Thinking a little more on the comedy of Lee Anderson being hired as a news anchor I do have to float the question - are the mad right now intoxicated from the smell of their own farts?
Propaganda is a dark art - needs to be subtle and convincing at times, rabble rousing at others. When it is at its most effective is when it is barely detectable as such. And yet the hate and suspicion of both extremes towards the "mainstream media" pushes both in turn to produce their own news which is a pitiful parody.
The hard left tried its own online news platform - The Canary - and then its own "TV" service - Novara. Short of cash neither were convincing in their presentation, and their content was so absurdly one-sided that it was excruciatingly obvious what it was.
The hard nats have their own newspaper - The National - which prints comedy "come on everyone lets cheer the boss!" headlines. A Scottish version of the Daily Express.
Neither of these fell into the trap the hard right have done with GBeebies. They've started hiring serving Tory MPs - not as guests, but as presenters. They have the budget and the production values so it looks like news. But increasingly we have Tory MPs presenting "news" where they interview Tory MPs.
Aside from their core 20%, does anyone pay any attention to it? They already have newspapers which tell utter whoppers (cf Big-Gs take on the Heil's front page). But the whoppers are written by 3rd parties - they don't have Lee Anderson write the story or even the headlines.
So why do it on their TV News station? Talking to yourselves and only yourselves is reassuring I am sure. But if the aim is to win hearts and minds, to be a mass movement the masses will once again vote for, this isn't the right approach - self-parody.
Having serving MPs as TV "news" presenters is a novelty that I don't recall happening before, and it isn't a positive development.
The splintering of media and narrow-casting news outlets, so we can all sit in our micro-bubbles is not a good thing for national unity.
At what point does GB News die? It's losing lots of money, and doesn't work as a propaganda outfit, because its audience is tiny. "Look Up The Western East Of The Region Where You Are Tonight" tiny.
Sunak is trying to pretend the Johnson years and Truss weeks were nothing to do with him. He was Johnsons Chancellor, lived next door to all the parties, yet strangely didn't notice them. He was at the cabinet table for years with Truss and Kwarteng etc. He put Braverman as Home Sec.
It doesn't work for me or many others. There needs to be a reckoning.
Yup just like Starmrr and Labour forget the years of sitting with and voting for Corbyn. That stench on the room is hypocrisy.
You do realise Foxy is a LibDem ? I think you're smelling your own emanations.
I do - they were on my lifetime in coalition with the Tory party maybe not all bad....
In some ways what's more telling is "the dog that didn't bark". Johnson not even mentioned on the front page of the Sun. Meanwhile the damage done to the Conservative brand is still very much present:
Sunak is trying to pretend the Johnson years and Truss weeks were nothing to do with him. He was Johnsons Chancellor, lived next door to all the parties, yet strangely didn't notice them. He was at the cabinet table for years with Truss and Kwarteng etc. He put Braverman as Home Sec.
It doesn't work for me or many others. There needs to be a reckoning.
And yet the failings of Labour under Corbyn are nothing to do with Starmer?
Labour have not been in government for over a decade. You get to reinvent yourself in opposition in a way that's much harder in government. Not that it's impossible.
That’s a different question.
This one was whether Sunak/Starmer were compromised by happily serving under a flawed leader
It's a spurious argument in both cases.
It can be taken too far, but its not entirely irrelevant either.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Labour's vote share looks pretty constant in all polls. It's the Tory vote share that is going up and down like an inappropriate analogy.
"Why didn't you ask a lawyer?" seems to me unreasonable - PMQs is every week, and the PM can't keep calling a lawyer for every possible question.
But it's not every question for every PMQs
BoZo was worried enough to ask somebody about it, but the person he chose to ask was a press secretary, not a lawyer, or even a civil servant.
And yes, he heard what he wanted to hear so didn't pursue it.
That was reckless
That he didn't accidentally figure out the true situation despite being immersed in covid talk for a year and more is pretty astonishing to claim. He never once had a second to doubt.
Have we done this ? The move for reparations for slavery is moving forward. Two Labour MPs demanded we pay reparations to descendents and in San Francisco a proposal to pay $5Million per eligble person plus $97K annual income for 250 years, one of many, is gathering quite a bit of support. Ironic as California was never a slave state but "racial justice" seems to be a growing priority these days.
The numbers here clearly are not going to work, but I note that the SF proposal reported by the Guardian is not "reparations for slavery" but "for decades of racist treatment by the city government" (i.e. racist housing policies, policing, etc). Those are actions that affected people still alive today, both directly and indirectly (if your father couldn't buy a house because of redlining, you are today a lot less financially well off as a consequence).
Trying to be vaguely fair, I'm half-persuaded that Johnson did get advice from various political appointees that he was OK to say what he did. I note that of the three apparently killer quotes that were used on Newsnight, two of them don't say they advised against, they just say they weren't among those who offered advice. The third expressed doubts but doesn't seem to haqve offered a strong opinion. "Why didn't you ask a lawyer?" seems to me unreasonable - PMQs is every week, and the PM can't keep calling a lawyer for every possible question. So I think various people told him what he wanted to hear and he happily went with it.
But the underlying positionm is of course outrageous - of course he shouldn't have assumed that the stringent regulations didn't apply to his circle, as he quite obviously did. The more people go into micro-detail, the weaker the case compared with that fundamental fact.
He was being told what to do by his SPADs. Which is how he was the time we spent together. But that is hardly prime ministerial, is it?
Thinking a little more on the comedy of Lee Anderson being hired as a news anchor I do have to float the question - are the mad right now intoxicated from the smell of their own farts?
Propaganda is a dark art - needs to be subtle and convincing at times, rabble rousing at others. When it is at its most effective is when it is barely detectable as such. And yet the hate and suspicion of both extremes towards the "mainstream media" pushes both in turn to produce their own news which is a pitiful parody.
The hard left tried its own online news platform - The Canary - and then its own "TV" service - Novara. Short of cash neither were convincing in their presentation, and their content was so absurdly one-sided that it was excruciatingly obvious what it was.
The hard nats have their own newspaper - The National - which prints comedy "come on everyone lets cheer the boss!" headlines. A Scottish version of the Daily Express.
Neither of these fell into the trap the hard right have done with GBeebies. They've started hiring serving Tory MPs - not as guests, but as presenters. They have the budget and the production values so it looks like news. But increasingly we have Tory MPs presenting "news" where they interview Tory MPs.
