For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
You think it is OK for politicians to lie to parliament? I can assure you that goes against conventions going back centuries
I think politicians do lie to parliament and I don't think "conventions" can stop them. And given their last period in office, I think Labour are in no position to get on their high horse about it.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
It certainly can be though. Lies of omission should be taken quite seriously too.
@DPJHodges Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
Another copy-cat!
Sunak is TT
So he refuses to allow others to imbibe in his presence? Doubt it!
BUT in his official office? After how BoJo went and trashed it like an Old Bullingtonian? Probably not!
My guess is that they are having PLENTY of fun without anything stronger than lemonade.
My question re: list of MPs who did NOT vote on Windsor Framework today, is this: which ones abstained out of opposition (in some degree) to WF, compared with MPs who were otherwise detained (hopefully just as figure of speech) for example Jenkin?
This legal chap, whilst not a Trump fan, has done a lot of videos setting out legitimate and potentially strong defences Trump can and will use for several of his legal issues, and his speculations on the potential Trump Story Daniels indictment did at least provide a clearer background to me about what specifically is alleged and issues like statute of limitations and other matters, and of course the question of intent (as Trump is so confused about so many things) (19m).
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
You think it is OK for politicians to lie to parliament? I can assure you that goes against conventions going back centuries
I think politicians do lie to parliament and I don't think "conventions" can stop them. And given their last period in office, I think Labour are in no position to get on their high horse about it.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
It certainly can be though. Lies of omission should be taken quite seriously too.
On the other hand: I am not a lawyer. I am nit trained to speak, or dissect other people's speech in real time. If I was in court (which I thankfully never have been) I would try my darndest to answer only the question asked directly, and not to expand on it, giving the opposition any ammunition - because I may nor realise that my 'innocent' clarification is ammunition.
It's a blooming fine line to tread, between lie and lies of omission.
We won't learn much from tomorrow's by-elections. There is only one and it is in a pretty safe Conservative seat in North Northamptonshire. We can also have an early night as they are not counting till Friday.
This legal chap, whilst not a Trump fan, has done a lot of videos setting out legitimate and potentially strong defences Trump can and will use for several of his legal issues, and his speculations on the potential Trump Story Daniels indictment did at least provide a clearer background to me about what specifically is alleged and issues like statute of limitations and other matters, and of course the question of intent (as Trump is so confused about so many things) (19m).
No-one watching the quizzing of @BorisJohnson can be in any doubt that the committee will now conclude that he recklessly misled MPs by repeating & relying on assurances that rules and guidance had not been broken inside Downing Street 1/3
Indeed. And with that, his lack of contrition and antagonising the Comittee will do for him.
Let's have a recall vote. For the shitz and gigglez.
I don't know how she concluded he was the right choice given her comments below.
Casey hit back on Wednesday and told the police and crime committee of the London assembly that Rowley was wrong, but stressed he was the right choice to reform the Met.
Casey said: “When people say something’s become politicised, it’s often a get out of jail card for the word difficult. I’ve heard it so many times, I’m sorry, you’re dealing with a dinosaur, I’ve been around a long time. And sometimes it is right that we step into what is difficult.”
Heading for "reckless" misleading and a sanction short of that needed for recall. He survives.
That's my view having watched it all and not checked any punditry on here or elsewhere.
I think that’s a fair assessment . We all know he’s a pathological liar but proving that is another matter.
I think reckless misleading would be sufficient though to end any delusional ambitions of a return to no 10.
Events elsewhere confirm that too. He needed a barnstorming committee performance and to lead a 100+ MP rebellion. He got neither. Time to go off and make some more speeches for hire.
The rise in inflation must have been a disappointing start to the Prime Minister's day.
Let's see what kind of deal is finally struck with the RMT and ASLEF - if they've got inflation or above-inflation pay increases, let's see who pays for it in terms of services.
