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
Did I read that the Sue Gray report is out next week? Presumably any additional FPNs would also happen v soon.
I think he will continue to hang on. The council election results will be a period of danger, but so far there’s no hint of a landslide against the Tory Party itself, except possibly in Scotland.
As this is Boris, and we know he is an inept crook, we may just have to wait for the next scandal. I’m attracted to the theory that 2023 works best for the Tory Party.
Much as I hope for egregious damage to the Dishonourable Company of Liars, I hope that doesn't go too far. Imagine if my paper candidacy in a no-hoper ward gets me elected...
Do you think you are being honest by hoping not to win
Most paper candidates hope not to win. They are giving the electors an opportunity to vote for that party. It also helps to keep the other parties honest in not neglecting a ward that is otherwise uncontested. It is difficult for all parties to put up a full slate of people who want to win. Paper candidates is very common.
I would suggest for minor candidates that is fair comment but for the lib dems ?
In any seat where a national party has next to no chance of winning it is entirely normal. As a democrat it is an important principle to give people the opportunity to vote for my party. I don't believe there is remotely enough support to get me elected and that was the basis on which I stood. If I would be successful then we would make it work to the best of my ability.
If you are willing to take on the role and duties then you are not a paper candidate
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
That's rubbish as well. There is a world of difference between concentrating on certain aspects pertinent to one local area, which are different to other areas. That's how you garner support locally. I would love to see any sources to show this contradiction, hynfytyn!
There is no contradiction. We are a Federal Party. We state that clearly. And what's more, representing local issues raised by local people is something that is missing from politics especially in the big two parties.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
That's rubbish as well. There is a world of difference between concentrating on certain aspects pertinent to one local area, which are different to other areas. That's how you garner support locally. I would love to see any sources to show this contradiction, hynfytyn!
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Starmer is only 1% ahead of Johnson in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
Did I read that the Sue Gray report is out next week? Presumably any additional FPNs would also happen v soon.
I think he will continue to hang on. The council election results will be a period of danger, but so far there’s no hint of a landslide against the Tory Party itself, except possibly in Scotland.
As this is Boris, and we know he is an inept crook, we may just have to wait for the next scandal. I’m attracted to the theory that 2023 works best for the Tory Party.
Much as I hope for egregious damage to the Dishonourable Company of Liars, I hope that doesn't go too far. Imagine if my paper candidacy in a no-hoper ward gets me elected...
Do you think you are being honest by hoping not to win
Most paper candidates hope not to win. They are giving the electors an opportunity to vote for that party. It also helps to keep the other parties honest in not neglecting a ward that is otherwise uncontested. It is difficult for all parties to put up a full slate of people who want to win. Paper candidates is very common.
I would suggest for minor candidates that is fair comment but for the lib dems ?
In any seat where a national party has next to no chance of winning it is entirely normal. As a democrat it is an important principle to give people the opportunity to vote for my party. I don't believe there is remotely enough support to get me elected and that was the basis on which I stood. If I would be successful then we would make it work to the best of my ability.
If you are willing to take on the role and duties then you are not a paper candidate
That is not what paper candidate means. I have done no campaigning. Have no profile. I exist only as a candidate on the ballot paper - a paper candidate.
Its a very simple reality that if you are elected to office you are elected to office. You can't say "sorry, didn't mean it".
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
Groucho Marx would be proud.
"SCon" and DRoss"? Happy to hear arguments as to why those contractions are inappropriate.
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
Whoa, tech talk. "Margin of error." Impressive.
Whose poll?
I also understand it to be the case that if the prime minister is not clearly the "best prime minister" (what with them *being* the prime minister) that is generally seen as a suboptimal position.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
The LDs have been in power for one government in my lifetime. A government which they shared with the Tories. The idea they “have form” on misleading the public is laughable.
Is my last sentence wrong ?
About the difference between national and local policies?
I tend to think this is just sour grapes by defeated Tory (and Labour) councillors who have an inflated sense of entitlement.
The idea that the LDs - who are mostly locked out of national politics by the electoral system - are not going to campaign on local issues is for the birds, frankly.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
Groucho Marx would be proud.
"SCon" and DRoss"? Happy to hear arguments as to why those contractions are inappropriate.
"I have principles, and if you don't like them I have others".
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
It's worth ringing the Ivy. There are obvously a lot of good places a little further into Covent Garden. Hakkasan is pretty close to the British Museum, and it is pretty good (not what it was when it opened though)
If you don't need a big name and just want good food then there are a few other options. For example I think the 'Jones Family Kitchen' (steak place, and it's far, far better than it sounds) has opened a branch nearby.
Hah! Good call!
I called The Ivy and they offered me something at the 'dining counter'. When I asked if that was wheelchair accessible they answered No sorry but were suddenly ably to find me a table.
