Lubov Chernukhin wife of ex Putin crony and who has had paid for access to our last 3 PMs with £2m donated to the Tory party turns out to have been a director of a company secretly owned by a sanctioned Russian oligarch. Of course she now can't recall being a director of said company. Her husband received $8m from the same Russian oligarch she can't remember being a director for.
I wonder if the Tory fan boys will continue to say it is racist for links between Putin and Tory funding to be highlighted.
The ridicule is directed at the idea that the Tory party has been bought or influenced by Russian oligarchs when the UK has led the charge in both supporting and training Ukrainian forces. Yesterday the UK was being specifically named as having caused the default on Russian state backed loans by its sanctions regime. Not only is there no evidence of influence but such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction.
I agree the government has been solidly supportive of Ukraine during the current offensive. It wasn't always the case before this year. Including after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 when Boris Johnson wrote an article criticising the EU and indirectly Ukraine for provoking Russia. The Conservative Party has certainly received a lot of Russian money. This money may not have directly come from Putin, but it never does. The Government tried to suppress a Russia Report that said while there is no identified Russian influence on the 2016 Brexit vote, it was because the government deliberately chose not to investigate (presumably in case someone found something). The UK has a flourishing money laundering business that was (still is?) targeted at Russian oligarchs who have established themselves in all parts of UK society including parliament.
So if there is evidence they are guilty and if there is no evidence they are guilty. Ok then
Russia and the Conservative Party are associated. How much effective influence the first have on the second is unknown because governance is weak and the current government is undermining it further. If they had proper governance in place these Russian actors would be not be close to the Conservative Party as now.
Russians by birth now UK citizens.
But you would exclude them from the full rights and privileges of a British citizen.
How very progressive of you
Russian by money, is the key point, I think. What are they getting for it?
And its not as if Britons (native or by choice) cannot be serving foreign powers.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Fettes is not the Eton of Scotland! It's merely one of a number of post-Arnoldian establishments across the UK designed from the start to decontaminate the offspring of the aspiring middle classes.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
That's a good point you make. A quick check shows that the vast majority of cases of that statement date from discussions of Mr Blair's life and career when he rose to high places in the 1990s, and later writers on other subjects who have obviously picked it up. Indeed, it seems to have stemmed from a headline writer's invention (possibly in a Scottish Field article about the school of the same sort of time - do a google books search on John Rentoul's biog of Mr Blair). But it was the TB link that really made the tag well known.
It's much rarer before that, and is only sporadic, and used of other schools as well such as Glenalmond (also Episcopalian IIRC) and the Edinburgh Academy, also C19 foundations. For none of those is it appropriate.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Fettes is not the Eton of Scotland! It's merely one of a number of post-Arnoldian establishments across the UK designed from the start to decontaminate the offspring of the aspiring middle classes.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
That's a good point you make. A quick check shows that the vast majority of cases of that statement date from discussions of Mr Blair's life and career when he rose to high places in the 1990s, and later writers on other subjects who have obviously picked it up. Indeed, it seems to have stemmed from a headline writer's invention (possibly in a Scottish Field article about the school of the same sort of time - do a google books search on John Rentoul's biog of Mr Blair). But it was the TB link that really made the tag well known.
It's much rarer before that, and is only sporadic, and used of other schools as well such as Glenalmond (also Episcopalian IIRC) and the Edinburgh Academy, also C19 foundations. For none of those is it appropriate.
I think when Ian Fleming retconned James Bond's origin story after Sean Connery took the film role he made Bond a Fettes' alum. Ironically Connery used to deliver their milk.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
A bit ironic that when so many of our leading politicians have studied PPE that we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
What's more worrying is that many of our leading politicians don't think we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
And the profits from supplying PPE are an example of 'trade' and 'business' working well.
Its 100% true.
There's an old saying, you can have it good, fast and cheap - but you need to pick two out of three.
During the pandemic we needed PPE fast and good. We got it, but it wasn't cheap. Considering the pandemic was costing billions, that was the right two out of three to go for and that people made a profit from that is business in action.
Without the profit motive, we would not have had the PPE.
Most of the write-down of PPE has come not from 'fraud' but from the fact that the stockpiles purchased now aren't worth what they were paid for at the time, as the price of the goods has come down since they were purchased. Again, that is how the market works.
We spent something more than £500m on PPE that was unusable. I suppose it was fast, but it certainly wasn't cheap or even good enough.
Unless people went without the PPE then it was good enough, on aggregate.
Some wastage is entirely to be expected when you're trying to get something in major volumes rapidly.
Trying to ensure there is as close to zero wastage as possible is possible, but that then you need to either sacrifice speed, or cost, or quality.
Loads of people went without PPE - "Surveys by staff representative organisations showed at least 30% of participating care workers, doctors and nurses reported having insufficient PPE, even in high-risk settings."
But in any case - it's not that mistakes were made, I can forgive that personally.
It's that there was obvious corruption with Minister's mates getting massive contracts for unusable PPE - when there were better qualified suppliers trying to sell and not being able to get hold of contracts.
If Johnson does go prior to the next GE, I'd make Ben Wallace favourite I think. Had another tenner on him this morning at 10/1 for next tory leader.
(I have a bet on him from last year at 100/1 (for next PM).)
MPs don't want Truss and I can see Wallace developing as the best protection against that, given that he is even more popular that Truss in the ConHome survey.
I do not see Boris lasting the summer and expect quite a few conservative mps will stand
It cannot come soon enough to be honest
People keep saying this but it needs the MPs letters. He won't resign.
We have recently had Ross and Bridgen WITHDRAW their letters (and others maybe?). Bridgen and Ross will not send letter in again surely, they would look proper yo-yoing eejits. So the bar to get the required number of letters has in effect risen.
If sufficient letters do come in, Johnson may survive the confidence vote. Can't be challenged for a year then.
On balance, I still think he'll survive, though like you I am hoping not.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
With Commons leader Mark Spencer confirming Tory MPs will have a free vote on the Labour motion (rather than the 3-line whip they were briefing last night) it means Boris Johnson will almost certainly face a privileges committee investigation into whether he misled the Commons. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1517086619207090176
Anybody think the privileges committee won't find Boris lied to the House?
Anybody think Boris can survive that finding as PM?
Boris will not lead the Conservatives into the next election, nailed on....
The privileges committee has a Tory majority. They know what impact finding Boris to be a liar will have. They won’t do that lightly. So, I think it’s possible the cttee will vote on party lines and find BJ innocent; I think it’s possible they’ll figure out some sort of compromise statement that lightly smacks BJ on the wrist but which BJ can weather; I think it’s possible that they turn up some smoking gun that makes BJ’s position untenable and they go for the jugular; and I think it’s possible that BJ will have been forced out before they even meet because further FPNs or the Gray report provide that smoking gun. Now to try to put probabilities on each of those options…
Whatever happens this is brilliant for Labour. The scandal will drag on for weeks if not months. The Conservatives are clearly all over the place. Even the most blinkered 2019 Tory voters have finally rumbled Boris. The up-and-coming replacement has crashed to earth. There's no other obvious or popular replacements, nor any one around whom Tory MPs could rally. By the time Tory MPs inch towards making a decision, the PM's henchmen will be arguing that it's now too close to the election to change horses. Meanwhile the economy is going to the dogs and the cost of living crisis is going to hit hard for many months.
Why does everyone keep saying the economy is going to the dogs?
Probably because it is.
What evidence are you basing that on?
What is the employment situation in the UK?
What is the inflation rate in the UK? What is happening with declining real terms incomes?