The Northern Ireland legislation was always going to pass of course and inasmuch as it's clear most Conservative MPs are prepared to back the Prime Minister for now, let's see what happens in the next few months.
As for Johnson, how this can be "good news" for Sunak mystifies me - Sunak wasn't a disinterested observer, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and his actions during the Covid pandemic will in time be questioned perhaps by the Covid public enquiry.
As for Starmer being "embroiled", it's fodder for the Conservative press but as nothing against the appearance of a former Prime Minister - I suspect it won't change many votes.
The BBC, it seems, plays it as it is not as some on here would like it to be.
"Boris can choose to look like a pound shop Nigel Farage"
(Speaking before vote, talking about if Boris votes No)
That's sad. Baker has been open about his mental health struggles, but he seems really husk-like at the moment. All sold out to Sunak and lashing out at anyone who hasn't.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
"very" is a bit bold. Encouraging direction, maybe.....
The next YouGov will be interesting - apart from Deltapoll which is beginning to look like a bit of an outlier, the Conservatives have been unchanged with Opinium and down a point with both Survation and R&W,
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Let's see what kind of deal is finally struck with the RMT and ASLEF - if they've got inflation or above-inflation pay increases, let's see who pays for it in terms of services.
We know RMT has accepted 5% (2022), 4% (2023), with 2023 rise backdated to Oct 2022 from Network Rail.
There is no way the Train Operating Companies will be offering them anything more.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
"very" is a bit bold. Encouraging direction, maybe.....
The next YouGov will be interesting - apart from Deltapoll which is beginning to look like a bit of an outlier, the Conservatives have been unchanged with Opinium and down a point with both Survation and R&W,
I doubt it will make much difference but it is the direction of travel for Sunak who has been greatly strengthened in his party today
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
Admittedly she is just the one person. 😇
But the point is, if Boris and Rishi faced off amongst the party membership today, who would win? So what Sunak definitely doesn’t need is Boris teetering on cliff edge with Rishi pushing him over it cartoons - if you know what I mean?
My dad is going to be 87 this year, and is still driving after driving well over a million miles in his life. My mum is a less accomplished driver, and is still driving.
For my dad in particular, driving is part of his life. He is aware of his declining skills - he avoids driving at night, for instance, as his depth reception has decreased - but there will come a time when cannot drive. That will be a really significant point in his life, and one which many people will want to delay as long as possible. Perhaps too long.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
The lifetime limit itself was bad policy (overly complex, confusing and sometimes creating bad economic incentives) but if removing it to benefit the rich during a time when nearly everyones finances and the govts are stretched then it needed something in the opposite direction too.
I think removing lifetime limit, moving the £40k annual contribution up by inflation rather than to £60k but making pensions subject to normal inheritance tax would have been a reasonable balance.
As it is we shall have a new boom industry of pension sellers pointing out a cheap and easy exemption from IHT.
Heading for "reckless" misleading and a sanction short of that needed for recall. He survives.
That's my view having watched it all and not checked any punditry on here or elsewhere.
Does he get additional sanction for every time he lied to Parliament?
What would be hilarious is if they call this process to a close, and give him a punishment that falls short of recall, then immediately open another one into lying to this one.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
Admittedly she is just the one person. 😇
But the point is, if Boris and Rishi faced off amongst the party membership today, who would win? So what Sunak definitely doesn’t need is Boris teetering on cliff edge with Rishi pushing him over it cartoons - if you know what I mean?
Now now, don't tantalise HYUFD with dreams of whole Wetherspoons full of the Boris Defence League.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
Let's see what kind of deal is finally struck with the RMT and ASLEF - if they've got inflation or above-inflation pay increases, let's see who pays for it in terms of services.
We know RMT has accepted 5% (2022), 4% (2023), with 2023 rise backdated to Oct 2022 from Network Rail.
There is no way the Train Operating Companies will be offering them anything more.
It's miles less than inflation.
