On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
I suspect it was.
Don't you recall Captains of Industry and Trades Union Barons negotiating over beer and sandwiches at No 10 back in the day?
I don't recall it but have read about it. Always thought it was somewhat patronizing to be honest. I suspect that No 10 has long had a culture of drinking, all the way back to the cool Britannia sofa government days.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
I suspect it was.
Don't you recall Captains of Industry and Trades Union Barons negotiating over beer and sandwiches at No 10 back in the day?
I don't recall it but have read about it. Always thought it was somewhat patronizing to be honest. I suspect that No 10 has long had a culture of drinking, all the way back to the cool Britannia sofa government days.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
So basically a Bozo lapdog has simply asked for more information re how Durham police came to its decision . And the desperation by the Bozo cult to call it a review when it’s nothing of the sort. Operation save the clown goes to Code Red!
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
Its not the lying to parliament that's pissed off the nation - the fury is partying while others didn't visit dying relatives. In no sense has Starmer behaved in the way Johnson has, except there is a case for this one occasion that makes him look like a hypocrite.
And and and - only seen this point made once, last week, I think on twitter - for those who didn't lose loved ones, but just hated lockdowns, there's the suggestion that the powers that be weren't that fussed about lifting them, because they themselves were partying like 1999 anyway and assumed everyone else was. Which if it gained traction, could be a killer.
So basically a Bozo lapdog has simply asked for more information re how Durham police came to its decision . And the desperation by the Bozo cult to call it a review when it’s nothing of the sort. Operation save the clown goes to Code Red!
And the standard FOI holding letter (pretty much dictated by the FOIAs) tells you precisely nothing about whether they have the information or if they do wherther they will tell you. Basically "I'll go and find out."
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
I agree Pete.
More with para 2 than para 1 I am guessing. I agree with both (and bear in mind criminal prosecutions are his chosen specialised subject). No wives, no decorators = bulletproof.
No masks, no social distancing.
Plenty of beer (for a lightweight)
Hypocrisy in even more plentiful supply
Is that the charge? The Conservative MP who has demanded the reinvestigation he is associating it to Johnson's "work events".
It might breach some obscure rules and if it does he goes.
Johnson's multiple events are wholly different, but the key point is Johnson misled Parliament over the events. But as Johnson has a get out of jail free card he doesn't have to go.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
Its not the lying to parliament that's pissed off the nation - the fury is partying while others didn't visit dying relatives. In no sense has Starmer behaved in the way Johnson has, except there is a case for this one occasion that makes him look like a hypocrite.
And and and - only seen this point made once, last week, I think on twitter - for those who didn't lose loved ones, but just hated lockdowns, there's the suggestion that the powers that be weren't that fussed about lifting them, because they themselves were partying like 1999 anyway and assumed everyone else was. Which if it gained traction, could be a killer.
Yes, I think this gets to the heart of it. I think it was Andrew Lillico who made the point on twitter. Lockdown is really easy if you are not obeying it yourself.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
I suspect it was.
Don't you recall Captains of Industry and Trades Union Barons negotiating over beer and sandwiches at No 10 back in the day?
I don't recall it but have read about it. Always thought it was somewhat patronizing to be honest. I suspect that No 10 has long had a culture of drinking, all the way back to the cool Britannia sofa government days.
It was probably smoked salmon and pouilly fuisse in reality, just as Harold Wilson smoked a pipe on camera and cigars in private
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
I suspect it was.
Don't you recall Captains of Industry and Trades Union Barons negotiating over beer and sandwiches at No 10 back in the day?
I don't recall it but have read about it. Always thought it was somewhat patronizing to be honest. I suspect that No 10 has long had a culture of drinking, all the way back to the cool Britannia sofa government days.
This was way before "cool Britannia". This was the Wilson-Heath- Callaghan era.
I departed the site some months ago fully intending never to post again, a decision I have not regretted. I have returned momentarily however to wish David Herdson the best of luck for the Election.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
I suspect it was.
Don't you recall Captains of Industry and Trades Union Barons negotiating over beer and sandwiches at No 10 back in the day?
I don't recall it but have read about it. Always thought it was somewhat patronizing to be honest. I suspect that No 10 has long had a culture of drinking, all the way back to the cool Britannia sofa government days.
This was way before "cool Britannia". This was the Wilson-Heath- Callaghan era.
I departed the site some months ago fully intending never to post again, a decision I have not regretted. I have returned momentarily however to wish David Herdson the best of luck for the Election.
That Charles Grant article reads like a love letter to Macron to me; he's hoping he'll fulfil the federalist agenda he's always dreamed of, even whilst he acknowledges (without blinking) that other EU nations are not in the same place at the same time.
It will be interesting to revisit the article in 5 years time to see how much of it actually happened. And on that which may, such as moves on defence and security, how far they did so without substantial British support.
Lots of Europeans and more specifically French government people just think saying "strategic autonomy" thousands of time will magically make it happen.
In finance, defence, semi-conductors, energy and a number of other key sectors the EU is significantly or wholly reliant on an external party. With no way out, on the last check, the City has been gaining market share of financial services.
On defence Eastern Europe will never agree to a France/Germany led defence of the realm without US and UK involvement, in fact given everything happening in Ukraine I'm almost certain that Eastern European countries would leave the EU if EU and NATO membership became mutually exclusive.
On energy there still seems to be a real lack of acceptance that relying on Russian energy was a bad idea in Germany, loads of German officials are still waiting for this to all die down so they can quietly forget to reform their energy sector.
Finally on semi-conductors, it's the one area where Europe could potentially win back a lot of market share, Intel already has manufacturing in Ireland but at the same time, they're not domestic and Biden has, realistically, purchased all of Intel's investment capacity for the next 5-8 years for domestic production. The other major semi-conductor powers are in Asia and will be significantly less helpful to the EU than Intel. The lack of key domestic players is the issue, same as the UK. Both parties would essentially be building an industry from scratch, the US, Korea, Taiwan and Japan already have significant domestic industries and national champions like Intel, Samsung, TSMC and Sony who invest billions of dollars per year into semi-conductor development and manufacturing and dominate specific sectors.
This kind of rhetoric may win over blinkered EUphiles or those vanishingly few people who still like Macron but the reality is that both the UK and EU will struggle to achieve anything like strategic autonomy in very many key sectors. What the UK lacks in autonomy we make up for in speed and having a dynamic economy that is able to move with the times, just talking about my little sector of tech start up investing and consulting, nothing like this industry exists anywhere in the EU.
I think the UK has largely accepted that strategic autonomy is unlikely in a lot of sectors, it means we have to make sure our alliances count. Hence AUKUS, potentially pulling Japan into it, the new bridging security agreement for Sweden to join NATO etc... The EU seems to behave as if it were a benevolent superpower asking for favours but giving nothing in return. As I've said on many occasions, I'd start looking to tie UK-EU defence and intelligence cooperation to very long term mutual recognition in agricultural standards, financial services standards and customs pre-clearance of UK goods in key sectors and push these into the TCA and extend the TCA break period to 5 years rather than 12 months. No more freebies.
And strategic autonomy from whom?
The important thing is that the West (the democratic world) has it - I'm not particularly interested in "Europe" having it separate to the USA, which they seem to be.