Aside from their core 20%, does anyone pay any attention to it? They already have newspapers which tell utter whoppers (cf Big-Gs take on the Heil's front page). But the whoppers are written by 3rd parties - they don't have Lee Anderson write the story or even the headlines.
So why do it on their TV News station? Talking to yourselves and only yourselves is reassuring I am sure. But if the aim is to win hearts and minds, to be a mass movement the masses will once again vote for, this isn't the right approach - self-parody.
If you are referring to me what are you saying my take on the mail was, as I utterly reject the mails idiotic front page and leader this morning
Yes I know you did - that is what I was referring to. You are pro-Tory pro-Sunak. And reject out of hand the lunacy of a front page which as you said appears to be watching a different hearing to the rest of us.
It is not only their front page their leader column is utterly out of touch and an embarrassment
As has been said the mail and band of 22 voting against the WF are like the Japanese soldier in the jungle still fighting a battle long ended
Yesterday was a good day for Sunak and the signing of the WF on Friday in London creates his legacy no matter what happens in 24
Indeed I believe Sunak is pragmatic enough to take us much closer to the EU starting with the Horizon programme and continuing to develop a mutually beneficial and friendly relationship with the EU
Indeed Starmer will need to adjust his pro Brexiter credentials if he not to be left in Sunak's slipstream
I think it is a stretch to suggest Starmer is a pro-Brexiter and Sunak is more pragmatic.
Personally speaking I would rather we had never left, I would have been content for another referendum fo prevent the economic (if not the social and political) chaos. But anyway now we have left, it is disingenuous of you to imply we can rejoin in a heartbeat a single market, when as a nation we won't accept FoM. In reality there is not a cigarette paper between the Labour and Conservative (under Sunak) policies. Both are unsatisfactory, but both have a client vote to appease. You saw for yourself yesterday Sunak's dilemma. Initial excitement that only 22 "headers" had voted against was tempered by the dozens of abstentions. He has the voters and the nutters to worry him, Starmer only has the RedWall to fear.
Nowhere have I suggested we rejoin nor implied Sunak wants to rejoin
Sunak has already achieved more by his friendly approach to to the EU than either Johnson or Truss and it is obvious the way forward is to continue pro actively supporting Macron's EPC proposals
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
Just went out to do a quick 6k run to burn off the remaining alcohol from last night's celebrations. Before going to a restaurant in town at lunchtime for even more alcohol.
Happy Birthday! We're nearly the same age. Well, give or take 8 months, certainly the same Gen X experiences. I'm 50 on New Year's Day.
Have we done this ? The move for reparations for slavery is moving forward. Two Labour MPs demanded we pay reparations to descendents and in San Francisco a proposal to pay $5Million per eligble person plus $97K annual income for 250 years, one of many, is gathering quite a bit of support. Ironic as California was never a slave state but "racial justice" seems to be a growing priority these days.
There is also the demand for climate reparations, which is growing and largely supported by charities who would help administer the funds.
I wonder where this all ends and how it is afforded ?
But this proposal isn't about slavery. It's about the alleged treatment of Black people and communities by the city government over the decades. The opening paragraph makes that clear -
"San Francisco lawmakers heard a range of options on Tuesday to provide reparations to Black people for decades of racist treatment by the city government."
Thinking a little more on the comedy of Lee Anderson being hired as a news anchor I do have to float the question - are the mad right now intoxicated from the smell of their own farts?
Propaganda is a dark art - needs to be subtle and convincing at times, rabble rousing at others. When it is at its most effective is when it is barely detectable as such. And yet the hate and suspicion of both extremes towards the "mainstream media" pushes both in turn to produce their own news which is a pitiful parody.
The hard left tried its own online news platform - The Canary - and then its own "TV" service - Novara. Short of cash neither were convincing in their presentation, and their content was so absurdly one-sided that it was excruciatingly obvious what it was.
The hard nats have their own newspaper - The National - which prints comedy "come on everyone lets cheer the boss!" headlines. A Scottish version of the Daily Express.
Neither of these fell into the trap the hard right have done with GBeebies. They've started hiring serving Tory MPs - not as guests, but as presenters. They have the budget and the production values so it looks like news. But increasingly we have Tory MPs presenting "news" where they interview Tory MPs.
Aside from their core 20%, does anyone pay any attention to it? They already have newspapers which tell utter whoppers (cf Big-Gs take on the Heil's front page). But the whoppers are written by 3rd parties - they don't have Lee Anderson write the story or even the headlines.
So why do it on their TV News station? Talking to yourselves and only yourselves is reassuring I am sure. But if the aim is to win hearts and minds, to be a mass movement the masses will once again vote for, this isn't the right approach - self-parody.
Having serving MPs as TV "news" presenters is a novelty that I don't recall happening before, and it isn't a positive development.
The splintering of media and narrow-casting news outlets, so we can all sit in our micro-bubbles is not a good thing for national unity.
At what point does GB News die? It's losing lots of money, and doesn't work as a propaganda outfit, because its audience is tiny. "Look Up The Western East Of The Region Where You Are Tonight" tiny.
Doing better than the other one.TalkTV is it?
I genuinely find it a mixed bag. A lot of it is just faux-Fox News style outrage and rambling, but on occasion I have seen them running debates and discussions that have actually been quite insightful and that you wouldn’t get on the other news channels.
Unfortunately there’s not enough of the latter and way too much of the former.
Just went out to do a quick 6k run to burn off the remaining alcohol from last night's celebrations. Before going to a restaurant in town at lunchtime for even more alcohol.
Happy birthday.
I'm 40 in a couple of weeks. Is that old enough to start counting backwards?
As I near 80 I struggle to count either way !!!!!
As George Burns replied when asked what it was like being 99 "Better than the alternative"
Trying to be vaguely fair, I'm half-persuaded that Johnson did get advice from various political appointees that he was OK to say what he did. I note that of the three apparently killer quotes that were used on Newsnight, two of them don't say they advised against, they just say they weren't among those who offered advice. The third expressed doubts but doesn't seem to haqve offered a strong opinion. "Why didn't you ask a lawyer?" seems to me unreasonable - PMQs is every week, and the PM can't keep calling a lawyer for every possible question. So I think various people told him what he wanted to hear and he happily went with it.
