Rishi Sunak has ordered officials to draw up plans for possible windfall tax on more than £10bn of excess profits by electricity generators, including wind farm operators, on top of a hit on North Sea oil & gas producers
1) Literally everywhere in Edinburgh that sells a baked potato does a perfect baked potato. I have never eaten anything other than a 10/10 baked potato in Edinburgh - perfect crisp skin, angel soft in the middle. It blows me away every time.
There used to be one at Tollcross that sold haggis as a filling. Practically lived on those for a panto season at the Kings.
Rishi Sunak has ordered officials to draw up plans for possible windfall tax on more than £10bn of excess profits by electricity generators, including wind farm operators, on top of a hit on North Sea oil & gas producers
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.
Even if the events were parties AND Boris *knew* they were parties that quote is not necessarily a lie.
All he is saying is he was “repeatedly assured” about something at a given point in time.
Is that really the killer quote / smoking gun?
I don't think there is a killer quote. The likely situation is not in doubt, but he can and will rely on the unlikely situation still being possible.
But it is still not a good look for a Prime Minister to be so reliant on appearing to be bloody clueless and incurious about everything.
For the “lying to Parliament” accusation to stand up there has to be a killer quote
The BBC have been showing it. When asked in Parliament if there was a party on the date in question, Bozo says "No".
Ah, I have a spin-line for that, which is that he wasn't saying 'No, there wasn't a party', he was saying 'No, I can't confirm to the House that there was a party, because that would be an awkward admission '.
“Frankly we were very rarely sober though the whole period in the office so in my mind this wasn’t a party, it was just the next round.”
Don't think so. I don't have Boris down as a drunk, whatever his other faults
Interesting comparison raised between Australia and USA's political culture. We don't yet know if there's a majority or not. The votes haven't all been counted after three days, and it's on a knife edge really*. Yet. Morrison has conceded, Albanese has been sworn in, and has met with foreign leaders and is appointing a Cabinet. No one has launched a legal action, denied any votes were real, assembled a pitchfork wielding mob, made scattergun, unsubstantiated accusations of fraud, nor demanded anyone stop counting whilst my side is ahead. Everyone's just moved on.
*I know largest Party isn't a question. But a majority is still questionable. And though the Coalition couldn't form a government, Labor hasn't actually done so either. If it needs to.
You’re half right. i did put it in to provoke Nats, tho it is also true, to an extent. I’ve never eaten well in Edinburgh - to me it has been like Hampstead. Wealthy, beautiful, full of tourists, not great food. Not terrible just not great
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
Edinburgh is filled with decent food but is absolutely up itself about how good it thinks it is. Vastly over priced, especially when compared to Glasgow.
Edinburgh's big food secret (possibly the city is shamed by it and doesn't want to talk about it) is at the low end. 1) Literally everywhere in Edinburgh that sells a baked potato does a perfect baked potato. I have never eaten anything other than a 10/10 baked potato in Edinburgh - perfect crisp skin, angel soft in the middle. It blows me away every time. 2) Similarly they know how to do a portion of chips. I've had one bad portion of chips of Edinburgh in my entire life. 3) The hole in the wall places like Snax will actually do you a solid value full breakfast without doing stupid shit like making their own baked beans and charging you 5 quid over the odds for the privilege.
The baked tattie place at the top of Cockburn Street was amazing. They used to do brilliant vegetarian Haggis samosas too.
Rishi Sunak has ordered officials to draw up plans for possible windfall tax on more than £10bn of excess profits by electricity generators, including wind farm operators, on top of a hit on North Sea oil & gas producers
What is the point of the Tories? They just constantly nick Labour policies. I see why Starmer is reluctant to put out a plan for government just yet.
Damned if they do, damned if they dont one this one though. Bit odd about wind energy has there been a lot of wind recently, or are they riding the price surge on oil and gas?
Believe he's been provisionally sworn in. Since Scott Morrison has conceded defeat they, like us, have to have a PM. Incidentally, Labor has fallen behind today in Deakin as postals were counted meaning they are on for 76. A majority of 1 not 3. The decision to reject the original Electoral Commission recommendations that NT get only one MP has had the decisive effect.
Yes, like the nerdy political junky I am becoming, I have been following the remaining counts here
I prefer to think of those interested in political minutiae as normal and balanced individuals with a love of public service, and those who are not as the deviants.