Indeed, I regularly get accused of being hostile towards our allies in the EU or the EU itself, and it's fair I think I am, but their constant push for this nebulous idea of strategic autonomy is the basis of what makes me not look upon the EU as an ally, merely a trading partner with whom we need to maintain a minimum working relationship. We are allied to individual countries within the EU but the EU itself sees the UK and US as a hostile force or competitor, why else would they be making such a big push for this unless they don't see either the UK or US as allies.
There's no future where the UK doesn't rely on its allies for key sectors, defence of the realm or energy, we simply don't want to pay the additional 4-6% of GDP that is necessary to build up and maintain economic resilience and we trust in our allies to not fuck us over. I think it's a fair position to have, what the EU is suggesting is to achieve what they see as autonomy without spending the money and it is acting in accordance with that suggestion. It is essentially asking for handouts from its allies while telling us all to get fucked at the same time. That batshit insane financial markets commissioner compared the EU's reliance on the City for financial services to their reliance on Russian gas, if that's not a giant fuck you to the UK then I don't know what is, I know a lot of people who voted remain in the City who were disgusted by her comparison.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I don't believe we are talking about the same sauce.
Mr. Cookie, doing such a thing at work, when your work is in public, is beyond the pale.
If it's in private on his own devices that's another matter.
Bit odd though. On a phone if you aren't craning over his shoulder you'd need a telephoto lens to verify he wasn't watching interpretive dance, or wrestling.
Mr. Cookie, doing such a thing at work, when your work is in public, is beyond the pale.
If it's in private on his own devices that's another matter.
Bit odd though. On a phone if you aren't craning over his shoulder you'd need a telephoto lens to verify he wasn't watching interpretive dance, or wrestling.
Tiered seating, with people sometimes standing up, behind ...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
Sure, like I said, but... rules are rules, and if he broke them, then...
Point is, and eventually someone will do this, if you go through everything Starmer has ever said about Johnson and Partygate, you'll almost certainly find he's said numerous things that, if strictly applied to Starmer himself, would mean he should resign.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
Sure, like I said, but... rules are rules, and if he broke them, then...
Point is, and eventually someone will do this, if you go through everything Starmer has ever said about Johnson and Partygate, you'll almost certainly find he's said numerous things that, if strictly applied to Starmer himself, would mean he should resign.
WAs there actually a rule that you couldn't have a beer in your lunchbox if you were in your work bubble? Which is what BR was arguing, pretty much, for No. 10. As he (I think) pointerd out, it was other criteria which made even t X at No 10 a social event such as the presence of non-work people.
Honestly. I don't want to sound like a prude, but there's a time and a place for these things.
It isn't something that would float my boat, but if the material is legal, what's the problem?
(a) not a legal use of work time or equipment (b) doing it in fromt of work colleagues, and visibly so, is itself sexual harassment prima facie
In a normal workplace it would get you hauled in front of the line manager and then HR very quickly indeed. OK, MPs are not employees - but they are arguably comparable to contractors, and contractors doing that in any workplace I know would get pulled up at once.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
It was the best performance I have ever seen from Boris at PMQs though. Persuasive jabs and punches that were all landing.
The difference in style between both the leaders was perfectly evident.
Also noted ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE WEARING TROUSERS OR LEGGINGS today. Even the lady who sits behind Boris flashing her knickers for the camera.
Trinny and Susannah and Gok Wan will likely disagree with me, but imo all the ladies in the chamber look so much smarter and the business like this.
Are we now in a place where women cannot wear skirts to work?
They can wear what they want, one lasting and great innovation with COVID has been dumping the dress code for the wider company and among clients. My unit is no longer out of place at a stuffy Japanese investment bank which is great.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
Sure, like I said, but... rules are rules, and if he broke them, then...
Point is, and eventually someone will do this, if you go through everything Starmer has ever said about Johnson and Partygate, you'll almost certainly find he's said numerous things that, if strictly applied to Starmer himself, would mean he should resign.
WAs there actually a rule that you couldn't have a beer in your lunchbox if you were in your work bubble? Which is what BR was arguing, pretty much, for No. 10. As he (I think) pointerd out, it was other criteria which made even t X at No 10 a social event such as the presence of non-work people.
No, it's not about the rules. It's about what Starmer actually said. And he made plenty of jokes about the PM boozing on the job that could come back to bite him.
If you wanted to curb inflation - and some effects are indeed beyond the Government’s control - you’d be better off introducing targeted temporary measures such as a 1 year suspension of CGT relief on property sales above a certain level, rises in the CGT level and, ideally, redistribute the money to poorer households.
That would simply result in the housing market drying up completely, making labour mobility worse and damaging the economy further because a lot of large-ticket consumer spending is linked to house purchases.
On inflation specifically, I don't think there's anything much the government can do except minor stuff at the edges. As Paul Johnson of the IFS was arguing at lunchtime on R4, the most obvious and most effective single measure the government could take would be to uprate benefits by the April inflation rate, rather than the September one. It would obviously be a hit to the public finances, but only a temporary one (so no effect on the long-term fiscal picture), and it would be properly targeted at those most badly hit by the cost of living increase. Or restore the £20 uplift on Universal Credit, although that would be a long-term commitment.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
Stamford is a wonderful town. Should be part of Greater Rutland ..
I do love the local Collyweston "Slate" limestone roofs atop the oolitic freestone.
I thought about this when waiting for a bus at Stamford bus station a few years back. It's not just the look of the stone; it's the fact the slabs get smaller as you go from the soffit to the ridge. The differing stone sizes add a really pleasant perspective to the rooves.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
Stamford is a wonderful town. Should be part of Greater Rutland ..
I do love the local Collyweston "Slate" limestone roofs atop the oolitic freestone.
I thought about this when waiting for a bus at Stamford bus station a few years back. It's not just the look of the stone; it's the fact the slabs get smaller as you go from the soffit to the ridge. The differing stone sizes add a really pleasant perspective to the rooves.
Yes, that's part of it! Done, now I remember, in Oxfordshire for Stonesfield Slate and the Cotswold hills too (some from the local equivalent, I forget what that is). I have a dim memory that the Stamford roofs are subtly different in colour too but that just adds to the pleasure of the local building stone.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
I'm pretty sure the regulations didn't mention "vibes".
So Durham police have the political fate of the country in their hands? If SKS gets fined BoJo may well be off the hook for Partygate unless there are a lot of very damning details in the upcoming report. Would put SKS on same level as Rishi on the sinner index. Didn't see this one coming.
If you wanted to curb inflation - and some effects are indeed beyond the Government’s control - you’d be better off introducing targeted temporary measures such as a 1 year suspension of CGT relief on property sales above a certain level, rises in the CGT level and, ideally, redistribute the money to poorer households.
That would simply result in the housing market drying up completely, making labour mobility worse and damaging the economy further because a lot of large-ticket consumer spending is linked to house purchases.
On inflation specifically, I don't think there's anything much the government can do except minor stuff at the edges. As Paul Johnson of the IFS was arguing at lunchtime on R4, the most obvious and most effective single measure the government could take would be to uprate benefits by the April inflation rate, rather than the September one. It would obviously be a hit to the public finances, but only a temporary one (so no effect on the long-term fiscal picture), and it would be properly targeted at those most badly hit by the cost of living increase. Or restore the £20 uplift on Universal Credit, although that would be a long-term commitment.