Ultimately the economic factors that influence elections are those that impact individuals and their communitees. The question remains "who's GDP?"
Small boat arrivals have dropped from average 700 per day to about 100 per day since the announcement to 0 yesterday.
Would need to know the weather conditions to be sure of an effect, or there may be some other factor.
Surely people taking the crossing (or not) this week were already in France two weeks ago? Seems far too quick to have an effect.
It does seem quick, but its also possible that people who were fleeing France might now decide to flee and seek sanctuary from France in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain or some other country that isn't France instead of just Britain?
Or France is no longer a failed state with oil.
It always seemed to me that the purpose of the Rwanda policy was for it to be there but not really used. Almost the Nuclear deterrent approach. If those numbers are true then the policy has done its job in remarkable time. Hopefully put the people smugglers out of business for good and to stop unnecessary deaths in The Channel.
If Johnson does go prior to the next GE, I'd make Ben Wallace favourite I think. Had another tenner on him this morning at 10/1 for next tory leader.
(I have a bet on him from last year at 100/1 (for next PM).)
MPs don't want Truss and I can see Wallace developing as the best protection against that, given that he is even more popular that Truss in the ConHome survey.
I do not see Boris lasting the summer and expect quite a few conservative mps will stand
It cannot come soon enough to be honest
People keep saying this but it needs the MPs letters. He won't resign.
We have recently had Ross and Bridgen WITHDRAW their letters (and others maybe?). Bridgen and Ross will not send letter in again surely, they would look proper yo-yoing eejits. So the bar to get the required number of letters has in effect risen.
If sufficient letters do come in, Johnson may go on the survive the confidence vote.
On balance, I still think he'll survive, though like you I am hoping not.
To me it feels like the last days of Thatcher and I simply do not see him surviving much longer
Slightly better news for Le Pen in the latest Opinion Way poll .
Those who saw the debate had Macron winning 41% Le Pen 31% and 28% undecided . So not the 20 point lead of last nights Elabe poll.
The voting intention remains unchanged Macron 56% Le Pen 44%.
Isn't that largely because the Elabe poll was of actual viewers, so had a far lower undecided rate (2% rather than 28%, I think)?
With the OpinionWay poll, it's all voters so you'd expect a much higher rate of undecided people (most of whom, presumably, didn't watch it) and a closer match to a regular voting poll as quite a few people who didn't watch just say their preferred candidate won in these things. Indeed, ignoring the undecided, it's basically the same as the voting intention poll (57/43).
For me, the debate wasn't a game-changer but largely cements Macron's position. Most people had their preconceptions reinforced. That's helpful if you're in the lead, and unhelpful if you're not.
It's a common theme on here, from all sides, that Starmer is dull. I don't disagree. But is dullness actually a bar to being PM? I've been thinking about this, and I'm not so sure. Let's face it, most people are dull, and genuine charisma is a relatively rare thing. Theresa May's dullness didn't stop her getting stellar popularity ratings before it all went pear-shaped.
In a contest between a) a very dull, boring, competent and honest candidate with integrity, and b) a charismatic, exciting, hilarious pathological liar, I'm beginning to think a) may win hands down.
That assumes that SKS can successfully portray himself as competent, honest and with integrity in absolute rather than relative terms.
Well, in the last two years the Tories haven't been able to find anything substantive to suggest he isn't. If the best they can do is 'he didn't prosecute Jimmy Saville', it suggests the smear bucket is pretty empty.
Who knows when another field for rescue donkeys might crop up.
That was counterproductive - made SKS seem (a) interesting on a level easily understood by the meanest intellect (b) kind and caring and (c) animal loving in a far less insensitive way than Afghan kitties and doggies.
Interesting map of support for National Front in France over recent elections. 2007 seem as clear an indicator as you could find for a candidate overstaying their welcome with the old man still running. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61166601
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
A bit ironic that when so many of our leading politicians have studied PPE that we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
What's more worrying is that many of our leading politicians don't think we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
And the profits from supplying PPE are an example of 'trade' and 'business' working well.
Its 100% true.
There's an old saying, you can have it good, fast and cheap - but you need to pick two out of three.
During the pandemic we needed PPE fast and good. We got it, but it wasn't cheap. Considering the pandemic was costing billions, that was the right two out of three to go for and that people made a profit from that is business in action.
Without the profit motive, we would not have had the PPE.
Most of the write-down of PPE has come not from 'fraud' but from the fact that the stockpiles purchased now aren't worth what they were paid for at the time, as the price of the goods has come down since they were purchased. Again, that is how the market works.
We spent something more than £500m on PPE that was unusable. I suppose it was fast, but it certainly wasn't cheap or even good enough.
A lot wasn't that fast either. Sweetheart contacts were being given out to mates of the government in summer 2020
Of course, Labour were demanding to know why we weren't doing deals with people who, er, had no PPE.
We ended up with enough PPE. The Govt. did its job. The same people saying we spent too much on dodgy PPE would have been demanding the Government fall if we had actually, you know, run out of PPE. On this aspect of Covid at least, Labour deserve to be called out as shameless political hypocrites.
Come on Mark, they filled their chums pockets big time, it was graft pure and simple and you know it.
malcy, you don't HAVE to be such a one-trick pony!
Every country was doing what it could to get PPE. We got PPE. Some people in the supply chain got rich. Might be shameful, but hardly shocking. Shocking would have been Germany, France, Spain, Italy having PPE - and us none.
If it were the case that "some people in the supply chain got rich", I could probably live with that. But the problem is they weren't just random people getting rich - a lot of them were mates or associates of those in power. It smelt bad because it was bad.
With Commons leader Mark Spencer confirming Tory MPs will have a free vote on the Labour motion (rather than the 3-line whip they were briefing last night) it means Boris Johnson will almost certainly face a privileges committee investigation into whether he misled the Commons. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1517086619207090176
Anybody think the privileges committee won't find Boris lied to the House?
Anybody think Boris can survive that finding as PM?
Boris will not lead the Conservatives into the next election, nailed on....
The privileges committee has a Tory majority. They know what impact finding Boris to be a liar will have. They won’t do that lightly. So, I think it’s possible the cttee will vote on party lines and find BJ innocent; I think it’s possible they’ll figure out some sort of compromise statement that lightly smacks BJ on the wrist but which BJ can weather; I think it’s possible that they turn up some smoking gun that makes BJ’s position untenable and they go for the jugular; and I think it’s possible that BJ will have been forced out before they even meet because further FPNs or the Gray report provide that smoking gun. Now to try to put probabilities on each of those options…
Further FPNs and photographs will be the end for Boris
Whatever happens this is brilliant for Labour. The scandal will drag on for weeks if not months. The Conservatives are clearly all over the place. Even the most blinkered 2019 Tory voters have finally rumbled Boris. The up-and-coming replacement has crashed to earth. There's no other obvious or popular replacements, nor any one around whom Tory MPs could rally. By the time Tory MPs inch towards making a decision, the PM's henchmen will be arguing that it's now too close to the election to change horses. Meanwhile the economy is going to the dogs and the cost of living crisis is going to hit hard for many months.
Why does everyone keep saying the economy is going to the dogs?
Probably because it is.
What evidence are you basing that on?
What is the employment situation in the UK?
The employment situation is interesting, and not in a good way. Of course we've lost the benefit of EU workers, so some sectors are desperately short of staff. To make things worse, an unexpectedly large number of people in their fifties and over have withdrawn from the labour market following the pandemic and lockdown. Meanwhile the public sector has been been recruiting, especially in healthcare and for pandemic-related special work, although it's not clear how sustainable that is given the pressures on the public finances. So the headline unemployment figures look good, but the structural problems underneath are definitely not.