Interesting comparison raised between Australia and USA's political culture. We don't yet know if there's a majority or not. The votes haven't all been counted after three days, and it's on a knife edge really*. Yet. Morrison has conceded, Albanese has been sworn in, and has met with foreign leaders and is appointing a Cabinet. No one has launched a legal action, denied any votes.were real, assembled a pitchfork wielding mob, nor demanded anyone stop counting whilst my side is ahead. Everyone's just moved on.
*I know largest Party isn't a question. But a majority is still questionable. And though the Coalition couldn't form a government, Labor hasn't actually done so either. If it needs to.
From memory the Coalition deal hadn’t been done yet when Cameron went to the Palace either had it? Perhaps in the Commonwealth we’re just more civilised.
Interesting comparison raised between Australia and USA's political culture. We don't yet know if there's a majority or not. The votes haven't all been counted after three days, and it's on a knife edge really*. Yet. Morrison has conceded, Albanese has been sworn in, and has met with foreign leaders and is appointing a Cabinet. No one has launched a legal action, denied any votes.were real, assembled a pitchfork wielding mob, nor demanded anyone stop counting whilst my side is ahead. Everyone's just moved on.
*I know largest Party isn't a question. But a majority is still questionable. And though the Coalition couldn't form a government, Labor hasn't actually done so either. If it needs to.
From memory the Coalition deal hadn’t been done yet when Cameron went to the Palace either had it? Perhaps in the Commonwealth we’re just more civilised.
Though it always takes 2 months for a new President to be inaugrated in the US, in the UK and Australia there is normally a change of PM within a week if not the day after the election if the opposition win
You’re half right. i did put it in to provoke Nats, tho it is also true, to an extent. I’ve never eaten well in Edinburgh - to me it has been like Hampstead. Wealthy, beautiful, full of tourists, not great food. Not terrible just not great
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
Edinburgh is filled with decent food but is absolutely up itself about how good it thinks it is. Vastly over priced, especially when compared to Glasgow.
Edinburgh's big food secret (possibly the city is shamed by it and doesn't want to talk about it) is at the low end. 1) Literally everywhere in Edinburgh that sells a baked potato does a perfect baked potato. I have never eaten anything other than a 10/10 baked potato in Edinburgh - perfect crisp skin, angel soft in the middle. It blows me away every time. 2) Similarly they know how to do a portion of chips. I've had one bad portion of chips of Edinburgh in my entire life. 3) The hole in the wall places like Snax will actually do you a solid value full breakfast without doing stupid shit like making their own baked beans and charging you 5 quid over the odds for the privilege.
The baked tattie place at the top of Cockburn Street was amazing. They used to do brilliant vegetarian Haggis samosas too.
I really like Mimi's Bakehouse for breakfast, up in Leith.
You’re half right. i did put it in to provoke Nats, tho it is also true, to an extent. I’ve never eaten well in Edinburgh - to me it has been like Hampstead. Wealthy, beautiful, full of tourists, not great food. Not terrible just not great
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
Edinburgh is filled with decent food but is absolutely up itself about how good it thinks it is. Vastly over priced, especially when compared to Glasgow.
Edinburgh's big food secret (possibly the city is shamed by it and doesn't want to talk about it) is at the low end. 1) Literally everywhere in Edinburgh that sells a baked potato does a perfect baked potato. I have never eaten anything other than a 10/10 baked potato in Edinburgh - perfect crisp skin, angel soft in the middle. It blows me away every time. 2) Similarly they know how to do a portion of chips. I've had one bad portion of chips of Edinburgh in my entire life. 3) The hole in the wall places like Snax will actually do you a solid value full breakfast without doing stupid shit like making their own baked beans and charging you 5 quid over the odds for the privilege.
The baked tattie place at the top of Cockburn Street was amazing. They used to do brilliant vegetarian Haggis samosas too.
That is almost the perfect example, basically bang on the Royal Mile, massive tourist footfall. Has absolutely no need to be any good to turn a decent profit and no, it is fantastic - massive potatoes, generous filling, good service all perfectly done.
Pennsylvania 2022 Primary - Republican for US Senate as of 10 minutes ago
Mehmet Oz 418,697 31.2% Dave McCormick 417,716 31.1% Kathy Barnette 330,809 24.7% Total reported 1,341,156
SSI - first report I've seen since Friday where Dr Oz is less than a thousand votes ahead of McC.
Note this race is well within min 5% dif to trigger automatic recount under PA law, decided by mid June UNLESS taken to court post-recount by losing candidate.