The problem with that suggestion is that we get the April uprating today because the assorted "government money is free, what are taxpayers" crowd will demand it and then they'll demand a second rise.
No, the answer is to cut spending and dampen demand from the state for services. The warning signs are flashing and no one seems to be paying attention, the government is going to pay ca. £95bn in debt interest this year, that's over 10% of total spending and almost 15% of current spending. We've got less than a decade to bring the deficit under control, we're going to need to cut spending and raise taxes, especially on the unproductive old.
Honestly. I don't want to sound like a prude, but there's a time and a place for these things.
56 MP's reported over to the Independent committee about sexual behaviour, according to Sunday Times, Including three Cabinet Ministers and 2 Shadow Cabinet. This could be the new expenses scandal.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Shouldn't that be up to the voters of Gateshead?
When Liverpool City Region was being set up some Warrington Labour Councillors wanted Warrington included in that, allegedly because Warrington is a fairly swing area whereas Liverpool is solidly Labour. Most of the other nearby towns are either part of the Liverpool City Region (like Widnes and St Helens) or Greater Manchester (like Leigh and Wigan).
That proposal was met with a big backlash amongst residents on the basis that although Liverpool is nearby, Warrington isn't a part of Liverpool and a Liverpool City Region wouldn't be concentrating on or paying too much attention to Warrington.
If Gateshead voters want Gateshead control over local decision making, that should be their choice. If they want to amalgamate with Newcastle, that should also be their choice.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
It was the best performance I have ever seen from Boris at PMQs though. Persuasive jabs and punches that were all landing.
The difference in style between both the leaders was perfectly evident.
Also noted ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE WEARING TROUSERS OR LEGGINGS today. Even the lady who sits behind Boris flashing her knickers for the camera.
Trinny and Susannah and Gok Wan will likely disagree with me, but imo all the ladies in the chamber look so much smarter and the business like this.
Are we now in a place where women cannot wear skirts to work?
They can wear what they want, one lasting and great innovation with COVID has been dumping the dress code for the wider company and among clients. My unit is no longer out of place at a stuffy Japanese investment bank which is great.
I didn't see PMQs but @MoonRabbit was saying that all the women MPs were wearing trousers, which suggests they aren't comfortable in skirts following Basic Instinct Gate. That's not pleasant, if true.
In fact, Red Rayner said she'd worn trousers when on the telly yesterday (the Lorraine show) because she was worried that the press would just focus on her legs if she wore a skirt, as she normally does.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
I'm pretty sure the regulations didn't mention "vibes".
Quite. But 'vibes' add to the context of their interpretation. The regs don't mention 'cake' or 'byob' either.
The problem with that suggestion is that we get the April uprating today because the assorted "government money is free, what are taxpayers" crowd will demand it and then they'll demand a second rise.
No, the answer is to cut spending and dampen demand from the state for services. The warning signs are flashing and no one seems to be paying attention, the government is going to pay ca. £95bn in debt interest this year, that's over 10% of total spending and almost 15% of current spending. We've got less than a decade to bring the deficit under control, we're going to need to cut spending and raise taxes, especially on the unproductive old.
Of course, I agree that we need to get the deficit back under control - I am after all what used to be called a Conservative. But that takes time, and the immediate problem now and in the coming months for lots of people is a cost of living crisis which is almost unprecedented.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Shouldn't that be up to the voters of Gateshead?
No.
Functional economic geography should dictate metro government, not public surveys (which get swamped by parochial idiots). GM had metro government forced upon it and has never looked back. Probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.
The problem with that suggestion is that we get the April uprating today because the assorted "government money is free, what are taxpayers" crowd will demand it and then they'll demand a second rise.
No, the answer is to cut spending and dampen demand from the state for services. The warning signs are flashing and no one seems to be paying attention, the government is going to pay ca. £95bn in debt interest this year, that's over 10% of total spending and almost 15% of current spending. We've got less than a decade to bring the deficit under control, we're going to need to cut spending and raise taxes, especially on the unproductive old.
Of course, I agree that we need to get the deficit back under control - I am after all what used to be called a Conservative. But that takes time, and the immediate problem now and in the coming months for lots of people is a cost of living crisis which is almost unprecedented.
Raising taxes and using the proceeds to give a fraction of our own money back to us doesn't help with the cost of living crisis.
If the government wants to help, it could start by reversing the NI tax rise. Otherwise it should be looking to cut what it charges us, where possible. A cut in VAT on energy etc could mitigate the cost of living crisis and be targetted where its needed.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
It was the best performance I have ever seen from Boris at PMQs though. Persuasive jabs and punches that were all landing.
The difference in style between both the leaders was perfectly evident.
Also noted ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE WEARING TROUSERS OR LEGGINGS today. Even the lady who sits behind Boris flashing her knickers for the camera.
Trinny and Susannah and Gok Wan will likely disagree with me, but imo all the ladies in the chamber look so much smarter and the business like this.
Possibly it's down to the realisation of the number of perves sitting on the benches opposite ?
Trivial point, but the general interest men take in women who have legs may be lots of things like inappropriate, intrusive, unwanted or scandalous but the one thing it is not is perverted. It is 4 billion years of evolution doing its job well, maybe sometimes slightly too well. By and large and overall it makes the world go round and should not be knocked.
The problem with that suggestion is that we get the April uprating today because the assorted "government money is free, what are taxpayers" crowd will demand it and then they'll demand a second rise.
No, the answer is to cut spending and dampen demand from the state for services. The warning signs are flashing and no one seems to be paying attention, the government is going to pay ca. £95bn in debt interest this year, that's over 10% of total spending and almost 15% of current spending. We've got less than a decade to bring the deficit under control, we're going to need to cut spending and raise taxes, especially on the unproductive old.
Of course, I agree that we need to get the deficit back under control - I am after all what used to be called a Conservative. But that takes time, and the immediate problem now and in the coming months for lots of people is a cost of living crisis which is almost unprecedented.
I think the next couple of years are going to be really tough but I also don't think the government should do anything about it. If inflation is surging then it's up to companies to cut costs or increase productivity and invest on that basis. Asking for government handouts to top their employee wages is what got us into the low productivity trap.
The easiest win for people would be shifting the burden of tax from productive working people to unproductive older people, either with wealth taxes or special income taxes for higher rate earners over 67.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Shouldn't that be up to the voters of Gateshead?
No.
Functional economic geography should dictate metro government, not public surveys (which get swamped by parochial idiots). GM had metro government forced upon it and has never looked back. Probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.
If Wigan had declined the agreement while the rest of GM agreed to it, then devolved GM could and should have been launched without the participation of Wigan - just as Warrington declined to join Liverpool City Region which was mooted at one point, as I said earlier.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
So Durham police have the political fate of the country in their hands? If SKS gets fined BoJo may well be off the hook for Partygate unless there are a lot of very damning details in the upcoming report. Would put SKS on same level as Rishi on the sinner index. Didn't see this one coming.