Let's hope they don't have to disappoint too many last minute A-listers, eh?
Did I read that the Sue Gray report is out next week? Presumably any additional FPNs would also happen v soon.
I think he will continue to hang on. The council election results will be a period of danger, but so far there’s no hint of a landslide against the Tory Party itself, except possibly in Scotland.
As this is Boris, and we know he is an inept crook, we may just have to wait for the next scandal. I’m attracted to the theory that 2023 works best for the Tory Party.
Much as I hope for egregious damage to the Dishonourable Company of Liars, I hope that doesn't go too far. Imagine if my paper candidacy in a no-hoper ward gets me elected...
Do you think you are being honest by hoping not to win
Most paper candidates hope not to win. They are giving the electors an opportunity to vote for that party. It also helps to keep the other parties honest in not neglecting a ward that is otherwise uncontested. It is difficult for all parties to put up a full slate of people who want to win. Paper candidates is very common.
I would suggest for minor candidates that is fair comment but for the lib dems ?
I know you have been involved in campaigning but I assume not at candidate selection. All parties do it including the Tories and Labour and I don't mean a few. Both the main parties will have hundreds of paper candidates at the May elections who are deliberately selected for the two reasons I gave and have no desire to win (but should be warned it is a possibility). Filling up your no hope wards with candidates can be really difficult for all parties.
To be honest since I was first asked to be a conservative councillor in 1966 I have simply not had the time or frankly the interest in the role and really admire these who are committed to serving their community, so much so my wife and I are voting for the independent candidate (not a closet conservative) who we have known for 40 years instead of the conservative
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
Groucho Marx would be proud.
"SCon" and DRoss"? Happy to hear arguments as to why those contractions are inappropriate.
"I have principles, and if you don't like them I have others".
From the evidence so far today, I'm not sure you've any at all.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
The LDs have been in power for one government in my lifetime. A government which they shared with the Tories. The idea they “have form” on misleading the public is laughable.
Many, many years ago (pre coalition) I canvassed a house in a Borough that had 100% Tory members (it doesn't now) a Tory county councillor (in Surrey) and had always had a Tory MP.
The man at the door ranted at me for sometime about how much damage the liberals had done. I can't remember whether I responded or was dumb struck, but the obvious thought was 'How?' and what about giving us a chance to really screw it up by electing one of us.
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
so would I.
I have asked but answer came there none.
The one I hear about is that the LDs complain about house prices nationally but often campaign locally against new developments.
But personally I very much doubt this is unique to LDs, and more importantly I’m not even sure this is inconsistent.
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
AFAICT that was true, but those days are gone.
About 15 years ago, I had LD election leaflets from N Cbg (lab) and S Cbg (con) which had diametrically opposite positions on some point or other. This annoyed me greatly at the time.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
He lied, and lied, and lied. That’s why he must go, as soon as possible.
The Tories are damaging the constitution.
That's more important to you than breaking a draconian law that he himself introduced?
Of course.
Then don't be surprised when, by focusing on the wrong thing, he gets let off the hook.
Nothing surprises me about the vigour of PB Tory appeasement. Look at Big G upthread.
Pardon
I have posted several times I expect Boris gone by summer
You may be expecting that, but you continue to support him via a kind of soft-shoe whataboutery.
Your latest idea that we should excuse Boris because the Lib Dems didn’t deliver on a manifesto promise in 2010 is a “keeper”.
I have not suggested Boris should be excused but the lib dems have form on misleading the public
Indeed they stand on one national policy but then the opposite in local elections
We're a Federal Party. Entirely possible to stand on one position at national level and another in nations / areas. We aren't either a dictatorship like Labour vs Scottish Labour, or fawning lickspittles like SCon and DRoss.
Groucho Marx would be proud.
"SCon" and DRoss"? Happy to hear arguments as to why those contractions are inappropriate.
"I have principles, and if you don't like them I have others".
From the evidence so far today, I'm not sure you've any at all.
Well, I have voted for four different parties for parliament and a couple of others in other elections over the last 25 years.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
It was a catastrophic move by Nick Clegg. Its clear from David Laws' book that Clegg never agreed with the policy- passed at Federal Conference. But didn't object or stop it becoming a key part of the Cleggasm campaign.
Then when it came to the coalition agreement it wasn't protected. After Brown resigned and Cameron became PM before the agreement had been reached, he acquiesced to the Tory policy. Cameron offered him to have all LD members abstain but Clegg chose to back the policy platform of the coalition.
This was the first of his major miscalculations. Similar stupidity over backing the Lansley NHS reforms. But again, its long in the past and students today have very real problems now.
The idea that this will be a factor in how they vote is for the birds. The idea that it can provide succour to Johnson and Sunak and Patel et al committing malfeasance in public office is bordering on the desperate.