Again, we don't know the details. It's not always about the money - if it's about changes in working practices advantageous to the Unions and their members they will take that as a win in lieu of money.
Let's see what kind of deal is finally struck with the RMT and ASLEF - if they've got inflation or above-inflation pay increases, let's see who pays for it in terms of services.
We know RMT has accepted 5% (2022), 4% (2023), with 2023 rise backdated to Oct 2022 from Network Rail.
There is no way the Train Operating Companies will be offering them anything more.
It's miles less than inflation.
The point the RMT made was that whilst they weren't celebrating a below inflation deal, they had seen off the proposed reforms which would have had a serious impact on safety.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
Admittedly she is just the one person. 😇
But the point is, if Boris and Rishi faced off amongst the party membership today, who would win? So what Sunak definitely doesn’t need is Boris teetering on cliff edge with Rishi pushing him over it cartoons - if you know what I mean?
I think Rishi, just.
In case the vote today proved there is zero chance of Conservative MPs voting for a vote of no confidence in Rishi before the next general election so the above is merely hypothetical
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
Admittedly she is just the one person. 😇
But the point is, if Boris and Rishi faced off amongst the party membership today, who would win? So what Sunak definitely doesn’t need is Boris teetering on cliff edge with Rishi pushing him over it cartoons - if you know what I mean?
But that isn't the point, the point is you said they were angry at how the conservatives have treated Boris - what do they think the party has done to him?
I don't dount he has major support sitll in the party, but I'm unclear how they are choosing to rationalise that support.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
What, exactly, have 'the conservatives' done to Boris?
The way it was explained, by a Boris, Farage and Brexit fan, Boris was under attack by the Conservative Parties enemies, and the Conservative Party were not defending him.
Can’t you work that out yourself? that some people may still be on Boris side? and from their perspective the Tory’s did not protect one of their own from enemy attack.
Take the poll in the header for example, which is categorical and I think certainly accurate. But then ask the follow up, but do you care?
Some do. But are you saying there is no one out there who say, yeah of course he lied about the parties, but I don’t give a toss about that, it’s not a problem with me.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Heading for "reckless" misleading and a sanction short of that needed for recall. He survives.
That's my view having watched it all and not checked any punditry on here or elsewhere.
I think that’s a fair assessment . We all know he’s a pathological liar but proving that is another matter.
I think reckless misleading would be sufficient though to end any delusional ambitions of a return to no 10.
Boris said no-one ever told him there was a problem with COVID rules being broken. Cummings says he explicitly warned Johnson about the garden party. Lee Cain confirms Cummings said at the time that he had raised the matter with Johnson. Boris explains Cummings’ testimony as just Cummings being out to get him.
It’s not a slam dunk, but that look like an outright lie. Cain’s evidence undermines Johnson’s explanation for why Cummings is saying this. Cummings says one thing, Boris another, but we have a witness supporting Cummings. Johnson could’ve Sturgeon’d it and said he didn’t remember, but, no, he explicitly denies Cummings’ account.
On the balance of probabilities, I think that proves Johnson is lying.
'...His lack of contrition and antagonising the Comittee will do for him.'
About sums it up, Mark.
You could see the Committee's patience wearing thin. Boris's testiness was not a good look.
I thought he was sunk before the meeting but now.... ? Looks like recall time to me.
He may have calculated that the angrier he can make the Committee the better he can play on Conservative sympathy that their decision is biased because they are angry and dislike him. He may not have accounted for how few it will take to pass any sanction.
My dad is going to be 87 this year, and is still driving after driving well over a million miles in his life. My mum is a less accomplished driver, and is still driving.
For my dad in particular, driving is part of his life. He is aware of his declining skills - he avoids driving at night, for instance, as his depth reception has decreased - but there will come a time when cannot drive. That will be a really significant point in his life, and one which many people will want to delay as long as possible. Perhaps too long.
Of course, one problem is that your reliance increases as your abilities decline. Hopping on a bus or bike, or strolling to the shops is easier in your 60s than 80s.