Not to go on about the cake . But a birthday celebration is quite different to Starmer standing there chatting to people who were obviously there to work . Durham police have already made a decision to not proceed any further and aren’t going to involve themselves in some desperate attempt by a Bozo lapdog to try and deflect from the numerous breaches of lockdown rules in no 10.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
I'm pretty sure the regulations didn't mention "vibes".
Quite. But 'vibes' add to the context of their interpretation. The regs don't mention 'cake' or 'byob' either.
And it wasn't Starmer who imposed the rules in the first place.
Some PB Tories are very lawyerly around partygate, silly nonsense around "Crown land" and "private residence", whataboutery with the Starmer thing. Completely missing the point.
This man used the power invested him through the executive to severely restrict the freedom of everyone in this country - particularly the largely invulnerable young, who saw their education disrupted and their employment confined to the bedrooms of shared flats.
If he had a shred of integrity he would have exhibited some form of solidarity for those his rules were harming most, an appreciation of the sacrifices being made NHS staff etc etc.
Raising taxes and using the proceeds to give a fraction of our own money back to us doesn't help with the cost of living crisis.
If the government wants to help, it could start by reversing the NI tax rise. Otherwise it should be looking to cut what it charges us, where possible. A cut in VAT on energy etc could mitigate the cost of living crisis and be targetted where its needed.
What I'm suggesting isn't raising taxes and giving it back to us. It's raising taxes (if considered necessary in this fiscal year) on people like me, and giving it to those who won't be able to pay their gas bills and who are finding it hard to pay for food.
The NI tax rise wasn't a very good measure, but in any case it's already been reversed for lowish-paid workers by the increase in the level at which NI kicks in. A cut in VAT on energy is bad in principle, and although it would be very generous to people like me living in big houses and who don't need any help, it would be incredibly badly targeted in terms of giving help to those who do need it.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
It was the best performance I have ever seen from Boris at PMQs though. Persuasive jabs and punches that were all landing.
The difference in style between both the leaders was perfectly evident.
Also noted ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE WEARING TROUSERS OR LEGGINGS today. Even the lady who sits behind Boris flashing her knickers for the camera.
Trinny and Susannah and Gok Wan will likely disagree with me, but imo all the ladies in the chamber look so much smarter and the business like this.
Possibly it's down to the realisation of the number of perves sitting on the benches opposite ?
Trivial point, but the general interest men take in women who have legs may be lots of things like inappropriate, intrusive, unwanted or scandalous but the one thing it is not is perverted. It is 4 billion years of evolution doing its job well, maybe sometimes slightly too well. By and large and overall it makes the world go round and should not be knocked.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Shouldn't that be up to the voters of Gateshead?
No.
Functional economic geography should dictate metro government, not public surveys (which get swamped by parochial idiots). GM had metro government forced upon it and has never looked back. Probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.
If Wigan had declined the agreement while the rest of GM agreed to it, then devolved GM could and should have been launched without the participation of Wigan - just as Warrington declined to join Liverpool City Region which was mooted at one point, as I said earlier.
Fair enough, the councillors did eventually agree to it when Ozzie bought them off, making funding conditional on the mayoralty. They had always vociferously opposed it up until that point. However the councillors are NOT the people.
As for one borough being allowed to opt out – that's completely nonsensical. Imagine City or Salford had said 'no', you'd end up with a ludicrous doughnut shape. Sometimes you just need to be dynamic and get it done.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
It was the best performance I have ever seen from Boris at PMQs though. Persuasive jabs and punches that were all landing.
The difference in style between both the leaders was perfectly evident.
Also noted ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE WEARING TROUSERS OR LEGGINGS today. Even the lady who sits behind Boris flashing her knickers for the camera.
Trinny and Susannah and Gok Wan will likely disagree with me, but imo all the ladies in the chamber look so much smarter and the business like this.
Possibly it's down to the realisation of the number of perves sitting on the benches opposite ?
Trivial point, but the general interest men take in women who have legs may be lots of things like inappropriate, intrusive, unwanted or scandalous but the one thing it is not is perverted. It is 4 billion years of evolution doing its job well, maybe sometimes slightly too well. By and large and overall it makes the world go round and should not be knocked.
So if I take a dump in the WPB at a departmental meeting, that's just 700,000,000 years of metazoan evolution of an intestine and anus finding its way out, so to speak, and Absolutely All Right.
All in all, to an interested non-expert such as myself, it appeared the Russian military was in the best shape it had been since the fall of the USSR. I have been rapidly converted to the opposite point of view.
It's important not to judge the "shape" by Western standards. If the British took 10,000+ KIA in a few months on a Jolly Boys Outing then everyone of OF-7 and higher rank all the way up the PM would be gone. In Russia 10,000+ KIA makes the war more popular and Putin's domestic position stronger.
Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle. They had the 'Fuck Yourself' meme and the stamps, etc. about Snake Island but the actual result is they lost the island (which controls access to the Danube) and are not capable of getting it back.
"Ukraine repeatedly win the PR battle and lose the actual battle."
Remind me again how they lost the actual battle for Kyiv?
571 lost Russian tanks (Oryx independently verified number as of today) suggests the Ukrainians have some very nifty PR kit....
Ukraine is winning because I saw it on Twitter.
No one is disputing Ukrainian military action successes - I have no idea as to the authenticity of Stijn and Joost: it shows some blown up armour which I have no reason or wherewithal to believe is not what they say it is.
Nor that Russian forces are evidently not in Kyiv and wanted to be.
But do you know how the 571 tanks lost relates to the overall Russian ORBAT? Do you know the overall scheme of the war? Neither do I. I'm looking at a lot of red and pink and white coloured graphs but have no idea what it means or what the endgame is or will be.
When I pointed out articles which commented upon the excellent Ukraine PR effort I was castigated as a pro-Putin troll (not the worst that's been thrown at me on PB) and pointed towards (yet another) Twitter 30-sec footage of some soldiers running to and fro on a bridge as if to prove, if proof be needed that Russia was on the brink of defeat.
We just don't know enough about what's going on to make any firm pronouncements still less predictions.
Apart from mine that a deal will at some stage have to be done.
Success = Outcome - Expectations
Ukraine is winning because Russia was expected to crush Ukraine and occupy the country, blitzkrieging the capital from the North.
Instead Ukraine have survived the onslaught and Russia have already undergone a humiliating retreat from Kyiv.
Now Russia is trying to make very limited gains in the East. They've already lost once, we will see what happens next.
Yes and no. Let's say Russia expected to roll over the Ukrainians and be in control of an Afghan-type situation by now (if that was their aim as several analysts, scratching their heads, thought it might be). That hasn't happened and hence we refer to your equation.
But this is not a paper exercise when we show that because of this Ukraine is winning trebles all round. This is a war and there is no pre-determined ending and on those terms that equation is meaningless as Russia continues to fight and so does Ukraine with losses incurred on both sides.
There is a focus on Kyiv - fine. But it is as pointless as focusing on the Battle of Arnhem. War is fluid and unknowable. Not an inevitable series of events which lead to a given conclusion.
Yes the future is unknowable, which is why I ended by comment by "we will see what happens next" but the past and present is knowable.