Meanwhile we're set to have one of the lowest growth rates and highest inflation rates of comparable economies, and Brexit red-tape is strangling small companies in many sectors, foreign direct investment (apart from some bargain-basement takeovers of British firms) is poor.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
It is as Shakespeare would have it, the tragic flaw in his character, that will hopefully lead to downfall.*
* although as I posted yesterday with sunak no longer the obvious fall back, I fear the membership will do something stupid if he does go.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Wonderful case study in effective parliamentary opposition: Starmer secures huge govt U-turn by drafting mildly worded motion; Blackford howls at clouds
It's a common theme on here, from all sides, that Starmer is dull. I don't disagree. But is dullness actually a bar to being PM? I've been thinking about this, and I'm not so sure. Let's face it, most people are dull, and genuine charisma is a relatively rare thing. Theresa May's dullness didn't stop her getting stellar popularity ratings before it all went pear-shaped.
In a contest between a) a very dull, boring, competent and honest candidate with integrity, and b) a charismatic, exciting, hilarious pathological liar, I'm beginning to think a) may win hands down.
That assumes that SKS can successfully portray himself as competent, honest and with integrity in absolute rather than relative terms.
Well, in the last two years the Tories haven't been able to find anything substantive to suggest he isn't. If the best they can do is 'he didn't prosecute Jimmy Saville', it suggests the smear bucket is pretty empty.
Who knows when another field for rescue donkeys might crop up.
That was counterproductive - made SKS seem (a) interesting on a level easily understood by the meanest intellect (b) kind and caring and (c) animal loving in a far less insensitive way than Afghan kitties and doggies.
Its so inept as well. You can't turn spin something which is so clearly untrue. Is there anyone out there which really thinks Starmer isn't a pretty decent principled man? The same with the Saville stuff...
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
It is as Shakespeare would have it, the tragic flaw in his character, that will hopefully lead to downfall.*
* although as I posted yesterday with sunak no longer the obvious fall back, I fear the membership will do something stupid if he does go.
Well the ConHome Cabinet league table might suggest members would go for Wallace, but he might be just flavour of the month (though he was rated near the top prior to Ukraine too), though if he avoids doing an Icarus act like Sunak it makes him look well placed.
With Commons leader Mark Spencer confirming Tory MPs will have a free vote on the Labour motion (rather than the 3-line whip they were briefing last night) it means Boris Johnson will almost certainly face a privileges committee investigation into whether he misled the Commons. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1517086619207090176
Anybody think the privileges committee won't find Boris lied to the House?
Anybody think Boris can survive that finding as PM?
Boris will not lead the Conservatives into the next election, nailed on....
The privileges committee has a Tory majority. They know what impact finding Boris to be a liar will have. They won’t do that lightly. So, I think it’s possible the cttee will vote on party lines and find BJ innocent; I think it’s possible they’ll figure out some sort of compromise statement that lightly smacks BJ on the wrist but which BJ can weather; I think it’s possible that they turn up some smoking gun that makes BJ’s position untenable and they go for the jugular; and I think it’s possible that BJ will have been forced out before they even meet because further FPNs or the Gray report provide that smoking gun. Now to try to put probabilities on each of those options…
Further FPNs and photographs will be the end for Boris
I think this is all about getting the photos in the public domain. We live in an increasingly visual culture. Once the pictures are published he is toast, I think.
Interesting map of support for National Front in France over recent elections. 2007 seem as clear an indicator as you could find for a candidate overstaying their welcome with the old man still running. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61166601
Yes, the question is post Le-Pen. Does her successor have the charisma to inherit the personal vote and will they inherit the large negative vote effect that Le Pen creates?
I fear that Le Pen has created the space for the next generation - what that map shows is that the hard right, which used to have serious geographical boundaries is moving forward everywhere.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
Indeed, it's not his nature.
His shamelessness is his USP. It's why people like him, it's also what will ultimately see him driven out of public life.
It's a common theme on here, from all sides, that Starmer is dull. I don't disagree. But is dullness actually a bar to being PM? I've been thinking about this, and I'm not so sure. Let's face it, most people are dull, and genuine charisma is a relatively rare thing. Theresa May's dullness didn't stop her getting stellar popularity ratings before it all went pear-shaped.
In a contest between a) a very dull, boring, competent and honest candidate with integrity, and b) a charismatic, exciting, hilarious pathological liar, I'm beginning to think a) may win hands down.
That assumes that SKS can successfully portray himself as competent, honest and with integrity in absolute rather than relative terms.
Well, in the last two years the Tories haven't been able to find anything substantive to suggest he isn't. If the best they can do is 'he didn't prosecute Jimmy Saville', it suggests the smear bucket is pretty empty.
Who knows when another field for rescue donkeys might crop up.
That was counterproductive - made SKS seem (a) interesting on a level easily understood by the meanest intellect (b) kind and caring and (c) animal loving in a far less insensitive way than Afghan kitties and doggies.
Pensioners in particular absolutely love donkeys. Donkey sanctuaries receive a level of bequests in wills that is totally out of proportion to the extent of the problem.
The reason is fairly obviously that the OAPs have a great deal of empathy with donkeys on the basis that "they've worked hard all their life and deserve comfort in old age... just like me". A friend of mine who is a wills & trusts solicitor has to bite his tongue when yet another older person writes them into their will - it's entirely their choice, of course, but these places are, by and large, swimming in cash.
With Commons leader Mark Spencer confirming Tory MPs will have a free vote on the Labour motion (rather than the 3-line whip they were briefing last night) it means Boris Johnson will almost certainly face a privileges committee investigation into whether he misled the Commons. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1517086619207090176
Anybody think the privileges committee won't find Boris lied to the House?
Anybody think Boris can survive that finding as PM?
Boris will not lead the Conservatives into the next election, nailed on....
It does have 4 Tories on 7 man panel, will any of them have a backbone.
I suspect Laura Farris (Newbury) might not be strongly pro-Boris. A renewed LibDem challenge there might be tricky, as it was once LibDem turf.
If one goes against him, question for the other three - do they want to back the losing side?
Andy Carter in Warrington South only has a 2,000 majority. Keeping Boris likely loses him the seat....
Alberto Costa in South Leicestershire on the other hand has a very safe seat, so can do as his conscience dictates.
Sir Bernard Jenkin might be the only one to naturally stick with the PM regardless. Even then, does he want to be seen as the one stooge?
Whatever happens this is brilliant for Labour. The scandal will drag on for weeks if not months. The Conservatives are clearly all over the place. Even the most blinkered 2019 Tory voters have finally rumbled Boris. The up-and-coming replacement has crashed to earth. There's no other obvious or popular replacements, nor any one around whom Tory MPs could rally. By the time Tory MPs inch towards making a decision, the PM's henchmen will be arguing that it's now too close to the election to change horses. Meanwhile the economy is going to the dogs and the cost of living crisis is going to hit hard for many months.
Why does everyone keep saying the economy is going to the dogs?
Probably because it is.
What evidence are you basing that on?
What is the employment situation in the UK?
The employment situation is interesting, and not in a good way. Of course we've lost the benefit of EU workers, so some sectors are desperately short of staff. To make things worse, an unexpectedly large number of people in their fifties and over have withdrawn from the labour market following the pandemic and lockdown. Meanwhile the public sector has been been recruiting, especially in healthcare and for pandemic-related special work, although it's not clear how sustainable that is given the pressures on the public finances. So the headline unemployment figures look good, but the structural problems underneath are definitely not.