Depth perception is a big problem for driving, but it's also a big problem for tripping up on steps.
So although clearly people should give up, the practical reasons not to in many ways increase.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
"very" is a bit bold. Encouraging direction, maybe.....
The next YouGov will be interesting - apart from Deltapoll which is beginning to look like a bit of an outlier, the Conservatives have been unchanged with Opinium and down a point with both Survation and R&W,
Taking about Partygate is bad for the Conservatives. Maybe in the long term killing off Johnson’s chances of a political return benefits Sunak, but short term I don’t think voters think “that was Boris, nothing to do with the current Government”. Lots of focus on Partygate is, I think, likely to depress the Conservative poll rating. Bad inflation figures don’t help either.
I suspect other issues, while important, like the Windsor Framework, won’t cut through.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
On the latest Survation the Conservative voteshare will be 3% more in May than the 28% it was in the local elections of May 2019, so the Conservatives could even make net gains. Especially from the Liberal Democrats and Independents
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
What, exactly, have 'the conservatives' done to Boris?
The way it was explained, by a Boris, Farage and Brexit fan, Boris was under attack by the Conservative Parties enemies, and the Conservative Party were not defending him.
Can’t you work that out yourself? that some people may still be on Boris side? and from their perspective the Tory’s did not protect one of their own from enemy attack.
Take the poll in the header for example, which is categorical and I think certainly accurate. But then ask the follow up, but do you care?
Some do. But are you saying there is no one out there who say, yeah of course he lied about the parties, but I don’t give a toss about that, it’s not a problem with me.
I have never said that. I think the Members would choose Boris again tomorrow. I've also praised his judgement on occasion and that he has surprised people time and again, even though I dislike him. But why should I have worked out a specific reason myself when you were the one making an assertion about their reasoning? I'm not a mindreader, though you appear to be doing a lot of that to infer what you believe I think.
Their reasoning is irrational whining to boot. The government has paid for Boris's legal advice for a start, and it hasn't even gotten the point of deciding whether or not to support a sanction - we do not even know what the sanction will be. So what are they expecting the party to have done?
I'm prepared to believe the Committee cannot prove Boris knowingly mislead parliament, even though I find his defence on that point insulting. Your respondents by contrast seem to believe the Conservative Party, which is not running the investigation, should have stopped it somehow?
Defending someone as a reflex because the 'enemy' is attacking them is also the height of partisan ridiculousness. People will naturally have a preference and inclination to support people based on their current and past affiliations, but it isn't supposed to be without any conditions whatsoever - otherwise we literally are just saying 'my side can do anything because it's my side'
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
Have you ever dealt with a four/five year old whose hands and face are covered with chocolate who then spend the next 4 hours denying they haven't eaten the missing sweeties?
That's what watching Boris Johnson today was like.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
"It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying"
I am really, really surprised that you are of that opinion.
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
It wasn't particularly exciting. Very few will have changed their minds either way despite the pb overtones being against Bozo. I actually think he performed as well as he could have done given his positions of:
You dont know what I was thinking I was thinking someone from a fairytale No one bothered to tell me my fairytale was not true You dont have to agree with me but dont call me a liar
It was an impossible gig and he came out a bit more battered but not much.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
I think he's a lot more palatable to LDs and probably a meaningless smidgen more palatable to the SNP, but I don't think either are enough to make them viable coalition partners.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
With whom? Sunak is more competent, but isn't in any meaningful sense more palatable to the Lib Dems or SNP.
Really?
Yes. Sunak is an original Brexiteer and a key part of his agenda is a hardline approach on immigration that doesn't accord with either Lib Dem or SNP values (it might actually appeal to some of their voters but it's not them deciding on a coalition).
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a very right wing Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some even more hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors that made them fundamentally unsuited to hold the office does not change that political reality.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Because, like the senior doctors, they were retiring because of a pension trap.