Russia has already undergone a retreat from Kyiv. That is a fact. They may gain Mariupol and the coast at great expense but that is at best a Pyhrric victory for them under the circumstances and is not what they started the war for.
And if they pretend it was, or people pretend for them, it makes the initial assaults all the more insane.
Struggling to see how what Johnson is saying in PMQs even remotely matches up to reality
Starmer has a point - Johnson talks like the economy is booming.
Decidedly not booming. But unemployment being very low is a bright spot, and deserves mention.
But this is the problem. The economy is running hot - high inflation, low unemployment - even while growth is low.
Now, there are several major reasons for that, including ones well outside the government's control (but also some which are optional, unforced policy). But the reasons matter a lot less than the effects.
We have low unemployment, but we also have low employment. The inactivity rate in the latest ONS figures is 21.3%, which is 1.1% higher than pre-Covid. In addition, the employment figures reflect a quite large rise in public-sector employment during the pandemic.
I wonder why the inactivity rate is higher?
I hope it isn't people knocked out of the workforce by long Covid.
I don't think it's anything so nefarious. A significant number of older people - 55+ - stopped working during the pandemic, and have chosen not to return. In other words, the pandemic brought forward retirement for a significant number of people.
An interesting question is whether rising living costs will send some of them back into the workforce.
Raising taxes and using the proceeds to give a fraction of our own money back to us doesn't help with the cost of living crisis.
If the government wants to help, it could start by reversing the NI tax rise. Otherwise it should be looking to cut what it charges us, where possible. A cut in VAT on energy etc could mitigate the cost of living crisis and be targetted where its needed.
What I'm suggesting isn't raising taxes and giving it back to us. It's raising taxes (if considered necessary in this fiscal year) on people like me, and giving it to those who won't be able to pay their gas bills and who are finding it hard to pay for food.
The NI tax rise wasn't a very good measure, but in any case it's already been reversed for lowish-paid workers by the increase in the level at which NI kicks in. A cut in VAT on energy is bad in principle, and although it would be very generous to people like me living in big houses and who don't need any help, it would be incredibly badly targeted in terms of giving help to those who do need it.
That's not a cost free move, it's taking billions out of the economy at that point so it means unemployed service staff in restaurants, bars or theatres. It means a higher overall welfare bill as reducing private sector demand is the main surefire way to send up unemployment and underemployment.
No, the answer is to cut from the existing spending budget, reduce state demand and if possible use the savings to fund a time limited or one off measure for households who need it.
Putting any taxes up is just not the answer, the tax burden is already too high.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
Stamford is a wonderful town. Should be part of Greater Rutland ..
One of the top 5 towns in England. It's a sort of mini Oxford without the hassle of colleges and people stopping you doing things.
An interesting thing about Stamford is why it grew so large, but was then left behind. The former was because it was on the Great North Road, became prosperous, and hence developed brilliant Georgian architecture. The latter because the railway to London - now the ECML - bypassed the town, and turned the small town of Peterborough into a city.
The railway bypassed it, in part, because Lord Exeter at nearby Burghley House vetoed it. There was another reason the railway avoided Stamford that I cannot recall...
So Stamford decayed from the mid-1800s onwards, and did not grow (relatively) much, or get much renewal. Hence loads of stupendous Georgian buildings survived.
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The American TV channels are concentrating on the EU crisis over gas supplies with an air of tired resignation. Many countries have become dependent on it and will do what Putin wants.
Luckily, we don't have an Extinction Rebellion type of group which will ultimately become Putin's little helpers. No more gas, no more fossil fuels. It's a triumph.
Sorry. Ukraine. Ometlettes and eggs and all that sort of thing
Germany is claiming they'll be independent of Russian oil in days. Though it's hard to understand their many headed government sometimes.
Becoming independent from Russian oil is easy.
Just buy oil from Saudi, etc. The only "discount" Germany got on oil was that pipeline transit fees were slightly lower than paying tanker day rates.
There are plenty of oil, inefficient crude carriers that can be brought into service, so the only consequences for this are: (a) China and India pay sightly less for oil, and (b) John Fridrickson becomes even richer.
That's not a cost free move, it's taking billions out of the economy at that point so it means unemployed service staff in restaurants, bars or theatres. It means a higher overall welfare bill as reducing private sector demand is the main surefire way to send up unemployment and underemployment.
No, the answer is to cut from the existing spending budget, reduce state demand and if possible use the savings to fund a time limited or one off measure for households who need it.
Putting any taxes up is just not the answer, the tax burden is already too high.
That's a different point. Yes, of course increasing taxes reduces demand, which is why you need to make a macro-economic judgement as to whether to do it at the moment. You might decide it's better to take the hit on the deficit this year only (i.e. a one-off) by uprating benefits by the latest inflation rate. But there's no conceivable way we can reduce state spending this year - these things take time. Even Osborne took five years.
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The idea that Raab, or indeed anyone, would deliberately watch pornography in the Commons chamber simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would anyone do that?
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
So Durham police have the political fate of the country in their hands? If SKS gets fined BoJo may well be off the hook for Partygate unless there are a lot of very damning details in the upcoming report. Would put SKS on same level as Rishi on the sinner index. Didn't see this one coming.
Not going to happen. They are not re-opening the case, merely responding to a FOI request.
That's not a cost free move, it's taking billions out of the economy at that point so it means unemployed service staff in restaurants, bars or theatres. It means a higher overall welfare bill as reducing private sector demand is the main surefire way to send up unemployment and underemployment.
No, the answer is to cut from the existing spending budget, reduce state demand and if possible use the savings to fund a time limited or one off measure for households who need it.
Putting any taxes up is just not the answer, the tax burden is already too high.
That's a different point. Yes, of course increasing taxes reduces demand, which is why you need to make a macro-economic judgement as to whether to do it at the moment. You might decide it's better to take the hit on the deficit this year only (i.e. a one-off) by uprating benefits by the latest inflation rate. But there's no conceivable way we can reduce state spending this year - these things take time. Even Osborne took five years.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years, it's hardly cost free. State spending can be cut, the government just needs to have the cojones to face down the bleeding hearts. There's probably also a few easy taxes like value surcharges on foreign owned property that are cost free given how little foreign property owners actually contribute to the economy.
I'd personally start with the NHS, it's a huge money blackhole and neither the Tories nor Labour have any answers other than simply shovelling more money towards it and hoping the doctors keep quiet for another year.
The irony, of course, is that a strong showing by Mr Herdson may help the Tories.
Geniune question: is the Yorkshire Party anything other than the unofficial Yorkshire branch of the Tories that gone a bit native? Are their national policies much different?
I'd have thought they'd take two Tory votes for every one Labour vote tbh.
Well they’re clearly not the BNP in disguise!
I assume they’re anti-Brexit as that’s clearly a big issue for David. But other than that, I know little about them.
If I were Labour, I wouldn’t welcome wildcards like Herdson. Sure, he could get second making it a terrrrrible night for the Tories, but it’s much more important that Labour wins. Having a potential none of the above option like the Lib Dems were in North Shropshire, is not ideal.
Is this the same Yorkshire Nationalist Party which advocates for patrol gunboats on the Tees, sniper watchtowers on Stanage Edge, and heavily armed border guards in street checkpoints at Todmorden?