But the underlying positionm is of course outrageous - of course he shouldn't have assumed that the stringent regulations didn't apply to his circle, as he quite obviously did. The more people go into micro-detail, the weaker the case compared with that fundamental fact.
“Why didn’t you ask a lawyer” is perfectly reasonable. He and his team knew, the Mirror story coming up before PMQs, that he would be grilled about it. All Johnson had to do was say at PMQs “I’ve asked gov lawyers to clarify as it’s a very important matter” and when they told him it was murky he could have apologised and accepted the brickbats that he received anyway.
The problem was that Johnson is a giant pudding of hubris and arrogance and he assumed he could bluster and bloviate and everyone would just go “classic Boris, what a crazy guy” and with one bound he would be free.
He was too lazy and arrogant to check before he spoke as it would require a bit of effort and he might not like what he heard.
Asking a lawyer would be like asking Chris Whitby for advice re Covid - he might not like the answer but at least he gets a qualified answer rather than just relying on Matt Hancock and Spads views.
Trying to be vaguely fair, I'm half-persuaded that Johnson did get advice from various political appointees that he was OK to say what he did. I note that of the three apparently killer quotes that were used on Newsnight, two of them don't say they advised against, they just say they weren't among those who offered advice. The third expressed doubts but doesn't seem to haqve offered a strong opinion. "Why didn't you ask a lawyer?" seems to me unreasonable - PMQs is every week, and the PM can't keep calling a lawyer for every possible question. So I think various people told him what he wanted to hear and he happily went with it...
Even when repeatedly questioned in Parliament ?
There are two things here - one is the broad issue not following the rules he set for the rest of us; the other is the repeated, considered and categoric statements to the House, regarding which he could indeed be expected to have taken some pains to assure himself of his position.
It's not "every possible question"; it's a particular issue which was returned to repeatedly.
If he'd just fessed up - "I'm sorry, I was wrong" - he'd likely still be PM.
on occasion I have seen them running debates and discussions that have actually been quite insightful and that you wouldn’t get on the other news channels.
i wonder what the outcome of this completely impartial and balanced panel discussion was?
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
The comment you're replying to is from a known partisan troll...
on occasion I have seen them running debates and discussions that have actually been quite insightful and that you wouldn’t get on the other news channels.
i wonder what the outcome of this completely impartial and balanced panel discussion was?
I think you rather selectively quoted me there! I very much stressed that it was only on occasion I had seen it.
Just went out to do a quick 6k run to burn off the remaining alcohol from last night's celebrations. Before going to a restaurant in town at lunchtime for even more alcohol.
Happy Birthday! We're nearly the same age. Well, give or take 8 months, certainly the same Gen X experiences. I'm 50 on New Year's Day.
It would appear that the recent poll gap close is an outlier. Labour's voteshare remains steady around the mid to high 40s. And the Tories are stuck in the 20s.
It seems to me that Boris Johnson and co are happy to re-ignite the Brexit wars and remind the public how rubbish the Tories now are.
It would appear that the recent poll gap close is an outlier. Labour's voteshare remains steady around the mid to high 40s. And the Tories are stuck in the 20s.
It seems to me that Boris Johnson and co are happy to re-ignite the Brexit wars and remind the public how rubbish the Tories now are.
Labour voteshare is certainly constant but I don't think we can say with any certainty where the Tories are. I think Sunak may have managed to bring back some defectors to the Lib Dems which would add more credence to the 30% or higher polls. But the recent polls are all over the place on that.
"Why didn't you ask a lawyer?" seems to me unreasonable
On a question of law?
About anything. Someone once asked during a rugby game I was playing in if anyone could relocate their dislocated finger and I said I'd have a go. Strangely he didn't take me up on it.
F1: backed Perez at 5.75 (5.5 boosted) to win each way in Australia.
In two races to date this season he's been 2nd and 1st. He's really good at street circuits. Australia is a street circuit.
If he doesn't suffer a mishap, he (along with Verstappen) are almost guaranteed to be top 2 because the Red Bull has an alarming advantage over the rest of the field.
Have we done this ? The move for reparations for slavery is moving forward. Two Labour MPs demanded we pay reparations to descendents and in San Francisco a proposal to pay $5Million per eligble person plus $97K annual income for 250 years, one of many, is gathering quite a bit of support. Ironic as California was never a slave state but "racial justice" seems to be a growing priority these days.
There is also the demand for climate reparations, which is growing and largely supported by charities who would help administer the funds.
I wonder where this all ends and how it is afforded ?
But this proposal isn't about slavery. It's about the alleged treatment of Black people and communities by the city government over the decades. The opening paragraph makes that clear -
"San Francisco lawmakers heard a range of options on Tuesday to provide reparations to Black people for decades of racist treatment by the city government."
One of the accusations is that the city government worked to "improve" predominately black neighborhoods like the Western Addition and Fillmore district resulting in gentrification and fewer black residents.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Have we done this ? The move for reparations for slavery is moving forward. Two Labour MPs demanded we pay reparations to descendents and in San Francisco a proposal to pay $5Million per eligble person plus $97K annual income for 250 years, one of many, is gathering quite a bit of support. Ironic as California was never a slave state but "racial justice" seems to be a growing priority these days.
There is also the demand for climate reparations, which is growing and largely supported by charities who would help administer the funds.
I wonder where this all ends and how it is afforded ?
But this proposal isn't about slavery. It's about the alleged treatment of Black people and communities by the city government over the decades. The opening paragraph makes that clear -
"San Francisco lawmakers heard a range of options on Tuesday to provide reparations to Black people for decades of racist treatment by the city government."
One of the accusations is that the city government worked to "improve" predominately black neighborhoods like the Western Addition and Fillmore district resulting in gentrification and fewer black residents.
There is a racial context in the US in the form of colour bar restrictive covenants attaching to property that was almost unheard of here. As a result such "improvements" can be a very touchy proposition. San Francisco has been completely ruined as a place to live. Not an edifying defence but I have used similar in discrimination cases ("my client was a shit to everyone!")
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
wtf - Prevent, witchcraft and county lines being assessed as part of safeguarding for *checks article* a ... nursery o_O
The inadequate rating was rescinded three months later.