I look forward to hearing PB Tories and other stalwart opponents of anti semitism calling out the man the government has appointed to oversee England's universities - after he ran Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, natch - for sharing a platform with a Hungarian anti semite and racist who calls Jews "stinking excrement." James Wharton said it was good to attend the conference and "fight for the values that we all hold dear."
Yawn. Not a Tory, but "sharing a platform" whines are a pretty good wanker indicator. No offence.
I am not a drinker, but to celebrate Paul Brand's report in a few minutes on ITV News at 10,, I pondered, a bottle of Reverend James or a Gwynt y DDraig Black Dragon cider. I plumped for the cider. Very nice too, but is it a party?
I am not a drinker, but to celebrate Paul Brand's report in a few minutes on ITV News at 10,, I pondered, a bottle of Reverend James or a Gwynt y DDraig Black Dragon cider. I plumped for the cider. Very nice too, but is it a party?
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Different places, times, rules, circumstances.
You'd like for things to be thought of as equivalent, but they aren't.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
Have a feeling Biden's "Yes" is by far the most important thing that's happened today.
That depends a bit on what it was a Yes to, surely? Care to expand?
Was asked if the US would defend Taiwan? The long-standing bi-partisan policy of "strategic ambiguity" has been overturned.
Both Biden and Trump have now said they would go to war with China to defend Taiwan, a big shift and not gone down well in Beijing.
Had the US President made a similar commitment to Ukraine before the invasion, even though it was not in NATO whose member states have automatic US intervention to defend, Russia may never have invaded.
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
The majority of the 33% to 35% still backing the Tories could not give a toss about partygate, they also think it hypocritical Boris has been fined and Starmer hasn't.
I look forward to hearing PB Tories and other stalwart opponents of anti semitism calling out the man the government has appointed to oversee England's universities - after he ran Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, natch - for sharing a platform with a Hungarian anti semite and racist who calls Jews "stinking excrement." James Wharton said it was good to attend the conference and "fight for the values that we all hold dear."
So happy I did my bit removing Wharton from parliament. Only to have Bonzo put him straight back in.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
The majority of the 33% to 35% still backing the Tories could not give a toss about partygate, they also think it hypocritical Boris has been fined and Starmer hasn't.
Where is your evidence of this other than a fantasy in your own imagination
Are Tory MP's appearing in the media the only people who haven't seen these photos? I mean. I think it's overblown. But "having made no effort whatsoever to see what I am being interviewed about" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You'd be sanctioned if this was a DWP mandated interview for openly taking the piss.
For hydro, substitute wind and tidal. The first hasn’t happened fast enough; the second has been completely and irrationally hobbled.
It turns out the entire energy market was a scam, with providers merely providing a kind of performative competition.
The UK seems to specialise in such fictions while maintaining that it is a deregulated, post-Thatcher paradise.
Care to explain why?
For the decade I have been advising people on reducing their energy costs, the single most effective measure has been to switch regularly - and we now have services to make it easy.
Often saves 25%+. Then generally as much again can be saved by low-hanging fruit of energy saving measures.
That's not working at the moment for obvious reasons, and the regulation has undermined the gains to an extent since about 2019.
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
The majority of the 33% to 35% still backing the Tories could not give a toss about partygate, they also think it hypocritical Boris has been fined and Starmer hasn't.
Where is your evidence of this other than a fantasy in your own imagination
The fact the polls still have the Tories on 33% to 35% despite this ridiculous partygate story still going and despite Boris already having been fined
Are Tory MP's appearing in the media the only people who haven't seen these photos? I mean. I think it's overblown. But "having made no effort whatsoever to see what I am being interviewed about" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You'd be sanctioned if this was a DWP mandated interview for openly taking the piss.
Conservative MPs are the only people in history who would have any chance of being declared not fit for work.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
I think it is a fair point. It is well known that parties use pictures of their leader when popular and avoid like the plague when unpopular so this is an interesting development worthy of note.
Jim Pickard @PickardJE · 4h the Lib Dems have written to the Independent Office for Police Conduct re the Met’s failure to fine Johnson at the party in the pictures
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Indeed, Johnson is the Tories biggest general election winner since Thatcher
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
The majority of the 33% to 35% still backing the Tories could not give a toss about partygate, they also think it hypocritical Boris has been fined and Starmer hasn't.