IIRC they were especially hit by a combination of a Judicial Pension reform in 2015 and subsequent changes in the limits in contributions - @PBLawyers?
Evening all! Will have to watch some packaged clips of the show as I've been unavailable to watch.
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
"It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying"
I am really, really surprised that you are of that opinion.
The testimony is worse on film than it was listening on the radio. An absolutely outrageous, contemptuous performance by a scoundrel. Awful!
Yes, I've been busy at work but I heard that he was less than completely convincing. Quelle surprise.
I'm 95% certain that the committee will find against him, and impose a penalty stiff enough to open the way for a recall petition. The man's defence is risible, and the committee members must know that letting him off with a slap on the wrist - a two-minute mumbled apology to the chamber, which everyone knows he won't mean a single word of - will make Parliament appear both weak and craven, and simply make MPs, who are not well regarded by most of the electorate as it is, look far worse. It will be viewed as a licence to con the people.
If a recommendation for a lengthy suspension makes it to the House then it will pass, and Johnson has had it.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
Hence the change that Hunt made in the budget. For everyone. Because you can keep expansing the circle of the "deserving".
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
Because, like the senior doctors, they were retiring because of a pension trap.
IIRC they were especially hit by a combination of a Judicial Pension reform in 2015 and subsequent changes in the limits in contributions - @PBLawyers?
It is a way of governments reducing payroll during their term of office and passing the cost onto future taxpayers.
It is a rubbish way of organising our public finances and an even worse way of managing our laws.
Some would hold the government of the day responsible. Others prefer to hold the opposition to account for the governments laws but hey ho, thems the times we live in.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
Daft talk. How can a policy to gift bung to friends and supporters be effective policy to gift bung to friends and supporters, if it’s limited to very wealthy doctors 🤷♀️
More interestingly, how did the Telegraph get it? Is it still playing fair in love war and politics if the government gave it to the Telegraph?
Gave with note on timing of publishing, that both the policy and the front page today were all cooked up by the same people in same room, weeks ago?
Good day for Sunak. Carries the vote without having to rely on external support. Bad day for embittered former PMs.
The next polls could be very good for Sunak.
50% of my own personal focus group telling me tonight angry at the conservatives treatment of Boris, and thinking of switching from Sunak to Reform.
Where was this focus group taken, with over 50 white non graduate Leave voters in the Dog and Duck?
We need to know the views of the 11 farmers in someones pub from last week too. Better than yougov them.
Fortunately half the farmers round here or their wives are or were Tory councillors
What about farmers mums?
Especially farmers mums
You may be taking the ****, but I think that’s an interesting subset of people to survey how they think today has gone.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
Boris has to hold Uxbridge to be a contender for Leader of the Opposition if Rishi loses the next general election
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
No not by a long way but today was an important moment for Sunak and the direction of the conservative party
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
Today has brought him a breather until the May local elections but they will be a completely different test.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
I doubt we will see net heavy Conservative losses. The Conservatives were in a terrible place when these were last contested. They will lose seats to Labour, but the LibDems were riding much higher in 2019.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
To be honest, scrapping the overall £1m lifetime limit on tax-free pensions savings in the Tory budget announced last week is a policy that absolutely stinks. As regressive and wasteful approach to tackling a problem as anything else these 13 years of Tory government has come up with. It should and will quite rightly come under sustained attack from now I think from the point of view claiming it helps NHS is why they done it is actually a patent lie - only a relatively small number of better-off workers will stay in the workforce a bit longer - it’s effectively just a bung to the rich, which these Tories have been doing throughout these 13 years while at same time forcing austerity on everybody else’s incomes.
Also, that increase for the DPP seems to have been part of a wider change for judges as well. But we don't seem to hear about that. Probably because PBTories like to try and make everything personal about SKS.
The law was very personal to Keir Starmer
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
Thanks - I had not realised such an act existed. Yet judges also had a similar provision, presumabluy for similar reasons?