I agree the UK lacks skilled staff but that does not mean the economy is going to the dogs, to me the economy seems to be going the other way. People seem to have plenty of money to spend.
We are a small-medium M & E company and our order book for the next 12-18 months is fuller than it has ever been with orders from both the public and private sector. Another thing to remember is that large parts of the public sector have not really been operational over the past 2 years and they have a lot of money to spend on schools etc for projects that have been put off.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
A local politician from my area once had a radio interview about some issue, which the the presenter described on air as one of the best political apologies they'd heard. They seemed to be that they opened by admitting it was a big cock up. They still then did the politician thing of explaining and even underplaying it a bit, but by leading with the admission it made the more standard equivocations seem more reasonable.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Fettes is not the Eton of Scotland! It's merely one of a number of post-Arnoldian establishments across the UK designed from the start to decontaminate the offspring of the aspiring middle classes.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
That's a good point you make. A quick check shows that the vast majority of cases of that statement date from discussions of Mr Blair's life and career when he rose to high places in the 1990s, and later writers on other subjects who have obviously picked it up. Indeed, it seems to have stemmed from a headline writer's invention (possibly in a Scottish Field article about the school of the same sort of time - do a google books search on John Rentoul's biog of Mr Blair). But it was the TB link that really made the tag well known.
It's much rarer before that, and is only sporadic, and used of other schools as well such as Glenalmond (also Episcopalian IIRC) and the Edinburgh Academy, also C19 foundations. For none of those is it appropriate.
I think when Ian Fleming retconned James Bond's origin story after Sean Connery took the film role he made Bond a Fettes' alum. Ironically Connery used to deliver their milk.
Fleming did. Supposedly after JB had been thrown out of Eton for ungentlemanly behaviour. Got sent to dad's school instead.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Hang on, young HY!!! Remind us, if you would be so kind, who are these Lib Dems MPs who come from London and the South? Then add them up, divide by thirteen and express the result as a percentage......
Now, what were you saying?
It may be as you say after the next election, of course.
To help HYUFD… There are 13 LDem MPs: 4 representing constituencies in Scotland, none from Wales or NI. Among the English MPs, there are 3 London, 3 south + east, 1 west, 1 north-west and 1 midlands. So, less than half come from London or the South.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
A bit ironic that when so many of our leading politicians have studied PPE that we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
What's more worrying is that many of our leading politicians don't think we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
And the profits from supplying PPE are an example of 'trade' and 'business' working well.
Its 100% true.
There's an old saying, you can have it good, fast and cheap - but you need to pick two out of three.
During the pandemic we needed PPE fast and good. We got it, but it wasn't cheap. Considering the pandemic was costing billions, that was the right two out of three to go for and that people made a profit from that is business in action.
Without the profit motive, we would not have had the PPE.
Most of the write-down of PPE has come not from 'fraud' but from the fact that the stockpiles purchased now aren't worth what they were paid for at the time, as the price of the goods has come down since they were purchased. Again, that is how the market works.
We spent something more than £500m on PPE that was unusable. I suppose it was fast, but it certainly wasn't cheap or even good enough.
A lot wasn't that fast either. Sweetheart contacts were being given out to mates of the government in summer 2020
Of course, Labour were demanding to know why we weren't doing deals with people who, er, had no PPE.
We ended up with enough PPE. The Govt. did its job. The same people saying we spent too much on dodgy PPE would have been demanding the Government fall if we had actually, you know, run out of PPE. On this aspect of Covid at least, Labour deserve to be called out as shameless political hypocrites.
Come on Mark, they filled their chums pockets big time, it was graft pure and simple and you know it.
malcy, you don't HAVE to be such a one-trick pony!
Every country was doing what it could to get PPE. We got PPE. Some people in the supply chain got rich. Might be shameful, but hardly shocking. Shocking would have been Germany, France, Spain, Italy having PPE - and us none.
If it were the case that "some people in the supply chain got rich", I could probably live with that. But the problem is they weren't just random people getting rich - a lot of them were mates or associates of those in power. It smelt bad because it was bad.
Would you prefer it smelt of roses - but we had no PPE? Because in that frenzied atmosphere, it was probably the only choice.
People who knew people knew people who could get us PPE. Do it, say I.
Rees Mogg is the only Tory MP who seems to be enjoying their current task of defending the impossible. Working under Boris gets much easier if you keep calm and see it just as a challenging Oxford Union debating topic, rather than letting morals get in the way https://twitter.com/alexisconran/status/1516542722034872324
With Commons leader Mark Spencer confirming Tory MPs will have a free vote on the Labour motion (rather than the 3-line whip they were briefing last night) it means Boris Johnson will almost certainly face a privileges committee investigation into whether he misled the Commons. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1517086619207090176
Anybody think the privileges committee won't find Boris lied to the House?
Anybody think Boris can survive that finding as PM?
Boris will not lead the Conservatives into the next election, nailed on....
The privileges committee has a Tory majority. They know what impact finding Boris to be a liar will have. They won’t do that lightly. So, I think it’s possible the cttee will vote on party lines and find BJ innocent; I think it’s possible they’ll figure out some sort of compromise statement that lightly smacks BJ on the wrist but which BJ can weather; I think it’s possible that they turn up some smoking gun that makes BJ’s position untenable and they go for the jugular; and I think it’s possible that BJ will have been forced out before they even meet because further FPNs or the Gray report provide that smoking gun. Now to try to put probabilities on each of those options…
Further FPNs and photographs will be the end for Boris
I think at the moment the bookies have it about right. Hills are more or less even money on Boris to be leader at the next election, and even money on whether he leaves 2024 or later.
It is proper irresistible force and immoveable object. It is strongly likely that nothing will move Boris pre GE except compulsion. The power to compel (except at GE time) ultimately belongs to the House of Commons which means in fact it belongs to the Tory majority.
I don't think there is any single factor which moves either of these to being more likely than the other.
As to the present moment, Boris has, since Christmas, achieved and continues to achieve his current objective which is delay, division, complication and confusion.
The big moment to shift the dial was Sunak's brief time of being the special one + good reason to resign on principle and declare war.
If, counterfactually, that had happened, we would all be knee deep in Non Dom and Green Card issues right now.
Whatever happens this is brilliant for Labour. The scandal will drag on for weeks if not months. The Conservatives are clearly all over the place. Even the most blinkered 2019 Tory voters have finally rumbled Boris. The up-and-coming replacement has crashed to earth. There's no other obvious or popular replacements, nor any one around whom Tory MPs could rally. By the time Tory MPs inch towards making a decision, the PM's henchmen will be arguing that it's now too close to the election to change horses. Meanwhile the economy is going to the dogs and the cost of living crisis is going to hit hard for many months.
Why does everyone keep saying the economy is going to the dogs?
Probably because it is.
What evidence are you basing that on?
What is the employment situation in the UK?
The employment situation is interesting, and not in a good way. Of course we've lost the benefit of EU workers, so some sectors are desperately short of staff. To make things worse, an unexpectedly large number of people in their fifties and over have withdrawn from the labour market following the pandemic and lockdown. Meanwhile the public sector has been been recruiting, especially in healthcare and for pandemic-related special work, although it's not clear how sustainable that is given the pressures on the public finances. So the headline unemployment figures look good, but the structural problems underneath are definitely not.
I agree the UK lacks skilled staff but that does not mean the economy is going to the dogs, to me the economy seems to be going the other way. People seem to have plenty of money to spend.
We are a small-medium M & E company and our order book for the next 12-18 months is fuller than it has ever been with orders from both the public and private sector. Another thing to remember is that large parts of the public sector have not really been operational over the past 2 years and they have a lot of money to spend on schools etc for projects that have been put off.