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Johnson is only 1% ahead of Starmer in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
It's worth ringing the Ivy. There are obvously a lot of good places a little further into Covent Garden. Hakkasan is pretty close to the British Museum, and it is pretty good (not what it was when it opened though)
If you don't need a big name and just want good food then there are a few other options. For example I think the 'Jones Family Kitchen' (steak place, and it's far, far better than it sounds) has opened a branch nearby.
Hah! Good call!
I called The Ivy and they offered me something at the 'dining counter'. When I asked if that was wheelchair accessible they answered No sorry but were suddenly ably to find me a table.
Let's hope they don't have to disappoint too many last minute a-lister, eh?
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
Still not the same as a lie to Parliament though is it?
I never said it was, just that the attempt to whitewash the Lib Dems' part in the long, slow decline in public trust in politics and politicians is based on a misunderstanding; they are guilty as charged.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
Still not the same as a lie to Parliament though is it?
I never said it was, just that the attempt to whitewash the Lib Dems' part in the long, slow decline in public trust in politics and politicians is based on a misunderstanding; they are guilty as charged.
they weren't charged or convicted, unlike the Clown and his sock puppet.
Legally, under the Companies Act, once a company strike off form has been filed the company can no longer trade or be involved in any other business activities. For all intents and purposes, the business is closed. If your company does continue doing business, you could face severe penalties.
“We the Citizens Limited” filed to strike off on January 12, 2022 and was struck off yesterday, April 12, 2022. During the period when the company should have ceased all activity she used it to raise thousands of pounds...
The – at the time of publication – active crowdfunding page is still soliciting and taking donations, even today. Guido has contacted GoFundMe about this matter. They are considering what to do…
Did I read that the Sue Gray report is out next week? Presumably any additional FPNs would also happen v soon.
I think he will continue to hang on. The council election results will be a period of danger, but so far there’s no hint of a landslide against the Tory Party itself, except possibly in Scotland.
As this is Boris, and we know he is an inept crook, we may just have to wait for the next scandal. I’m attracted to the theory that 2023 works best for the Tory Party.
Much as I hope for egregious damage to the Dishonourable Company of Liars, I hope that doesn't go too far. Imagine if my paper candidacy in a no-hoper ward gets me elected...
Do you think you are being honest by hoping not to win
Most paper candidates hope not to win. They are giving the electors an opportunity to vote for that party. It also helps to keep the other parties honest in not neglecting a ward that is otherwise uncontested. It is difficult for all parties to put up a full slate of people who want to win. Paper candidates is very common.
I would suggest for minor candidates that is fair comment but for the lib dems ?
I know you have been involved in campaigning but I assume not at candidate selection. All parties do it including the Tories and Labour and I don't mean a few. Both the main parties will have hundreds of paper candidates at the May elections who are deliberately selected for the two reasons I gave and have no desire to win (but should be warned it is a possibility). Filling up your no hope wards with candidates can be really difficult for all parties.
To be honest since I was first asked to be a conservative councillor in 1966 I have simply not had the time or frankly the interest in the role and really admire these who are committed to serving their community, so much so my wife and I are voting for the independent candidate (not a closet conservative) who we have known for 40 years instead of the conservative
I told the story a few days ago of getting Brian Blessed's wife (a successful and busy actress herself) to stand as a paper candidate. It was on the understanding she didn't get elected. I assured her she wouldn't with my fingers crossed. She didn't which was a relief because Brian is as terrifying in real life as he is on the screen (and we have won that seat since!)
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
There's a decent Turkish restaurant - Tas - at the end of the road that the BM is on, towards the West End. Can't remember about access, sorry.
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
so would I.
I have asked but answer came there none.
The one I hear about is that the LDs complain about house prices nationally but often campaign locally against new developments.
But personally I very much doubt this is unique to LDs, and more importantly I’m not even sure this is inconsistent.
And those positions aren't contradictory. The solution to house prices isn't "let developers build what they want where they want". Far too often they build housing stock timed and designed for maximum profit rather than community need. Too many controversial developments of "executive 3 and 4 bed detached houses"
A local example. Our LD manifesto for Aberdeenshire council commits to continuing the council's work to improve quality and quantity of housing across all tenures, to work with partners to improve existing homes both public and private and to bring empty homes back into occupation.
Locally the area planning committees agree to a lot of new house building but it is community additive not housebuilder profit additive. I can thing of chunks of new estates being built according to the local plan and individual homes being built privately.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
Still not the same as a lie to Parliament though is it?
I never said it was, just that the attempt to whitewash the Lib Dems' part in the long, slow decline in public trust in politics and politicians is based on a misunderstanding; they are guilty as charged.
they weren't charged or convicted, unlike the Clown and his sock puppet.