He is no longer DPP. He is firmly outside the law profession. *If* the rules apply only to the time (and pension he accrued) whilst DPP, then it's odd, but excusable. If it gives him an advantage to the money he earns whilst not being part of the law profession - say, as an MP or LOTO, then it stinks.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It was done to stop very experienced senior judges leaving the workforce. Which goes to show that if the Govt was worried about very experienced senior doctors leaving the workforce, they could have introduced a doctors-only rule. They didn’t.
It all sounds highly odd to me. How about people in the private sector, who are high-earning and employ many people? You know, the people who actually do things?
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
'...His lack of contrition and antagonising the Comittee will do for him.'
About sums it up, Mark.
You could see the Committee's patience wearing thin. Boris's testiness was not a good look.
I thought he was sunk before the meeting but now.... ? Looks like recall time to me.
He may have calculated that the angrier he can make the Committee the better he can play on Conservative sympathy that their decision is biased because they are angry and dislike him. He may not have accounted for how few it will take to pass any sanction.
Reminds me of the death of Talleyrand, when Metternich remarked "I wonder what he meant by that?"
Sometimes you can read far, far too much into things and they are exactly as they appear. Johnson is known to have a temper and show it when he doesn't get his way. That's what happened. There is no rational reason not to be nice to people who have your balls in a vice - there are plenty of irrational reasons, but no rational ones.
Boris: I work incredibly hard, have a great intellect and have great judgement as PM. I achieved so much great stuff.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
Comments
BUT in his official office? After how BoJo went and trashed it like an Old Bullingtonian? Probably not!
My guess is that they are having PLENTY of fun without anything stronger than lemonade.
Louise Casey accuses Met police chief of ‘hollow’ reasoning on failings
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/22/louise-casey-accuses-met-police-chief-of-hollow-reasoning-on-failings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRbRdE2pGv0
It's a blooming fine line to tread, between lie and lies of omission.
Let's have a recall vote. For the shitz and gigglez.
Casey hit back on Wednesday and told the police and crime committee of the London assembly that Rowley was wrong, but stressed he was the right choice to reform the Met.
Casey said: “When people say something’s become politicised, it’s often a get out of jail card for the word difficult. I’ve heard it so many times, I’m sorry, you’re dealing with a dinosaur, I’ve been around a long time. And sometimes it is right that we step into what is difficult.”
Today has achieved everything you’ve wanted to see since I have been reading the site, has it not?
Sleep well tonight.
Harriet: "But you passed drinks to each other"
Boris: "Yes, of course"
Pure Fawlty Towers!
Let's see what kind of deal is finally struck with the RMT and ASLEF - if they've got inflation or above-inflation pay increases, let's see who pays for it in terms of services.
The Northern Ireland legislation was always going to pass of course and inasmuch as it's clear most Conservative MPs are prepared to back the Prime Minister for now, let's see what happens in the next few months.
As for Johnson, how this can be "good news" for Sunak mystifies me - Sunak wasn't a disinterested observer, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and his actions during the Covid pandemic will in time be questioned perhaps by the Covid public enquiry.
As for Starmer being "embroiled", it's fodder for the Conservative press but as nothing against the appearance of a former Prime Minister - I suspect it won't change many votes.
The BBC, it seems, plays it as it is not as some on here would like it to be.
"Boris can choose to look like a pound shop Nigel Farage"
(Speaking before vote, talking about if Boris votes No)
WF to be ratified by UK and EU London on Friday, two days after the ERG could only muster 22 against
Sunak is entitled to a quiet drink of coke cola tonight after a successful PMQ's, endorsement across the HOC of the WF, the utter humiliation of Johnson largely by 4 if his own mps, and tonight the RMT call off the strikes against the Rail Delivery Group
There is no way the Train Operating Companies will be offering them anything more.
It's miles less than inflation.