The initial assessment was clearly and obviously fundamentally flawed: “Staff were questioned in respect of witchcraft, however were unable to answer those questions because training had not been provided. This was because witchcraft had never been raised as an issue or a training requirement by the local authority safeguarding hub, which is where nurseries seek guidance from.
“Evidence was provided whereby the local authority substantiated this point, confirming that witchcraft was not guidance that had been issued or needed to be issued in that particular area.”..
Ofsted, of course, were unable to admit their own failure: An Ofsted spokesperson said: “Following a review of the evidence, we deemed this inspection to be incomplete. Inspectors later returned to the nursery to gather additional evidence, complete the inspection and confirm the inspection judgments.”
On the reported facts, that statement is evidently untrue. The initial inspection wasn't 'confirmed', or 'incomplete'; it was grossly inadequate.
F1: backed Perez at 5.75 (5.5 boosted) to win each way in Australia.
In two races to date this season he's been 2nd and 1st. He's really good at street circuits. Australia is a street circuit.
If he doesn't suffer a mishap, he (along with Verstappen) are almost guaranteed to be top 2 because the Red Bull has an alarming advantage over the rest of the field.
Barring mechanical failure for Verstappen, I doubt Red Bull will allow him to win two on the trot. That's just not how the team operates.
I'd want much longer odds for the win, but each way is a decent bet.
This is the other consequence of Putin's aggression. Central Asian republics in what Moscow sees as its sphere of influence are increasingly looking to China.
The ultimate consequence of Putin's aggression is that Russia itself is more likely to end up in China's sphere of influence, than Ukraine is to end up in Russia's.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
This is the other consequence of Putin's aggression. Central Asian republics in what Moscow sees as its sphere of influence are increasingly looking to China.
The ultimate consequence of Putin's aggression is that Russia itself is more likely to end up in China's sphere of influence, than Ukraine is to end up in Russia's.
With so much of the tech the west relies on being made in China, are we sure we're not in their sphere of influence as well?
The latest panic is TikTok being spyware. Lets broaden that out and say tomorrow's story is that *all* Chinese-made tech is spyware. Could we replace it all with non-chinese kit? Sure, you can buy from Taiwan or Korea, but in sufficient volume at a low enough price?
We're all China's slaves now. The free market has seen to that.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Sunak is trying to pretend the Johnson years and Truss weeks were nothing to do with him. He was Johnsons Chancellor, lived next door to all the parties, yet strangely didn't notice them. He was at the cabinet table for years with Truss and Kwarteng etc. He put Braverman as Home Sec.
It doesn't work for me or many others. There needs to be a reckoning.
Though I suppose Rishi's supporters can say he resigned (or betrayed Boris according to the loons), albeit after far too much sewagey water had passed under the bridge. Personally I find he has a strangely unhateable quality compared to a lot of Tories; a geek, a bit of a twat but not a complete ****. Dunno if that transfers to people who might possibly consider voting for the ghastly party.
Every PM pretends that they have nothing to do with their immediate predecessors - especially from their own party.
Gordon Brown was very clear - he’d heard of Tony Blair, but he’d barely met the chap etc….
This is the other consequence of Putin's aggression. Central Asian republics in what Moscow sees as its sphere of influence are increasingly looking to China.
The ultimate consequence of Putin's aggression is that Russia itself is more likely to end up in China's sphere of influence, than Ukraine is to end up in Russia's.
With so much of the tech the west relies on being made in China, are we sure we're not in their sphere of influence as well?
The latest panic is TikTok being spyware. Lets broaden that out and say tomorrow's story is that *all* Chinese-made tech is spyware. Could we replace it all with non-chinese kit? Sure, you can buy from Taiwan or Korea, but in sufficient volume at a low enough price?
We're all China's slaves now. The free market has seen to that.
Reliance on trade with China was a result of political decisions, not a force of nature. People like James Goldsmith of Referendum Party fame argued against global free trade at the time.
Thinking a little more on the comedy of Lee Anderson being hired as a news anchor I do have to float the question - are the mad right now intoxicated from the smell of their own farts?
Propaganda is a dark art - needs to be subtle and convincing at times, rabble rousing at others. When it is at its most effective is when it is barely detectable as such. And yet the hate and suspicion of both extremes towards the "mainstream media" pushes both in turn to produce their own news which is a pitiful parody.
The hard left tried its own online news platform - The Canary - and then its own "TV" service - Novara. Short of cash neither were convincing in their presentation, and their content was so absurdly one-sided that it was excruciatingly obvious what it was.
The hard nats have their own newspaper - The National - which prints comedy "come on everyone lets cheer the boss!" headlines. A Scottish version of the Daily Express.
Neither of these fell into the trap the hard right have done with GBeebies. They've started hiring serving Tory MPs - not as guests, but as presenters. They have the budget and the production values so it looks like news. But increasingly we have Tory MPs presenting "news" where they interview Tory MPs.
Aside from their core 20%, does anyone pay any attention to it? They already have newspapers which tell utter whoppers (cf Big-Gs take on the Heil's front page). But the whoppers are written by 3rd parties - they don't have Lee Anderson write the story or even the headlines.
So why do it on their TV News station? Talking to yourselves and only yourselves is reassuring I am sure. But if the aim is to win hearts and minds, to be a mass movement the masses will once again vote for, this isn't the right approach - self-parody.
If you are referring to me what are you saying my take on the mail was, as I utterly reject the mails idiotic front page and leader this morning
Yes I know you did - that is what I was referring to. You are pro-Tory pro-Sunak. And reject out of hand the lunacy of a front page which as you said appears to be watching a different hearing to the rest of us.
It is not only their front page their leader column is utterly out of touch and an embarrassment
As has been said the mail and band of 22 voting against the WF are like the Japanese soldier in the jungle still fighting a battle long ended
Yesterday was a good day for Sunak and the signing of the WF on Friday in London creates his legacy no matter what happens in 24
Indeed I believe Sunak is pragmatic enough to take us much closer to the EU starting with the Horizon programme and continuing to develop a mutually beneficial and friendly relationship with the EU
Indeed Starmer will need to adjust his pro Brexiter credentials if he not to be left in Sunak's slipstream
I think it is a stretch to suggest Starmer is a pro-Brexiter and Sunak is more pragmatic.