The entire domestic building trade and trades around it are working at capacity - you can't get a vaguely seriously builder for any kind of job in under 6 months. Architects are working round the clock.
It's a common theme on here, from all sides, that Starmer is dull. I don't disagree. But is dullness actually a bar to being PM? I've been thinking about this, and I'm not so sure. Let's face it, most people are dull, and genuine charisma is a relatively rare thing. Theresa May's dullness didn't stop her getting stellar popularity ratings before it all went pear-shaped.
In a contest between a) a very dull, boring, competent and honest candidate with integrity, and b) a charismatic, exciting, hilarious pathological liar, I'm beginning to think a) may win hands down.
That assumes that SKS can successfully portray himself as competent, honest and with integrity in absolute rather than relative terms.
Well, in the last two years the Tories haven't been able to find anything substantive to suggest he isn't. If the best they can do is 'he didn't prosecute Jimmy Saville', it suggests the smear bucket is pretty empty.
Who knows when another field for rescue donkeys might crop up.
That was counterproductive - made SKS seem (a) interesting on a level easily understood by the meanest intellect (b) kind and caring and (c) animal loving in a far less insensitive way than Afghan kitties and doggies.
Pensioners in particular absolutely love donkeys. Donkey sanctuaries receive a level of bequests in wills that is totally out of proportion to the extent of the problem.
The reason is fairly obviously that the OAPs have a great deal of empathy with donkeys on the basis that "they've worked hard all their life and deserve comfort in old age... just like me". A friend of mine who is a wills & trusts solicitor has to bite his tongue when yet another older person writes them into their will - it's entirely their choice, of course, but these places are, by and large, swimming in cash.
That's interesting - especially in making the Mail hatchet job even more counterproductive with the oldie voter. And even your friend couldn't complain about SKS's field, it can be repurposed when no longer needed for the cuddly cuddies.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
A bit ironic that when so many of our leading politicians have studied PPE that we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
What's more worrying is that many of our leading politicians don't think we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
And the profits from supplying PPE are an example of 'trade' and 'business' working well.
Its 100% true.
There's an old saying, you can have it good, fast and cheap - but you need to pick two out of three.
During the pandemic we needed PPE fast and good. We got it, but it wasn't cheap. Considering the pandemic was costing billions, that was the right two out of three to go for and that people made a profit from that is business in action.
Without the profit motive, we would not have had the PPE.
Most of the write-down of PPE has come not from 'fraud' but from the fact that the stockpiles purchased now aren't worth what they were paid for at the time, as the price of the goods has come down since they were purchased. Again, that is how the market works.
We spent something more than £500m on PPE that was unusable. I suppose it was fast, but it certainly wasn't cheap or even good enough.
A lot wasn't that fast either. Sweetheart contacts were being given out to mates of the government in summer 2020
Of course, Labour were demanding to know why we weren't doing deals with people who, er, had no PPE.
We ended up with enough PPE. The Govt. did its job. The same people saying we spent too much on dodgy PPE would have been demanding the Government fall if we had actually, you know, run out of PPE. On this aspect of Covid at least, Labour deserve to be called out as shameless political hypocrites.
Come on Mark, they filled their chums pockets big time, it was graft pure and simple and you know it.
malcy, you don't HAVE to be such a one-trick pony!
Every country was doing what it could to get PPE. We got PPE. Some people in the supply chain got rich. Might be shameful, but hardly shocking. Shocking would have been Germany, France, Spain, Italy having PPE - and us none.
If it were the case that "some people in the supply chain got rich", I could probably live with that. But the problem is they weren't just random people getting rich - a lot of them were mates or associates of those in power. It smelt bad because it was bad.
Would you prefer it smelt of roses - but we had no PPE? Because in that frenzied atmosphere, it was probably the only choice.
People who knew people knew people who could get us PPE. Do it, say I.
The Tory world view. Irrespective of whether it was true at all.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Hang on, young HY!!! Remind us, if you would be so kind, who are these Lib Dems MPs who come from London and the South? Then add them up, divide by thirteen and express the result as a percentage......
Now, what were you saying?
It may be as you say after the next election, of course.
To help HYUFD… There are 13 LDem MPs: 4 representing constituencies in Scotland, none from Wales or NI. Among the English MPs, there are 3 London, 3 south + east, 1 west, 1 north-west and 1 midlands. So, less than half come from London or the South.
Small boat arrivals have dropped from average 700 per day to about 100 per day since the announcement to 0 yesterday.
Would need to know the weather conditions to be sure of an effect, or there may be some other factor.
Surely people taking the crossing (or not) this week were already in France two weeks ago? Seems far too quick to have an effect.
It does seem quick, but its also possible that people who were fleeing France might now decide to flee and seek sanctuary from France in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain or some other country that isn't France instead of just Britain?
Or France is no longer a failed state with oil.
It always seemed to me that the purpose of the Rwanda policy was for it to be there but not really used. Almost the Nuclear deterrent approach. If those numbers are true then the policy has done its job in remarkable time. Hopefully put the people smugglers out of business for good and to stop unnecessary deaths in The Channel.
This is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if ever I saw one. It’s clearly way too soon to judge.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
Just to check a point: does the vote of the laics have equal force to that of the MPs, please? And how many are regarded as truly independent?
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
No, I believe the lay members don't sit on the committee when it is dealing with matters of privileges.
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
I'm pretty sure that's the case. His confected outrage as he threw Stratton under the bus compounded the offence - and made retreat that much harder. After that the lies just mounted up.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Hang on, young HY!!! Remind us, if you would be so kind, who are these Lib Dems MPs who come from London and the South? Then add them up, divide by thirteen and express the result as a percentage......
Now, what were you saying?
It may be as you say after the next election, of course.
To help HYUFD… There are 13 LDem MPs: 4 representing constituencies in Scotland, none from Wales or NI. Among the English MPs, there are 3 London, 3 south + east, 1 west, 1 north-west and 1 midlands. So, less than half come from London or the South.
What is Scotland but a London of the North?
How many London LDs derive their MP's seats from the Crofting Acts of the late C19 and the formation of the Free Kirk in 1843?
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
A bit ironic that when so many of our leading politicians have studied PPE that we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
What's more worrying is that many of our leading politicians don't think we were so ripped off when purchasing it.
And the profits from supplying PPE are an example of 'trade' and 'business' working well.
Its 100% true.
There's an old saying, you can have it good, fast and cheap - but you need to pick two out of three.
During the pandemic we needed PPE fast and good. We got it, but it wasn't cheap. Considering the pandemic was costing billions, that was the right two out of three to go for and that people made a profit from that is business in action.
Without the profit motive, we would not have had the PPE.
Most of the write-down of PPE has come not from 'fraud' but from the fact that the stockpiles purchased now aren't worth what they were paid for at the time, as the price of the goods has come down since they were purchased. Again, that is how the market works.
We spent something more than £500m on PPE that was unusable. I suppose it was fast, but it certainly wasn't cheap or even good enough.
A lot wasn't that fast either. Sweetheart contacts were being given out to mates of the government in summer 2020
Of course, Labour were demanding to know why we weren't doing deals with people who, er, had no PPE.
We ended up with enough PPE. The Govt. did its job. The same people saying we spent too much on dodgy PPE would have been demanding the Government fall if we had actually, you know, run out of PPE. On this aspect of Covid at least, Labour deserve to be called out as shameless political hypocrites.
Come on Mark, they filled their chums pockets big time, it was graft pure and simple and you know it.
malcy, you don't HAVE to be such a one-trick pony!