Hollywood legend Dick Van Dyke reportedly lost control of his car and crashed into a gate on Wednesday morning, TMZ first reported.
The 97-year-old is said to have lost control of the wheel of his Lexus over wet streets in Malibu, California, recently drenched by rain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65038802
But the point is, if Boris and Rishi faced off amongst the party membership today, who would win? So what Sunak definitely doesn’t need is Boris teetering on cliff edge with Rishi pushing him over it cartoons - if you know what I mean?
For my dad in particular, driving is part of his life. He is aware of his declining skills - he avoids driving at night, for instance, as his depth reception has decreased - but there will come a time when cannot drive. That will be a really significant point in his life, and one which many people will want to delay as long as possible. Perhaps too long.
I think removing lifetime limit, moving the £40k annual contribution up by inflation rather than to £60k but making pensions subject to normal inheritance tax would have been a reasonable balance.
As it is we shall have a new boom industry of pension sellers pointing out a cheap and easy exemption from IHT.
For morethan the last year you have been telling us, the Tories simply need to lose their overall majority and it’s Starmer Primeminister, becuase the Tories are UnCoalition-able. Now that adults are back in control of the Conservatives, putting together a very effective government, Rishi’s ratings rising as well as the parties polling numbers, are they still UnCoalition-able?
Or, if the post election numberwork has Rishi much closer to 326 than Starmer, is a Conservative led coalition quickly becoming a serious political bet?
Or something.
Bit like those trade union votes in the Labour conferences back in the 80s
“I cast my vote - Against”
“I cast my vote - Against”
“I cast 1,432,456 votes - For”
“Motion carried, comrades”
'...His lack of contrition and antagonising the Comittee will do for him.'
About sums it up, Mark.
You could see the Committee's patience wearing thin. Boris's testiness was not a good look.
I thought he was sunk before the meeting but now.... ? Looks like recall time to me.
If we see heavy Conservative losses and backbenchers seeing their "safe" majorities under threat, the mood could shift very quickly as we've seen before.
In case the vote today proved there is zero chance of Conservative MPs voting for a vote of no confidence in Rishi before the next general election so the above is merely hypothetical
I don't dount he has major support sitll in the party, but I'm unclear how they are choosing to rationalise that support.
Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(1)), as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Regulations)
These Regulations apply the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to any pension payable under the pension scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for these Regulations as they have no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2588/contents/made
Can’t you work that out yourself? that some people may still be on Boris side? and from their perspective the Tory’s did not protect one of their own from enemy attack.
Take the poll in the header for example, which is categorical and I think certainly accurate. But then ask the follow up, but do you care?
Some do. But are you saying there is no one out there who say, yeah of course he lied about the parties, but I don’t give a toss about that, it’s not a problem with me.
It’s not a slam dunk, but that look like an outright lie. Cain’s evidence undermines Johnson’s explanation for why Cummings is saying this. Cummings says one thing, Boris another, but we have a witness supporting Cummings. Johnson could’ve Sturgeon’d it and said he didn’t remember, but, no, he explicitly denies Cummings’ account.
On the balance of probabilities, I think that proves Johnson is lying.
Depth perception is a big problem for driving, but it's also a big problem for tripping up on steps.
So although clearly people should give up, the practical reasons not to in many ways increase.
It's not often you find a case where it is literally "One law for them, one law for the rest of us".
I suspect other issues, while important, like the Windsor Framework, won’t cut through.
But widening it a little, why should judges get special treatment?
It does sound like Johnson has been proven to have been massively lying - both to parliament and to the committee. I know the consensus view has been 'sanction but not the ultimate sanction.'
I'm not sure now. If he had been apologetic and humble - "whoops, sorry" - then perhaps. But he has done the opposite. If they aren't going to smash him with penalties for this, you have to ask what you have to do to receive them?