Personally speaking I would rather we had never left, I would have been content for another referendum fo prevent the economic (if not the social and political) chaos. But anyway now we have left, it is disingenuous of you to imply we can rejoin in a heartbeat a single market, when as a nation we won't accept FoM. In reality there is not a cigarette paper between the Labour and Conservative (under Sunak) policies. Both are unsatisfactory, but both have a client vote to appease. You saw for yourself yesterday Sunak's dilemma. Initial excitement that only 22 "headers" had voted against was tempered by the dozens of abstentions. He has the voters and the nutters to worry him, Starmer only has the RedWall to fear.
Starmer won’t be able to move on FoM unless he confronts some other shibboleths.
Simply returning a range of jobs to minimum wage=maximum wage will benefit lots of richer people (cost of services) but will hit lots of poor people, who are already hit by inflation.
Though of course, the inflation is partly due to wage rises for lower paid people…
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
The comment you're replying to is from a known partisan troll...
I am one of Plato’s Guardians You are biased He/She is a troll
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
I mean I do think that different rules should apply to govt vs the rest of us. Why didn't Tony Blair take Easyjet to the G7, etc.
And let's imagine they are planning a plague response in COBRA. Are we saying they shouldn't do that in the actual CRA if it in any way impedes efficacy. Absurd.
However, for such a political hot potato as meeting people for a drink, which was an offence, (as was going for a walk with a friend while holding a cup of coffee), and for the absurd rules/guidelines/laws thing which he introduced and oversaw then there is no excuse.
Boris' political antenna let him down and he has himself to blame for the whole mess.
Sorry if this is nearly a word for word post from yday but fuck him.
This is the other consequence of Putin's aggression. Central Asian republics in what Moscow sees as its sphere of influence are increasingly looking to China.
The ultimate consequence of Putin's aggression is that Russia itself is more likely to end up in China's sphere of influence, than Ukraine is to end up in Russia's.
With so much of the tech the west relies on being made in China, are we sure we're not in their sphere of influence as well?
The latest panic is TikTok being spyware. Lets broaden that out and say tomorrow's story is that *all* Chinese-made tech is spyware. Could we replace it all with non-chinese kit? Sure, you can buy from Taiwan or Korea, but in sufficient volume at a low enough price?
We're all China's slaves now. The free market has seen to that.
Reliance on trade with China was a result of political decisions, not a force of nature. People like James Goldsmith of Referendum Party fame argued against global free trade at the time.
Free markets is all about choices! China can produce cheaper than anywhere else thanks to sheer scale, but we didn't have to allow that to happen. But we did.
If we wanted to bring mass manufacture of electronics back to the west, we could. But would it be a cost that our economies and our consumers are willing to pay? And in a world where our smart devices are spying on us all the time, how sensitive are consumers to the threat of being spied on by China?
Short vid which looks like Rangers being violent maybe, but not enough coverage to judge well. Reported in the Mirror and the Mail.
The feature that grabbed by attention was BID (Business Improvement District) Rangers who are street wardens (Security Industry staff) employed by groups in partnership with the local, who have no more than normal powers of Citizens Arrest, and who seem to be all over the leafy South. I had never heard of them.
Kirsty Buchanan OBE is a former SPAD who has worked with both Ian Austin and Liz Truss, so somewhat influential / connected.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
I'd prefer that those who set the rules without such discretion then don't go on to break them with impunity.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
The Deltapoll euphoria seems to have lasted less than two days. A 13 point turn around in Tory fortunes in seven days always looked a long shot!
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
This is the other consequence of Putin's aggression. Central Asian republics in what Moscow sees as its sphere of influence are increasingly looking to China.
The ultimate consequence of Putin's aggression is that Russia itself is more likely to end up in China's sphere of influence, than Ukraine is to end up in Russia's.
With so much of the tech the west relies on being made in China, are we sure we're not in their sphere of influence as well?
The latest panic is TikTok being spyware. Lets broaden that out and say tomorrow's story is that *all* Chinese-made tech is spyware. Could we replace it all with non-chinese kit? Sure, you can buy from Taiwan or Korea, but in sufficient volume at a low enough price?
We're all China's slaves now. The free market has seen to that.
Reliance on trade with China was a result of political decisions, not a force of nature. People like James Goldsmith of Referendum Party fame argued against global free trade at the time.
Free markets is all about choices! China can produce cheaper than anywhere else thanks to sheer scale, but we didn't have to allow that to happen. But we did.
If we wanted to bring mass manufacture of electronics back to the west, we could. But would it be a cost that our economies and our consumers are willing to pay? And in a world where our smart devices are spying on us all the time, how sensitive are consumers to the threat of being spied on by China?
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Starmer's private pension arrangements are obviously popular with the public.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
If he hadn't been Prime Minister, Boris would have been the biggest opponent of the lockdown bollocks. But he was, so someone had to do the job...
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
The Deltapoll euphoria seems to have lasted less than two days. A 13 point turn around in Tory fortunes in seven days always looked a long shot!
Whereas a seven point turnaround in Labour’s raises no eyebrows? An outlier really is a poll you disagree with.
When I saw the Mail headline about Johnson today I was simply reminded of what we used to joke about the fat clumsy kid made to play in goal having "cat-like reflexes". It was always meant sarcastically.
In some ways what's more telling is "the dog that didn't bark". Johnson not even mentioned on the front page of the Sun. Meanwhile the damage done to the Conservative brand is still very much present:
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Amen.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Which is to miss the point that it should not have been part of this particular inspection, and the inspectors ought to have known that.
That’s fair enough - but wanted to correct the impression that this was er…. Witch-hunting?
It’s a real thing.
Fair enough,
I was more struck by its being another example of a poorly conducted Ofsted inspection threatening the livelihood and mental well-being of a number of individuals.
That there seems to have been no apology for, or even recognition of their own mistakes, makes it worse.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Amen.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Fuck him.
We now know that Boris WAS a huge opponent of lockdown...
I don't know why I'm posting this, because it's so boring. But, hey, nobody else worries about that.
Johnson's PPS (Martin Reynolds) sent an email to around 200 people inviting them to the BYOB garden party in May 2020. 200. In the event, 30-40 turned up - I'd guess many of those who didn't were baffled at the invite. But Boris didn't see the email. And he didn't know anything about it until he turned up. And he didn't know that quite a few of his closest advisers thought that this was a bad idea. Of all the stuff that went on, this one stretches credulity the most.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Amen.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Fuck him.