I know you know that wasn't what I was saying, but in any case: to the best of my understanding, accepting an FPN does not constitute a "conviction".
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
Still not the same as a lie to Parliament though is it?
I never said it was, just that the attempt to whitewash the Lib Dems' part in the long, slow decline in public trust in politics and politicians is based on a misunderstanding; they are guilty as charged.
they weren't charged or convicted, unlike the Clown and his sock puppet.
I know you know that wasn't what I was saying, but in any case: to the best of my understanding, accepting an FPN does not constitute a "conviction".
Technically, maybe not. But in the court of public opinion? Just look at today's Matt cartoon that was posted earlier.
I’d like to see some evidence for this supposed variance between national and local policy, and indeed why the LDs are supposedly any different from the two major parties.
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
so would I.
I have asked but answer came there none.
The one I hear about is that the LDs complain about house prices nationally but often campaign locally against new developments.
But personally I very much doubt this is unique to LDs, and more importantly I’m not even sure this is inconsistent.
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
Noble Rot
Thanks - Streetview shows it has a step - I am sure they'l have a ramp but f*ck-it, I get fed up with asking.
Appreciate I didn't specify level access so apols, I am not meaning to diss your suggestion.
Mon Plaisir in Monmouth Street used to be very good. It's at the top end so pretty close to British Museum. Clos Maggiore in Covent Garden also used to be excellent. Haven't been to either for a few years so worth checking out recent reviews. Had lunch at the original Ivy a couple of weeks a go IMO it's not what it was, food was good but nothing out of the ordinary. Mon Plaisir and Clos Maggiore both have level access. Also Rules in Covent Garden, always reliable.
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
It was a catastrophic move by Nick Clegg. Its clear from David Laws' book that Clegg never agreed with the policy- passed at Federal Conference. But didn't object or stop it becoming a key part of the Cleggasm campaign.
Then when it came to the coalition agreement it wasn't protected. After Brown resigned and Cameron became PM before the agreement had been reached, he acquiesced to the Tory policy. Cameron offered him to have all LD members abstain but Clegg chose to back the policy platform of the coalition.
This was the first of his major miscalculations. Similar stupidity over backing the Lansley NHS reforms. But again, its long in the past and students today have very real problems now.
The idea that this will be a factor in how they vote is for the birds. The idea that it can provide succour to Johnson and Sunak and Patel et al committing malfeasance in public office is bordering on the desperate.
I still agree that whilst it's a very different thing, a similar outcome would be appropriate: - Boris needs to issue an abject apology - The apology needs to be soundly mocked - It should be held against the Tories for a decade and more - They should lose two-thirds of their votes in the next election and the one after it.
After all, it's not as if the Lib Dems ignored it and got away scot-free. And it was, indeed, a different thing entirely to committing malfeasance in a public office, which should be seen as more serious - but the above four items should satisfy me and many others, I feel.
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
Next week is building upto a huge week in UK politics
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
I agree - although you make it sound as if Raab and Braverman have at least some repute, which they don't.
David Wolfson resigns as justice minister over FPN. Edit. For Boris that is.
And so it starts
We have been here before, though. And the government's attitude isn't far from "try and get rid of us in 2024 if you can, until that we're here to do whatever we damn well please". So a serious lawyer can't bring themselves to be part of this government? Find another one who can. Or a friviolus lawyer if necessary.
I don't like it, and I suspect some of those who celebrate it will be the first to start crying when the boot is on the other foot, but as long as the PM is shameless and the MPs are spineless, it may well work.
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
Next week is building upto a huge week in UK politics
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
It was a catastrophic move by Nick Clegg. Its clear from David Laws' book that Clegg never agreed with the policy- passed at Federal Conference. But didn't object or stop it becoming a key part of the Cleggasm campaign.
Then when it came to the coalition agreement it wasn't protected. After Brown resigned and Cameron became PM before the agreement had been reached, he acquiesced to the Tory policy. Cameron offered him to have all LD members abstain but Clegg chose to back the policy platform of the coalition.
This was the first of his major miscalculations. Similar stupidity over backing the Lansley NHS reforms. But again, its long in the past and students today have very real problems now.
The idea that this will be a factor in how they vote is for the birds. The idea that it can provide succour to Johnson and Sunak and Patel et al committing malfeasance in public office is bordering on the desperate.
I still agree that whilst it's a very different thing, a similar outcome would be appropriate: - Boris needs to issue an abject apology - The apology needs to be soundly mocked - It should be held against the Tories for a decade and more - They should lose two-thirds of their votes in the next election and the one after it.
After all, it's not as if the Lib Dems ignored it and got away scot-free. And it was, indeed, a different thing entirely to committing malfeasance in a public office, which should be seen as more serious - but the above four items should satisfy me and many others, I feel.