Where is your evidence of this other than a fantasy in your own imagination
The fact the polls still have the Tories on 33% to 35% despite this ridiculous partygate story still going and despite Boris already having been fined
The polls do not reflect today's disclosures nor the furore that is coming Boris's way and you seem to be in some form of denials
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
For hydro, substitute wind and tidal. The first hasn’t happened fast enough; the second has been completely and irrationally hobbled.
Switzerland is interesting at present. Brussels have been using potential exclusion from the European grid (where Ch has been a key interchange point since 1958) as a lever to try and make Ch accept the Brussels demand on electricity interchange.
I wonder if observing what has happened Ch will consider opting out.
Or that Brussels might very suddenly discover that more flexibility is possible, bearing in mind that Portugal and Spain are being significantly isolated from the EU-wide market.
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
I think it is a fair point. It is well known that parties use pictures of their leader when popular and avoid like the plague when unpopular so this is an interesting development worthy of note.
So what does this interesting development signify, in your opinion?
Who cares? The Met already fined Johnson and Sunak, the vast majority of voters made up their minds on Johnson months ago over partygate, all the further stories on this like tonight's are just noise.
It is Starmer who has said he will resign if fined, even if the Met decided to go further with Johnson and fine him again it would be irrelevant given he was already fined
Far too complacent and no this is not noise
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
The majority of the 33% to 35% still backing the Tories could not give a toss about partygate, they also think it hypocritical Boris has been fined and Starmer hasn't.
Where is your evidence of this other than a fantasy in your own imagination
The fact the polls still have the Tories on 33% to 35% despite this ridiculous partygate story still going and despite Boris already having been fined
I haven't seen an opinion poll for ages with Labour as low as 35%
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Indeed, Johnson is the Tories biggest general election winner since Thatcher
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Kitty Donaldson @kitty_donaldson · 1h Seems likely the Home Affairs Committee will want to hear from the Met Police about their decision-making process over #Partygate. Also puts @DurhamPolice under a lot of pressure over their Keir Starmer investigation
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.
Even if the events were parties AND Boris *knew* they were parties that quote is not necessarily a lie.
All he is saying is he was “repeatedly assured” about something at a given point in time.
Is that really the killer quote / smoking gun?
But when he instigated the Cain leaving party. Attended. Led the toasts and made a speech. He knows that his statement "there was no party" is a lie because he was there.
He didn’t say “there was no party” in the quote above. He said “I have been assured there was no party”.
That’s not the same thing at all.
He Was There. He doesn't need to be assured.
Of course he didn’t. But the cute choice of words potentially allows him to wiggle out of a charge of lying. That’s all I am arguing.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Indeed, Johnson is the Tories biggest general election winner since Thatcher
Was
2 1/2 years is a very long time with all that has happened.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Yeah. And Tony Blair won three. Two of them twice as big. So. By that logic...
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
..against Jeremy Corbyn?
So what?
Theresa May went up against the Jezziah and almost blew everything up. People may not like Boris but the fact is he IS clearly an election winner.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
It's where a certain kind of Boris backer wants us to get to. If everyone is bad, then nobody is bad and it doesn't matter that there are a couple of obvious ways that Johnson is worse than even the averagely mendacious politician.
But that is what politicians like Johnson and Trump do. If you play a straight bat against them, they will run rings around you. Indulge in even the palest of dark arts and they squark about your hypocricy. And then run rings around you.
There's a piece by Hugo Rifkind in tomorrow's Times that nails it in a bitter admiration sort of way. To quote the headline and subhead;
PM’s superpower is to trivialise everything
Boris Johnson’s greatest ability is to twist reality so that critics of his dishonesty sound as though they’re unhinged
For hydro, substitute wind and tidal. The first hasn’t happened fast enough; the second has been completely and irrationally hobbled.
It turns out the entire energy market was a scam, with providers merely providing a kind of performative competition.
The UK seems to specialise in such fictions while maintaining that it is a deregulated, post-Thatcher paradise.
Care to explain why?
For the decade I have been advising people on reducing their energy costs, the single most effective measure has been to switch regularly - and we now have services to make it easy.
Often saves 25%+. Then generally as much again can be saved by low-hanging fruit of energy saving measures.
That's not working at the moment for obvious reasons, and the regulation has undermined the gains to an extent since about 2019.
@Gardenwalker overstates the case, but the electricity regulation system in the UK has reduced the resilience of the UK to external shocks.