I think that's the wrong charge to level against him given that he already had power. What you're accusing him of is going native and taking the bureaucratic path of least resistance rather than trusting his instincts.
Perhaps but it's not the first time I've heard of doctors being suspended for a few months for sins committed outside of medicine: theft, fraud and so on. We can argue about the number of months but I suppose the view is that doctors should be held to higher standards. It's a bit like the Boris dispute, I suppose.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
Which is to miss the point that it should not have been part of this particular inspection, and the inspectors ought to have known that.
That’s fair enough - but wanted to correct the impression that this was er…. Witch-hunting?
It’s a real thing.
Fair enough,
I was more struck by its being another example of a poorly conducted Ofsted inspection threatening the livelihood and mental well-being of a number of individuals.
That there seems to have been no apology for, or even recognition of their own mistakes, makes it worse.
For the avoidance of doubt, inspection is absolutely necessary for education and childcare, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Amen.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Fuck him.
We now know that Boris WAS a huge opponent of lockdown...
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Which is to miss the point that it should not have been part of this particular inspection, and the inspectors ought to have known that.
That’s fair enough - but wanted to correct the impression that this was er…. Witch-hunting?
It’s a real thing.
Fair enough,
I was more struck by its being another example of a poorly conducted Ofsted inspection threatening the livelihood and mental well-being of a number of individuals.
That there seems to have been no apology for, or even recognition of their own mistakes, makes it worse.
OFTSED could fuck up getting wet in the rain.
For some reason I recall the quote from Piece of Cake (which was in turn based on a real comment by an actual squadron commander) something like "I'm the proud owner of a a coupe of aces, and the rest would miss the floor if they fell out of bed."
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Which is to miss the point that it should not have been part of this particular inspection, and the inspectors ought to have known that.
That’s fair enough - but wanted to correct the impression that this was er…. Witch-hunting?
It’s a real thing.
Fair enough,
I was more struck by its being another example of a poorly conducted Ofsted inspection threatening the livelihood and mental well-being of a number of individuals.
That there seems to have been no apology for, or even recognition of their own mistakes, makes it worse.
For the avoidance of doubt, inspection is absolutely necessary for education and childcare, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
Though it is arguable that at a certain level of shitness, bad regulation is worse than no regulation.
Mainly because people think "Oh, that's regulated. No problems there., then"
Greased Piglet question: What is likely timescale for what happens next ? When does Committee deliver its verdict? When is punishment voted on? Does this have to be wrapped up by a certain date ??
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Given the 2019 results, the May elections could well given false hope to the Conservative party.
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Given the 2019 results, the May elections could well given false hope to the Conservative party.
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
We all thought that of Cameron twelve months before the election too.
Labour lead up 7 to 26 in this week’s YouGov published just now in The Times Red Box. Labour 49 (+3) Tories 23 (-4) LibDems 10 (-1) Greens 6 (nc) Reform 6 (nc) SNP (-1) No fieldwork dates, but likely to be 21st and 22nd March. Looks like an outlier.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Given the 2019 results, the May elections could well given false hope to the Conservative party.
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
We all thought that of Cameron twelve months before the election too.
I remember. But the relative depth of the gestalt around the Labour government (then) and the Conservative government (now) argues that it will be very, very hard for Sunak to move the swing-meter back.
Greased Piglet question: What is likely timescale for what happens next ? When does Committee deliver its verdict? When is punishment voted on? Does this have to be wrapped up by a certain date ??
Seems decision is likely by May followed quickly by a vote in the HOC to endorse the sanction
Sunak has stated it is a matter for parliamentarians and will be a free vote
Greased Piglet question: What is likely timescale for what happens next ? When does Committee deliver its verdict? When is punishment voted on? Does this have to be wrapped up by a certain date ??
They hope to report after Easter.
I suspect Boris Johnson may data dump the committee which could delay things further.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Given the 2019 results, the May elections could well given false hope to the Conservative party.
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
We all thought that of Cameron twelve months before the election too.
I remember. But the relative depth of the gestalt around the Labour government (then) and the Conservative government (now) argues that it will be very, very hard for Sunak to move the swing-meter back.
edit - misread the thread so my comment was totally pointless!
I don't know why I'm posting this, because it's so boring. But, hey, nobody else worries about that.
Johnson's PPS (Martin Reynolds) sent an email to around 200 people inviting them to the BYOB garden party in May 2020. 200. In the event, 30-40 turned up - I'd guess many of those who didn't were baffled at the invite. But Boris didn't see the email. And he didn't know anything about it until he turned up. And he didn't know that quite a few of his closest advisers thought that this was a bad idea. Of all the stuff that went on, this one stretches credulity the most.
Do me a favour.
The Cummings version is just so obviously the correct one. You have to put your facility for logic in a jar - or not possess one - to doubt this.
My Johnson prediction fwiw is he'll be sanctioned for recklessly misleading the House but not kicked out to face a by-election. He'll survive in that sense but at the same time he's finished as regards ever again leading the Tory Party.
Greased Piglet question: What is likely timescale for what happens next ? When does Committee deliver its verdict? When is punishment voted on? Does this have to be wrapped up by a certain date ??
They hope to report after Easter.
I suspect Boris Johnson may data dump the committee which could delay things further.
And one other question: is it a simple Aye/No vote on the committee recommendation, or could it be subject to an amendment (for instance, from a 7 day suspension to a 10 day suspension)?
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
In the first example, there is an obvious difference between inviting people who wouldn't otherwise mix to a party and having drinks in the office after work where people have been sharing the same space all day, and Boris's letter was very touching. The journalist should know better than to conflate the two.
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That would all be fine. If it was legal for people who have been sharing the same space all day to then have drinks in the office after work.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
Why did you shift from talking about parties to talking about the rules for going into the office? Did you mean to imply that you think there was something dodgy about people working in Downing Street during the pandemic?
You were trying to make a differential between inviting people to a party (not ok) and people working together having a few drinks in the office (ok).
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
Would you personally prefer to be treated as a responsible adult and given some discretion in the way rules are applied or not?
Radical idea - how about we apply the law to everyone?
Radical idea - why not have such bollocks laws to start with.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
Parts of the laws passed were bollocks, a lot wasn't. My problem was that the guidelines were often different. As an example being told you could only go out for limited exercise once when the law had no limitations.