And the stocks for smoggies stealing our daffodils!
Actually, serious question (I suspect you are reading this Dave Herdson) is Yorkshire Party policy that Middlesbrough is part of Yorkshire or not? What borders do the party recognise?
Yes, I am reading.
There's actually no official policy on that at the moment, though I did a draft policy which will be going to the Executive Committee when it has less pressing matters, which touches on that issue, and if adopted would push for two referendums (or, strictly, two types of referendum) on establishing a Yorkshire Regional Parliament.
One would be covering the whole of the existing N/W/S Yorks, plus York, Hull and E Riding councils. That would be the core vote on whether or not to establish the parliament. In addition, the 'lost territories' of Middlesbrough, Saddleworth etc could hold local referendums on whether they wanted to the parliament to cover their area, if it's established. The decision on whether to hold these second types of referendum would be triggered by either a decision of the local council or a petition reaching a trigger level within that authority.
So the answer is that emotionally, yes, we do see Middlesbrough as part of Yorkshire, or at least part of the wider Yorkshire family, but ultimately the question on a political level comes down to whether the people there do.
Thanks for the reply. This emotional side of politics is kind of interesting “the greater Yorkshire family” the “lost territories. sound, at least in phrases like that, same as the creation of Germany - or even greater Russian Nationalists in Kremlin wanting pleblicites in the Donbas as to how much “part of which family” the “lost territories” feel? And the Kinship of ideals too, YP with Basque and Catalan and Scottish independence movements, where votes come to these movements from right across the political spectrum on this “emotional appeal”.
Ignore TSE and his little joke, Middlesbrough is in Yorkshire, and given the vote to choose they would choose Yorkshire. And rest of Yorkshire would vote overwhelming to have them in. All us Tykes know that. And all these things may start out small and “fringe” with policy ideas put up to committee - but it can grow to fruition - Scotland may soon be independent, how that has grown from fringe to mainstream to just about inevitable independence is a good example of what could happen - I can see that “lost territories like Middlesbrough back into the family” vote actually happening David. Why? What do I know? I know even when in London, my heart and soul still attached by some elastic back to the Dale, like Tarkovskys elastic reaching from Italy back to Russia. Because to feel and to dream is all of us, everybody, We all feel such emotional attachments, starting with our emotional attachment to hearth and home, and then to our street and hood, town and region.Even PB clearly has emotional attachment to contributors. 🙂
And in many ways a vote for YP can be a sane and sensible vote as a vote for SNP is, a vote for devolved powers and good governance.
Good luck in growing and developing your movement. Hope you enjoy the campaign. I’m sure this can grow and things start to happen.
I doubt the residents of Boro would vote to join a Yorkshire level regional Government. They are currently top dog on Teesside, and they wouldn't vote to be 4th priority in Yorkshire.
Local rivalries are a reason regional devolution completely fails in the UK - Sunderland (heck even Gateshead) don't want anything to do with Newcastle because they fear it will make them 3rd class cities as all the money and investment went to Newcastle.
The idea that Gateshead is separate to Newcastle is for the birds. It's the same bloody place. Merge them.
Shouldn't that be up to the voters of Gateshead?
No.
Functional economic geography should dictate metro government, not public surveys (which get swamped by parochial idiots). GM had metro government forced upon it and has never looked back. Probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.
If Wigan had declined the agreement while the rest of GM agreed to it, then devolved GM could and should have been launched without the participation of Wigan - just as Warrington declined to join Liverpool City Region which was mooted at one point, as I said earlier.
Fair enough, the councillors did eventually agree to it when Ozzie bought them off, making funding conditional on the mayoralty. They had always vociferously opposed it up until that point. However the councillors are NOT the people.
As for one borough being allowed to opt out – that's completely nonsensical. Imagine City or Salford had said 'no', you'd end up with a ludicrous doughnut shape. Sometimes you just need to be dynamic and get it done.
I’m with you.
I believe the government is going to basically compel North Somerset to join the “West of England” authority aka Greater Bristol, which if you think about it is bloody right.
The comfy commuters of North Somerset should not be allowed to use Bristol’s metro services without paying in.
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The idea that Raab, or indeed anyone, would deliberately watch pornography in the Commons chamber simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would anyone do that?
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
We are talking about Tory MPs though. Some are truly cretinous.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
I'm pretty sure the regulations didn't mention "vibes".
By 'vibes' he means he likes Starmer and hates Boris. Simples.
Rutland is a splendid county. The county motto - Multum In Parvo (Much In Little) is most apt. Sporting two pleasing small towns, Oakham and Uppingham and a host of charming villages (and attendant pubs ). It punches much above its' size as the former miniature for the constituency and Andrea idol, Hunky Dinky Dunky aka Alan Duncan could testify.
Very pleasant walks/birdwatching at the reservoir. And a very nice specialist transport bookshop actually in one of the railway stations - or at least it used to.
That's in Stamford - an absolutely beautiful town. I spent many a happy half-hour at the station bookshop as I waited for trains after a walk. They've now moved up the hill out of town - although sadly (though not for my bookcases) I've not been to their newish place yet.
Stamford is a wonderful town. Should be part of Greater Rutland ..
One of the top 5 towns in England. It's a sort of mini Oxford without the hassle of colleges and people stopping you doing things.
An interesting thing about Stamford is why it grew so large, but was then left behind. The former was because it was on the Great North Road, became prosperous, and hence developed brilliant Georgian architecture. The latter because the railway to London - now the ECML - bypassed the town, and turned the small town of Peterborough into a city.
The railway bypassed it, in part, because Lord Exeter at nearby Burghley House vetoed it. There was another reason the railway avoided Stamford that I cannot recall...
So Stamford decayed from the mid-1800s onwards, and did not grow (relatively) much, or get much renewal. Hence loads of stupendous Georgian buildings survived.
Neglect is a great preserver, as is inertia. If Bradford on Avon had noticed a bit earlier than it did that it had accidently preserved the best Anglo Saxon church in England it would have either tried to make it better and bigger or pull it down.
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the evidence already in the public domain if I were him I would reject any FPN and see Durham Constabulary in court
If there is more evidence and he is convicted he should go.
As I note - the story is based on a response to a FOI, not that they have re-opened the case. Personally I think it probably did break the rules, but he didn't set the rules, and didn't lie in parliament (AFAICS).
However it would puncture his balloon a bit if he were fined...
On the information we have to hand, if working at a constituency office was acceptable, having a beer and a sandwich as sustinence doesn't seem problematic to me. I am of an age where back in the day a pie and a pint was traditional lunchtime fayre. I wouldn't do it now, but thirty years ago it certainly wasn't a party.
If he shouldn't even have been campaigning from a constituency office he was thus in complete breach of the rules and should go.
As described by Johnson, I don't believe the birthday cake incident should have merited a FPN, in the same way Starmer's one seemingly doesn't. Johnson seems liable for far worse events which should merit a sanction, notably the 'bring your own booze' event, and allegedly others with 200 odd photos.
We should be wary of double standards though. Is having a pint at lunchtime traditional in the constituency office? And if so, is that not the argument for No 10 too?
For the last time, it's not the gathering, it's the lying to parliament. As far as I am aware, loto is not a ministerial position so if he thinks he's made a mistake and gets an fpn then so what. If it's like a speeding fine then so what.