Every country was doing what it could to get PPE. We got PPE. Some people in the supply chain got rich. Might be shameful, but hardly shocking. Shocking would have been Germany, France, Spain, Italy having PPE - and us none.
If it were the case that "some people in the supply chain got rich", I could probably live with that. But the problem is they weren't just random people getting rich - a lot of them were mates or associates of those in power. It smelt bad because it was bad.
Would you prefer it smelt of roses - but we had no PPE? Because in that frenzied atmosphere, it was probably the only choice.
People who knew people knew people who could get us PPE. Do it, say I.
A false dichotomy, graven the persistence and scale of the dodgy mates' deals.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
Bryant has, AIUI, recused himself from chairing, but will still participate in the cttee, so it’s 4 Con, 2 Lab, 1 SNP.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
As an OE friend of mine observed once, when a Fettesian said that Fettes was the "Eton of Scotland": Eton is the Eton of Scotland.
It's a common theme on here, from all sides, that Starmer is dull. I don't disagree. But is dullness actually a bar to being PM? I've been thinking about this, and I'm not so sure. Let's face it, most people are dull, and genuine charisma is a relatively rare thing. Theresa May's dullness didn't stop her getting stellar popularity ratings before it all went pear-shaped.
In a contest between a) a very dull, boring, competent and honest candidate with integrity, and b) a charismatic, exciting, hilarious pathological liar, I'm beginning to think a) may win hands down.
That assumes that SKS can successfully portray himself as competent, honest and with integrity in absolute rather than relative terms.
Well, in the last two years the Tories haven't been able to find anything substantive to suggest he isn't. If the best they can do is 'he didn't prosecute Jimmy Saville', it suggests the smear bucket is pretty empty.
Who knows when another field for rescue donkeys might crop up.
That was counterproductive - made SKS seem (a) interesting on a level easily understood by the meanest intellect (b) kind and caring and (c) animal loving in a far less insensitive way than Afghan kitties and doggies.
Pensioners in particular absolutely love donkeys. Donkey sanctuaries receive a level of bequests in wills that is totally out of proportion to the extent of the problem.
The reason is fairly obviously that the OAPs have a great deal of empathy with donkeys on the basis that "they've worked hard all their life and deserve comfort in old age... just like me". A friend of mine who is a wills & trusts solicitor has to bite his tongue when yet another older person writes them into their will - it's entirely their choice, of course, but these places are, by and large, swimming in cash.
That's interesting - especially in making the Mail hatchet job even more counterproductive with the oldie voter. And even your friend couldn't complain about SKS's field, it can be repurposed when no longer needed for the cuddly cuddies.
Absolutely. And to be clear, I'm not against being nice to donkeys... it's just that they have an appeal to donors which isn't really in proportion and people might think of less popular causes in their wills.
Guide Dogs for the Blind is, unfortunately, another one. A wonderful cause, but actually medical advances mean the call on their resources has tended to reduce over time in many ways. They tend to be extremely well supported because they exist at the intersection between a medical condition people feel sympathy with (and a fair few pensioners have issues with) and doggies (which people like). In the past, they were sat on such large reserves that I think the Charities Commission required them to give a fair chunk to other charities. Hopefully, they are better run now, and it isn't their fault they are popular.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
No, I believe the lay members don't sit on the committee when it is dealing with matters of privileges.
Indeed. It’s the Standards Committee including the lay members, but when judging actions inside the House, as here, it’s the same MPs but without the lay members and called the Privileges Committee.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
As an OE friend of mine observed once, when a Fettesian said that Fettes was the "Eton of Scotland": Eton is the Eton of Scotland.
Historically accurate. A huge cultural shift in the Scottish aristocracy began when they started sending their children there.
I have watched, it is OK as a drama but a bit far fetched. Also out of date, the majority of Tory MPs are not Eton and Oxford educated with glamorous wives living in Belgravia.
Indeed most Tory MPs now went to state schools. As for Oxford it too has changed, the Bullingdon Club has effectively gone extinct and there about as many privately educated pupils at St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh now as Oxford and Cambridge has more state educated pupils than all of them
I've not seen it, but I do think there's a general tendency to simplify and play up to viewers' caricatures. Bridgerton is a ridiculous pastiche of Jane Austen, but I know people who think that aristocrats really were and are like that. Political dramas portray all politicians as scheming crooks, idiots or fanatics (much like CD13's post upthread). Tories are all Eton-educated toffs. Labour MPs are either smooth careerists or horny-handed trade unionists.
It's hard to complain since these are primarily for entertainment, and really they can portray people any way they like. But it's worth being careful not to swallow the portrayals as having much to do with reality.
Indeed, it is more entertainment than reality.
In the 1950s there was certainly a big class difference between MPs, most Tory MPs were privately educated and often Oxbridge educated as well. Most Labour MPs were state school educated with many having had working class jobs down the mines or on the factory floor.
Now most Labour and Conservative MPs went to state schools, indeed there were almost as many LD MPs who went to private schools as Conservative MPs who did percentage wise after the 2019 general election.
Almost all MPs are middle class and went to university with about a third going to Oxbridge. Indeed class wise MPs of all parties now look more like each other than the rest of the population, with many having been SPADs or researchers after university and rarely stepped outside politics
My rule of thumb is that Tories went to major public schools and Labour to minor public schools.
Not true now.
Only 44% of current Conservative MPs, 38% of LD MPs and just 19% of Labour MPs went to private schools.
In 1979 by contrast 73% of Conservative MPs, 55% of Liberal MPs and 18% of Labour MPs went to private schools
But of the ones who did go to public schools, does the major/minor relationship still hold? A quick look at Wikipedia finds a lot of PPE, economists and lawyers, and that is just the Shadow Cabinet.
To some extent, the Tories still have more Etonians and Wykehamists.
Albeit Blair went to Fettes, the Eton of Scotland.
Overall however the average Tory MP is much less posh than they were 50 years ago and that is even more so post Brexit. Indeed the LD MPs are almost as posh on average as the Tory MPs now (as more of the former come from London and the South and more of the latter from the Redwall)
Hang on, young HY!!! Remind us, if you would be so kind, who are these Lib Dems MPs who come from London and the South? Then add them up, divide by thirteen and express the result as a percentage......
Now, what were you saying?
It may be as you say after the next election, of course.
To help HYUFD… There are 13 LDem MPs: 4 representing constituencies in Scotland, none from Wales or NI. Among the English MPs, there are 3 London, 3 south + east, 1 west, 1 north-west and 1 midlands. So, less than half come from London or the South.
What is Scotland but a London of the North?
How many London LDs derive their MP's seats from the Crofting Acts of the late C19 and the formation of the Free Kirk in 1843?
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
It’s a bit confusing . Do the lay members get a vote in terms of rulings or is it just the MPs?
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
No, I believe the lay members don't sit on the committee when it is dealing with matters of privileges.
IIf you think that Boris Johnson’s parties in Downing Street constitute a serious matter of state, you might want to take a look at what is happening in Germany right now. Olaf Scholz has been caught red-handed misrepresenting facts about weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Behind the scenes, he is busy frustrating efforts to help the country, while pretending to be outraged about Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Double games work until they don’t. His policies are now being exposed by the media. Scholz said on Tuesday that Germany and Ukraine went through a list of weapons deliveries, and that Germany planned to pay for them. Ukraine denied this. It said that there were no weapons on the list that it needed right now. Bild managed to get hold of the list, and was shocked to find that the original list of 48 pages had been shrunk in half. The German defence ministries, on orders from Scholz, had removed all the heavy weapons. … https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/olaf-scholz-is-becoming-putin-s-most-valuable-ally
1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons. 2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine. 3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine. 4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador. 5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work. 6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press. 7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time. 8) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks. 9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer. 10) NATO officials and German generals deny this. 11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine. 12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine. 13) Under pressure Scholz announces €2 billion for Ukraine's military. 14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just €1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy. 15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz. 16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the €1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list. 17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the €1 billion.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
No it doesn't. The Standards Committee has seven lay members in addition to the seven MPs - so you're right it leaves the Tories in a majority among MPs on the Committee, but they only have 4 out of 13 members.