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
Oh yes it was, ahem, an inverted pyramid of piffle.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
I will leave the concerns about a Tory government doing such things to people who lean that way politically.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
Amen.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Fuck him.
I think that's the wrong charge to level against him given that he already had power. What you're accusing him of is going native and taking the bureaucratic path of least resistance rather than trusting his instincts.
Perhaps yes that isn't a bad way of putting it. He was in the seat and was fearful of rocking the boat and, as you say, trusting his instincts. But it comes down to his desire to preserve the power he had acquired.
I don't know why I'm posting this, because it's so boring. But, hey, nobody else worries about that.
Johnson's PPS (Martin Reynolds) sent an email to around 200 people inviting them to the BYOB garden party in May 2020. 200. In the event, 30-40 turned up - I'd guess many of those who didn't were baffled at the invite. But Boris didn't see the email. And he didn't know anything about it until he turned up. And he didn't know that quite a few of his closest advisers thought that this was a bad idea. Of all the stuff that went on, this one stretches credulity the most.
Do me a favour.
If Reynolds had invited 200 people to a piss up in the PM's back garden without informing the PM he should have been sacked for breach of trust and flouting security.
Irrespective of the lockdown situation at the time.
Those who try to claim that this is all past us now and we need to move on really have not engaged with the country's mood. There will be a national cathartic day of reckoning and it's called the General Election.
For what it's worth, I suspect/fear that the Tories will do OK at the next General Election. However, they are going to get a punishment beating at the Local Elections later this year. That's when the public is going to really put the boot in. But by the next General Election, the general flight back to tribalism will take place, the fear of a Labour Government will be cranked up and Sunak will be able to present himself as a vaguely normal human being, and the public will start to forget about Boris, Truss, lockdown, Brexit etc etc etc. Time to move on, and all that. The Tories will lose the General Election, but the "cathartic day of reckoning" will be sooner than that. (Unfortunately.)
I think we are probably looking at a small Labour majority myself (potentially made bigger if the SNP implode). It’s the election after next that will be interesting though. Highly plausible the Tories have a torrid time in opposition, Labour do a decent enough job and they increase their majority in 2028/9. But a ways to go yet.
Given the 2019 results, the May elections could well given false hope to the Conservative party.
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
We all thought that of Cameron twelve months before the election too.
I remember. But the relative depth of the gestalt around the Labour government (then) and the Conservative government (now) argues that it will be very, very hard for Sunak to move the swing-meter back.
If Sunak does win he would be the first PM ever to win a 5th consecutive general election for his party since universal suffrage in 1918 and the first PM to win a general election after 14 or more years of his party in power since universal suffrage too (assuming a 2024 general election).
In some ways what's more telling is "the dog that didn't bark". Johnson not even mentioned on the front page of the Sun. Meanwhile the damage done to the Conservative brand is still very much present:
Comments
BoZo was worried enough to ask somebody about it, but the person he chose to ask was a press secretary, not a lawyer, or even a civil servant.
And yes, he heard what he wanted to hear so didn't pursue it.
That was reckless
Sunak has already achieved more by his friendly approach to to the EU than either Johnson or Truss and it is obvious the way forward is to continue pro actively supporting Macron's EPC proposals
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/macron-proposes-european-political-community-to-include-nations-outside-eu-122051000207_1.html
The other two examples are from known partisan trolls.
That Boris defence in brief :
I repeatedly assured you that there there were no parties & the rules were followed at all times
I now accept there were parties & the rules were, in fact, broken
No-one told me
In fact, my press officer told me to say the opposite
Downing St is a very old building
We were working very very hard
So, you couldn’t expect us to follow our own guidance on social distancing
Guidance isn’t the same as the rules anyway
I said what I believed at the time
I corrected it once the Met & Sue Gray revealed the truth
The committee of MPs investigating me has a lower level of proof than a court
It is full of people who don’t like me
It’s not fair
"San Francisco lawmakers heard a range of options on Tuesday to provide reparations to Black people for decades of racist treatment by the city government."
Unfortunately there’s not enough of the latter and way too much of the former.
The problem was that Johnson is a giant pudding of hubris and arrogance and he assumed he could bluster and bloviate and everyone would just go “classic Boris, what a crazy guy” and with one bound he would be free.
He was too lazy and arrogant to check before he spoke as it would require a bit of effort and he might not like what he heard.
Asking a lawyer would be like asking Chris Whitby for advice re Covid - he might not like the answer but at least he gets a qualified answer rather than just relying on Matt Hancock and Spads views.
There are two things here - one is the broad issue not following the rules he set for the rest of us; the other is the repeated, considered and categoric statements to the House, regarding which he could indeed be expected to have taken some pains to assure himself of his position.
It's not "every possible question"; it's a particular issue which was returned to repeatedly.
If he'd just fessed up - "I'm sorry, I was wrong" - he'd likely still be PM.
It seems to me that Boris Johnson and co are happy to re-ignite the Brexit wars and remind the public how rubbish the Tories now are.
wtf - Prevent, witchcraft and county lines being assessed as part of safeguarding for *checks article* a ... nursery o_O
Betting PostF1: backed Perez at 5.75 (5.5 boosted) to win each way in Australia.
In two races to date this season he's been 2nd and 1st. He's really good at street circuits. Australia is a street circuit.
If he doesn't suffer a mishap, he (along with Verstappen) are almost guaranteed to be top 2 because the Red Bull has an alarming advantage over the rest of the field.
It was not,
The *only* way that anyone was allowed to be in an office was for when that was essential for work purposes and even that had specific definitions - you couldn't self-declare that its essential to have your team in.
You do demonstrate though the only remaining defence. Which is to pretend the rules didn't apply. Which is nice.
The initial assessment was clearly and obviously fundamentally flawed:
“Staff were questioned in respect of witchcraft, however were unable to answer those questions because training had not been provided. This was because witchcraft had never been raised as an issue or a training requirement by the local authority safeguarding hub, which is where nurseries seek guidance from.
“Evidence was provided whereby the local authority substantiated this point, confirming that witchcraft was not guidance that had been issued or needed to be issued in that particular area.”..
Ofsted, of course, were unable to admit their own failure:
An Ofsted spokesperson said: “Following a review of the evidence, we deemed this inspection to be incomplete. Inspectors later returned to the nursery to gather additional evidence, complete the inspection and confirm the inspection judgments.”