Quite. It's not as if the LDs charged everyone except their own children and relatives, is it?
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
Noble Rot
Thanks - Streetview shows it has a step - I am sure they'l have a ramp but f*ck-it, I get fed up with asking.
Appreciate I didn't specify level access so apols, I am not meaning to diss your suggestion.
Mon Plaisir in Monmouth Street used to be very good. It's at the top end so pretty close to British Museum. Clos Maggiore in Covent Garden also used to be excellent. Haven't been to either for a few years so worth checking out recent reviews. Had lunch at the original Ivy a couple of weeks a go IMO it's not what it was, food was good but nothing out of the ordinary. Mon Plaisir and Clos Maggiore both have level access. Also Rules in Covent Garden, always reliable.
Thanks, I have already booked The Ivy now - always wanted to try it, I accept it will probably be underwhelming but at least I'll be able to tick it off. Will bear your recommendations in mind for future trips. Cheers.
With Lord Wolfson's departure there is now no lawyer in the government who understands and values the rule of law. That is a concern, to put it mildly.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
There's a decent Turkish restaurant - Tas - at the end of the road that the BM is on, towards the West End. Can't remember about access, sorry.
Yeah Tas is fine - access is fine too. Have been there before but looking to try somewhere else. Thanks
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
They could always blame it on Clegg and tuition fees, or perhaps it is the turn of Corbyn or Blair to be the whataboutery scapegoat.
With Lord Wolfson's departure there is now no lawyer in the government who understands and values the rule of law. That is a concern, to put it mildly.
I'm pretty happy if there are no lawyers in government. Understanding the rule of law should never be the sole preserve of lawyers.
Lord Wolfson is a lawyer of far greater repute than either Dominic Raab or Suella Braverman. It would be interesting to hear them explain why he is wrong to have resigned.
They could always blame it on Clegg and tuition fees, or perhaps it is the turn of Corbyn or Blair to be the whataboutery scapegoat.
Don't forget Putin - Raab and Braverman could use him:
"It is not the right time to worry about the rule of law in the UK when Putin has illegally invaded Ukraine".
With Lord Wolfson's departure there is now no lawyer in the government who understands and values the rule of law. That is a concern, to put it mildly.
This is very unfair. They have such an advanced understanding of the rule of law that they are teaching the nation new concepts on a frequent basis.
No previous government managed to explain to me that breaking the law is fine if done in a limited and specific way. I also did not realise quite how wrong and unfair it would be for police to investigate crimes that happened in the past, until Raab patiently explained this breakthrough concept to us all.
This is the second time in as many days that BGNW has tried to summon the spectre of tuition fees.
It's a little sad, if I'm honest. Not only is that leader long, long gone, the Lib Dems have suffered an admirable kicking at the ballot box fully three times as a result. Oh and along the way, yes, there was an apology.
Meanwhile, the actual current prime minister is a crook, and so is the Chancellor.
The feeblest whataboutery I have seen in a long while. Weak, G, very weak.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Quick question - anyone care to recommend a good restaurant near the British Museum for an early Saturday evening dinner? Was going to book The Ivy but of course, no availability as I'm not an a-list celeb!
Noble Rot
Thanks - Streetview shows it has a step - I am sure they'l have a ramp but f*ck-it, I get fed up with asking.
Appreciate I didn't specify level access so apols, I am not meaning to diss your suggestion.
Mon Plaisir in Monmouth Street used to be very good. It's at the top end so pretty close to British Museum. Clos Maggiore in Covent Garden also used to be excellent. Haven't been to either for a few years so worth checking out recent reviews. Had lunch at the original Ivy a couple of weeks a go IMO it's not what it was, food was good but nothing out of the ordinary. Mon Plaisir and Clos Maggiore both have level access. Also Rules in Covent Garden, always reliable.
Mon Plaisir is still pretty decent - it's pleasant French bistro with reasonable prices.
THAT SAID: it's also pretty cramped and may not be wheelchair friendly.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
This is the second time in as many days that BGNW has tried to summon the spectre of tuition fees.
It's a little sad, if I'm honest. Not only is that leader long, long gone, the Lib Dems have suffered an admirable kicking at the ballot box fully three times as a result. Oh and along the way, yes, there was an apology.
Meanwhile, the actual current prime minister is a crook, and so is the Chancellor.
The feeblest whataboutery I have seen in a long while. Weak, G, very weak.
And it was the Tories that insisted on tuition fees!
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
I'm not slaying Roger, the rightly in my comment shows I'm pro Roger.
All these people thinking of switching from Conservative to Liberal have obviously forgotten about the Fall of Khartoum. Such short memories you people have.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
Nothing I have said there is unreasonable, and you are not mandated to agree with me, just as I am not to agree your contributions
This is much sooner than it was reported it would be, which suggests good operational security.