No, I believe the lay members don't sit on the committee when it is dealing with matters of privileges.
Indeed. It’s the Standards Committee including the lay members, but when judging actions inside the House, as here, it’s the same MPs but without the lay members and called the Privileges Committee.
Who are the 4 Tory MPs? Are they considered critics or loyalists or neutral with regards to Boris?
If the 4 MPs were hypothetically Wragg, Aaron Bell, Steve Baker and David Davis then they could unanimously find against Boris.
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
It is as Shakespeare would have it, the tragic flaw in his character, that will hopefully lead to downfall.*
* although as I posted yesterday with sunak no longer the obvious fall back, I fear the membership will do something stupid if he does go.
I wouldn't expect the MPs to put forward a candidate that would let the membership do something stupid.
In effect Johnson can say wait for the privileges committee and then say to Labour you wanted that committee to investigate so we need to wait . Then he’s found of not being in contempt and then uses that to stay on . So could the opposition be shooting themselves in the foot by going down this road .
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Seems rto be quite frequent. So unless one is Big Dog ...
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
He has never 'owned up' in his entire life and that is how he runs his politics. He only apologies went literally dragged kicking and screaming e.g. the liverpool affair.
It is as Shakespeare would have it, the tragic flaw in his character, that will hopefully lead to downfall.*
* although as I posted yesterday with sunak no longer the obvious fall back, I fear the membership will do something stupid if he does go.
I wouldn't expect the MPs to put forward a candidate that would let the membership do something stupid.
I don't have your faith. Especially after the way they have behaved over Johnson's lying to Parliament.
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Never heard of it before.
Me either which is why I was curious though Carnyx seems to think its quite regular.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
As an OE friend of mine observed once, when a Fettesian said that Fettes was the "Eton of Scotland": Eton is the Eton of Scotland.
Didn't Eton recruit its headmaster from Fettes so that Blair, Cameron and Boris were all taught, at least nominally, by the same man?
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Seems rto be quite frequent. So unless one is Big Dog ...
In effect Johnson can say wait for the privileges committee and then say to Labour you wanted that committee to investigate so we need to wait . Then he’s found of not being in contempt and then uses that to stay on . So could the opposition be shooting themselves in the foot by going down this road .
SKS wants to keep Boris in place, he's trying to win by default.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
Bryant has, AIUI, recused himself from chairing, but will still participate in the cttee, so it’s 4 Con, 2 Lab, 1 SNP.
In effect Johnson can say wait for the privileges committee and then say to Labour you wanted that committee to investigate so we need to wait . Then he’s found of not being in contempt and then uses that to stay on . So could the opposition be shooting themselves in the foot by going down this road .
SKS wants to keep Boris in place, he's trying to win by default.
Grease that pig now, so the Tories end up with no option but to put lipstick on it in 2024??
I have to wonder if Boris had just stood up at the beginning of this and said 'looking back these events were inappropriate, I did not consider them to be in breach of the rules at the time as I considered them as part of my work, but now see that this was wrong, and I apologise; if too much would have been made of it.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
Absolutely, I would expect a clear majority of the country have broken lockdown rules on multiple occasions, it would have just been a minor embarrassment for a week and then left to the obsessed twitterati.
It is the constant lying, and the expecting to get away with the lies, that really irks.
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
IIf you think that Boris Johnson’s parties in Downing Street constitute a serious matter of state, you might want to take a look at what is happening in Germany right now. Olaf Scholz has been caught red-handed misrepresenting facts about weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Behind the scenes, he is busy frustrating efforts to help the country, while pretending to be outraged about Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Double games work until they don’t. His policies are now being exposed by the media. Scholz said on Tuesday that Germany and Ukraine went through a list of weapons deliveries, and that Germany planned to pay for them. Ukraine denied this. It said that there were no weapons on the list that it needed right now. Bild managed to get hold of the list, and was shocked to find that the original list of 48 pages had been shrunk in half. The German defence ministries, on orders from Scholz, had removed all the heavy weapons. … https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/olaf-scholz-is-becoming-putin-s-most-valuable-ally
1) At the end of February Germany's defense industry sends Scholz a long list of all available weapons. 2) Scholz doesn't share the list with Ukraine. 3) Scholz says that there are no more weapons left in Germany to give to Ukraine. 4) Germany's defense industry leakes the list to Ukraine's ambassador. 5) Scholz says that the weapons on the list don't work. 6) The defense industry denies this and leakes the list to the press. 7) Scholz states Ukrainians can't master the weapons in the available time. 8) German defense experts tell the German press that Ukrainians can master the weapons in 2-3 weeks. 9) Scholz says the weapons are needed by NATO and NATO must approve their transfer. 10) NATO officials and German generals deny this. 11) Scholz says no other NATO/EU ally is delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine. 12) The US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Turkey, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, etc. publish the lists of heavy weapon they deliver to Ukraine. 13) Under pressure Scholz announces €2 billion for Ukraine's military. 14) German parliamentarians find out that it's really just €1 billion, which won't be available for another 2-3 months, and then Scholz can veto or delay indefinitely every item Ukraine wants to buy. 15) The US, France, Poland, Romania, Japan, the UK and Italy, plus the heads of EU and NATO spend an afternoon trying to talk sense into Scholz. 16) Scholz makes a statement and says Ukraine can have the €1 billion now and order whatever it wants from the list. 17) Ukraine's ambassador says that Scholz removed all the items Ukraine actually wants from the list before giving it to Ukraine and what remains on the list is just a fraction of the €1 billion.
So where did the 'Eton of Scotland' thing come from? I have to say I'd never heard of Fettes before Blair came along. Was that phrase just an invention designed to make him seem posh?
As an OE friend of mine observed once, when a Fettesian said that Fettes was the "Eton of Scotland": Eton is the Eton of Scotland.
Didn't Eton recruit its headmaster from Fettes so that Blair, Cameron and Boris were all taught, at least nominally, by the same man?
Did I tell you that I saw SKS walking into Tony Blair's house last night.
Jesus this is the third time I have posted this doesn't a PB contributor get _any_ credit for what is surely the most momentous scoop of the age?!
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Never heard of it before.
Test
Were you able to listen to the Today programme this morning??
Out of curiousity my phone just made a wierd noise so checked it. Apparently a mobile operator test of the emergency broadcast network. I have never seen that before. Anyone else get this and does it mean some shit is expected to hit the fan in the near future?
Never heard of it before.
Me either which is why I was curious though Carnyx seems to think its quite regular.
In effect Johnson can say wait for the privileges committee and then say to Labour you wanted that committee to investigate so we need to wait . Then he’s found of not being in contempt and then uses that to stay on . So could the opposition be shooting themselves in the foot by going down this road .
SKS wants to keep Boris in place, he's trying to win by default.
Yes, SKS wants to keep Johnson in place. Which is the reason Tories should oust Johnson.
SKS has structured today's motion to commence after the Gray report is out so as to ensure he stretches out the party-gate issue as long as he can. SKS is a ruthless political tactician. His MPs are trying to paint the picture of Covid sob-stories to create the impression that the measures were the government's doing despite the LP voting for them and wanting even more - they may get away with it. Baker called them out for hypocrisy today I see.