No it is not. Under the circumstances of lockdowns if Starmer breached the rules or the spirit of lockdowns he must go. I don't believe he has.
The beer is a red herring.
Slightly odd to see PBTories going on and on and on about Mr J - drink is irrelevant to parties or to covid law (and BR does have a point here), except insofar as it adds to the context.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
I'm very much on the side that this is all ridiculous - clearly a) the PM's offences were objectively worse, b) it's different because he's the PM and c) Starmer hasn't lied about it - but the argument being made is that Starmer is a hypocrite, not that he should go but Johnson shouldn't.
A|s I recall, the photo showed people around a table with laptops etc. and SKS sdtanding up and stretching very muich as if getting up in a long meeting and getting something to drink. Vibes were completely different from the No 10 photos.
I'm pretty sure the regulations didn't mention "vibes".
By 'vibes' he means he likes Starmer and hates Boris. Simples.
Okay, call it Gestalt. Or jizz. Still the same result, whether one prefers dunnocks to parakeets or not.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
1. Having something to eat and a refreshment in a small unsegmented constituency office, in the presence of and speaking with co-workers, whilst away from home working for the day and based from that office. Pubs and restaurants were open outdoors and for takeaways, hairdressers were open.
2. Your non co-worker spouse, who lives above the shop, bringing cake to a work meeting in multi-room workplace, and sticking round with others whilst you eat it. Pubs, restaurants and hairdressers were shut.
Even sticking these two side-by-side in isolation there is a clear difference in likely legality, even without the wider context of multiple bona fide parties both at the workplace and above the shop accompanying number 2, and all very heavily timed during the most severe of the lockdown regulations.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
That's not a cost free move, it's taking billions out of the economy at that point so it means unemployed service staff in restaurants, bars or theatres. It means a higher overall welfare bill as reducing private sector demand is the main surefire way to send up unemployment and underemployment.
No, the answer is to cut from the existing spending budget, reduce state demand and if possible use the savings to fund a time limited or one off measure for households who need it.
Putting any taxes up is just not the answer, the tax burden is already too high.
That's a different point. Yes, of course increasing taxes reduces demand, which is why you need to make a macro-economic judgement as to whether to do it at the moment. You might decide it's better to take the hit on the deficit this year only (i.e. a one-off) by uprating benefits by the latest inflation rate. But there's no conceivable way we can reduce state spending this year - these things take time. Even Osborne took five years.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years, it's hardly cost free. State spending can be cut, the government just needs to have the cojones to face down the bleeding hearts. There's probably also a few easy taxes like value surcharges on foreign owned property that are cost free given how little foreign property owners actually contribute to the economy.
I'd personally start with the NHS, it's a huge money blackhole and neither the Tories nor Labour have any answers other than simply shovelling more money towards it and hoping the doctors keep quiet for another year.
I disagree with your compounding point. The current system only delays the impact of inflation on the uprating of benefits. We can expect benefits in April 2023 to be uprated by an eye-watering amount, because inflation in the 12 months to September 2022 will be massive. *
What various poverty charities suspect is that the Treasury will not do this, in the same way they quasi-froze the state pension this year. I think they will freeze benefits again next year, like they did from 2015 - 2019. This has a dramatic but largely unnoticed impact on benefit payments.
*What would be interesting is if they did change to April CPI, and then reverted back to September CPI for next year. That would double count the 6 months to April 2022, while not counting the 6 months to April 2021.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
If you don't uprate it by 5% next year then next year people will be screaming bloody murder about a "cut" and that benefits are going up by less than inflation.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The idea that Raab, or indeed anyone, would deliberately watch pornography in the Commons chamber simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would anyone do that?
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
Yeah it does seem crazy. You're probably right, something along those lines. It would be very harsh to come down like a ton of bricks if that were the case.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
If you don't uprate it by 5% next year then next year people will be screaming bloody murder about a "cut" and that benefits are going up by less than inflation.
Just as happened with the £20 uplift.
Depends on whether inflation is higher to April or September. Could become a real mess.
I'm for using the most up to date CPI data for benefit rate increases, not this 6-month delay. Try saying to someone in fuel poverty "don't worry mate, your benefits will go up by that amount in 12 months time, just cope till then!"
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
If you don't uprate it by 5% next year then next year people will be screaming bloody murder about a "cut" and that benefits are going up by less than inflation.
Uprating by 8% instead of 4% increases the compound rate in future years,
No it doesn't. You return to whatever the price index (not the increase in the index) is next year.
How does that make sense, the welfare budget is £100bn, you're uprating by 4% so it increases to £104bn, next year you uprate by 5% so it becomes £109.2bn, alternatively you uprate by 8% this year so it increases to £108bn, next year you uprate by 5% as before so it becomes £113.4bn, using 8%, even as a one off, will have a huge lasting effect on the benefits bill.
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
You don't uprate it by 5% next year. All you are doing is paying some of next year's increase early, so the uprate next year is less (in your example, you increase the total bill next year by £1.2bn).
If you don't uprate it by 5% next year then next year people will be screaming bloody murder about a "cut" and that benefits are going up by less than inflation.
Just as happened with the £20 uplift.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation too.
While both need an increase what we don't want is an inflationary spiral
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The idea that Raab, or indeed anyone, would deliberately watch pornography in the Commons chamber simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would anyone do that?
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
Why would anyone deliberately watch pornography on the job?
Based on many documented cases, would appear it's because they are horny as horny-toads? AND think they can get away with it, because when they got caught was NOT the first time they'd done it, more like the umptenth.
Could a quasi-qualified PB lawyer please give us some learned commentary re: parliamentary privilege in UK as it relates to journalists & publishers cited for contempt for what they've published?
The person who runs this account claims to be an ex-spook who’s now an ‘ethical leaker’. Certainly very anti the current government. Also claims to have contacts in No. 10.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
The idea that Raab, or indeed anyone, would deliberately watch pornography in the Commons chamber simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would anyone do that?
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
What percentage of MPs do we think have watched porn?
Comments
The beer is a red herring.
But when it comes to SKS necking a bottle of ale during what is obviously a working meeting, it's all the other way round.
It might breach some obscure rules and if it does he goes.
Johnson's multiple events are wholly different, but the key point is Johnson misled Parliament over the events. But as Johnson has a get out of jail free card he doesn't have to go.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/27/tory-mp-caught-watching-pornography-commons/
Doesn't say which one.
Honestly. I don't want to sound like a prude, but there's a time and a place for these things.
C'est ça.
If it's in private on his own devices that's another matter.
There's no future where the UK doesn't rely on its allies for key sectors, defence of the realm or energy, we simply don't want to pay the additional 4-6% of GDP that is necessary to build up and maintain economic resilience and we trust in our allies to not fuck us over. I think it's a fair position to have, what the EU is suggesting is to achieve what they see as autonomy without spending the money and it is acting in accordance with that suggestion. It is essentially asking for handouts from its allies while telling us all to get fucked at the same time. That batshit insane financial markets commissioner compared the EU's reliance on the City for financial services to their reliance on Russian gas, if that's not a giant fuck you to the UK then I don't know what is, I know a lot of people who voted remain in the City who were disgusted by her comparison.