ShKH vz. 77 DANA 152mm self-propelled howitzers are already in Ukraine - seems a batch of them was recently delivered from the Czech Republic. The amount of supplied howitzers is currently unknown, however as seen they are already deployed/tested by the Ukrainian army. https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1514294528550879235
Kenny Shiels: Northern Ireland boss apologises for saying 'women are more emotional than men'
"I'm sure you will have noticed if you go through the patterns - when a team concedes a goal, they concede a second one in a very, very short space of time.
"[It happens] right through the whole spectrum of the women's game, because girls and women are more emotional than men. So, they take a goal going in not very well."
I wonder if the stats back him up (in so far as there is a difference to the men's game). It's interesting that in the men's game, the mantra is "you're at your most vulnerable when you've just scored."
On topic, I think the cumulative load of FPNs is what will finish off PM Johnson.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
I think it will actually be the Sue Grey report. All the Met are doing is issuing x FPNs, and its coming out which events they were for. Surely the Grey report will have the fuller details?
Looks to me as though Boris can survive anything at the moment.
By any normal calculus he should have been done for some time ago. It's hard to think that some further additional increment will be enough to finish him off, when all the previous ones have not.
Boris Johnson is a test that the British constitution has failed.
Its a political issue not a constitutional one. Under Blair and Brown Ministers were repeatedly fined for breaking the law (including laws they passed) and continued in their jobs without getting sacked.
That was bad then and its bad now, but there's nothing new or constitutional involved it is bad politically and its up to the voters to act.
Isn't lying to parliament a constitutional matter. By convention that requires a resignation doesn't it?
Ministers have apologised before for "inadvertently misleading Parliament" and carried on.
All the fines demonstrate is that the law was broken, not that Parliament was lied to.
I am not sure "I have been fined for something I told you didn't happen" is quite the defence you think it is.
"I have been fined for something I thought was OK but I made a mistake" is the defence that he gave already.
To prove a lie you'd need to prove that the Prime Minister thought that having a slice of cake while at work was a "party" at the time he said it. Quite frankly I actually believe someone as hedonistic as Boris is would not remotely have considered that to be a party so wasn't lying at the time.
Forget the birthday party. Remember this is the end of the easy fines. Now we have the more complex ones. And we know for a fact - because people have seen it - there is a photo of the Big Liar waving a can of Estrella at the camera. Similarly the kareoke party in the flat to name just two of the parties he attended.
"There were no parties". It couldn't be clearer. A deliberate lie to mislead the House of Parliament.
Either he resigns or our entire system of government corrupts.
Ultimately it is for the voters to decide but Boris is not the first or last to be caught telling untruths
Maybe the lib dems can apologise over breaking their promise so blatantly to university students
I have no sympathy with what happened to students. BUT a PBer (I forget whom, alas) recently made the point that it wasn't the LDs who broke their promise, but the coalition - which did not collectively make that promise. It's a not entirely legalistic position. But probably people in the UK outside Scotland and Wales (and to some extent NI) are so used to FPTP and the winner takes all that they are not familiar with the realities of coalition politics and minority governments.
That doesn't wash - the LDs aren't realistically going to form a majority government therefore their manifesto is policies to be enacted in coalition.
Indeed, and that is why you can't expect them to be able to enact every item in their manifesto. Why are they equally not ridiculed for breaking the 'promise' on PR? As it happens I think Clegg was foolish to concede on this given the profile in the campaign. He should have said "we will oppose, but you can use government time to come to an accommodation with the Labour Party". Nobody now remembers that the Labour Party manifesto also included a pledge to increase tuition fees and that it was supported by 70% of the electorate. IIRC correctly that's partly why Clegg conceded when confronted with this stat with the negotiations - there was a clear mandate from the electorate for it to be implemented, although you can argue about the level. Labour were equally hypocritical to oppose it.
But old news now.
The tuition fee "promise" was referred to as such, because it wasn't just a manifesto commitment - a large number of Lib Dem PPCs, including all those subsequently elected, signed personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees during the subsequent Parliament. That is why it is treated differently to any other Lib Dem "promises" - because it wasn't the same. Breaking it was completely different to simply abandoning a manifesto commitment in the wake of failing to secure a majority.
It was a catastrophic move by Nick Clegg. Its clear from David Laws' book that Clegg never agreed with the policy- passed at Federal Conference. But didn't object or stop it becoming a key part of the Cleggasm campaign.
Then when it came to the coalition agreement it wasn't protected. After Brown resigned and Cameron became PM before the agreement had been reached, he acquiesced to the Tory policy. Cameron offered him to have all LD members abstain but Clegg chose to back the policy platform of the coalition.