With Bryant recusing himself that leaves 4 Tories 1 SNP and 1 Labour on the committee . Zip chance of them finding Johnson guilty of contempt as I can’t see two Tories going for that and joining the latter two even if the evidence is overwhelming.
Bryant has, AIUI, recused himself from chairing, but will still participate in the cttee, so it’s 4 Con, 2 Lab, 1 SNP.
Bryant was very smart to step back from the process, as he has been (rightfully) vocal about the PM's behaviour. His brief speech in the debate was calm, but quite powerful. https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1517110481663803392
Comments
It's much rarer before that, and is only sporadic, and used of other schools as well such as Glenalmond (also Episcopalian IIRC) and the Edinburgh Academy, also C19 foundations. For none of those is it appropriate.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/139073/frontline-workers-left-risking-lives-to-provide-treatment-and-care/https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n438
But in any case - it's not that mistakes were made, I can forgive that personally.
It's that there was obvious corruption with Minister's mates getting massive contracts for unusable PPE - when there were better qualified suppliers trying to sell and not being able to get hold of contracts.
We have recently had Ross and Bridgen WITHDRAW their letters (and others maybe?). Bridgen and Ross will not send letter in again surely, they would look proper yo-yoing eejits. So the bar to get the required number of letters has in effect risen.
If sufficient letters do come in, Johnson may survive the confidence vote. Can't be challenged for a year then.
On balance, I still think he'll survive, though like you I am hoping not.
From my professional career, it's a lesson that if you make a cock-up, own up, and accept it, then it's nearly always fine. brave it out, or try to hide it, and you'll find yourself in deeper and deeper water..
Ultimately the economic factors that influence elections are those that impact individuals and their communitees. The question remains "who's GDP?"
With the OpinionWay poll, it's all voters so you'd expect a much higher rate of undecided people (most of whom, presumably, didn't watch it) and a closer match to a regular voting poll as quite a few people who didn't watch just say their preferred candidate won in these things. Indeed, ignoring the undecided, it's basically the same as the voting intention poll (57/43).
For me, the debate wasn't a game-changer but largely cements Macron's position. Most people had their preconceptions reinforced. That's helpful if you're in the lead, and unhelpful if you're not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61166601
Latest poll shows Macron on 56 to Le Pen's 44. Data was sampled astride the debate, before and after: so too soon to tell if it has had any impact.
https://www.opinion-way.com/fr/barometre-opinionway-kea-partners-election-presidentielle-2022
The i is certain that Macron 'trounced' Le Pen who was nevertheless much better than the 2017 fiasco.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/french-presidential-debate-shows-le-pen-is-mightier-than-before-but-still-no-match-for-macron-1586150?ico=related_stories
The markets have moved decisively to Macron since last night. 60-64.99% has come in from 14/1 to 5/1 with the 55-59.9% coming in from 7/4 to 8/13
You can still get 40/1 above 65%. Unlikely but perhaps there's some value there (which doesn't mean I think it will happen).
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
I am covered on everything above 55%. Hopefully won't come a cropper.
p.s. Just for avoidance of doubt, I don't like Macron and I don't like Le Pen. This has nothing to do with my preferences. It's a betting post.
Meanwhile we're set to have one of the lowest growth rates and highest inflation rates of comparable economies, and Brexit red-tape is strangling small companies in many sectors, foreign direct investment (apart from some bargain-basement takeovers of British firms) is poor.
It is as Shakespeare would have it, the tragic flaw in his character, that will hopefully lead to downfall.*
* although as I posted yesterday with sunak no longer the obvious fall back, I fear the membership will do something stupid if he does go.
People see through such things.
I fear that Le Pen has created the space for the next generation - what that map shows is that the hard right, which used to have serious geographical boundaries is moving forward everywhere.
The reason is fairly obviously that the OAPs have a great deal of empathy with donkeys on the basis that "they've worked hard all their life and deserve comfort in old age... just like me". A friend of mine who is a wills & trusts solicitor has to bite his tongue when yet another older person writes them into their will - it's entirely their choice, of course, but these places are, by and large, swimming in cash.
If one goes against him, question for the other three - do they want to back the losing side?
Andy Carter in Warrington South only has a 2,000 majority. Keeping Boris likely loses him the seat....
Alberto Costa in South Leicestershire on the other hand has a very safe seat, so can do as his conscience dictates.
Sir Bernard Jenkin might be the only one to naturally stick with the PM regardless. Even then, does he want to be seen as the one stooge?
Ooof.
Senior Tory William Wragg says it is not worth Tory MPs expending their personal credibility on a leader who may not be here much longer
We are a small-medium M & E company and our order book for the next 12-18 months is fuller than it has ever been with orders from both the public and private sector. Another thing to remember is that large parts of the public sector have not really been operational over the past 2 years and they have a lot of money to spend on schools etc for projects that have been put off.
People who knew people knew people who could get us PPE. Do it, say I.
Ok i see from wiki he is chairman of a select committee, but it's not as thought it is a sexy one, and he's only been an MP for 7 years.
It is proper irresistible force and immoveable object. It is strongly likely that nothing will move Boris pre GE except compulsion. The power to compel (except at GE time) ultimately belongs to the House of Commons which means in fact it belongs to the Tory majority.
I don't think there is any single factor which moves either of these to being more likely than the other.
As to the present moment, Boris has, since Christmas, achieved and continues to achieve his current objective which is delay, division, complication and confusion.
The big moment to shift the dial was Sunak's brief time of being the special one + good reason to resign on principle and declare war.
If, counterfactually, that had happened, we would all be knee deep in Non Dom and Green Card issues right now.
His confected outrage as he threw Stratton under the bus compounded the offence - and made retreat that much harder. After that the lies just mounted up.
Guide Dogs for the Blind is, unfortunately, another one. A wonderful cause, but actually medical advances mean the call on their resources has tended to reduce over time in many ways. They tend to be extremely well supported because they exist at the intersection between a medical condition people feel sympathy with (and a fair few pensioners have issues with) and doggies (which people like). In the past, they were sat on such large reserves that I think the Charities Commission required them to give a fair chunk to other charities. Hopefully, they are better run now, and it isn't their fault they are popular.
There can't be anything in Scholz's backstory that might suggest he would act in this way with dealings with NATO and Russia. Could there??
If the 4 MPs were hypothetically Wragg, Aaron Bell, Steve Baker and David Davis then they could unanimously find against Boris.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/more-britons-go-out-shopping-dining-ons-2022-04-21/
https://www.gov.uk/alerts/past-alerts
"He should be long gone"
It is the constant lying, and the expecting to get away with the lies, that really irks.
“The Prime Minister should be long gone, I’ll certainly vote for this motion but the really, the Prime Minister should just know, the gig is up.”
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1517115731976069120
Jesus this is the third time I have posted this doesn't a PB contributor get _any_ credit for what is surely the most momentous scoop of the age?!
Just like his "true" role model, the Sage Mar-a-Lardo & his MAGA-fans, maintain that 45 is the "true" POTUS?
That’s very much the vibe on the Tory benches. Even the defenders are despondent and resigned to the inevitable.
https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1517119346820145152
SKS has structured today's motion to commence after the Gray report is out so as to ensure he stretches out the party-gate issue as long as he can. SKS is a ruthless political tactician. His MPs are trying to paint the picture of Covid sob-stories to create the impression that the measures were the government's doing despite the LP voting for them and wanting even more - they may get away with it. Baker called them out for hypocrisy today I see.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1517110481663803392