Point is, and eventually someone will do this, if you go through everything Starmer has ever said about Johnson and Partygate, you'll almost certainly find he's said numerous things that, if strictly applied to Starmer himself, would mean he should resign.
(b) doing it in fromt of work colleagues, and visibly so, is itself sexual harassment prima facie
In a normal workplace it would get you hauled in front of the line manager and then HR very quickly indeed. OK, MPs are not employees - but they are arguably comparable to contractors, and contractors doing that in any workplace I know would get pulled up at once.
Edit: and where certain MPs rather obviously play with their mobile phones, so ...
On inflation specifically, I don't think there's anything much the government can do except minor stuff at the edges. As Paul Johnson of the IFS was arguing at lunchtime on R4, the most obvious and most effective single measure the government could take would be to uprate benefits by the April inflation rate, rather than the September one. It would obviously be a hit to the public finances, but only a temporary one (so no effect on the long-term fiscal picture), and it would be properly targeted at those most badly hit by the cost of living increase. Or restore the £20 uplift on Universal Credit, although that would be a long-term commitment.
No, the answer is to cut spending and dampen demand from the state for services. The warning signs are flashing and no one seems to be paying attention, the government is going to pay ca. £95bn in debt interest this year, that's over 10% of total spending and almost 15% of current spending. We've got less than a decade to bring the deficit under control, we're going to need to cut spending and raise taxes, especially on the unproductive old.
This could be the new expenses scandal.
When Liverpool City Region was being set up some Warrington Labour Councillors wanted Warrington included in that, allegedly because Warrington is a fairly swing area whereas Liverpool is solidly Labour. Most of the other nearby towns are either part of the Liverpool City Region (like Widnes and St Helens) or Greater Manchester (like Leigh and Wigan).
That proposal was met with a big backlash amongst residents on the basis that although Liverpool is nearby, Warrington isn't a part of Liverpool and a Liverpool City Region wouldn't be concentrating on or paying too much attention to Warrington.
If Gateshead voters want Gateshead control over local decision making, that should be their choice. If they want to amalgamate with Newcastle, that should also be their choice.
In fact, Red Rayner said she'd worn trousers when on the telly yesterday (the Lorraine show) because she was worried that the press would just focus on her legs if she wore a skirt, as she normally does.
Functional economic geography should dictate metro government, not public surveys (which get swamped by parochial idiots). GM had metro government forced upon it and has never looked back. Probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.
If the government wants to help, it could start by reversing the NI tax rise. Otherwise it should be looking to cut what it charges us, where possible. A cut in VAT on energy etc could mitigate the cost of living crisis and be targetted where its needed.
The easiest win for people would be shifting the burden of tax from productive working people to unproductive older people, either with wealth taxes or special income taxes for higher rate earners over 67.
If Wigan had declined the agreement while the rest of GM agreed to it, then devolved GM could and should have been launched without the participation of Wigan - just as Warrington declined to join Liverpool City Region which was mooted at one point, as I said earlier.
Some PB Tories are very lawyerly around partygate, silly nonsense around "Crown land" and "private residence", whataboutery with the Starmer thing. Completely missing the point.
This man used the power invested him through the executive to severely restrict the freedom of everyone in this country - particularly the largely invulnerable young, who saw their education disrupted and their employment confined to the bedrooms of shared flats.
If he had a shred of integrity he would have exhibited some form of solidarity for those his rules were harming most, an appreciation of the sacrifices being made NHS staff etc etc.
The NI tax rise wasn't a very good measure, but in any case it's already been reversed for lowish-paid workers by the increase in the level at which NI kicks in. A cut in VAT on energy is bad in principle, and although it would be very generous to people like me living in big houses and who don't need any help, it would be incredibly badly targeted in terms of giving help to those who do need it.
(I'll get my coat)
As for one borough being allowed to opt out – that's completely nonsensical. Imagine City or Salford had said 'no', you'd end up with a ludicrous doughnut shape. Sometimes you just need to be dynamic and get it done.
An interesting question is whether rising living costs will send some of them back into the workforce.
No, the answer is to cut from the existing spending budget, reduce state demand and if possible use the savings to fund a time limited or one off measure for households who need it.
Putting any taxes up is just not the answer, the tax burden is already too high.
The railway bypassed it, in part, because Lord Exeter at nearby Burghley House vetoed it. There was another reason the railway avoided Stamford that I cannot recall...
So Stamford decayed from the mid-1800s onwards, and did not grow (relatively) much, or get much renewal. Hence loads of stupendous Georgian buildings survived.
How true all that is, I don’t know. But I have my doubts.
But, if this turns out to be accurate, maybe I’ll have to accept they are who they say they are:
Just buy oil from Saudi, etc. The only "discount" Germany got on oil was that pipeline transit fees were slightly lower than paying tanker day rates.
There are plenty of oil, inefficient crude carriers that can be brought into service, so the only consequences for this are: (a) China and India pay sightly less for oil, and (b) John Fridrickson becomes even richer.
What might have happened is someone texted/WhatsApped something NSFW and they opened the message before realising what it was.
I'd personally start with the NHS, it's a huge money blackhole and neither the Tories nor Labour have any answers other than simply shovelling more money towards it and hoping the doctors keep quiet for another year.
I believe the government is going to basically compel North Somerset to join the “West of England” authority aka Greater Bristol, which if you think about it is bloody right.
The comfy commuters of North Somerset should not be allowed to use Bristol’s metro services without paying in.
Some are truly cretinous.
http://www.bradfordonavonmuseum.co.uk/saxon-church
It's not cost free and it's not a one off and you still have no way to pay for it other than begging the bond markets for money.
2. Your non co-worker spouse, who lives above the shop, bringing cake to a work meeting in multi-room workplace, and sticking round with others whilst you eat it. Pubs, restaurants and hairdressers were shut.
Even sticking these two side-by-side in isolation there is a clear difference in likely legality, even without the wider context of multiple bona fide parties both at the workplace and above the shop accompanying number 2, and all very heavily timed during the most severe of the lockdown regulations.
What various poverty charities suspect is that the Treasury will not do this, in the same way they quasi-froze the state pension this year. I think they will freeze benefits again next year, like they did from 2015 - 2019. This has a dramatic but largely unnoticed impact on benefit payments.
*What would be interesting is if they did change to April CPI, and then reverted back to September CPI for next year. That would double count the 6 months to April 2022, while not counting the 6 months to April 2021.
Just as happened with the £20 uplift.
I'm for using the most up to date CPI data for benefit rate increases, not this 6-month delay. Try saying to someone in fuel poverty "don't worry mate, your benefits will go up by that amount in 12 months time, just cope till then!"
While both need an increase what we don't want is an inflationary spiral
Based on many documented cases, would appear it's because they are horny as horny-toads? AND think they can get away with it, because when they got caught was NOT the first time they'd done it, more like the umptenth.
Here is just one recent example:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/20/texas-teacher-watching-porn-on-laptop-shown-on-projector-gets-fired-16497426/
And from Jolly Old Blighty:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/three-british-judges-fired-watching-porn-work-legal-officials-n324996
Esp. including any modern cases?