Right now, electrical generators are paid according to:
(1) How much electricity they produce, and (for gas, coal, etc) the market price for that energy (2) A capacity payment for dispatchable power
The idea of (2) was to ensure that there would always be enough power generation available in the even the sun was not shining and the wind not blowing. Basically, that slightly out of date plant might not produce a lot of energy a year, but this way the capacity payments ensured it stayed open (and available) rather being shuttered.
There was only one problem - which I identified in a white paper in 2015 - which is that the owners of these power plants didn't actually have to have any coal or gas for their plants, they only needed to have the plant.
What this meant is that - with the exception of the Norwegian supply contract - pretty much none of the UK's gas is on long-term contracts.
In the event that it became impossible to get LNG deliveries (because you were outbid by the Spanish), well, you might not be able to actually generate power, but you'd still get paid the capacity payment.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
I think it is a fair point. It is well known that parties use pictures of their leader when popular and avoid like the plague when unpopular so this is an interesting development worthy of note.
So what does this interesting development signify, in your opinion?
Not a clue to be honest. Confident he is a net vote winner? Not confident, but cocked it up?
Really don't know, but interesting because I would assume they would avoid using his picture, but haven't so definitely interesting.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Yeah. And Tony Blair won three. Two of them twice as big. So. By that logic...
It's true! Tone was a winner. And people kinda forget now even after Iraq he won a decent majority in 2005.
I may not like Blair much from 2001 onwards but he was/is a winner. He's up there in the premier league of post WWII election winning PM's with Wilson and Thatch no question. It would be silly to deny otherwise...
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
She’s disliked him for 30 years. I understand he was a bit of a shit to her when they worked together in Brussels but she’s hardly a neutral commentator
I agree that she probably isn't a neutral commentator but lots of people across the board who have had dealings with Johnson say very similar things. The weight of evidence from those that have been close to him seems to be that he is shit and would sell his grandmother to save his own skin.
FWIW I think he will survive till the next GE because I don't believe the current Tory membership are much bothered by his mendacity.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
She’s disliked him for 30 years. I understand he was a bit of a shit to her when they worked together in Brussels but she’s hardly a neutral commentator
I agree that she probably isn't a neutral commentator but lots of people across the board who have had dealings with Johnson say very similar things. The weight of evidence from those that have been close to him seems to be that he is shit and would sell his grandmother to save his own skin.
FWIW I think he will survive till the next GE because I don't believe the current Tory membership are much bothered by his mendacity.
The original comment amused me greatly. To paraphrase “She’s biased against the Prime Minister because she knows him”
She was presented as “his biographer” as of that was an Anthony Seldon like deceleration from Mount Sinai… I was just introducing balance
Are Tory MP's appearing in the media the only people who haven't seen these photos? I mean. I think it's overblown. But "having made no effort whatsoever to see what I am being interviewed about" is a pretty pathetic excuse. You'd be sanctioned if this was a DWP mandated interview for openly taking the piss.
It is a distressingly common and so presumably deemed effective tactic. Zahawi was squirming similarly yesterday around why, being interviewed about what had taken place and what the PM has asked for or not, he had not asked the PM.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
The Times front page suggests that at least some people are not prepared to entertain that brand of sophistry.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Yeah. And Tony Blair won three. Two of them twice as big. So. By that logic...
It's true! Tone was a winner. And people kinda forget now even after Iraq he won a decent majority in 2005.
I may not like Blair much from 2001 onwards but he was/is a winner. He's up there in the premier league of election winning PM's with Wilson and Thatch no question. It would be silly to deny otherwise...
Get sick of hearing Labour should be 20% ahead. However. Tony would be.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
..against Jeremy Corbyn?
So what?
Theresa May went up against the Jezziah and almost blew everything up. People may not like Boris but the fact is he IS clearly an election winner.
To deny that is just silly.
I agree. I do not like him, and it may well be his appeal is often fleeting for many, but he has appeal, and previously had even more, when it mattered. You simply do not wrack up the votes he did without sufficient people being drawn to do so, not merely repelled by someone else - there were other choices on the ballot after all. The repelling factor may well be the more significant factor, but his being the right person at the right moment to appeal to people (despite his high negatives) I cannot rightly contest.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
You are embarrassing yourself here.
Case 1. Leaving do. Big piss up. Table weighed down with booze.
Case 2. A late evening take away curry. Washed down with a lager.
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
I think it is a fair point. It is well known that parties use pictures of their leader when popular and avoid like the plague when unpopular so this is an interesting development worthy of note.