This was the first of his major miscalculations. Similar stupidity over backing the Lansley NHS reforms. But again, its long in the past and students today have very real problems now.
The idea that this will be a factor in how they vote is for the birds. The idea that it can provide succour to Johnson and Sunak and Patel et al committing malfeasance in public office is bordering on the desperate.
I still agree that whilst it's a very different thing, a similar outcome would be appropriate: - Boris needs to issue an abject apology - The apology needs to be soundly mocked - It should be held against the Tories for a decade and more - They should lose two-thirds of their votes in the next election and the one after it.
After all, it's not as if the Lib Dems ignored it and got away scot-free. And it was, indeed, a different thing entirely to committing malfeasance in a public office, which should be seen as more serious - but the above four items should satisfy me and many others, I feel.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Not personal @TheScreamingEagles but you have consistently dismissed my contributions but then I still try to contribute as best as I can but if it is not OK with you then so be it
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
Maybe you would prefer I stop posting
Banter and taking the piss out of bad predictions is a staple of PB from its very founding.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
In two years, Starmer did what it took Blair and Kinnock 10 years to do.
From 23 points behind to 6 points ahead.
Erm, that just not correct in any way. Kinnock had substantial leads. Smith had large leads. Foot had leads.
Edit - At this stage in the electoral cycle Blair was so far ahead he barely fitted on the graph. Doesn’t mean Starmer won’t win but to say he’s outdone Blair is nonsense.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Not personal @TheScreamingEagles but you have consistently dismissed my contributions but then I still try to contribute as best as I can but if it is not OK with you then so be it
Don't be sensitive. You me and Paper Moon have to stick together.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
I'm not slaying Roger, the rightly in my comment shows I'm pro Roger.
Are any stepmoms on Pornhub involved in this rogerfest.
Tobias Ellwood saying that if may elections do not go well than Boris must seek a vote of confidence
Which he will never do........and would still win even if there was a vote.
It is pathetic.
I am increasingly not sure he would win
You are wrong. Not a single member of the cabinet has criticised him. A lot of the MPs who criticised him earlier in the year, when they couldn't muster the 54 needed for a challenge are saying it is time to move on. I have only heard of one Tory MP openly critical today, if he was under any threat there would be at least several dozen.
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
This is a rapidly developing situation and I agree with every word Lord Wolfson has written
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
Your yoyo opinions have made your judgement about as reliable as Johnson's albeit with less consequences
You know you've hit rock bottom when Roger, rightly, criticises your predictions.
Roger slays G, TSE slays Roger. It's a bloody day on PB
Maybe you would prefer I stop posting
Please, that would make my year
Of course it would but then it is not going to happen nor is Starmer going to be PM
This is much sooner than it was reported it would be, which suggests good operational security.
ShKH vz. 77 DANA 152mm self-propelled howitzers are already in Ukraine - seems a batch of them was recently delivered from the Czech Republic. The amount of supplied howitzers is currently unknown, however as seen they are already deployed/tested by the Ukrainian army. https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1514294528550879235
And a degree of urgency. Some major battles coming up.
Comments
📈Labour 6pt lead
🌳Con 34 (+1)
🌹Lab 40 (=)
🔶LD 9 (-2)
🎗️SNP 4 (-1)
🌍Green 4 (=)
⬜️Other 8 (=)
2,145 UK adults, 8-10 April
(chg from 1-3 April)
A 6 point lead is utterly pathetic for Labour at this point. Also note that Starmer is only 1% ahead of Johnson in the best PM ratings which is margin of error stuff and therefore very good for Johnson.
We cannot have politics by dictatorship.
Its a very simple reality that if you are elected to office you are elected to office. You can't say "sorry, didn't mean it".
Whose poll?
It’s just sour grapes by pearl-clutching entitled types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge
I called The Ivy and they offered me something at the 'dining counter'. When I asked if that was wheelchair accessible they answered No sorry but were suddenly ably to find me a table.
Let's hope they don't have to disappoint too many last minute A-listers, eh?
Thanks for the tip!
I have asked but answer came there none.
The man at the door ranted at me for sometime about how much damage the liberals had done. I can't remember whether I responded or was dumb struck, but the obvious thought was 'How?' and what about giving us a chance to really screw it up by electing one of us.
But personally I very much doubt this is unique to LDs, and more importantly I’m not even sure this is inconsistent.
About 15 years ago, I had LD election leaflets from N Cbg (lab) and S Cbg (con) which had diametrically opposite positions on some point or other. This annoyed me greatly at the time.
I haven't seen anything like it recently.
And Rishi drops below Boris
Then when it came to the coalition agreement it wasn't protected. After Brown resigned and Cameron became PM before the agreement had been reached, he acquiesced to the Tory policy. Cameron offered him to have all LD members abstain but Clegg chose to back the policy platform of the coalition.