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1638607159960150018?s=20
Their reasoning is irrational whining to boot. The government has paid for Boris's legal advice for a start, and it hasn't even gotten the point of deciding whether or not to support a sanction - we do not even know what the sanction will be. So what are they expecting the party to have done?
I'm prepared to believe the Committee cannot prove Boris knowingly mislead parliament, even though I find his defence on that point insulting. Your respondents by contrast seem to believe the Conservative Party, which is not running the investigation, should have stopped it somehow?
Defending someone as a reflex because the 'enemy' is attacking them is also the height of partisan ridiculousness. People will naturally have a preference and inclination to support people based on their current and past affiliations, but it isn't supposed to be without any conditions whatsoever - otherwise we literally are just saying 'my side can do anything because it's my side'
That's what watching Boris Johnson today was like.
I am really, really surprised that you are of that opinion.
You can’t just rely on did he lie or not polls, it needs the “does it bother you much” follow up.
And it’s not really across the whole population either that’s important as to wether he makes a comeback as Tory leader soon enough, such as when Rishi resigns next year.
You dont know what I was thinking
I was thinking someone from a fairytale
No one bothered to tell me my fairytale was not true
You dont have to agree with me but dont call me a liar
It was an impossible gig and he came out a bit more battered but not much.
On the face of it, it stinks for judges. It doubly stinks for Starmer.
https://twitter.com/cartoon4sale/status/1638612515532984325
It was hard enough for the Lib Dems to go into coalition in 2010. That was at the time justified (I think rightly) based on compelling reasons to bring economic stability via a Government that could (and easily did) provide five solid years of political stability. It was helped by Brown being difficult, Cameron pretty liberal, several key Labour figures (notably Miliband, D) being hostile to a deal, and the numbers not working. And with hindsight it was a disaster for Clegg's party.
The position now is EASILY less amenable for a deal by a very, very long way. And in Scotland it makes even less sense - the fact the new SNP leader may be somewhat socially conservative for religious reasons does not mean she sees any merit in a Tory deal, and the political problems with it are blindingly obvious.
Sunak is a very right wing Tory holding together a party where he has to hand out goodies to some even more hardcore culture warriors. The fact he doesn't have the extreme character flaws of his two immediate predecessors that made them fundamentally unsuited to hold the office does not change that political reality.
IIRC they were especially hit by a combination of a Judicial Pension reform in 2015 and subsequent changes in the limits in contributions - @PBLawyers?
I'm 95% certain that the committee will find against him, and impose a penalty stiff enough to open the way for a recall petition. The man's defence is risible, and the committee members must know that letting him off with a slap on the wrist - a two-minute mumbled apology to the chamber, which everyone knows he won't mean a single word of - will make Parliament appear both weak and craven, and simply make MPs, who are not well regarded by most of the electorate as it is, look far worse. It will be viewed as a licence to con the people.
If a recommendation for a lengthy suspension makes it to the House then it will pass, and Johnson has had it.
Boris fans: The above is true, yet somehow he was easily brought down by phony allegations 2.5 years after winning a massive majority, by a cabal of weak traitors or something. I guess because Tory MPs love engaging in self sabotage.
Also Boris: I found lockdown rules too confusing to understand, but this in no way undermines my above point. I take what I am told on faith and expecting me to make my own judgement call is absurd.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/802/made
It is a rubbish way of organising our public finances and an even worse way of managing our laws.
Some would hold the government of the day responsible. Others prefer to hold the opposition to account for the governments laws but hey ho, thems the times we live in.
More interestingly, how did the Telegraph get it? Is it still playing fair in love war and politics if the government gave it to the Telegraph?
Gave with note on timing of publishing, that both the policy and the front page today were all cooked up by the same people in same room, weeks ago?
Sometimes you can read far, far too much into things and they are exactly as they appear. Johnson is known to have a temper and show it when he doesn't get his way. That's what happened. There is no rational reason not to be nice to people who have your balls in a vice - there are plenty of irrational reasons, but no rational ones.