So what does this interesting development signify, in your opinion?
Not a clue to be honest. Confident he is a net vote winner? Not confident, but cocked it up?
Really don't know, but interesting because I would assume they would avoid using his picture, but haven't so definitely interesting.
Tx. They think he adds to their chance of winning. Ishmael caught Scott with his trousers down.
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 · 10h 🛒 trying usual SW1 trick - blame junior women, many of whom saved many lives by forcing him to change idiotic decisions.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Yeah. And Tony Blair won three. Two of them twice as big. So. By that logic...
Yes and when Labour effectively forced Blair out in 2007 earlier than he wanted, Labour lost all 4 of the next general elections
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
You are embarrassing yourself here.
Case 1. Leaving do. Big piss up. Table weighed down with booze.
Case 2. A late evening take away curry. Washed down with a lager.
No difference?
Yes no difference, both social events of multiple people against the rules. The amount of alcohol consumed was irrelevant
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
The Times front page suggests that at least some people are not prepared to entertain that brand of sophistry.
Worse than that...
Boris Johnson suggested Sue Gray should drop her full report given police investigation during secret meeting earlier this month, Times told
He is said to have asked her if there was much point in publishing it given that ‘it’s all out there’
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
I'm not sure the guidance point works. Saying "I'm sure" won't make it a belief if he knows that guidance and rules were not followed.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
The Times front page suggests that at least some people are not prepared to entertain that brand of sophistry.
Worse than that...
Boris Johnson suggested Sue Gray should drop her full report given police investigation during secret meeting earlier this month, Times told
He is said to have asked her if there was much point in publishing it given that ‘it’s all out there’
OK, it's a unnamed source, but it's also the front page of The Times.
If, and it is a big if, that is accurate (and who could possibly be the source), then he is a titanic fool. On what basis would he seek to prevent publication if there was nothing further in it to worry about, indeed he should be all the keener for it to be released in that case. Which would make such an entreaty an obvious cover.
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
You are embarrassing yourself here.
Case 1. Leaving do. Big piss up. Table weighed down with booze.
Case 2. A late evening take away curry. Washed down with a lager.
No difference?
Yes no difference, both social events of multiple people against the rules. The amount of alcohol consumed was irrelevant
Were the rules identical on Nov 13th 2020 (before the first vaccination and during a steep rise in cases) and in April 21 (when 50% of the British population had at least one vaccination and cases swiftly dropping)?
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
What exactly are you waiting for? Johnson to emerge as a trustworthy, noble election winning force?
He may not be trustworthy... but he did win a near landslide for Con two and a half years ago...
Yeah. And Tony Blair won three. Two of them twice as big. So. By that logic...
Yes and when Labour effectively forced Blair out in 2007 earlier than he wanted, Labour lost all 4 of the next general elections
Well indeed. He's the greatest PM of my lifetime by a country mile. He's still around. The country's gone to pot since he left. I understand that is not a popular opinion.
I look forward to hearing PB Tories and other stalwart opponents of anti semitism calling out the man the government has appointed to oversee England's universities - after he ran Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, natch - for sharing a platform with a Hungarian anti semite and racist who calls Jews "stinking excrement." James Wharton said it was good to attend the conference and "fight for the values that we all hold dear."
Just to confirm “sharing a platform” means
being part of a panel together sharing the same values Having a video message played at a global political conference at which someone with unsavoury views subsequently spoke
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
I'm not sure the guidance point works. Saying "I'm sure" won't make it a belief if he knows that guidance and rules were not followed.
If anybody wants to be idiotically literal, "can the PM tell the house.." should still be a "yes", because he was right there and capable of speech.
But really, this is all gaslighting. This isn't some fucking Oxford debating circle-jerk. This is the governance of the fucking country, and it's plain as day Boris lied.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
“Can the prime minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?” asks Labour’s Catherine West
“No, but I’m sure whatever happened the guidance... and the rules were followed at all times,” says the PM
Strangely, I remember that day very well. It was the day Mrs Foxy was redeployed to Intensive Care, pre vaccination. She came down with it a few days later.
Again his quote:
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
If Boris got 2 fines, he already has 1 with Sunak, then Starmer and Rayner definitely should get at least 1 too given the drinks event they attended in lockdown too
Please show your working out
As otherwise it would be police bias in favour of Labour and against the Tories. There was little to no difference between the social event Starmer and Rayner went to in lockdown and those Johnson and Sunak attended
Different rules at different times.