This was the first of his major miscalculations. Similar stupidity over backing the Lansley NHS reforms. But again, its long in the past and students today have very real problems now.
The idea that this will be a factor in how they vote is for the birds.
The idea that it can provide succour to Johnson and Sunak and Patel et al committing malfeasance in public office is bordering on the desperate.
Which shows the fan boys are still broadly content with their leader, and given he is not going to resign, he is in place until (at least) the GE.
https://order-order.com/2022/04/13/exclusive-carole-crowdfunded-her-legal-costs-unlawfully/
Legally, under the Companies Act, once a company strike off form has been filed the company can no longer trade or be involved in any other business activities. For all intents and purposes, the business is closed. If your company does continue doing business, you could face severe penalties.
“We the Citizens Limited” filed to strike off on January 12, 2022 and was struck off yesterday, April 12, 2022. During the period when the company should have ceased all activity she used it to raise thousands of pounds...
The – at the time of publication – active crowdfunding page is still soliciting and taking donations, even today. Guido has contacted GoFundMe about this matter. They are considering what to do…
I have voted for independents many a time.
A local example. Our LD manifesto for Aberdeenshire council commits to continuing the council's work to improve quality and quantity of housing across all tenures, to work with partners to improve existing homes both public and private and to bring empty homes back into occupation.
Locally the area planning committees agree to a lot of new house building but it is community additive not housebuilder profit additive. I can thing of chunks of new estates being built according to the local plan and individual homes being built privately.
Edit. For Boris that is.
Woah
Justice minister has resigned.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1514281989976772615
It is pathetic.
https://twitter.com/DXWQC/status/1514280176636633090?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
- Boris needs to issue an abject apology
- The apology needs to be soundly mocked
- It should be held against the Tories for a decade and more
- They should lose two-thirds of their votes in the next election and the one after it.
After all, it's not as if the Lib Dems ignored it and got away scot-free. And it was, indeed, a different thing entirely to committing malfeasance in a public office, which should be seen as more serious - but the above four items should satisfy me and many others, I feel.
This could go wrong for Boris very quickly
I don't like it, and I suspect some of those who celebrate it will be the first to start crying when the boot is on the other foot, but as long as the PM is shameless and the MPs are spineless, it may well work.
Military types in the race
Elwood- we're all dead
Tugendhat - that's a gamble
Wallace - running the odd risk
I do wish you are right, but the evidence does not support your view.
Yeah Tas is fine - access is fine too. Have been there before but looking to try somewhere else. Thanks
"It is not the right time to worry about the rule of law in the UK when Putin has illegally invaded Ukraine".
No previous government managed to explain to me that breaking the law is fine if done in a limited and specific way. I also did not realise quite how wrong and unfair it would be for police to investigate crimes that happened in the past, until Raab patiently explained this breakthrough concept to us all.
It's a little sad, if I'm honest. Not only is that leader long, long gone, the Lib Dems have suffered an admirable kicking at the ballot box fully three times as a result. Oh and along the way, yes, there was an apology.
Meanwhile, the actual current prime minister is a crook, and so is the Chancellor.
The feeblest whataboutery I have seen in a long while. Weak, G, very weak.
Remember we have 5 more days of drip drip and as for the weekend papers Boris supporters are going to need to close their eyes as I believe it could be dreadful for him
Furthermore, his mps must be getting a lot of hassle in their constituency and must realise that the only way to restore faith in the party is for them to act and act quickly
I understand Rishi has gone to the US which seems strange, and nobody should be surprised if he resigns which of course would precipitate the fall of Boris
I would not be surprised to see Boris and Carrie walking away from Downing Street in the next few weeks
THAT SAID: it's also pretty cramped and may not be wheelchair friendly.
ShKH vz. 77 DANA 152mm self-propelled howitzers are already in Ukraine - seems a batch of them was recently delivered from the Czech Republic. The amount of supplied howitzers is currently unknown, however as seen they are already deployed/tested by the Ukrainian army.
https://mobile.twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1514294528550879235
Kenny Shiels: Northern Ireland boss apologises for saying 'women are more emotional than men'
"I'm sure you will have noticed if you go through the patterns - when a team concedes a goal, they concede a second one in a very, very short space of time.
"[It happens] right through the whole spectrum of the women's game, because girls and women are more emotional than men. So, they take a goal going in not very well."
I wonder if the stats back him up (in so far as there is a difference to the men's game). It's interesting that in the men's game, the mantra is "you're at your most vulnerable when you've just scored."
From 23 points behind to 6 points ahead.
We all make them, except me of course.
Edit - At this stage in the electoral cycle Blair was so far ahead he barely fitted on the graph. Doesn’t mean Starmer won’t win but to say he’s outdone Blair is nonsense.