On the reported facts, that statement is evidently untrue.
The initial inspection wasn't 'confirmed', or 'incomplete'; it was grossly inadequate.
I'd want much longer odds for the win, but each way is a decent bet.
You must know that isn't true. Legally. It was legal for Downing Street staff to be there working. But only working. Not to have a few drinks. Definitely not to invite the girlfriend and the decorator. Definitely not to have the exact open invite BYOB event which even you seem to agree wasn't allowed.
There is no debate at all about the legality of these events. They were illegal. So the only conflation going on is you trying to find a way to suggest they were legal after all.
The latest panic is TikTok being spyware. Lets broaden that out and say tomorrow's story is that *all* Chinese-made tech is spyware. Could we replace it all with non-chinese kit? Sure, you can buy from Taiwan or Korea, but in sufficient volume at a low enough price?
We're all China's slaves now. The free market has seen to that.
The car is in a league of its own, provided the reliability problem does not become serious.
Gordon Brown was very clear - he’d heard of Tony Blair, but he’d barely met the chap etc….
Simply returning a range of jobs to minimum wage=maximum wage will benefit lots of richer people (cost of services) but will hit lots of poor people, who are already hit by inflation.
Though of course, the inflation is partly due to wage rises for lower paid people…
You are biased
He/She is a troll
And let's imagine they are planning a plague response in COBRA. Are we saying they shouldn't do that in the actual CRA if it in any way impedes efficacy. Absurd.
However, for such a political hot potato as meeting people for a drink, which was an offence, (as was going for a walk with a friend while holding a cup of coffee), and for the absurd rules/guidelines/laws thing which he introduced and oversaw then there is no excuse.
Boris' political antenna let him down and he has himself to blame for the whole mess.
Sorry if this is nearly a word for word post from yday but fuck him.
Ukraine “very soon” to take advantage of Russian forces’ exhaustion near Bakhmut – Gen. Syrskyi
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/03/23/ukraine-very-soon-to-take-advantage-of-russian-forces-exhaustion-near-bakhmut-gen-syrskyi/
If we wanted to bring mass manufacture of electronics back to the west, we could. But would it be a cost that our economies and our consumers are willing to pay? And in a world where our smart devices are spying on us all the time, how sensitive are consumers to the threat of being spied on by China?
This is my 15-year-old black son who was followed while he shopped for shampoo by two council workers called Rangers. He was assaulted by them, then sat on and handcuffed by them. When
@sussex_police arrived guess who they arrested?
https://twitter.com/KirstyBuchanan4/status/1638593019560566794
Short vid which looks like Rangers being violent maybe, but not enough coverage to judge well. Reported in the Mirror and the Mail.
The feature that grabbed by attention was BID (Business Improvement District) Rangers who are street wardens (Security Industry staff) employed by groups in partnership with the local, who have no more than normal powers of Citizens Arrest, and who seem to be all over the leafy South. I had never heard of them.
Kirsty Buchanan OBE is a former SPAD who has worked with both Ian Austin and Liz Truss, so somewhat influential / connected.
One to watch, perhaps.
Look at you - not even questioning the government saying who you can have a drink with but wanting that law to be applied universally.
You wanted to take back control with your vote to leave the EU you should perhaps think about looking closer to home to take back control.
And for obvious reasons, people are shy about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/commentisfree/2022/jun/08/witch-hunts-ritual-child-abuse-albinism-africa
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/01/witchcraft-curse-africa-kristy-bamu
It happens here, in the UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11890643/Fury-childrens-doctor-suspended-NHS-six-months-using-wifes-travel-pass.html
It remains an absolute principle of our society that the law applies universally. There is no "do you know who I am" get out. So bollocks or not it was the law. The idea that we excuse the person who passed the bollocks laws deserved a get out is risible.
But my point is we should have been aghast at the fact that a government - *grips lectern* - a Conservative government, could have introduced such laws/guidelines/rules in the first place.
Well of course who knows what Lab would have introduced god help us but we as a country have swallowed the whole absurd civil restrictions list completely when we should have been fighting it at every stage and not have to rely on eg Steve effing Baker of all people to stand up to it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ftenergy/status/1638767790009229312
It’s a real thing.
There is a simple answer of course - it wasn't a Tory government. Sorry to say it, but the Conservative Party which anyone can recognise died with Theresa May. If you are a Conservative then lockdown is only one example of un-Conservative policies being implemented by this government.
The only curiosity (perhaps not curious) is as @Driver points out, that BoJo would have been a huge opponent of lockdown had he not been PM which shows how he was willing to compromise his principles for the pursuit of power.
Fuck him.
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1638656678219460610?t=4s5yzENmnUTZMCw8tF9WQQ&s=19
I was more struck by its being another example of a poorly conducted Ofsted
inspection threatening the livelihood and mental well-being of a number of individuals.
That there seems to have been no apology for, or even recognition of their own mistakes, makes it worse.
Johnson's PPS (Martin Reynolds) sent an email to around 200 people inviting them to the BYOB garden party in May 2020. 200. In the event, 30-40 turned up - I'd guess many of those who didn't were baffled at the invite. But Boris didn't see the email. And he didn't know anything about it until he turned up. And he didn't know that quite a few of his closest advisers thought that this was a bad idea. Of all the stuff that went on, this one stretches credulity the most.
Do me a favour.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1638803934734356481
The size of the Labour vote isn't really the moving part. The size of the Tory vote? That is more of a question...
For some reason I recall the quote from Piece of Cake (which was in turn based on a real comment by an actual squadron commander) something like "I'm the proud owner of a a coupe of aces, and the rest would miss the floor if they fell out of bed."
Mainly because people think "Oh, that's regulated. No problems there., then"
What is likely timescale for what happens next ?
When does Committee deliver its verdict?
When is punishment voted on?
Does this have to be wrapped up by a certain date ??
I think Starmer is looking at a reasonable majority - 50 or so.
Sunak has stated it is a matter for parliamentarians and will be a free vote
I suspect Boris Johnson may data dump the committee which could delay things further.
My Johnson prediction fwiw is he'll be sanctioned for recklessly misleading the House but not kicked out to face a by-election. He'll survive in that sense but at the same time he's finished as regards ever again leading the Tory Party.
Irrespective of the lockdown situation at the time.
So the historical odds are against him