Starmer and Rayner were also drinking in a social gathering in lockdown, little difference at all
You are embarrassing yourself here.
Case 1. Leaving do. Big piss up. Table weighed down with booze.
Case 2. A late evening take away curry. Washed down with a lager.
No difference?
Yes no difference, both social events of multiple people against the rules. The amount of alcohol consumed was irrelevant
Were the rules identical on Nov 13th 2020 (before the first vaccination and during a steep rise in cases) and in April 21 (when 50% of the British population had at least one vaccination and cases swiftly dropping)?
Fuck me, what a completely pathetic point, given that if they hadn't you'd be rebleating someone saying Hurhurhur no reference to Boris on tory Tiverton letters. Is a bit of quality control on your part just too much to ask for?
I think it is a fair point. It is well known that parties use pictures of their leader when popular and avoid like the plague when unpopular so this is an interesting development worthy of note.
So what does this interesting development signify, in your opinion?
Not a clue to be honest. Confident he is a net vote winner? Not confident, but cocked it up?
Really don't know, but interesting because I would assume they would avoid using his picture, but haven't so definitely interesting.
Tx. They think he adds to their chance of winning. Ishmael caught Scott with his trousers down.
I don't think Scott was caught with his trousers down at all. He makes a valid point because what has been done is counter intuitive for most people. I think most people including many Tories think Boris is currently toxic so it seems odd they are doing this. It could be that the Tiverton Tories are correct, but it is not what most people think.
Comments
This government is a literal clown show.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1528743508823138305?s=20&t=S6zPadddumGLNBns6B1b3A
Is it still an excess profit if I reinvest the lot?
We don't yet know if there's a majority or not. The votes haven't all been counted after three days, and it's on a knife edge really*.
Yet. Morrison has conceded, Albanese has been sworn in, and has met with foreign leaders and is appointing a Cabinet.
No one has launched a legal action, denied any votes were real, assembled a pitchfork wielding mob, made scattergun, unsubstantiated accusations of fraud, nor demanded anyone stop counting whilst my side is ahead.
Everyone's just moved on.
*I know largest Party isn't a question. But a majority is still questionable. And though the Coalition couldn't form a government, Labor hasn't actually done so either. If it needs to.
There do appear to be a lot more of them, alas.
I wonder if CCHQ is deliberately tying Boris to defeat?
Or is it just disastrously misjudged? https://twitter.com/robblackie/status/1528841581373046785/photo/1
"Last Days of the Radge."
But passable.
as of 10 minutes ago
Mehmet Oz
418,697 31.2%
Dave McCormick
417,716 31.1%
Kathy Barnette
330,809 24.7%
Total reported
1,341,156
SSI - first report I've seen since Friday where Dr Oz is less than a thousand votes ahead of McC.
Note this race is well within min 5% dif to trigger automatic recount under PA law, decided by mid June UNLESS taken to court post-recount by losing candidate.
I am not a drinker, but to celebrate Paul Brand's report in a few minutes on ITV News at 10,, I pondered, a bottle of Reverend James or a Gwynt y DDraig Black Dragon cider. I plumped for the cider. Very nice too, but is it a party?
Millions of people sat at home and seeing those pictures would be sure that if they had done that the police would have fined them.
And indeed, as she did not say, thousands were fined for exactly this behaviour.
The long-standing bi-partisan policy of "strategic ambiguity" has been overturned.
You'd like for things to be thought of as equivalent, but they aren't.
The next 10 days are an everyday crisis for Boris, and I am not sure he will survive as this furore is out of his control
To my mind Sue Gray's report is critical for Boris, as each event is detailed and who actually organised them, and if he is given a pass was it that he attended the event briefly as he continued work
It would be foolish to make light of this
I think the US is going to end up with a bloody nose, at some point, though.
The post 1945 settlement might last a little longer, but it’s ultimately unsustainable, absent US hegemony.
Had the US President made a similar commitment to Ukraine before the invasion, even though it was not in NATO whose member states have automatic US intervention to defend, Russia may never have invaded.
Frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn.
I mean. I think it's overblown. But "having made no effort whatsoever to see what I am being interviewed about" is a pretty pathetic excuse.
You'd be sanctioned if this was a DWP mandated interview for openly taking the piss.
For the decade I have been advising people on reducing their energy costs, the single most effective measure has been to switch regularly - and we now have services to make it easy.
Often saves 25%+. Then generally as much again can be saved by low-hanging fruit of energy saving measures.
That's not working at the moment for obvious reasons, and the regulation has undermined the gains to an extent since about 2019.
@PickardJE
·
4h
the Lib Dems have written to the Independent Office for Police Conduct re the Met’s failure to fine Johnson at the party in the pictures
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-01/blackout-risk-spooks-switzerland-after-eu-raises-no-deal-stakes
I wonder if observing what has happened Ch will consider opting out.
Or that Brussels might very suddenly discover that more flexibility is possible, bearing in mind that Portugal and Spain are being significantly isolated from the EU-wide market.
EDIT:
1st December: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
@kitty_donaldson
·
1h
Seems likely the Home Affairs Committee will want to hear from the Met Police about their decision-making process over #Partygate. Also puts
@DurhamPolice
under a lot of pressure over their Keir Starmer investigation
So. By that logic...
Theresa May went up against the Jezziah and almost blew everything up. People may not like Boris but the fact is he IS clearly an election winner.
To deny that is just silly.
But that is what politicians like Johnson and Trump do. If you play a straight bat against them, they will run rings around you. Indulge in even the palest of dark arts and they squark about your hypocricy. And then run rings around you.
There's a piece by Hugo Rifkind in tomorrow's Times that nails it in a bitter admiration sort of way. To quote the headline and subhead;
PM’s superpower is to trivialise everything
Boris Johnson’s greatest ability is to twist reality so that critics of his dishonesty sound as though they’re unhinged
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pms-superpower-is-to-trivialise-everything-cjxrq2tvs
Right now, electrical generators are paid according to:
(1) How much electricity they produce, and (for gas, coal, etc) the market price for that energy
(2) A capacity payment for dispatchable power
The idea of (2) was to ensure that there would always be enough power generation available in the even the sun was not shining and the wind not blowing. Basically, that slightly out of date plant might not produce a lot of energy a year, but this way the capacity payments ensured it stayed open (and available) rather being shuttered.
There was only one problem - which I identified in a white paper in 2015 - which is that the owners of these power plants didn't actually have to have any coal or gas for their plants, they only needed to have the plant.
What this meant is that - with the exception of the Norwegian supply contract - pretty much none of the UK's gas is on long-term contracts.
In the event that it became impossible to get LNG deliveries (because you were outbid by the Spanish), well, you might not be able to actually generate power, but you'd still get paid the capacity payment.
“No” relates to “can the pm tell the house whether…” not whether there was a part
“I’m sure.. guidance … and rules were followed” makes it his belief not fact.
He’s clever with words.
My view remains that it’s the political blowback among votes (eg Foxy above) that matters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61551650
It seems quite likely from the report that it was his own lovable tail-wagger, which makes laughing like a drain a legitimate option.
Really don't know, but interesting because I would assume they would avoid using his picture, but haven't so definitely interesting.
I may not like Blair much from 2001 onwards but he was/is a winner. He's up there in the premier league of post WWII election winning PM's with Wilson and Thatch no question. It would be silly to deny otherwise...
However. Tony would be.
Case 1. Leaving do. Big piss up. Table weighed down with booze.
Case 2. A late evening take away curry. Washed down with a lager.
No difference?
Dominic Cummings
@Dominic2306
·
10h
🛒 trying usual SW1 trick - blame junior women, many of whom saved many lives by forcing him to change idiotic decisions.
====
Interesting. There's a tale here I suspect.
And people let their dogs lick their face.
Dog owners should be deported.
Boris Johnson suggested Sue Gray should drop her full report given police investigation during secret meeting earlier this month, Times told
He is said to have asked her if there was much point in publishing it given that ‘it’s all out there’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1528849576798654471
OK, it's a unnamed source, but it's also the front page of The Times.
https://twitter.com/KannoYoungs/status/1528208720869478401
Biden was asked by @kaitlancollins if he had a message for Kim Jong-un. “Hello,” he said before pausing for a couple seconds. “Period.”
It'd be crazier that Farooq's dog distaste.
He's still around. The country's gone to pot since he left.
I understand that is not a popular opinion.
being part of a panel together
sharing the same values
Having a video message played at a global political conference at which someone with unsavoury views subsequently spoke
But really, this is all gaslighting. This isn't some fucking Oxford debating circle-jerk. This is the governance of the fucking country, and it's plain as day Boris lied.
No (I can't tell the house). Come off it.
Utter bollocks.
Clearly not allowed under the law at the time.